Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 03 June 1932

Darfield’s Scheme

Parishes Willing If – “A Compact Area”

Scheme No. Two, put forward by the Darfield U.D.C., proposed to take in Little and Great Houghton, from the Hemsworth rural district; and Billingley from the Barnsley rural district. This was opposed by the Rural Councils concerned so far as the Houghton parishes were concerned, though Mr. Goodyear – said they wished to add Great Houghton to their original scheme. The three townships mentioned were on the Darfield border and thrilled one community. The Houghton parishes ought never to have belonged to the Hemsworth rural area; they were too far away from the administrative centre at Hemsworth. Brierley Common formed a complete natural barrier between them and Hemsworth.

In 1920 a joint scheme was put forward for the amalgamation of Hatfield and Houghton, but the matter was deferred pending the publication of the findings of the Royal Commission. Some two years later Little Houghton said they wished to withdraw from the scheme if there was any question of Darfield joining Wombwell.

Darfield’s proposals were, he claimed, reasonable. They merely wanted a compact area which could be reasonably administered. All the townships were in the ecclesiastical parish, the same county electoral division, and the same police division. They slid not dissect the boundaries of any other area. They all hail the same snorer of water supply—and that source was not Wombwell: were the pioneers of the take over the water undertaking when the old private company went into liquidation. Darfield had the necessary offices under one roof. Hemsworth R.D.C. offices were seven miles from Little Houghton. The present staff at Darfield could well and conveniently manage the three extra townships more economically and efficiently than could Hemsworth. Barnsley. or anyone else

The whole area could be drained into the Darfield district; sewage could be dealt with at the Darfield works without extension. Darfield already provided the burial ground for the whole area. There were live elementary schools at Darfield, none at Little Houghton or Billingley A good many of the children from these parishes already attended Darfield schools.

 The Colliery Rating Problem.

The majority of the workers in the three places worked at two collieries, the shafts and buildings of which were situated in Little Houghton. Most of the men resided in and had the services of Darfield. In Darfield they provided housing accommodation for two hundred more of the mine workers than the three villages put together.

“Yet we have not a chimney in Daffield: we provide all the services, and the ratable value which should meet the cost of these goes just over the border to Little Houghton. The net annual value is £11,762, of which Darfield’s portion is only 11,363; Great Houghton’s is £4,160, and Little Houghton’s £6,256. It is obviously a matter of right and equity that the place which provides the amenities should have the rates. We know that these three parishes wouldand the arrangements acceptable in the event of their being taken out of their rural districts and put into the enlarged district of Darfield.”

Mr. T. W. Illsley, a member of the Darfield U.D.C., said they were proud of their administration at Darfield. The people of the area out lined all worked in the same pits, enjoyed the same services, were one common people.” If there was to be a change in their area then No. Two Scheme was the sound and natural one to adopt.