Chamber of Commerce and Strand Hoarding

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 12484, 19 October 1938, Page 1

Chamber of Commerce and Strand Hoarding

The question of removal of the hoarding on the waterfront opposite the Triangle was discussed at the meeting of the Chamber of Commerce last night. The matter was introduced by Mr Bradney Williams, who urged that the hoarding should be removed. He suggested that the Chamber should get behind a memorial to Mr Kerridge, asking him to co-operate with the Council in the removal of the signboard to some other location. Mr Norman maintained they had no chance of getting the hoarding removed for five years. The Borough Council had considered the request for erecting a sign, and had approved of it. Then the Railway Department gave its consent and a contract for erection was signed. The post was about £ 350. The ma£er jaad been submitted to the Borough Council and was also before the Town Planning Committee. The Chairman, Mr Ivory, said he would prefer to see the memorial circulated for signature. The grievance had been fully ventilated. He thought the memorial should v be started by the business people or a section of them, but not by the Chamber of Commerce. Mr Bieleski moved —That the Chamber endorse any action by the Borough Council for the removal of the hoarding. The motion was not seconded. The Chairman thought the Chamber of Commerce should not approach the Council on the matter.

Mr Bradney Williams moved — That a memorandum be prepared for presentation to Mr Kerridge, requesting him to co-operate with the Borough Council in the removal of the signboard in The Triangle to some more suitable spot, and that the Executive of the Chamber of Commerce take the necessary steps to secure a large' and representative list of signatures to this memorandum as promptly as possible.—ln speaking to the motion Mr Bradney Williams said the waterfront should not be disfigured. The hoarding could be removed to another site.

Mr Strange seconded and said the hoarding was not in the right place. Group-Captain Hewlett thought

MOTION TO PROTEST DEFEATED Stronger Expression of Public Opinion Wanted

it was not the function of the Chamber of Commerce to take the matter to Mr Kerridge. Mr Bieleski moved an amendment —That the Chamber of Commerce take no action until there is a stronger expression of opinion against the boarding. Mr Norman seconded. Mr Jaeger regarded the hoarding as a bright spot at night. Mr G. G. Norris urged that the Chamber should voice its protest against the hoarding. Mr Norman stated that a working model had been submitted to the Borough Council before consent was given.

Mr Christian said it was a reproach on the Council to allow the erection of the hoarding. The Chamber should make an emphatic protest. He pointed out that some time ago a request was made that the ladies’ rest room be erected in the vicinity of The Triangle, but the request was refused on the ground that it would interfere with the view of the waterfront.

Group-Captain Hewlett said as individuals they were entitled to their opinions. The Chamber was creating a dangerous precedent in objecting as a Chamber of Commerce. Mr Stevens pointed out that the question was to be considered lay the Borough Council at its next meeting. He thought the matter should not be taken up by the Chamber at present. The Chairman said he did not like the position of the sign. The matter had been ventilated and the Council was reconsidering the question. He idid not like the Chamber making representations on the matter. Mr Bieleski pointed out that there was a proposal to erect baths in the same locality and if that were done it would mean putting up 'buildings, which would obscure the view.

Mr Bradney Williams submitted that the defacing of the waterfront was an important matter, and contended that it was certainly a question for the Chamber to deal with. Mr Bieleski’s amendment was carried by thirteen votes to eight, and was then put as the substantive motion and carried.