STRATFORD STREET LIGHTS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 67, 12 November 1912, Page 2

STRATFORD STREET LIGHTS.

ELECTRICAL SUPPLY COMPANY AND LOPOUGH COUNCIL.

“A I' 1 Alii OFF Ell, BUT NO MONEY.”

Street lighting was the subject of an interesting debate by Councillors at the meeting of the Borough Council last night. Figures, . accurate and inaccurate, wore flying in all directions, and each councillor had his own

particular mass of calculations. • In brief, the result of the conference between the Electrical Supply Oompaiu and the Council was that the Compain agreed to charge 10s less per lamp pci annum if the Council would put or; extra lights. The Mayor summed up the position thus: “A fair offer, but no money.” He finally deduced from his calculations, that if the Company’s proposal was adopted and the Council proceed-, cd to erect its SO lights, they would have to find £7OO in one year, whereas, following out the present policy, ah that would have to be found in that one year would be £379. This practically settled the scheme, but the voting was close, and the Mayor's casting vote for the second time in the evening had to be utilised. Matters now remain as they are, hui twenty-six lights will be erected in thr near future.

THE COMPANY’S OFFER. The secretary of the Stratford Electrical Supply Company wrote referring to the conference which a sub-commit tec of the Company had with tin Lighting Committee of the Council. FL was directed to make the following offer to the Council;—“For the remainder of the term of the Deed oJ Concession to supply street lighting from dusk to dawn on the following conditions: —(l) “The Council to agree to use continuously from the Ist ol April, 1913, to the 13th September 1919, at least 160 separate street lights. (2) The Council to pay monthly within 21 days from the end of the month during which the current k used ,at the rate of £3 per annum for each light. (3) The Council to use only 32 candle power metallic filament lamps of approved make consuming not more than 35 watts per lamp. (4) The Council to have immediate information of any additional lamps authorised from time to time, and also of any alteration in the position of existing lamps. This offer to remain open for acceptance by the Council until December 9th next ,and to he without prejudice to the existing contract, which, in the event of acceptance, will remain in force until April Ist, 1913. The Mayor stated that he had gone carefully into this matter and if worked out as -follows The present number of lights installed was 83, and the additional lights to be installed 26, making a totals of lights under the present- contract of 109. Under the new contract 160 lights were proposed, so that 51 'additional lights would be given. The cost under the new contract for 160 lights at j£ 3 was £-180, under the old contract 109 .iglits at-£3 -10 - would cost £BBl' 10s, the difference between present contract and proposed contract being £9B 10s The cost per lamp for 54 extra lights was approximately £2. By increasing the number of lights to be installed by 51, a reduction' of £1 10s per light per annum was obtained for fiftyfour lights, and a reduction of 10s per light per annum was obtained on 103 lights. The Electrical Syndicate got an increased annual revenue of £9B 10s, but the actual nett benefits accruing to the Syndicate would be - the profit after deducting cost of installing and producing extra lights, also the extended ■ period of contract. The Council would ha ve to face-considerable extra expenditure for maintenance and the cost of upkeep. ■ Councillor Healy asked what was the cost of the upkeep of the lights for the last three mouths.

Councillor King: You can’t take any one month; you want a general aver-

Councillor Ward, turning to Councillor Morison: Buy a kerosene lamp in protest. (Laughter.)

Councillor Boon moved that the Council could not see its way to accept this offer. The Council was tijruing down water; and other necessary things, and nothing would justify such an expenditure.. Councillor Dingle, in seconding pro forma, said that the Company recognised that under the present contract the Council would have to pay £3 10s per lamp up to the end of the concession, which was good business for the Company. But for the resolution passed at last meeting, they might have been able to make slightly better terms with the Company'. He intimated that the 1 o’clock service met with his favour. The Mayor said that matter had been considered, but the Company had stated that running the lights after midnight made really very little difference to them. They (the company) would not consider anything under £3. Councillor Ward thought the offer was a good one ,and he moved as an amendment that tlic Company’s offer bo accepted, and that -10 lights be put in the first year, forty lights in the second year, all subsequent lights to he charged for at the £3 rate. Councillor Healy said that the carrying of the amendment would mean the striking of a rate of -;,'d in the £. The Council could not give people water, yet they were prepared to spend this sum on lighting. Councillor Morison agreed with Councillor Healy in so far that the financial burden was too .heavy.

A DIVISION. The amendment was then put, and on a division being taken, the Mayor recorded his casting vote against tin amendment. The division list was: Ayes, Councillors Dingle, Thompson. Ward, King, and McAllister; noes.

Councillors Mormon, Ilealy, Boon La a son. and the flavor.

The motion was then carried

Councillor Ward explained that this offer came from the Council’s representatives and not from the Company. He thought the latter should be thanked for their offer. This, it was decided to do, the Mayor remarking, “A fair offer, but no money.”

Councillor Dingle moved to rescind the previous resolution passed, that twenty-six extra, lights should be erected, but the motion was lost.

Councillor Ward then moved that the Electric Light Company be notified that the extra .lights would be required by April Ist.—Carried.