Town Council Meetings
The Priory Conservatory. At the monthly meeting of the Municipal Council and Local Board of Health, held at the Town Hall on the 4th of January, the Stonebeach Committee reported that having considered the application of Mr. Barham to re-erect his conservatory on the piece of land between Harold place and Pelham street, they recommended permission be given to Mr. Peter Banks (who then held the land as the successor to John Simmons, to whom it was devised by the Mayor and Corporation in 1821) on condition that he would pay the Council £10 per year, and that no other building than the conservatory be erected thereon, and that the building be removed at any time after the first year, upon the Council giving a year’s notice. It appeared that a small shop was also intended to be built by Mr. Barham, against which a petition was received from Mr. Womersley and Mr. Amore, of Harold place. A long discussion then followed. Ald. Ross in moving the adoption of the report, said the shop would be set back 4ft. 6in. from the pavement. Coun. Howell thought it should not be forgotten that if they wanted to build anything on the ground which was almost their own, two years would pass before they could do so. It was suggested by Ald. Rock that the building should be removeable by giving six months notice. Coun. Bromley moved an amendment that the conservatory be built without a shop. – Coun. Gausden thought, with Coun. Poole that the ground would become much more valuable, and he could not see why Mr. Banks should get £20, whilst the council would get only £10. – Coun. Putland was opposed to an erection of any sort. – Coun. Bromley’s amendment was carried by 11 to 8.
At the February meeting Mr. Barham applied for permission to erect his shop in the rear of the conservatory instead of in the front, and Mr. Poole moved that the part of the late resolution which prohibited the attachment of the shop be rescinded. – Coun. Gausden thought it was not right for the Council to be prejudiced in their right by the receipt of £10 whilst the lessee himself received £20 from his sub-tenant; he, however, had no objection to the shop being placed where Mr. Barham had stated. – Ald. Ginner and Coun. Putland would rather have no building at all, as the original idea had been to keep it an open space. – Coun. Howell remarked that something had been said about doing the best for the borough finances; he believed it was more likely to cause £200 or £300 be thrown away. . . Coun. Winter said there was nothing in the original lease which could justify Mr. Banks claiming building-land price for his share. Mr. Banks gave the nominal price of £100 for it, and that would probably be the price at which it would be restored to the Council whenever required. As the permission to erect the conservatory was on condition that it be removed at six months notice, the Council was perfectly on the safe side. The motion was carried. The explanation of the dual ownership in this affair appears to be that in -
