HEAPHY ST. WIDENING

Grey River Argus, 6 December 1940, Page 2

HEAPHY ST. WIDENING

Council Divided MAYOR GIVES CASTING VOTE. On the casting vote of the Mayor (Mr F. A. Kitchingham), the Greymouth Borough Council ‘last night decided to adhere to its previous decision to consider the widening of Heaphy Street by taking land from the residential sections on the north side, in preference to constructing a wall along Sawyer’s Creek to enable widening to be done on that side. The matter was raised by the following motion, moved by the Mayor:— ‘.’That all resolutions and determinations of the Council at its meeting on November 7, 1940, relative to the report of the Finance Committee's meeting on October 18, 1940, apart from the resolution to receive the report, be rescinded and that the report be considered de novo.” The Mayor said the Council declined to pass the report and the idea was that the Council could deal with the matter afresh with the amendment as suggested. On his casting vote, the clause in regard to Heaphy Street, was carried, but he did not wish it to be said that the decision was reached on his vote. Cr. C. Neville seconded the resolution, which was carried. The Mayor then read the previous report and Cr. Kent moved as an amendment to the report that the clause in ’regard to Heaphy Street widening be deleted. Cr. Neville seconded the amendment. Cr. Boustridge said that if the amendment were carried no action could be taken for six months. The Town Planning Committee was considering a scheme of which the widening was a part. It was a matter of putting the thing on record for the future, not of taking the land at present. He did not think that would involve a hardship on anyone, as fair compensation would be paid. The Idea of widening the iroad on to Sawyer’s Creek was impossible. | Cr.-.H. Herring said that only two ■ members recorded their votes last time. He was against taking people’s property, especially in view of the small size of the Heaphy Stsections. Cr. J. Anderson said that widepiflg on the residents’ side put the widening scheme into the dim and‘ distant future. The Engineer agreed it could be widened, but the cost would ■be slightly '.higher. No Counicillfor could say what the properties would cost.

Cr. A. H. McKane said that if there was a possibility of taking, the property in one lot, the scheme had some merit, but if they took the property as houses were rebulit, it might take fifty years. There would be no difficulty in putting a cycling and pedestrian track through on the other side of Sawyer’s Creek. Cr. Neville said he had seconded the amendment, but > now had no wish to support it. Cr. J. Saunders said he was against the amendment, because he felt the street ought to be widened. Cr. G. R. Harkefi said if the street was widened on the southern side, it would make a dangerous corner at the bridge. WASTING MONEY ! • Cr. R-. J. Williams: I reckon it’s wasting the ratepayers’ money to bother about it. The roadway can be widened on the other side, and there is any amount of room in the Town Belt. The Mayor said that he still supported the clause. He said if they were going to have any town plann-

ing scheme, they had to consider narrow streets. If they did not make provision for widening streets they could not put them on the town planning map being prepared. Cr. Kent said that he had said little in moving the amendment to prevent any bickering. In town planning, the section-holder had to be considered. He agreed it was not necessary, but the widening on that side of the street was so limited and restricted that it was uneconomic to deal with it. If Greymouth had a go-ahead Council, they might in future have a great highway with Sawyer’s Creek closed over as a culvert. If they had to compensate, they might have to pay tne whole value of the sections.

Cr. Kent’s amendment was put after a cross-table discussion between Councillors. The amendment was supported by Crs. Kent, McKane, Herring, Williams and Anderson and opposed by the Mayor, Crs. Harker, Neville, Boustridge and Saunders. The Mayor gave his casting vote against the amendment. The report as a whole was adopted by 5 votes to 4, those opposing it being Crs. Kent, Anderson, McKane and Herring. Cr. Williams did not vote.

Cr. Kent protested that it was a waste of time coming to meetings, when matters were not treated seriously. “It’s a case of some saying ‘another win for us,’ ” he said. The Mayor called Cr. Kent to order, saying there was no motion before the meeting.