Minutes Tue 20 Jan 1885

< >

Tue 20 Jan 1885

Summary

Mr Lofthouse, the Sanitary Authority’s Civil Engineer and officer employed for the drainage works at Stonehouse, attended the meeting and asked permission for the stoppage of traffic and drawing off of the water between Ryeford Double Locks and the top of the five locks at Eastingon to enable sewage pipes to be laid under and across the canal near the Ship Inn at Stonehouse. Chairman and Mr Hamilton Mills, solicitor, to meet the contractor to arrange the terms of the stoppage. The Committee felt that although £10 a day was the sum named for interference with traffic under the Gloucester & Berkeley Canal Act, a figure of £5 5s a day would be reasonable, with all attendant expenses, as the stoppage was for the public good.

Verbatim text

Committee Meeting held at Wallbridge on Tuesday the 20^th day of January 1885 @ 3,o,clock pm
Present: Mr E C Little Chairman, Mr H H Mills, Sir W H Marling, Mr Jno Howard, Mr E F Gyde.
[54] Mr Lofthouse the Civil Engineer and Officer employed by the Sanitary Authorities in carrying out the new Drainage Works at Stonehouse, attended this Meeting and made application for a Stoppage of the traffic on the Canal and the necessary drawing off of the water between the Double Locks at Ryeford and the top of the Five Locks at Eastington to enable the Contractors for the Works to lay the Sewage pipes under and across the Canal near the Ship Inn at Stonehouse -- when it was resolved that the Chairman of the Company with Mr Hamilton Mills as its Solicitor should meet the Contractor and arrange terms upon which the stoppage of the traffic, etc, could be permitted as well as the time for such Stoppage.
The feeling of the Committee was that although by the Gloucester and Berkley Canal Act £10 a day was the sum named for interference with traffic on this Canal, a payment at the rate of £5..5..0 a day would, by reason of the Stoppage being for the public good, be a reasonable and proper allowance, the all attendant expenses.
[4] The Clerk Suggested that some member of the Committee should view the mud boat at Eastington and report whether in his opinion it should be repaired or broken up.

< >