View report page

21
On the matter coming before the Works Committee they ordered the
alternative scheme of Mr. Goodacre to stand over until an answer had been
received from the London County Council with reference to the plan then
before the Council, and at the meeting of the Vestry, held on the 16th
March, 3892, two resolutions moved by Mr. Goodacre, and seconded by
Mr. Lawrence, the first instructing the Clerk to write and ask the London
County Council to inform the Vestry whether they (the Council) approved
of the plans submitted to them by the Vestry's Surveyor re the Embankment
of the Bishop s and West Meadows, and the second instructing the
Clerk to report to the Vestry whether the Sub-Committee was appointed by
the Vestry, when the meeting was held, who attended, the result of their
deliberations, and if the same were submitted to the Works Committee,
whether the Works Committee sent the same to the Vestry, and if so what
the decision of the Vestry was thereon, were ordered to be referred to the
Works Committee.
Schemes before Parliament.
At the meeting of the Vestry held on the 2nd December, 1891, the Clerk
produced the Parliamentary plans and notices deposited on behalf of the
London County Council re Cromwell Road Bridge, and
, The Putney and Hammersmith Electric Light and Power Supply Limited,
as to supplying Electric Light in Fulham Road, from Messrs. Stanfeld's
Brewery to Cedar Road, and the Surveyor was directed to report on these
matters to the Works and Lighting Committees respectively.
Cromwell Road Bridge.
On the 25th January, 1892, the Vestry had before them a letter from the
Queen's Club, stating that they would quite approve the levying of an
Improvement Rate for the purpose of constructing the Cromwell Road
Bridge, if that was considered the best way of meeting the requirements,
and the Vestry resolved (1) To offer no opposition to the London County
Council estimate of £63,000 for the construction, etc., of the said bridge and
approaches; (2) That the Improvement Rate to be levied as a Betterment
be £25,000, instead of £22,000 as per bill; (3) That certain verbal alterations
be made in the Bill, and (4) That subject to above, the Vestry offer no
opposition to the Bill. The Solicitor reported to the Vestry on the 3rd
February, 1892, that he had heard from the Parliamentary Agent that the
London County Council agreed to the suggested alterations in the Bill,
except the alteration of the amount of the Improvement Rate to be levied
from £22,000 to £25,000, which he (the Solicitor) was informed should be
considered when the Council was settling the Bill for the Committee of the
House of Commons; and the Vestry instructed the Solicitor to write to
the Parliamentary Agents of the London County Council explaining the
reason of the Vestry why the Council should accede to the Vestry s decision
as to the amount of the Improvement Rate.