NO DEFINITE ATTITUDE ADOPTED— School Board And Use Of Recreation. Ground

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 June 1950, Page 2

NO DEFINITE ATTITUDE ADOPTED— School Board And Use Of Recreation. Ground

No conclusive definition of its attitude towards the proposal that part or the whole of the Recreation Ground should be acquired to facilitate an extension of school property, was given by the Board of Managers of the Greymouth Technical High School whey the issue was discussed last evening.

Members spoke in favour of the proposal and others expressed opposition, but the board eventually agreed that it should not commit itself to any policy until the issue had been investigated at Greymouth by the Minister of Education or a senior officer of the Education Department. The board will join with the Greymouth Borough Council in asking for urgent attention to be given to the proposal for a high-level discussion. The need for more ground for additional school buildings was discussed without any finality being reached. It was suggested that members were not themselves aware of the exact nature of the latest building plans, and a member proposed that another study of them should be made. The board- should now formulate a policy as to whatsit wanted, suggested the chairman, Mr L. C. Lindley, reporting to last night’s meeting on a conference between members of the board and the Greymouth Borough Council on a report by the church Town Planning Officer, Miss N. Northcroft, containing a recommendation that part of the Recreation Ground be made available to the school to meet its building requirements, in exchange for a suitably prepared sports area of similar size. “Is that any use before the Education Department makes a decision? We may agree with the plan only to find the department against it,” said Mr R. W. Sansom. “The question seems to be whether the board agrees to proposals to take over the Recreation Ground, or whether the Borpugh Council allows us to go ahead with our original building plans,” said Mr Lindley. “Whether the board does or does not agree with the report, which is a matter for the borough, the board should decide what it really wants,” he added. Use Of School Ground There would be no advantage in having Education Department officers examine the proposal, suggested Mr F. L. Turley. “We either-want the land or we do not,” he said. “We have land of our own and the buildings we want should now be up and occupied.” He pointed out that a move to obtain 10ft of the Recreation Ground to fit in with building proposals had been made to the Borough Council without result. He was opposed to any move to take the area for building while the school had ground of its own not built on. “I have been led to believe we have been sent only half a report,” Mr Turley added. “The other half is somewhere else.” Referring to the feeling that the board was contemplating taking some action detrimental to the Recreation Ground, Mr Turley said that as far as he was concerned nothing would be done to the ground until the school’s own land had been built on. “We have got a lot of land left,” he said. “When it-is built on it is time enough to ask for the. ‘Rec’.” He also mentioned the possibility of a two-storeyed building to overcome any land shortage. “I think a lot of trouble has been caused in the town as a result of what has been and it looks as if the Borough Council is responsible,” he said. The public would not keep the children off the Recreation Ground if the school built on its own area, said Mr Turley. “Has anyone ever been refused the right to use the ground?” he asked. “The school’s pupils are using it every day now.” He contended that the question of control was unimportant. The Borough Council could'control it, he said, as long as it gave permission for the pupils to use it. “As for taking it and giving it to the Education Department, preserve us from that.” “Point Of Dictatorship”

“In my opinion a great number of things done by the Education Department are verging just to the point of dictatorship,’’ Mr. Turley went on. “More time is wasted and money spent on how, why and what and how much it will cost. And it is going on all over the country. I have seen a lot of it and as a public man I am just about sick of the waste of time and money making these inquiries over and over again and getting nowhere. I thought our buildings would be up but we are still talking over the plans,” he said. “How many plans have we? The architect’s fees would probably have paid for the building.” At this stage Mr Turley moved that the board should build on its own land and take up the question of playing areas with the Borough Council. “Handed On Platter” “This board has made no request for the Recreation Ground?’ the chairman said. “Miss Northcroft’s report has handed it to us on a platter.” He pointed out that if the school used the Recreation Ground, it would have to have some control over it. “No, that is where you get up against the public,” said Mr Turley. “The Borough Council is as trustworthy to control public money as the board.” “To spend money on the ground the board must have some control,” said Mr Lindley. • “Just a bogey; it’s all bogies,” commented Mr Turley. Mr Turley went on to refer to the south-western corner of the school area as being suitable for a building site, but the principal, Mr W. M. Stewart, stated that it was too far from the school to be practicable, particularly'in wet weather. He was supported in his view by some members, but others pointed out that a covered pathway could be constructed. Mr S. Gladstone undertook to second Mr Turley’s motion, provided the reference to building concerned the plans the board had been discussing for the past year or so. (Mr Turley would not agree to this qualification). Referring to the decisions of the Borough Council in turning idown a request for 10ft of the Recreation Ground and then refusing to allow building in l front of the school and up to the street-line, Mr Gladstone

