BLACKMORE LANE.

Grey River Argus, 23 July 1926, Page 5

BLACKMORE LANE.

QUESTION OF WIDTH.

Discussion by Council.

si ,■ , lset ' ssion regarding the width of ■ ’is m the Greymouth Borough 'y- pmsue,l nt length at the meeting ot the Borough Council last evening. le matter rose upon a motion of (Ji .^L 1 ! ’ P urs uant to a notice of motion mat the motions carried by the ouncii on June 24 last, resolving tiial Blackmore Lane be made a 66ft street. Mid that Messrs Boustridge and Hall s lull dedicate sufficient land to give such width to the street, be and are hereby rescinded.”

Or Kent said that the object of the motion was in order to lea/e the' door open for further negotiations. It was possible some amicable basis of agree ment might be arrived at. While the resolutions were on the book nothing could be done.

Cr Doogan supported the motion. Cr Kitchingham said that he had voted in favour of the 66ft street and he had heard nothing which so far induced him to recede from that posi tion. They had narrow streets all ovei Greymouth. It was a source of dangei and a short-sighted policy on the part of the Council to accede to streets less than 66ft. While he was quite pre pared to sec negotiations opened he would object to repealing that portion that stated a street should be 6CTc in width. He would move that the recis sion be limited to “that Messrs Bous fridge and Hall shall dedicate sufficient land to give such width to the street. >‘bc and are hereby rescinded.” In the present case, said Cr O’Brien, the Council was asking Boustridge and Hall to dedicate sufficient land to make a street 66ft wide. On top of that they were asked to contribute £lOO to wards the formation of the street. He was of the opinion that no great harm would be done to the Council if it allowed a 40ft street Instead of 66ft, because there were not many houses in the locality and it was not going tc be a slum area. He did not want to put any undue hardship upon anybody The street at present was 12ft wide, said Cr Doogan, and if the owners chose to do so they could dedicate a strip which would make the street 39ft wide. And, of course, the Borough would have to pay compensation for 27ft. If they did that their sub-divis-ion plan would have to go through. H< thought that if they were to demand a 66ft street they had to face the position at once that they had to pay compensation for 54ft. It was much bet ter to wipe out the whole resolution and put the Council’s opinion in t new resolution. Cr Doogan further thought that 40f would be sufficient, as th'e locality could not be a slum. They could no' take off land on the western side because of the position of the houses there.

Cr Kitchingham again rose to ex plain that while the Borough would certainly have a claim, but it must be remembered that the compensation would be apportioned between the natives and Boustridge and Hall, and the latter portion would be limited to improvements on the land. Assuming that the Council agreed to take 27ft solely, then there would not be the slightest obligation" on the part of the Council to carry on street formation. The engineer provided a report as to the costs of an additional 27ft and his estimate provided for the diversion of the creek into the sewer, the formation of the street and also the providing of kerbed footpaths and so on. It was agreed by the Council that if Boustridge and Hall found £lO9 the work would be put in Hand and he would sav that he was not adverse to doing this work without payment of £lOO if they got 27ft. Another point was the possibility of the road being used or carrying a considerable amount of traffic. P ;rsonally he thought that in the course of a few years Blackmore Lane would be carried right through the town belt, and a number of houses appear on the rising slopes. They wanted to look beyond to-day or to-morrow. There were a number of narrow streets in the town and they did not want any more. The Council should affirm th>* principle that all streets in future should be at least 66ft wide. The motion would not prevent the Council from affirming the principle of streets 66ft wide, said Cr Kent. Cr Kitchingham’s amendment of a limited rccissiop was lost. The motion on being put was carried. Following on this motion, Cr Doogan said they were out to try to clear situation up. He believed in a good wide street but he did not think they ought to inflict a hardship on anyone. He moved that, with a view to having tho matter amicably settled on satisfactory lines, Boustridge and Hall bo asked to meet the Council in committee at a suitable date to be arranged. The motion was carried.