Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

15 articles on this Page

Rhos Drainage.

News
Cite
Share

Rhos Drainage. MR. HORTON'S REPLY TO THE SUR- VEYOR'S REPORT. To THE EDITOR OF THE Weekly News. Sir,-T,h-e publication, of the Surveyor's report in your paper without my reply has created a false impression, and the report is being used by certain parties for election purposes. I understand that you abstained from pub- lishing my reply because of the criticism it con- tained of the attitude adopted by the Surveyor and the reckless way in which he has acted. I have. therefore, re-written the reply so as to moderate the adverse criticism—(unfortunately, criticism is regarded as "high treaSiOm.") ,and I trust you may be able to publish what I have written in order that the false impression created by Mr. Jones' report may be corrected. The Report has been shelved," and it would have been withdrawn but for the action of those in whose interest it was prepared. There wouild then have been no necessity for me to ask you to be good enough to publish my reply. In order to give a clear conception of the case it is necessary for me to refer to the origin of the difficulties. Prior to the construction of the new inter- ception sewer my estate, was drained by means of sewers diachargin.g into the sea through the outfall at the bottom of the Rhos-road. The interception sewer was constructed under the provisions of the 1902 Act, which enabled the Council to appropriate the outfall and utilise it as a storm water overflow, on condition of providing me with a substituted means of drain- age or paying compensation for depriving me of it. The Council appropriated the outfall and turned my drainage out of it. connected the Cay- ley surface drainage into it, and gave me in substitution the right to drain into the new in- terception sewer. And if that had continued there would have been no cause to. complain. But after the substituted system of drainage had been in operation for about 15 months, the Council desired to alter it by what they called an extension drainage system, and represented that it would be an improvement on what they had given me in substitution of my rights, and stated that if I would give Free Way leaves through my land for the new system all my drainage should be connected with it at their expense. I assented to the proposals, and Mr. Arnphlett sent me a form of grant of the Way- leaves required, but as it did not meet the cir- cumstances some correspondence passed, and in one letter which Mir. AmpMett wrote me he states You are, I am sure, aware that when a local authority take up an old sewer or drain and £ substitute a new one, they are bound by law to connect up to the new sewer or drain, any drains or sewers which were connected up to. t: the sewer or drain, to be abandoned. Since you wish it, however, I have added (to the grant) a recital to that effect." And in another letter Mr. Amphlett, by way of further explanation, states — As I told you, the drains now connecting with the old sewer must be connected with the t: substituted sewer, whatever thev contain." Relying on. those letters, the form of grant was signed on the 10th December, 1907, and it pro- vides for all my drains to be connected with the new extension sewers. I thought the arrange- ment would be hono,urably observed, and went away for a prolonged holiday; but on my return was surprised to' find that the Surveyor, with the sanction of Mr. W. Da vies, the then Chair- man of the Sanitary Committee, had altered the flow of the drainage, cut off several of the old sewers, and failed to connect them with the new extension sewer in accordance with the terms of the agreement as explained by the letters. Certain negotiations followed, but as they were ineffective I was reluctantly compelled to enforce my rights by issuing a writ for a Mandatory In- junction, and the Council then appointed a special Committee to settle the matter. I was asked to attend with my proposals, and did so. But the Committee declined them, and stated that they had already discussed the whole cir- cumstances with the Clerk and Surveyor, and decided the terms on which they were prepared to settle. They explained those terms, and pro- duced a plan showing the area they proposed to deal with. Some discussion; took place, and in the end the Committee prevailed on me to adopt the terms offered and to submit them in the form of a letter as my proposals. I did so, and they were accepted and signed, and the Deputy Clerk was instructed to supply me with a dupli- cate and a copy of the plan. The dublicates were typed and taken -by the Deputy Clerk to the members for their signatures, and I went