HOARDING AT WOOLSTON.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20910, 18 July 1933, Page 9

HOARDING AT WOOLSTON.

ERECTION AUTHORISED CR. ARCHER'S OUTSPOKEN COMMENT. ALLEGATION OF UNDUE INFLUENCE. Although many objections had been received from residents, the re-erection of a hoarding at the corner of Oak street and Ferry road, Woolston, was authorised by the Christchurch City Council last night by a majority of 10 votes to seven. The debate was marked by a very * outspoken statement from Cr. J. K. Archer, who said: ''These people who are running the hoardings in Christchurch have an undue influence on councillors. I say that deliberately. They are exercising their influence in an improper manner." The Mayor called Cr. Archer to order, saying that this suggestion was serious and should be withdrawn. Cr. Archer replied: "I do not mean that their influence is material. It consists of argument, persuasion, and threats, too. I have had experiences with them myself. Ido not mean anything else because I am sure that no councillors round this table could be influenced in any other way."' Two applications for hoardings—the one at Woolston, and another in Victoria street, adjoining the north side of the United Service Station—were held over from the last meeting of the council in order to give the residents in each area the opportunity to express their opinions. No objections to the Victoria street hoarding were received, but the following objections were made to the Woolston hoarding:— Petition of Mr C. Hill and 44 other ratepayers and residents of Woolston. Letters from Messrs A. C. Taylor, J. J. Harwood, T. O'Brien, K. H. Wright, L. Sibley, S. Robins, J. J. Graham, C. Hill, J. McGregor Wright, Mesdames J. Walker, W. Z. Curran, and Mr and Mrs P. Leahy. -A petition favouring the erection of the hoarding was received from Mr H. Mulholland and 48 others, and favourable letters from Messrs W. M. Wilkerson and C. Williams.

Cr. Lyons's Motion. Cr. Lyons said he had given notice of his motion to rescind the resolution granting the applications in order toe allow the people of Woolston time to record their objections to the hoarding. He would therefore do no more than formally move the motion. He suggested that the council would be bound to consider the petition which had been received. Cr. Archer seconded the motion. He was certain that there had been a gentlemen's agreement made with the Woolston people that the council would not agree to the erection of hoardings in Woolston. He remembered applications being rejected on that ground. He did not want to belittle the petition in favour of the hoarding, but it had arrived only a few hours before the meeting and was obviously an attempt to belittle the other petition. The petitions the council should value were those expressing the spontaneous feeling of the people and not those sent in at the last moment, possibly at the instigation of a commercial firm. Of all the letters written spontaneously to the council, only one approved the hoardings. It was an important point, as one letter stated that the owner of the section on which the hoarding was to be built was not a resident of Woolston, but a man who was holding the section for speculative purposes. Another man stated that the previous hoarding was "a nightmare" to himself and his family. Every time he opened his front door he had seen a couple of glaring eyes in an oculist's advertisement. Another resident asserted that when the hoarding was there and the hotel was closed, it was used as a screen for drinking. Three former Mayors of Woolston had send their protest. The council had no right to impose upon the people of Woolston something they did not want. Cr. Archer then made his comment on the influence exercised on I councillors which is reported above.

Agreement Not Recalled. Cr. E. H. Andrews, chairman of the town planning committee, said he did not believe the petitions were worth much. In some cases the same people signed both. He had no recollection of any agreement being made with the residents of Woolston. There were letters from both sides. The firm that had applied for the hoarding was not the one Cr. Archer was thinking of. In this case the application was from the owner, of the section. If the owner was not a Woolston resident he was definitely a Woolston ratepayer. The recommendation of the town planning committee had not been unanimous, he would admit. He had been sorry to hear Cr. Archer say that the reputable people of Woolston were opposed to the hoarding. To say that was to cast a vile aspersion on the ratepayers there. Quite a number who had signed the opposing petition had not given their addresses. The site was in a. business area, and for that reason the application had been upheld. "Cr. Lyons is following Cr. Archer." said Cr. Andrews. "I am afraid he has the newspaper complex. Newspapers are notoriously selfish. I am afraid the microbe of newspaper advertising got into his blood." Cr. Beanland Opposed. Cr. J. W. Beanland said he was opposed to hoardings on the principle that they were not in the best interests of city beauty. Cr. Andrews had had a great deal to do with a paper called the "City Beautiful"; how he reconciled that with his attitude at present, Cr. Beanland could not say. Every vacant section in the city was being covered with hoardings. He upheld Cr. Archer's recollection that [a gentlemen's agreement had been made. If, sections vaerja luaafihtly,

the council had the power to demand the erection of fences. Surely they should respect the wishes of the people of Woolston, and it was from that viewpoint that the matter should be considered. Cr. H. T. J. Thacker said that Ferry road was a highway and should be treated as such. The pernickety minds of some people who had never been out of Christchurch would object to anything designed to cover up unsightly sections. "Beautiful Pictures." Cr. E. R. McCombs said she had seen some beautiful pictures on hoardings. They added a colourful note to drab streets. However, since residents had objected in this case, she could not support the erection of the hoarding. flhe herself, she said, had moved the resolution by which all applications for hoardings were held up for a month to enable an expression of opinion to be made. Cr. Lyons, in reply, said that if the council reversed its decision the whole thing would be rio better than comic opera. A great deal had been said about fairness and equity; but if there was one firm that would be hurt by the change it would be Chandler and Co. They had been induced to give up the site, and now the council was giving it to a rival firm. A representative section of the Woolston people had definitely opposed the hoarding. The motion was lost by 10 votes to seven. The division was as follows:—Ayes: Crs. Archer,. McCombs, Barnett, Thurston, Lyons, Beanland, and the Mayor; noes: Crs. Butterfield, Howard, Mathison, Armstrong, Thacker, Evans, Milliken, T. Andrews, Hayward, and E. H. Andrews.