KERBSIDE PETROL" PUMPS

Northern Advocate, 4 May 1926, Page 3

KERBSIDE PETROL" PUMPS

ANNUAL CHARGE DEBATED

RESTRICTIVE REGULATIONS IMPOSED.

In his report of the Finance and Legal Committee submitted to the Whangarei Borough Council last evening was a recommendation that a fee of £5 per annum be charged for kerbside petrol pumps which were permitted to be erected in tho borough. When moving- adoption of the report, the Mayor, Mr J. E. Holmes, referred to tho clause mentioned and announced that the recommendation had been made on the casting vote of the chairman. At the same time he considered tho suggested fee a fair one, and he based his opinion on information he had reeived from good sources. The Council got nothing from (he motor ears but the drivers ’ licenses, and therefore as the Council, in granting tho right to erect the pumps on the kerbside, was giving something that belonged to tho public, it was reasonable to make a charge. Such a charge, said Cr E. G. W. Tibbits, was for that which was in the nature of an advertisement, and he thought the privilege was worth £5 a year.

Cr A. D. Jack moved as an amendment that the charge be £3 for one and £2 for each additional pump. He stated that already application had been made to put in two or three pumps, and if £3 apiece were charged for them by the Council it would be excessive. He declared that the charge was not a tax on petrol, but upon an advantageous and modern method of supplying consumers. Were it the former he would have supported the higher charge.

Cr. Jack’s amendment was seconded by Cr Mcikle, who belived that selling agents of petrol should not be taxed, although were it to reach the bigger interests concerned it might be worth while. The sellers of petrol had to make a living out of it, and as they made only a commission it would be unfair to impose a tax on them. Cr. Tibbits expressed the view that the charge was not a tax, but a rental for use of the footpath sites for the pumps. Cr S. S. Hutchings asked if there were to be any limit on the number of pumps a firm would be allowed to erect, for if there were no limit, a big firm might erect a number and create a monopoly. The engineer then read a draft of proposed regulations governing the granting of permission to erect the pumps. They included the license fee of £5 per annum, the necessity to find a bond of £IOOO as an indemnity against accidents, prohibition of provision of tanks under the footpaths, restriction of sites to within 66ft of any corner, and exclusion of the busiest parts of Cameron and Bank Streets from the scope of the proposal.

Cr. W. U. Time-well supported the Mayor’s motion to adopt the recommendation, as he looked upon it that proprietors of the pumps, by using the footpaths as sites, were saving rent and provision of other positions which would be valuable. The amendment was defeated on a show of hands, Crs. Jack, Meikle, and McKay voting for it. Cr. A. J. McKay then moved a further amendment, that the charge be £3 for one pump, but that it be le'ss for additional ones erected by the same firm.

That was seconded by Cr. Jack, who emphasised the point that the kerbside pump would be leas of an obstruction than cars backing across the footpaths to obtain refillings of oil. That amendment was also lost, on the casting vote of the Mayor, who sided with Crs. Tibbits, Timewell and Hutchings.

Referring to the proposed regulation requiring bonds of £IOOO, as an indemnity against accident, Cr. Jack contended that as the bonds .would probably have to be obtained through insurance companies, it would impose too heavy a burden on the owners of the pumps. It appeared to him that if, in addition to the license fee, such bonds were demanded, costing, as Cr. Rust stated, about £6 per annum, if would doom Whangarei to continue the old system of storage of petrol in tins. The Mayor then moved that the regulations be approved with th# exception of the clause relative to the bond, which would be referred to the Legal and Finance Committee for further consideration. Cr. A. M. Rust contended that there ’should be no responsibility on the Council for accidents, as cars had no right to run on the footpath over the kerb. The Mayor’s motion was then carried.