ST. CLAIR SCHOOL

Evening Star, Issue 15478, 28 April 1914, Page 8

ST. CLAIR SCHOOL

HOUSEHOLDERS DECLARE FOR THE OLD . SITE, AND ASK THAT~THE OTHER BE SOLD. Nearly 50 persons were present at the meeting of St. Clair householders last night, when the question of questions was discussed. Mr C. Ruben presided. Mr M. Cohen said he regretted that no reference was made in the report to the two meetings that had been held, and the outcome of the deputation to the Education Board. It was extraordinary that so important a matter had been passed over in silence. He was at a loss to account for it. It was known when the deputation went that a majority of the committee favored the new site, but none of the arguments for the retention of the school were met or answered. He held that the change to the swamp- was not in the interests of the school, nor in the interests of the people of St. Clair. He believed that the filling in, though estimated at £SOO, would cost nearer £I,OOO. The old site was chosen because of its proximity to the beach. Some persons said also that it was not wise to plant a public school alongside a racecourse. He strongly doubted whether the new site could be effectively drained.

Mr E. Aslin strongly opposed the proposal to plant the school close to a racecourse. He hoped that the incoming committee would bear in mind the fact that that objection was taken by some of the parents. He understood that it was not yet too late to protest. Mr J. Braithwaite said that he sympathised with much that had been said by the two previous speakers. The Education Board had made two mistakes—first, in letting the chance go by of acquiring the Coughtrey property; second, in not taking steps to buy extra property in Onslow street. The Hon. T. Fergus challenged the speaker’s figures when the deputation waited on the board, and said that the new school could be put up for £5,500. But that was for a school to accommodate only 400 children. His (Mr Braithwaite’s) figures were for a school to give room for 600. Then, the board’s estimate of £SOO for filling in was for only 2ft of filling. He believed it would require to be filled in 3gft or 4ft to get proper drainage. Mr Fergus’s statement was misleading when he said that his (Mr Braithwaite’s) figures were exaggerated. They were not exaggerated. Parents of the children ought to see that the present site was retained. Mr Fergus said that the board could not do anything; that the people would have to settle with the department. That meant the Minister of Education. Very well. That should be done. The existing school would do very well with enlargements. It was a great advantage to be so near the beach and the baths. He had seen as many as 20 girls going to the baths in the dinner hour. Besides, the old school site had good drainage, and as for the new site he had been told by members of the Drainage Board that the surface water would have to lie—that they had no knowledge that the board would be able to provide for storm water. He would move: “ That this meeting confirm the resolutions passed at previous meetings to retain the old site, and to endeavor to obtain the Onslow street frontage so as to give a larger ground area and permit of the present school being added to to meet requirements.” Mr 31. Cohen suggested the redrafting of the motion, and after discussion Mr Braithwaite consented to submit it in this form: “That it be an instruction to the incoming committee to use their utmost endeavors to get the Education Department to dispose of the proposed new site for the St. Clair school on the ground of its unsuitability.” Mr M. Cohen seconded the motion. Why talk about a school for 600 children when they had not anything like that number? What was the use of building for children that never came? (Laughter.) It was a mistake to build expensive schools and wait for children that might never appear, for while waiting the school would grow out of date. Mr Langley Pope said that he would not take any part in the discussion, but he must contradict the statement that the rooms at the school were unhealthy because r of the number of children. He believed in fresh air, and took care that the windows were opened so that the rooms never became stuffy. Mr Ruhen said that what Mr Cohen meant was that the rooms were overcrowded.

Mr A. Kilpatrick objected to the flat being referred to as a swamp. Mr J. B. Brugh said that he admitted the opponents of the removal had brought forward two good reasons—proximity to the racecourse and drainage; but as to the latter he thought the new committee could be relied on to ascertain whether it was possible to drain the new section, and if it was possible to do so the strongest argument against the change would be gone.

Mr D. M‘Pherson supported the motion. Mr Frank Armstrong said that in September of 1912 two Health Officers condemned the ditch alongside the new site, and as the Drainage Board did not take storm water away, he did not see how matters were to be improved. Mr S. F. Benton favored the old site, as higher and not on a swamp. Mr John Wilson asked what gave rise to the movement for shifting the school. When Kensington School got cramped more ground was bought, and the same thing could be done at St. Clair. Mr J. H. Hancock said it would bo wrong to run away with the idea that the new site could not be drained. The roof water and the surface water would all find its way into the channel which would convey it to the pumping station. He did not think there would be any difficulty whatever in regard to the drainage. It seemed to him that the Education Board and the Government had decided that the school should be built on the site they had chosen; and he offered his remarks in regard to drainage as a few grains of comfort. At the same time he considered the present site easily the best, and had he any children at the school ho would strongly oppose its removal. Mr Aslin pointed out that in time the hills around St. Clair would become thickly populated, and a school about the present site would become an absolute necessity.

Referring to Mr Cohen’s query why th© proposed removal of the school had not been mentioned in the report, the Chairman said that the report was drafted before the deputation went to the board. The committee then considered that it would be better to have the matter threshed out at th© annual meeting of householders.

The Chairman put the motion, which was carried by 22 votes to 11.

It was further resolved, or< the motion of Mr Cohen, that copies of the resolution be forwarded to the chairman of the Otago Education Board and to the Minis ter of Education. Mr Hancock moved a hearty vote of thanks to the outgoing committee, and Mr Eraithwaite, in seconding the motion, said that the parents of the children evidently had confidence in the old members of the committee, as they had re-elected them all, notwithstanding that the parents held quite a different opinion from the majority of the members of the committee. He expressed the hope that the committee would do their best to carry out th© wishes of the meeting. The motion was carried by acclamation.