SEDDON STREET

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 2298, 17 November 1925, Page 6

SEDDON STREET

DECLARED. A PUBLIC THOROUGH. FARE. LONG DEBATE DETERMINED AT LAST. Seddon street has been a bone of contention round the Palmerston North Borough Council table for sev. eral meetings past. Eventually, In order to determine the Council’s obligation to construct the road, a spe. dal committee was set up to hear evi. dence on the subject. Three gentlemen came forward and tendered‘their opinion that th e street was a public one and that the Council was obliged to proceed with the work. The opinion on the matter received from Mr. T. F. Martin (municipal solicitor) and dated July SO, 1925, was also to the effect that the street in question became In 1882 and had ever since remained and now was a public street of the Borough, and that the recent metalling of the roadway was a Coun. oil's work done on Its own street.

The committee thereupon decided that Seddon street had been a public street since 1882 and as such, should be dealt with In a manner similar to any other public street of the Bor_ ough and, further, that public moneys should only be expended upon the street when circumstances warranted and then only by the authority of the Council.

In speaking to the report, Cr. Graham considered the finding of the committee to be a fair and reasonable one.

Or. Edwards maintained that Seddon street was not. a public street within the meaning of the Act. “Why should \\'o spend £SOQO to make a street for a private company, when we make other people form their own streets?’’ he asked. Ho considered the report one of the most dangerb-us that had been placed before the Council. Or. Graham stated that it was not to do any more to the street until development took place. Up to the present, only £IOO had been spent. Or. Edwards: Yes, and by adopting the report, wo will be endorsing a serious mistake of the past. Or. Hodgens referred to the decision as a whito.washing one, the committee being guided in the main by the remarks of one of the deputa. tlon, "What lam concerned about,” said the speaker, “is that the Council decided to spend money in a street that has not one cottage with a frontage to it I ask th e Council, why ?” The Council, in his opinion, had been hasty in spending money when it was nof warranted. Cr. Graham reiterated that out of an expenditure of £12,000 recommended, only £IOO had been used. The committee was now recommending that no further money be spent and was practically an, admission that* ac. tion In the past had been hasty. Cr. Oram failed to agre 0 with the last remark. He pointed out that Sed. don street was declared a public street in 18S2. At that time, an order in Council wa.s not necessary and the street was as much a public highway then as Broadway or Fltzherbert street. That being so, the sole purpose that should move the Council in deciding whether the money was to be spent was whether the expenditure was requisite. It was not a case of a street constructed by a firm wishing to cut up land. It w r as a street already laid off and as a public street, should recei've expenditure of Borough moneys. Cr. Hodgeps: Before ther e is a house In it Cr. Oram: I said previously, only when the expenditure was requisite. Tfce speaker also mentioned that Cr. Hodgens had moved two amendments when the matter was originally dis. cussed and he considered that action was tantamount to an admission on Cr. Hodgens’ part that th e work was necessary. Cr. Eliott considered the commit, tee had brought in the only conclusion it could on the evidence before It, Cr. Fltzherbert also referred to the fact that Seddon street had been planned at-the same time as Fitzherbert and Rangitikei streets. The only difference was that In 1882 there was no necessity to form Seddon street. He pointed out that the persons now de. .siring tha street to be formed had been paying rates for the last 43 years and some of their money had gone to make- Rangitikei and other streets. Was It fair that those people should now be left in the lurch? He thought th 0 Council had been quite right in spending money in the past. There was no necessity to do so in the mean, time, but should th e occasion arise, it should do so.

Cr.' Edwards moved that the report b e referred back to the public works committee. Cr. Hodgens seconded, but the motion, on being put to the meeting was lost.