View report page

42
22.—This Council has been in correspondence with the Local
Government Board on the subject, and that Board stated that the
sub-clause would not have the effect of preventing the reduction
with a view to the equalization of the water charges throughout this
Borough, provided that such reduction would not, or would not be
likely to, cause a deficiency in the Water Fund, and that the subclause
merely prohibited a reduction in the water charges when a
deficiency would be likely to be caused. The Council did not take
this view of the effect of the clause, and in support of its views in
favour of an equalisation of charges pointed out that for a house
of the annual value of £30 the charge authorised for the supply of
water for domestic purposes varied from £1:4:0 (the Chelsea,
Grand Junction, and New River Companies) to £2:2:0 (Lambeth
Company). In this Borough there are adjacent houses of the same
annual value paying in one Company's district 29/- per annum, and
in another Company's district £3 per annum, for the supply of
water.
23.—The Bill provided for the appointment by the Water Board of
its Chairman and Vice-Chairman, but the Government expressed
its intention to appoint the first Chairman and ViceChairman.
The Council objected to this proposal. The Members
of Parliament for the Borough were requested to support the
views of the Council with regard to the Bill.
London County
Council
Tramways &
Improvements.
24.—In July last the Improvements Committee of the County
Council stated that they had again under consideration
the suggested widening of Streatham High
Road in connection with a proposal to construct a
tramway from the present terminus at Streatham Hill
through Streatham High Road to the County boundary; that the
Committee had readily adopted the suggestion of the late Wandsworth
District Board that a general width of road of about 60 feet
should be provided from the Tate Library to the County boundary;
that as the alteration of the gradient of the road between Gleneldon
Road and Gleneagle Road from 1 in 19 to 1 in 26, suggested by
the District Board, would involve the acquisition of property estimated
to cost nearly £100,000, the Committee did not feel justified
in including that proposal in the new scheme; that the estimated
nett cost of the street widenings was as follows, viz.:—acquisition