Inquiry Into Closing Of Durham St. Crossing

Press, Volume C, Issue 29673, 17 November 1961, Page 22

Inquiry Into Closing Of Durham St. Crossing

The Railways Department would close the Durham street level crossing. Mr D. P. Neazor. ot Wellington, told Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M., in the Christchurch Magistrate* Court yesterday. Mr Neazor, at the Crown Law Office in Wellington, represented the department in a hearing to consider the Chrisitchurch City Council’s decision to close Durham street between the railway line and Cass street. After hearing the department’s statement of intention, the Magistrate adjourned the hearing. The proceedings could be brought on again by the Christchurch City Council at seven days’ notice, he said. The council was represented by Mr W. It. Lascelles. Objector* to the council’s decision were the Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association (Mr I. E. White), Lane, Walker. Rudkin. Ltd. (Mr J. H. Polson), and Mr M. J. Mathews, a citizen appearing on his own behalf. Opening the case, Mr Lascelles said the council had power under the Municipal Corporations Act to stop any street or part of a street, subject to conditions prescribing a form of procedure to protect the public interest. The council had followed the procedure, Mr Lascelles said. “The genesis of the decision relates to the construction of the Colombo street overbridge. The council was concerned in , the question of contributions by the National

Roads Board and the Railways Department,” he said. "The measure of contribution from the department was related to what was to happen in respect of the Durham street crossing. ‘The department, at an earlier stage, and during the negotiations, has signified the probability that it would close the crossing. But its contribution was, in negotiation, related to the council taking steps to close the crossing," said Mr Lascelles. Next to the 24.7-perch area involved was eight acres and a half of railway land, Mr Lascelles said. In this area there were many railway lines. It had railways stores. It was an area of highdensity shunting and considerable through-traffic by passenger ■ and goods trains. “One might almost paint the picture of Durham street running through a railway yard and then on to the 24perch street belonging to the council, 1 adjacent to Cass street,” Mr Lascelles said. A strip of land across Durham street was taken by proclamation about 1944 for railway purposes, he said. A Railways Department an. nouncement of its intention might short-circuit a long and perhaps profitless inquiry. Mr Lascelles suggested. ‘‘Because the Railways Department owns the portion of Durham street which lies between the railways boundaries, the department can close the crossing without consulting anyone,” Mr Neazor said. “It is the desire of the Minister of Railways, in the interests of safety, to eliminate railway crossings where reasonable alternatives are available.” Mr Neazor described the crossing as “not an ordinary railway crossing, but a traffic way across a busy shunting yard.” “Because these lines carry a high density of rail traffic, the crossing presents a danger to motorists—particularly when the keeper is not On duty. It is not practicable to St warning devices,” he said. “When the keeper is not on duty trains must slow down to six miles an hour. This .impedes working and development of the department,” Mr Neazor said. “I am authorised to say that the department intends to close the level crossing in terms of the agreement with the City Council of some years standing," Mr Neazor said. “Ttie Railways Department has been waiting for the council to implement the closing because the council controls traffic in the city,” Mr Neazor said, Mr White said it was unfortunate that the council had not established the department’s intention to Hose the crossing before it considered closing the road. “Manufacturers will strive to prevent the implementation of the department’s declaration this morning,” Mr White said. He said the council had misconceived the position. All counsel and Mr Maithews agreed to an adjournment. The Court was empowered to confirm or reverse the council’s decision, the Magistrate said. “The plain fact is that I have no jurisdiction over the closure of railways land,” he said. The wider question was not before the Court for decision. Reviewing the council’s decision, the Magistrate said he was satisfied an alternative way was provided. The small piece of dedicated road left after the closure would be of no further use as a road, the Magistrate said. He could see only a remaining use as a car park, building sate, or access to the railway.