PRIVATE STREETS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 78, 14 November 1911, Page 5

PRIVATE STREETS.

THE POSITION AS REGARDS DRAINAGE. At last night’s meeting of the Borough Council the following letter was read from .the Borough Solicitor (Mr T. C. Fookes): —Re \V. E. Porter’s proposed private street: 1 have reatly verbally given to the committee of tiie Council, to which the matter was referred, my opinion on the questions submitted to me qnd in confirmation thereof 1 now, at the request of the committee, beg to furnish the Council with my written opinion thereon. The questions upon which ray opinion was sought arose out of the letter dated October 7th received by the Council from Mr J. R. Mackay, * Mr Porter’s engineer, dealing with tne storm-water from Mr Porter’s proposed street and also with drainage therefrom. With regard to dealing 1 with storm-water, Mr Mackay states 1 in his letter that it is intended that I the water from the above street' will drain into the natural watercourse starting in about the centre of Mr Porter’s property and running into Hamlet Street about half way between Page and Celia Streets. This (Mr Mackay says) is the natural outlet for storm-water, which at present runs off Mr Porter’s property, and it is not intended to interfere witli the natural drainage now provided. In the first, place I may state that, in company with the Mayor, the Town Clerk and the' Borough Overseer, I have been over the ground and from the result of our inspection it appears that the natural watercourse referred to starts in about the centre of Mr Percy Thomson’s property, about three chains from Mr Porter’s property, and that if it wore intended to turn all the surface water from Mr Porter’s proposed street into this watercourse it would have to flow through or over the back portion of Mr Thomson’s 1 property, which, at present, so far as wo could see, is perfectly dry. This would undoubtedly be to create,a nuisance to Mr' Thomson, which in my opinion he could prevent, for by section 150 of “The Municipal Corporations Act, 1903” it is provided that nothing therein contained shall be deemed to entitle the Council to create a nuisance. It is certainly provided by section 214 of the Act that the Council may lead any surface water into any stream or watercourse, whether covered or open, but it is apprehended that such stream or watercourse must bo reasonably adjacent, so as to enable such surface water to be led directly into the same, and that the Council could not turn the surface water on -to any intermediate dry land so as to And its way over the same into, any stream or watercourse further on. In any case the right of the Council to lead surface water into any stream or watercourse can only he exorcised subject to payment of compensation .to any person whose property is injuriously affected thereby. If the Council were to permit Mr Porter to lay off his proposed street so as to turn the surface water on to Mr Thomson, the Council could, in my opinion, he restrained by injunction from causing a nuisance to Mr Thomson by turning the water into his land, and in any case Mr Thomson could claim compensation from the Council for any damage'sustained by him owing to the surface water from the street being turned into his property. Then with regard to sewage drainage, I note from Mr Maokay’s letter that it is suggested that the Council should combine with Mr Porter, in a scheme to prevent Mr-Thom-son from obtaining access to the proposed street unless he consented to a,, sawey being, laid through his property from the proposed street to Hamlet Street. I cannot advice the Council to have anything to do with such, a proposal, for the matter is clearly one to he settled between Mr Porter and Mr Thomson, - and it is for Mr Porter, before coming to the Council, to obtain a proper legal right in perpetuity to the corporation to lay a sewer through Mr Thomson’s property, if this is to bo the means of affording sewage drainage for the properties abutting on bis proposed' street. I cannot, therefore, advise the Council to consent to the laying off by Mr Porter of his proposed private street until such time as Mr. Porter has provided for the disposal of the surface wgter and drainage therefrom to the satisfaction of the Council and also duly complied with all other requirements of the Council. The Council, in taking over now streets, should he careful not to involve itself in responsibilities such as are suggested in the present case. On the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Cr. King, it was decided to adopt the recommendations of the Borough Solicitor.