Click here to return to the main site entry page
Click here to return to the previous page
Transcribed by Gill and Jim Hollis
Rushden Urban District Council

3rd January 1964

Rushden Trade Effluents
Warning for Five Firms

Mr. R. H. Marriott warned five Rushden firms at the December meeting of the urban council that they would either have to conform with the standards of pre-treatment required – or pay.

Presenting the report of the public health committee of which he is chairman he said that it had received a consultants’ report about trade effluents discharged to the public sewers.

The council approved its recommendation that the clerk should write to the firms informing them that the council proposes to issue directions about effluents and to impose charges with effect from April 1.


The firms were also to be told of the consultants’ observations. Their co-operation would be sought so that their effluents were properly pre-treated.

Mr. Marriott also reported that in a recent incident of vandalism lavatory seats in the Newton Road public conveniences had been daubed with paint and had to be replaced.

The High Street, which for the first time, has illuminated Christmas trees on the majority of shops and premises along its entire length, has never looked so fine or so gay before Mrs. Gladys Marriott commented.

The library committee did not accept all the criticism levelled against it by Rushden Ratepayers’ Association chairman, Mr. A. E. Goulsbra, told the council.

He was presenting the library committee report and said it was his turn to counter with the Association – and he hoped this would not result in “abusive letters.”

He added: “There are those who serve, and those who criticise them. They must expect to be answered back for their criticism.”

The committee felt the ratepayers’ complaint about some books being duplicated when the originals were rarely borrowed was not justified, although it agreed some mistakes may have been made.

“We shall continue to order two copies of any books in demand, but the ratepayers were right that some books had been duplicated in error,” he said.

The committee did not accept all the criticism of duplication which the association claimed had occurred in the library. He expressed his confidence in the library and its staff.

No Purpose

In a letter, the ratepayers listed twelve books of which they said two or three copies each were stocked, although they were rarely read.

The committee felt that no useful purpose would be served by the suggested meeting with representatives of the body.

The council agreed with the committee’s proposal to allow students to borrow books for longer than the stipulated period. “The library has been running into trouble because they have been sticking to the rules.” Mr. Goulsbra commented.

Click here to return to the main index of features
Click here to return to the History index
Click here to e-mail us