General Purposes Sub-Committee: January 11th 1932
On Minute No 1713A (Alterations at Sparkhill Branch), the General Manager submitted a report by Mr Wilde, regarding properties adjoining the Sparkhill Branch.
1721 RESOLVED:- That, as the prices asked
for the properties in question were unreasonable, the question of purchase be not entertained, and that the scheme of alterations
already approved be proceeded with.
General Purposes Sub-Committee: February 8th 1932
On Minute No 1713A (Alterations at Sparkhill Branch) the General Manager reported that enquiries had been made as to alternative accommodation during the progress of the building and stated that his attention had been called to a room at the Technical School in Stratford Road which would be suitable for the purpose if available. Councillor Hume was of opinion that it should be possible to secure this accommodation for the time required and it was:
1733 RESOLVED:- That the General Manager be instructed to make application to the Education
Department to obtain the use of the room as a temporary Bank.
Bank Committee: February 29th 1932
4357 With reference to the proposed alterations at the Sparkhill Branch premises, the General Manager reported that the Education Department had agreed to provide temporary accommodation in the Sparkhill Junior Technical School on the opposite side of Stratford Road on the following conditions:
(1) The room to be used to be the class room at the corner of Newton Road.
(2) The tenancy to be for 6 months from
the 1st March 1932.
(3) The rental, including heat, light and use of lavatories to be £3 per week. Cleaning to be paid for by the Bank.
(4)
The Bank to have sole use of the room with sole access from Newton Road.
(5) Gates of an inexpensive kind to be fixed at the bottom and top of staircase to prevent the public from gaining access
to other parts of the school,
the cost of the gates to be borne by the Bank.
(6) The Bank to have such advertisement facilities outside the building as they may require to meet the temporary change of Bank premises.
The following tenders were received and opened for the carrying out of
the work at the Sparkhill Branch:
|
Name |
Time |
Amount (£) |
|
Jones & Spencer Ltd |
4 |
1597 |
|
A J Teall & Son Ltd |
4 |
1429 |
|
Joseph I Fitter |
3 |
1380 |
|
Isaac
Langley |
3½ |
1455 |
|
A Pearce & Son |
18 weeks |
1370 |
|
T Elvins & Sons Ltd |
4½ |
1565 |
|
Frank Davis (Builders) Ltd |
no time |
1490 |
|
E M Squire & Son
Ltd |
5 mths |
1400 |
|
Perks Bros |
4 " |
1486 |
|
Francis H Smith |
5 " |
1489 |
|
Lewis Gorton |
3½ " |
1628 |
|
W & J Webb |
4½ |
1393 |
|
J Emlyn Williams |
no time |
1385 |
|
Maddocks
& Walford |
6 |
1785 |
|
S F Smith & Sons Ltd |
3 |
1787 |
|
S Heatley & Sons |
4 |
1533 |
|
Arthur Hemming & Son Ltd |
5 |
1400 |
|
Geo Webb & Son Ltd |
4 |
1475 |
|
Richard
Fenwick Ltd |
4½ |
1599 |
|
Phillips |
6 |
1395 |
|
C Green & Sons Ltd |
3½ |
1397 |
|
William Wilkinson Ltd |
6 |
1420 |
4358 RESOLVED:- That the
tender of Messrs A Pearce & Son at the sum of £1,370 for the carrying out of the required alterations at the Sparkhill Branch
be accepted, the conditions of contract to provide that the work is carried out within the period of not exceeding four and a half
months; and that the Town Clerk be instructed to prepare the necessary contract, affixing the Corporate Seal thereto.
Finance Sub-Committee: May 23rd 1932
Fittings at the Sparkhill Branch.
Your Sub-Committee have accepted the tender of Messrs Edmonds
& Co at the sum of £300 for the furnishing of the required fittings at the Sparkhill Branch premises.
Bank Committee: June 20th 1932
The following report of the General Purposes Sub-Committee was presented:
Sparkhill Branch - Alleged Trespass.
Your Sub-Committee report that in connection with the alterations being carried out to this Branch, the adjoining owner, through his Solicitors, stated his intention to take proceedings in respect of an alleged trespass by the Contractors to the Bank in rebuilding the party wall and other matters.
Your Sub-Committee, after considering all the circumstances, are of the opinion that there is little ground for the complaints made and, in fact, there have been certain encroachments by the adjoining owner in respect of a projecting pilaster, etc. They, however, appointed representatives of your Committee to meet the owner of the Sparkhill premises and his legal representatives and architect, when the matters in question were discussed. No agreement in the matter could, however, be arrived at, and the suggestion has been made on behalf of the Bank that the differences should be referred to arbitration.
