View report page

29
The following are some of the considerations which it appears to this
Association should induce the Vestry to purchase the land:—
(1.) The population in that end of Fulham is rapidly increasing.
(2.) Open spaces are very few in Fulham. Even including
Bishops Meadow, &c., not yet available, they are under 30 acres for
nearly 80,000 people, or 2,600 people to 1 acre of open space, whereas
the average for West London is more like 1 acre to 700 inhabitants.
Nor are the open spaces in Fulham very near to that we desire to see
secured.
(3). The offer is admittedly a low one, and if the opportunity be
lost, the land will undoubtedly be built on, and no other will be available
at the price or so conveniently situated.
(4). The County Council has shown its appreciation of the public
spirit of the Vestry in wanting to acquire the ground, by making a
substantial advance on its original offer of £500. The Council are
now prepared to give £625 per acre, £125 more than before, and this
is as much as the late Metropolitan Board gave in similar cases.
(5.) There is no doubt the estimate of £3,750 for the laying out,
which made the Council's share £1,875, is a high one, and our experience
goes to show that a most useful recreation ground could be
formed for very much less, say more like half the money, i.e. £200 or
£250 per acre. The neighbourhood, we conceive, does not want so
much an elaborate garden as a recreation ground, with trees, seats, &c.,
which will not be so costly to maintain as an ornamental garden. If,
therefore, we are correct, the failure of the Council to contribute
£1,875 to the laying out, would not involve much, if any additional
expense to the Vestry, who can probably keep the expenditure on this
head to £2,000.
The main thing is to get the ground, and even were not a sixpence spent
on its laying out it would prove an untold boon.
For these and other reasons the Association hopes the Vestry will close
with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners without further delay, as we fear if
they do not get an acceptance of their offer before the holidays, they will
withdraw it. It has, as you are aware, been kept open nearly a whole
year. We have twice got the original time extended in view of negotiations
with the Council.
To show the practical interest this Association takes in the question we
are prepared, as stated in Lord Meath's letter of 28th March, to supply
the ground in any case with an adequate number of seats, and to further
contribute, if required, towards the expense of laying out. How much this
further help might amount to rather depends on the state of our finances,
but the Vestry may rely on us doing our utmost, as we feel the ground is
greatly needed.
The Association fully believes that there would be but little difficulty,
if money is really wanted, in raising the amount required by public appeal,
and by applications to various public bodies {e.g. Hammersmith might be
asked). The Association would, if need be, in addition to subscribing
itself, help the Vestry in appealing for the balance. I would refer you to
Lord Meath's letter of 28th March, and my own of 15th May, 1891. I
may say that in similar cases we have helped on a subscription list by £100
and £200 grants. I would remind the Vestry that only recently we gave
it a grant of £100 for tree planting, as we are aware Fulham needs
assistance as much as any East End Parish.
Trusting the Vestry will see fit to purchase the ground,
I am, yours faithfully,
BASIL HOLMES, Secretary.