KERBSIDE PUMPS TO REMAIN IN FEILDING

Manawatu Times, Volume LIII, Issue 6613, 18 May 1928, Page 8

KERBSIDE PUMPS TO REMAIN IN FEILDING

Borough Council Reverses its Decision

Further consideration was given at last evening’s meeting of the Feilding Borough Council to the question of the removal of kerbside petrol pumps from tho kerbside, when Councillor C. E. Taylor formally moved to rescind the resolution passed by the Council to refuse to renew tho licenses for these pumps after March 31, 1929. Councillor Taylor thought that the Council had erred in passing tho resolution in that it had not gone fully into the position. The pumps were undoubtedly a convenience to the motoring public, and were certhinly no more unsightly than the hydro-electric poles. To force tho pumps from the kerbside would in flict a hardship on ratepayers and involve financial loss to some of the interested parties. There was a great deal in the argument that by moving the pumps back off the kerbside a certain amount of danger would arise from cars passing too and fro over footpaths.

Councillor S. I). Pearce seconded the motion, and said after mature consideration, he was satisfied that the Council's action was not warranted and that a mistake had been made. Motorists were against the proposal, for they appreciated the convenience of the kerbside pumps. Councillor, T. Collins, as mover of the original motion, could not sec any reason to alter his views. He could not see any reason wdiy people could not conduct their business on their own premises. The whole thing appeared to have arisen from a battle from among the different oil companies. Each company wished to place its petrol on the market, and therefore did its utmost to establish as many pumps as possible. The pumps were an eye-sore and there were now some 12 additional applications for pumps before the Council. There was the question of the Council's liability for accident, and ho did not think the Council had one solid guarantee indemnifying it against claims.

The Mayor (Mr E. Fair): There is one.

Councillors H. Stewart, J. Corpe, and D. Pryde expressed themselves as in favour of Councillor Taylor’s motion. Councillor V. E. Smith, as one who supported the original motion, said he had not been convinced that it was necessary to rescind it. By rescinding the motion the Council would be admitting that it was incapable of conducting its own business. As far as ho could learn, the oil companies owned and controlled the pumps, and were responsible for all financial arrangements. He-had an agreement between an oil company, and a vendor in which it was stated that the oil company was liable for the expense incurred in removing pumps after the lapse of 12 months.

Councillor J. C. Hill’s sympathy was with Councillor Taylor, and ho would support the motion. The Council had made two mistakes —first, by ever permitting the erection of the kerbside pumps, and, second, by ordering there removal without giving the matter sufficient consideration. The Council had now to do the right thing, and that was to rescind the motion and limit the granting of further licenses. Councillor A. C. M'Corkindalo had always been opposed to kerbside petrol pumps, and the more he saw of them the more convinced he was that they were unnecessary. In limiting the number of pumps the Council would create further trouble for itself in that if each vendor was only allowed two pumps he would probably be restricted to the sale of only one brand of spirit.

Councillor Smith said that the Government was endeavouring to do away with kerbside petrol pumps on account of their danger.

The Mayor said that ho would oppose the motion. No business should be conducted on a public highway, and other towns were facing the problem in tbs same manner as Feilding. He felt sure that the time was coming when kerbside pumps would be no more, and the time was now opportune to deal with the matter without any great inconvenience. If the resolution was rescinded, the Council would have to consider what the foothpath was worth as a selling stand with a view to increasing the license fee.

In reply, Councillor Taylor considered that the Council would be competent to limit the number of pump licenses granted. Councillor Smith questioned this, but Councillor Taylor held that it could be done.

Councillor M'Corkindalc: You would then have protests to deal with.

Councillor Taylor did not anticipate such, and in any ease the Council could deal with the position if it did arise. Councillor Taylor’s resolution was carried, the voting being as fallows; — Ayes: Councillors Taylor, Pearce, Hill, Pryde, Corpo, and Stewart. Noes: The Mayor, and Councillors Collins, M'Corkindalc, and Smith. An application for permission to erect four pumps by a local garage proprietor was then placed before the Council. Councillor Taylor moved that the application, and other applications now in hand, bo referred to the Works and Finance Committee; that the joint committee report on tho fees to bo charged after March 31 next; the number of pumps to be allowed each applicant; and tho amount of indemnity required by the Council from each applicant. Councillor Pearce seconded tho motion.

Councillor Collins -wanted to know

whether permits already granted in eases where pumps had not been erected would come within Councillor’s Taylor’s motion.

Councillor Taylor did not feel he was obliged to answer (ho question. The Mayor considered the. question an important one which should bo settled.

In tho further discussion, Councillor Taylor explained that if iho joint committee fixed the maximum number of pumps at three, then those who had a greater number would have to take the others down. Councillor Smith; Would that apply (o other than kerbside pumps? Councillor 'Taylor: Certainly not.