with Mm to Mr. Dicken to urge him to give orders for the drains to be reconnected at once. The matter was really urgent. The drains, which had been blocked up by the Surveyor for ten or eleven months, were overflowing and cre- ating a nuisance. Mr. Dicken had in fact in- spected them and was fully aware of the serious- ness of the position, and stated that the Sur- veyor should re-connect the drains when the sums mentioned in the memorandum were paid. I sent the cheque the same afternoon (Novem- ber 16th). It is necessary to emphasise this fact—that the settlement was a compromise of the legal rights which I had been deprived of by the action of the Surveyor and Sanitary Committee in carry- ing out the terms of the agreement by which I had given the Council free way-leaves for laying their new sewer. And in their attempt to avoid those terms the Surveyor and Sanitary Com- mittee have put the ratepayers to a considerable and unnecessary expense. The Council became aware of this, and realiz- ing the difficulties which the Sanitary Committee and the Surveyor had created, the Council took the matter out of their control and appointed a Special Committee to settle the question in dis- pute, in order to prevent further litigation. The Sandtary Committee resented the course taken by the Council, and the Surveyor did all he could to avoid carrying out the terms of settle- ment. 'The drains were eventually re-connected, and the Surveyor, to justify his hostility, repre- sented that in consequence of such re-connec- tions the pumping at the Sewage Station had in- creased by 10,826,623 gallons a month. The Sanitary Committee seem to have been delighted at this abnormal result, and instructed the Sur- veyor to prepare a formal report. Encouraged by the attitude of the Sanitary Committee Mr. Jones prepared a most extraordinary document, which he presented as a Report." He commenoes by stating that he made a mis- take in giving the excess for the month of No- vember- December as 10,826,623 gallons, and ex- plains that it was only 7,705,776 but to those figures he says it was necessary to add 1,200,000 gaLlons to represent the rainfall which in the ordinary course might be attributed to the area in question. He thus increased the excess to 8,905,775 gallons, and alleged that it all came from the re-connections he had made to carry out the terms of settlement. He calculated the cost of pumping the excess at £5 8s. per month, and represents the cost for the year as ^64 16s. These extraordinary calculations were received by the Sanitary Committee with marked satis- faction, and several members seized the oppor- tunity of slating the Special Committee for making +he settlement. I am afraid, however, that if I repeated their speeches you would not publish them. In addition to the Report, Mr. Jones prepared a tabuLated statement which, he said, proved his allegations. Strange to say, this. tabulated state- ment, instead of proving Mr. Jones' allegations to be true, proves them to be grossly true. But only two members of the Committee took the trouble to examine the tabulation, and they, realizing the unreliability of the figures, en- deavoured to get the matter postponed, so that more reliable infofrmtation could be obtained; but other thoughtless members insisted on hav- ing the Report circulated. Thus I am enabled to direct attention to some of its reckless state- ments and inaccurate calculations. The charges which the Report makes are that the cost of pumping drainage from my 7 acres lis £ 64 16s. a year, as against the £ 1 a year which the Special Committee, by the terms of agreement, fixed for the whole area. The £ 64 16s. a year means pumping 92,469,300 gallons of drainage. Againsft that amount I may state here that an expe,rienced engineer, after careful investigation, has given me a certificate showing that the surface drainage from the 771z acres which goes into the sewers in the whole year is only 1,154,126 gallons, and that the cost of pumping, based on Mr. Jones' own calcula- tions, is only 10s. 4>^d. a year. The certificate is set out at the end of this letter. