SYDENHAM PARK FENCE

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23411, 19 August 1941, Page 8

SYDENHAM PARK FENCE

Removal Scheme Rejected

LONG COUNCIL DEBATE

On the casting vote of the Mayor (Mr E. H. Andrews), the Christchurch City Council decided last evening that the iron fence round Sydenham Park should remain. At its last meeting the council decided to have the fence removed, but last evening Cr.' J. J. Hurley moved a rescinding motion, ■ on which • nearly every member of the council spoke. It was- the longest debate of the evening. Letters were received frpm the Automobile Association (Canterbury) and the Canterbury Drivers’ Union; claiming that the removal of the fence would be dangerous. The association said’ that in the interest of the safety of children using the ground, the fence be retained. Writing as a private citizen of Sydenham, Mr E. Parlane (a former city councillor) said that the fence was unsightly and “savours too much of the detention yards at the gaol or mental hospital,”, and should be removed. If i.t were removed and replaced by a low stone wall 'on the’ inside of the trees, it would prevent cricket balls from running across the street. Safety of Children

Mr Hurley said he sought the rescinding of the resolution, because of the need to ensure the safety of children, He recalled that the fence had been given by a citizen. or firm to the old Sydenham council, and. it was not a very friendly gesture to the memory of the donor to take it down. Cr. Hurley - put in a petition signed by 212 1 Sydenham parents, and also made representations for tlje Sydenham School Committee protesting against the removal. Seconding the motion; Cr. W. P. Glue said that if the fence was removed and any accident occurred to a child, he wanted to be able to say that he had not been in favour of the resolution to pull the fence down. Cr. M. Kershaw did not favour pulling down the fence, and suggested that better access could be provided by additional gates. Cr. J. N. Clarke said that the danger of children running out of the park was hardly existent. There were two rows of ■ trees, a footpath, and possibly a garden a yard wide, enough to stop children running out on to the road. . , t Supporting the original Resolution to pull the fencfi down, Cr, H. E. Denton said that the children of Sydenham, he believed, were ho doubt better trained in avoiding accident than many of the councillors round the table. ... .. Supporting the rescinding motion, Cr. S. H. .Maddren said that a number of Sydenham people had expressed dissatisfaction with the proposal. • „ "Almost Sorry”

Reference was. made by some of the speakers to the fear of the Sydenham Bowling Club that. their section of the fence would .be pulled down, but Cr. J; S. Barnett (who first proposed pulling the fence down) said that as a member of the club he knew that 11: years ago the club asked that the fence be pulled down and. that the club had not changed its views. He was almost sorry, he said, that be had supported pulling "the fence down, in view of the. controversy raised. His reason for .bringing in the proposal was hearing Brigadier Mead refer to the need for open -spaces m emergencies, pad saying that the s °oner gydenha’fn Park was' thrown wide open the better. Mr Barnett question;ed whether the view of. the drivers union was representative of the union. “After hearing Cr. Barnett, the fence must come down," remarked Cr. a. &. G. Brown, while claiming that the park would look better with the fence down and a kerbing, said he felt that therfe was a lot of dissent m the district. Be was .prepared to change his mind'and support the rescinding m er. 0 C. D. W. K Sheppard refused to change his mind or his support . for the plan to pull the fence down. He believed. that some of those who signed the petition were not residents of Christchurch South and had not known the full position. U!J J M The council was chided by Cr. M. McLean for its attitude over the proposal,particularly some councillors for their change of views. ‘We make up our minds on women’s committees, and we> stick to it,” she . said. Cr. McLean opposed the rescinding motion.

Sydenham’s View

*Tf the people who are mostly concerned feel that the, fence should not he removed, than it should not be and In this case the Sydenham people—the school committee, for; instance—are against removal," said Cr. M. E. Lyons. He thought they should be supported. . Cr; 'H. P. Donald was not prepared to support removal unless a satisfactory alternative, ensuring safety for those using the pajrk, were provided, and Gr.G.- Manning suggested that such an alternative would be provided. Cr. Manning said that had Cr. Hurley been able to produce sufficient evidence that the people of Sydenham objected to the fence being removed, he would have been prepared to change his mind. He did not think sufficient evidence had been produced. "I do not think that the majority of the people of Sydenham. want the fence' down,” said the Mayor (Mr E. H. Andrews). . “If there was no danger and no war, I would say Down with it.’ „But it is not an ugly, fence and it is a useful -fence.-’, One- thing has stuck ifi my mind—a statement made by the Superintendent of, the Police that in an emergency children ought not to-be congregated but should be dispersed to their.homes," .- . - The division, (eight for, eight against) was as For the motioh—Crs. Glue, Brown, Maddten, Hurley, Henshaw'f! Donald, ) Lyons,. Andrews, Against: Crs. Barnett, Manning, Grten. Denton, Sheppard, McLean, Wilding. Clarke. .. - The Mayor then gave his casting vote in favour of the motion, “The fence 'remains.” he. said. •