described this action as “stupid. It had stopped the school from making necessary alterations that had been Vital for years, he said. The area wanted then, he said, had never been used for sports, and would never be. “I think we should see the whole of this report or none at all,” he contended, adding that the council had “spragged” the board’s plans for years to come. The principal pointed out that the Education Department’s representative had indicated, when it had been proposed to ask for 10ft of the Recreation Ground, that the Minister would not approve •of a public recreation ground being acquired for this purpose. By-laws Defended “I am surprised to hear Mr Gladstone call the Borough Council stupid,” said Mr H. Hutchinson (a member of the council), “and saying laws can be broken. It seems nice to have laws when they don’t affect yourself, but as soon as they do you want them broken.” Apart from the building to the street-line, being contrary to the by-laws, he said, the buildings were just makeshift. The board should plan for the future, he said.

•“The plan to build out in front was just making the best of an impossible condition,” agreed Mr Sansom. “It would not improve the appearance of the school. If the suggestion in Miss Northcroft’s report can be brought into effect, it would solve the situation,” he added. “Sports bodies would lose nothing. The school would build south of its present building and the Recreation Ground would be available for playing.” He pointed out that the school’s ground was used extensively on Saturdays by outside bodies. “Report Is Solution” Mr Sansom expressed opposition to two-storeyed buildings, stating they were unsuitable for school purposes. “As for building on the football field, I do not ‘think the department would approve unless some other open space were made available,” he said. “The report’s recommendation is the solution to our problem.” “Well, should we wipe our present building plan—already turned down by the Borough Council—and seek fresh ideas?” asked Mr Lindley. “This matter is being put before the department, and if we change our plans now we may cause further delay. We should stick to our plan and hear what the department says to the proposal,” said Mrs G. Blair. There was some discussion at this stage as to what plan the board had approved, Mr Hutchinson suggesting that the board was at “sixes and sevens” over the plans and should study them.

The foundations of the present school were not adequate for a second floor, Mr Stewart explained to members. The building of a second floor would also put six or seven classrooms out of commission for a year. “How could we carry on?” he asked. The Minister was coming down, he said, and could then announce whether the department was prepared to buy and prepare an area and then exchange it for part of the Recreation Groun) i “CalarpitoJ '’Failure” “If it is suggestthat the. school should build on its own land without titular control of another playground I would say that thank heavens my time will be up because I could not face up to that,” said Mr Stewart. “I would hate to rule over a school with not one rood of land for the recreation of its pupils. Dual control has been tried and has been described by a Minister as a calamitous failure.” “What about the school having its playing area a short distance from the school?” asked Mr W. D. Panckhurst. “If we took the area suggested by the council (near Kowhai Bush), perhaps we could effect an exchange one day.” “That is a possibility,” commented Mr Stewart. “If the department says ‘yes’ to the proposal to arrange another area for the school, the board can go ahead with its building plans on the football field. It would not have to wait for a decision regarding the disposal of the Recreation Ground,” said Mr Sansom. “We should get an area vested in the school as a playing ground,” said Mr Panckhurst. The rifle range was suggested as an alternative site when Mr Turley asked where a suitable area could be obtained. Mr Turley said that the Education Department had examined that area and found that it would cost £6OOO- to get the land ready for building alone. A seconder for Mr Turley’s motion was found at this stage in Mr Hutchinson, after the mover had agreed to a condition that all building would be within the terms of the by-laws. An amendment moved by. Mr Sansom,” that no further action be taken until such time as we have the Education Department’s reply on the suggestion contained in Miss Northcroft’s report,” was, however, carried by a substantial majority. It was also decided to write to the department asking that the matter be treated with the utmost urgency. A short discussion ensued on the copy of the report given the board by the Borough Council when Mr Turley asked if a copy could be obtained of the whole report. The fact that there was more to the report had been “sprung” on him, said the chairman, but he had asked the Mayor, Mr F. F, Boustridge, regarding the matter, and had been assured that the additional section of the report dealt only with 'the interior working cf the borough involving town planning and contained nothing concerning the board. “No one knows what is in it, except councillors,” he said. “Perhaps Mr Hutchinson will tell us,” commented a member, jocularly, but Mr Hutchinson declined to divulge the contents of the second section of the report.