View report page

Parish of Fulham, London.
Overseers' Offices,
Town Hall,
Walham Green, S.W.
March, 1891.
To the Vestry of the Parish of Fulham.
Gentlemen,
With a view to complete the record of our business for our term
of office as Churchwardens and Overseers, we have the pleasure to transmit
herewith a Supplementary Report dealing with the period from Christmas last
to the 25th March instant.
RATEABLE VALUE.
By our previous report it is shown that 743 new properties (representing
a rateable value of £19,574) had been assessed between Lady Day 1890,
and Christmas last; 133 new properties have since been brought into rating,
representing a rateable value of £3,050, thus making a total for the twelve
months of 876 new properties, amounting to £22,624. Therefore, taking the
new valuation as the basis, the rateable value may now be estimated at
£448,331.
Ninety applications for reduction of assessment have been received from
ratepayers since our last record, thereby making 337 appeals in the year.
QUINQUENNIAL VALUATION.
At the time our last report was submitted, the appeals to Quarter Sessions
were pending, the only case with which we have proceeded being that of
Mr. Nalder, of Mornington Lodge, West Kensington, for which your Vestry's
sanction was requested and unanimously given. It will be remembered that in
this case the respondent was dissatisfied with the decision of the Assessment
Committee of the Fulham Union, and appealed to the Justices of the Kensington
Division in Special Sessions, the result being that the assessments were
reduced from gross value £360, rateable value £300, to gross value £300,
rateable value £250.
This case was heard by Sir Peter Edlin, Q.C., Arc., Chairman of the London
County Sessions, on Thursday, March 5th, when his Lordship affirmed the
reduction made by the Special Sessions. The view his Lordship took of the
case was to the effect that, although the Overseers had not fixed exorbitant
values upon the premises, yet the same were excessive and ascertained from a
wrong basis. He remarked that the Justices of the Kensington Division had
adjourned the case from the 2nd to the 9th December, and had in the meantime
viewed the premises. He had no reason to suppose they were incompetent to
form an opinion as to the value of the premises, but on the contrary he had
reason to think they were specially able to express an accurate opinion, and