Your Sub-Committee
have authorised the Town Clerk and General Manager to take any necessary steps to protect the Bank's interests in the matter and,
if necessary, to defend any action which may be taken or to make any counter claim which may be desirable, and they ask that their
action be confirmed.
With reference to the alleged trespass at Sparkhill Branch, the General Manager reported that arrangements had been made for Mr C Stanbury Madeley, ARIBA, of 39 Newhall Street, Birmingham (who was nominated by the President of the Birmingham & District Society of the Royal Institute of British Architects) to make an independent report with regard to this property. In due course, the General Manager produced a report regarding the alleged trespass.
The Committee resolved:
4474 RESOLVED:- That the action of the General Purposes Sub-Committee in authorising the Town Clerk and General Manager to take any necessary
steps to protect the interests of the Bank in regard to the alleged trespass by the Contractors in carrying out the alterations to
the Sparkhill Branch premises, and if necessary to defend any action that may be taken, or counterclaim if considered desirable, be
confirmed.
Report of the Town Clerk: December 17th 1932
I have to report that I have completed an Agreement for the Tenancy
of Sparkhill flat as under:
Henry Robert Malville, for 3 years instead of a yearly tenancy, at £40 per annum.
Bank Committee: November
14th 1932
The General Manager reported that Mr Frank Wilde had been authorised to attend the sale by auction on 7th November of the
improved leasehold ground rent of £7. 10. 0. per annum on property Nos 472 to 484 Stratford Road (part of which was occupied by the
Sparkhill branch).
Mr Frank Wilde had succeeded in acquiring this interest at the sum of £130.
Report of the Town Clerk: January 3rd 1933
I have to report that I have completed the purchase of the leasehold interest in Nos 472 - 484 (even numbers) Stratford
Road, Sparkbrook, subject to Underleases of Nos 482 and 484 and Nos 472 to 480 respectively, the Underleases of 482 and 484 being
now vested in the Corporation having been purchased from H B Thompson.
Bank Committee: January 16th 1933
On Minute No 4474
(alleged trespass - Sparkhill Branch premises) the following report of the Town Clerk as to the present position of the matter was
received:
I was authorised, with the General Manager, to take any necessary steps to protect the interests of the Bank in regard to
alleged trespass by Contractors in carrying out alterations to Sparkhill Branch premises and to defend any action that might be taken.
A
writ has now been issued in the High Court claiming damages and an Injunction to restrain further acts of trespass or obstruction
of Mr Wilson's alleged right of light.
The matter was forthwith submitted to Counsel and in the Defence a comprehensive denial was
made of the Plaintiff's allegations and a Counterclaim was put forward for certain alleged trespass by the Plaintiff. The matter is
proceeding normally and so far no notice of trial has been received.
4618 RESOLVED:- That the foregoing report be approved,
and that the Town Clerk and General Manager be authorised to proceed as directed by Minute No 4474, consulting the Chairman and the
Chairman of the General Purposes Sub-Committee thereon if necessary.
Bank Committee: June 19th 1933
On Minutes Nos 4474
and 4618 (Sparkhill Branch - Wilson v the Corporation), the following report of the Town Clerk was submitted:
Wilson v the Corporation.
I
beg to report that this case, which, as the Committee will remember, concerned itself with certain claims for trespass and an injunction
in respect of the enlargement of the Bank's premises in Stratford Road, was heard before the Official Referee on the 10th, 11th and
23rd May instant. Judgement was given in the afternoon of the 23rd instant, awarding in the result damages to the amount of £335 to
the Plaintiff, with costs.
The details of the case are already known to the Committee, the main causes of the action being an undeniable
deprivation of light to the Plaintiff and also trespass by way of the unauthorised underpinning of the wall between the Plaintiff's
premises and those of the Bank. The Plaintiff was represented by Mr Arthur Ward, and the Corporation by Mr Finnemore. The Plaintiff
was advised by Mr Britton and Mr Wilson Wood as architects, and by Mr Grimwood as valuer, while the Corporation had the assistance
of Mr Cheatle and Mr Madeley as architects, and Mr Wilde as valuer. In addition, the Corporation called as witnesses Mr Stuart Evans,
the architect for the work in the first instance, as well as Mr Pearce, the builder, and his foreman. Your General Manager was also
called, together with the Building Surveyor, and Mr Elvins, advising as an expert builder.
