View report page

156
Engineer that it was proposed to put a new station in the vicinity of Rotherhithe New Road,
when the widening had been made; that the Clerk and Surveyor had had an interview with
the Engineer, who assured them that it was the intention of the Company to erect a
station at the "Half Way House," between Silwood Street and Rotherhithe New Road
when the widening should be completed; that there were no rights of way along existing
viaducts or at any point under the roadway, all the roads being private and belonging to
the Company, and that the Company's addition to the existing bridge would be in one span
of 70 ft., and that they were not prepared to face the walls of the existing or new
abutments with white glazed bricks.
Resolved—(1) That the question of any public rights of way alongside existing
viaducts or at any point under the roadway, more especially at White Post Lane, be referred
to tho Board of Churchwardens and Overseers for consideration and report. They
subsequently reported that with the exception of Corbett's Lane, all the roadways affected by
the Bill were private and belonged to the Company, and that White Post Lane was in the
Parish of Deptford with the exception of a few feet in front of Quodling's premises.
(2) That the Company be respectfully requested to face the walls of the existing or
now abutments with white glazed bricks.
A letter dated 14th February, 1896, was subsequently received from the Solicitor to the
South Eastern Railway Co., stating that the Engineer would agree to face the walls of the
new abutments with white glazed bricks.
On 18th February, 1896, the General Purposes and Works Committee reported that
the Clerk had been in communication with the Solicitors for the Bill as to whether the
Company would agree to the insertion of a clause for making good the deficiency in the
Sower and having, and General Purposes Rates, in the same way as the Company was liable to
make good the deficiency in tho Poor Rate under the 133rd section of the Lands Clauses
Consolidation Act, 1845, until the completion of tho works, and ascertained that the
Company would not be prepared to do so as that question had been decided by a Committee
of the Mouse of Commons in 1890, in favour of the Company, and under the circumstances
the committee did not think it advisable to incur the expense of petitioning against
the Bill.