ANIMALS’ HOME AT BURWOOD

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27407, 21 July 1954, Page 8

ANIMALS’ HOME AT BURWOOD

RESIDENTS TO ASK FOR REMOVAL APPROACH TO CITY COUNCIL The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is to be asked to vacate its animals’ home at Burwood, and the housing and town, planning committee of the City Council is to be asked to have the home removed. *These steps decided on at a meeting of 20 members of the Burwood Residents’ Association, when many complaints about the home were One man said he had found a half-buried dog in a “somewhat dilapidated condition” on the society’s property when going to bring home a child who had wandered there, and a woman said her small child had developed an eye infection her doctor had said came only from sick animals. The president of the association (Mr J. Palmer) said the society had been invited to be present at the meeting, but had declined the invitation with thanks. He regretted very much that representatives of the society were jiot there. The association, he said, had asked the society to shift some time ago, and the society had been agreeable, provided someone found it £7OOO. The society had a house and five acres of land, which it had bought in 1941 for £1250. said Mr Palmer. By selling the land in about seven sections, and selling the house, the society would get about £4OOO, which would go a long way towards a home in some district where it would not be a nuisance. The main objection to the home was the noise nuisance, and the fact that people left animals at the gate of the nome and they strayed all over the district Growth of District

In 1941, there were only 15 or 20 houses within a quarter of a mile of the animals’ home, said Mr Palmer. Now there were 120 houses in that same area, and there- were more to come. If the association would sell, a road could go through the back and open up a further 25 or 27 acres. “Most of us are new settlers and take pride in our homes and streets,” said Mr S. E. Breach. “I see the animals’ home as a stumbling block to our having a pride in our district” He asked whv the home had moved to Burwood in 1941, and suggested it was because it was forced outside from

building areas. Mr Palmer told the meeting that a petition to the City Council, asking for the removal of the home, had 47 signatures, although they were being taken only within a quarter-mile of the home, and they were nowhere near complete yet. Mr S. G. McGregor said people with young children did not consider it hygienic to have the home there. Be- ■, cause animals were left at the gates and not taken in by the society, there was a colony of savage cats all round the district Another man said children had been found playing with diseased animals, and there was always the danger of hydatids. Mr A. E. Estall said it should be made clear that the association was not opposed to the society, which was most necessary and did a good job. It was opposed to an animals’ home in a residential area. “One dog if it puts its mind to it can make more than enough noise for most people,’ said Mr D. H. Godfrey. “When it’s 20 or 30 dogs, backed by a full moon, we have a very real grievance.” He said that if the society put its house in order it would get the money it needed. He moved that the society be asked to leave at once, and this was carried unanimously.