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Jones' tabu- lated statement shews the excess to be only 6,000,000 gallons for the month, he presents in his Report a calculation based on 9,000,000 gallons, thus leading, or rather misleading, the 'Council to' believe that it cost ^5 8s. to pump, and that the excess in November-December will go on throughout the whole year at the same rate Now, if the excess was only 6,000,000, why should Mr. Jones make his calculations on 9,000,000? Did he think that with the assist- ance of certain members, and by a mass of figures and a little bluff, he would be able to rush the Report through without investigation? If so, he was mistaken. The figures have been investigated, and I give below some of the blun- ders thev shew: — (I) Mr. Jones alleged at one meeting that the excess was 10,826,623 gallons, and at the next confessed it was only 7,705,775 gallons. But to get as near his original statement as possible, he added the rainfall of a whole year, viz. 1,200,000 gallons, to that one month, making the alleged excess 8,905,775 gallons; estimated the cost of pumping as £5 8s., multiplied by 12 to get the £64 16s., and then calmly advised the Council that it will cost that sum to pump the drainage from my land every year. (2) The tabulated statement which Mr. Jones presented to the Council to prove his allegations .shews that insead bf the excess for the month being 10,826,623, it was not even 7,705,775. But undeterred by such a mere trilling discrepancy, he proceeds to calculate his £64 16s. on the basis of 9,000,000 gallons. Surely, even a public servant of the calibre of Mr. Jones might be ex- pected to base his calculations on the figures he gives the Council to. prove his case. (3) Mf. Jones, in his Report, adds to one month's excess pumping 1,200,000 gallons as being the average rainfall on my i7z acres: but, as already intimated, the 1,200,000 gallons is the yearly, not the monthly rainfall. (The exact quantity shewn by the Engineer's certificate as going into' the sewers during the year is 1,154,126.) The rainfall is the all-important factor in the case, but it should be dealt with fairly and pro- perly and instead of adding the rainfall to the excess pumping, Mr. Jones should have deducted it, and then dealt with what remained as the excess. lie did not do that, however, but (pos- sibly by mistake) he treated the annual rainfall as monthly rainfall, and instead of dividing it by 12 multiplied it by 12-; and instead of de- ducting the rainfall from the excess he added it to the excess, after his various multiplications. (4) At the conclusion of the Report Mr. Jones alludes, to a sewer which Messrs. Underwood were at the time in question laying through my land near Rhyd farm, and states that when, con- necting it with the man-hole they liberated a large quantity of water, whien flowed into the Pumping Station. Admitting that, for the sake of argument, what has it to do with the matter in question? It is on a different part of the es- tate, and has nothing whatever to do with the so-called excess drainage from the area drained by virtue of the settlement. Yet, the water which Messrs. Underwood's men liberated was scooped in by Mr. Jones for a purpose," and he now admits that he ought not to have introduced it into his Report. It having been introduced, however, I made in- quiries, and ascertained that Mr. Jones actually advised Messrs. Underwood's mar to liberate the water through the manhole whilst they were crossing the main outfall from the Pumping Station. (5) Mr. Jones, in his tabulated statement, gives the total pumping for November-December, 1908, at 30,522,999 gallons, but if he scrutinises the figures again he will find that it was only 29,757,799 gallons, and if he compares that with the pumping in November-December, 1907, he will find that the excess was only 343,816 gal- lons. Further, if he compares the pumping for September-December, 1907, with the pumping for the same period in 1908, he will find that it was actually 6,545,634 gallons. less in 1908 than in 1907. Now, let me draw attention to other absurdi- ties. The £ 64 16s. a year means an increase pumping from my land of 92,469,390 gallons, a year, and represents a rainfall on the 73 acres of 544 inches a year, as against an actual aver- age for the district of 22% inches. Penhaps Mr. Jones will be able to' conjure up his imagination so as to tell us what became of that great volume of water which he alleges feU. on my land during the ten or eleven months which elapsed between the date he blocked the drains and the date he re-connected them. At present he has only accounted for i-i2th of it- what has become of the other n-i2ths? If Mr. Jones' mode of calculating the surface drainage on my 7^2 acres were correct, it would mean that althought that small area only forms I-697th part of the district it contributes i-6th of the total drainage which finds its. way to' the Pumping Station.

Sale of Antiques.

Advertising

Llanfairfechan Urban Council.

Advertising

Conway District Nursing Association.

--------Penmaenmawr ') own…

Football.

[No title]

Trefriw Quay Pavilion.

Eisteddfod Bryn Seion, Eglwysbach.…

-----------Cylchwyl Lenyddol…

Less Labour More Health.

Penmaenmawr Urban District…

CONSUMPTION.