Feilding Town Hall Proposal

Manawatu Times, Volume 61, Issue 239, 9 October 1936, Page 8

Feilding Town Hall Proposal

Deadlock in Council Debate

COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE FURTHER The subject of a town hall for Feilding was further debated at last evening’s meeting of tho Feilding Borough Council when the Mayor (Mr. T. Collins) moved the following motion to test the feeling- of councillors following a fortnight’s consideration of the question:—■ “That the council resolves to proceed with the erection of a Town Hall in accordance with the proposals submitted, at an estimated cost of £S4SI, including land and building.” Cr. V. E. Smith seconded the motion. Cr. W. W. Andrews promptly moved an amendment that his scheme, involving the utilisation of the present municipal buildings, be proceeded with. He was satisfied that it would be far better to build on the borough land arid thus avoid loss of rates on tho land proposed to be purchased and also save the cost of the land. Cr. P. G. Guy seconded the amendment.

Agreeing that Cr. Andrews’ scheme was highly desirablo, Cr. A. C. McCorkindalo questioned whether the time was ripe for an expenditure of roughly £9OOO. He fancied that the dancing accommodation needed could be provided under a less pretentious scheme costing between £SOOO and £6OOO. He went on to suggest several less costly sites, including tho railway reservo in Aorangi street, and while impressed with Cr. Andrews’ proposal, was of the opinion that every aspect of tho question should be fully explored before coming to a decision. He concluded by stating that he could not support the .Mayor’s scheme. Cr. E. Fair agreed with Cr. McCorkindale that the matter was one for careful consideration. He did not favour Cr. Andrews’ scheme which involved an upstairs hall. Further the idea of sacrificing tho existing council buildings did not appeal to him. The idea of using the railway reserve made the greatest appeal to the speaker and he visualised a modest beginning on this site of a municipal block. A suitable hall could be erected at half the cost of that proposed by the Mayor who was, however, to be congratulated for bringing the matter up. A public hall was definitely desirablo and he fancied the need could be met without any great expenditure. Cr. G. J. Fitzpatrick was opposed to tho Mayor’s scheme ana expressea regret that ho could not support it. The suggestion of Cr. Fair was even xess acceptable becauso ho could not see ratepayers prepared to support a bunding on the railway reserve. The idea of a municipal block on the site of the council premises appealed to him as being in every way desirable and the ultimate objective of tho civic fathers. Ho suggested a plan being prepared providing for a hall included in a municipal block, this plan to be made available for public inspection and consideration. Cr. T. L. Scddon was not satisfied that there was any urgency for either scheme although he favoured a municipal block on tho site of the council chambers embracing all the needs of the town.

A civic hall was desirable, said Cr. V. E. Smith, and he hoped that there would not be the delay suggested by Cr. Fitzpatrick in the way of preparing a plan for public inspection and consideration. lie deplored the absence of up-to-date facilities in the town for the accommodation of the larger social functions and visiting entertainment and he hoped the council would not delay in doing somptking. If it was possible to obtain the freehold of the railway reserve ho would be in favour of that site as it appeared to him to be in every way desirable. For some unaccountable reason a section of the community always opposed every progressive move put forward and ho recalled when the late Mayor Harford’s scheme for the location of the goldiers’ memorial in the centro of Manchester Squaro was advanced, it was opposed as being dangerous to traffic. To-day people regretted that Mayor Harford’s scheme was not adopted. Cr. G. Darragh endorsed the remarks of Cr. Seddon and did not agree that the time was opportune for an expenditure of up to £1)000 merely to provide a dance hall. Perhaps when some of the council’s loans matured, the proposal might be considered with a view to adopting the idea of a municipal block embodying every feature desired. Replying, tho Mayor said that the outstanding feature of tho debate was the antagonism to his scheme. It had been suggested that his schemo would meau a burden on the ratepayers, but he had shown that this would not be so. There was a tendency in the council to be against his scheme. He had viewed every available site in the town and if there had been a better site he would have put it forward. The railway revenue was ruled out because of the noise, from trains. Ho had no fear about the success of a picture show, as suggested in his scheme. The revenue from pictures would almost make the hall free of charge. He was satisfied that citizens were in favour of his scheme and that it would be supported at a poll. Cr. Andrews’ amendment was lost by 10 votes to two. A further amendment was moved by Cr. MeCorlcindale, to the effect that the proposal be deferred and that meanwhile an estimate be obtained of the cost of a municipal block incorporating

a public hall and all municipal services. Cr. Andrews seconded the amendment. Cr. A. J. Kellow suggested in this connection inviting public competition for plans for a prize of £IOO, the cost of the proposed building to be limited to £20,000, for that, he considered, was what Cr. McCorkindale’s scheme was likely to cost. Cr. Fair suggested the setting up of a committee to bring down a report on the scheme of Cr. Andrews, The Mayor said that he tvas prepared to withdraw his motion provided the amendment was also withdrawn, and take a plebiscite of ratepayers to decide the issue. His proposals would be along the following lines:— (1) Are you in favour of building a town hall? (2) Are you in favour of carrying out the scheme as laid down by the Mayor? (3) Are you in favour of building a town hall on any other site? Following further discussion, Cr. A. J. Kellow spoke in favour of the need of a town hall and advocated tho use of tho Drill Hall property, which the council, he suggested, should take steps to acquire, even if it meant going to Parliament for the necessary authority. The amendment found the councillors evenly divided and the Mayor, in giving his casting vote against the amendment, said that tho scheme would cost quite £SOOO more than his own proposal. A deadlock was reached when Cr. Kellow’s amendment that a sub-com-mittee, comprising the Mayor and Ors. Fair and McCorkindale, bo set up to report on the town hall, failed to gain a seconder.

Cr. Smith would not agree to the Mayor’s motion being withdrawn in favour of the proposal for a plebiscite. The Mayor’s motion was put to th« meeting and defeated on the voices. Cr. Guy then suggested that Or. Andrews’ scheme be included in the plebiscite proposal, but the Mayor said that it had been turned.

The Mayor then moved hi 3 proposal for a plebiscite. Cr. Fair seconded the motion pro forma and it was thrown out on the voices.

Cr. Guy then moved that a sub-com-mittee, comprising Crs. Andrews, Seddon, Kellow and McCorkindale, be appointed to report on the proposal to erect a municipal block on the existing council building site. This was seconded bj( Cr. McCorkindale and carried.