Upon the advice of the experts retained
by the Corporation, and in conference with Counsel, it had been agreed that the deprivation of light must be admitted and an adequate
sum paid into Court in respect thereof, and this, with the agreement of your Chairman and the Chairman of the General Purposes Sub-Committee,
was fixed at £125, an additional sum of £5 being paid into Court in respect of the trespass, with denial of liability. In fact, the
Official Referee's award was substantially in excess of these sums, being £250 in the case of light, and £85 in the case of trespass,
and there is little doubt that a matter which strongly weighed with him was the fact, as mentioned by him more than once during the
course of the proceedings, that the Corporation had acted in a "high-handed" manner and in defiance of the Plaintiff's wishes.
The
work of reconstructing the Bank was commenced at the beginning of April, 1932, and from the evidence given by the Plaintiff, and to
a considerable degree admitted by the Corporation's witnesses, he had from the outset made it clear that he would in no respect consent
to any trespass or deprivation of light. Notwithstanding this, the work was proceeded with, and it was not until the 27th April, 1932,
that a letter was written by the Plaintiff's solicitors to your General Manager, apprising him of the position. In the subsequent
negotiations which took place the Plaintiff's solicitors declined to entertain any overtures with respect to a settlement of the Plaintiff's
damages by way of agreement between the architects concerned or by an independent arbitrator. It may be mentioned that at the time
when the case was referred by the Judge at Assizes to the Official Referee, overtures with a view to a settlement were renewed, and
it was then definitely understood that the Plaintiff would only consider a settlement if the damages were in the neighbourhood of
£2,000, and until a late stage of the proceedings it seems clear that some sum to an amount of four figures was expected by him. The
Official Referee, however, expressed himself satisfied that the case was not a proper one for an injunction, and explicitly stated
that he would take no course which might have the effect of holding the Corporation up to ransom.
The circumstances of the case rendered
it a difficult and unsatisfactory one, and from the financial aspect of the matter it seems clear that your Committee were justified
in contesting to the end. It will accordingly be necessary to authorise the payment of the balance of the damages amounting to £205,
and also the costs of the Plaintiff's solicitors when these have been taxed.
The Committee were informed that the costs would receive
the consideration of the Taxing Master on Tuesday, the 20th instant.
4777 RESOLVED:- That the foregoing report of the Town
Clerk be approved, and that the Town Clerk and General Manager be directed to make payment of the balance of the damages awarded and
the taxed costs and other expenses in connection with the action; and that Minutes Nos 4474 and 4618 be discharged.
Report of the Town Clerk: July 12th 1933
Wilson v Corporation.
With reference to this matter, I beg to report that the costs have now been
taxed and the bills for the charges of the Corporation's technical advisers received. The judgement was for £335. 0. 0. less £130.
0. 0. paid into court, and the costs were taxed at £884. 12. 7., making a total of net sum payable to the Plaintiff of £1,089. 12.
7. Of these taxed costs £656. 7. 8. consisted of disbursements to the Plaintiff's expert advisers, Counsel, etc.
Mr A E Cheatle, the
Corporation's technical witness, has submitted a bill which he has commuted at seventy-five guineas, and Mr Madeley, the architect
also advising the Corporation, has submitted his charges amounting to £69. 7. 6. No charges have yet been put forward by Mr Frank
Wilde or Mr Elvins.
Your Chairman and the Chairman of your General Purposes Sub-Committee have conferred with me upon these figures,
and direction has been given for them to be paid.
Finance Sub-Committee: December 18th 1933
Your Sub-Committee report
that the following tender has been accepted for painting and decoration work at the Sparkhill branch:
Hadley & Son, Ltd: £13. 5.
0.
Bank Committee: July 17th 1939
6572 The Chairman of the Finance and General Purposes Sub-Committee, in presenting
the report of that Sub-Committee, requested that the portion relating to the property No 458 Stratford Road, Sparkhill, should be
withdrawn, as it has been ascertained that the Public Works and Town Planning Committee would require a considerable portion of the
property for road widening purposes. The Committee agreed to this course, and the report with this matter deleted was presented.
Sparkhill
Branch.
The present leasehold premises (No 482, Stratford Road) are proving inadequate for Bank purposes, despite the fact that two
reconstruction schemes have been carried out. Further extension is impossible, as all the available space has been used.
Some months
ago, leasehold property, No 458, Stratford Road, at the corner of Inglewood Road, came into the market, and Mr Wilde ascertained that
the sale by auction proved abortive. He was asked to make inquiries as to whether the freehold interest could be purchased and now
reports that this can be acquired at the price of £550.
Your Sub-Committee are of opinion that if the leasehold interest can also be
acquired at a reasonable figure, the opportunity of obtaining the premises should not be missed. They, therefore, recommend that negotiations
be authorised to secure the leasehold interest in No 458, Stratford Road, Sparkhill, be purchased, subject to the approval of the
Council, at the price of £550.