View report page

160
Street Improvements.
Lower Road.
On 2nd April, 1895,"the Vestry resolved to make application to the London County Council
to set back the fence of Southwark Park, in the Lower Road, so as to widen the footway at
that spot, and on 18th June, a letter was submitted from the Clerk to the Council,
stating that the Council had resolved that the boundary railings of Southwark Park, Lower
Road, which were to take the place of the old wooden fencing, be set back to the line shown
on the plan submitted by the Vestry of Rotherhithe ; that the strip of the Park between
the proposed new line and the original boundary be used as a portion of the footpath, and
that stones be laid by the Vestry in the paving to the satisfaction of the Chief Officer of
the Parks Sub-Department to mark the boundary of the Council's land, and asking whether
the Vestry would agree to lay such boundary stones, which was agreed to by the Vestry.
The Vestry also resolved, in view of the fact that the forecourts of the Public Library
and house adjoining, No. 120 Lower Road, would then project beyond the Park railings, to
approach the Library Commissioners and the owner of 120 Lower Road, as to setting back
such forecourts to the line of the Park railings, and instructed the Clerk accordingly.
On 2nd July, 1895, the Vestry had before them a letter from the occupier and sub-lessee
of 120 Lower Road, stating that he would offer no objection to the proposed setting back of
the forecourt of the premises, subject to the consent of the leaseholder and freeholder; also
a letter frcm the Library Commissioners, offering no objection to the setting back of the
forecourt railings, conditionally upon the Vestry bearing the cost thereof, and placing a stone
in the paving marking the boundary of the Commissioners' property.
On 6th July, 1895, a letter was received from Messrs. Still & Son, stating that Mrs.
Garr-Gomm, the freeholder, had no objection to forecourt of No. 120, Lower Road being set
back, as desired by the Vestry, 2 feet 6 inches, provided that the sanction of Mr. Knust, the
lessee, was obtained.
And on 16th July, 1895, a letter was submitted-to the Vestry from Messrs. Loxley, Elam
and Gardner, Solicitors to the lessee, enquiring what the Vestry proposed to pay for the
setting back of the forecourt in question, when the Clerk was instructed to state in reply