THE MAITAI ROADS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVII, Issue XLVII, 7 November 1912, Page 6

THE MAITAI ROADS

. THE POLE FORD INCIDENT LETTERS TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL. At to-day's meeting of the Waimea County Council the following correspondence was read with reference to the road leading past Pole Ford, in the Maitai. is-sklrs. E. N. Richardson wrote stating That following her interview with the Council she had made further inquiries! into the position, with 'the result that she found that either both had ibeen -mistaken in regard" to the road proclaimed, or that she and her daughters had .been deceived and talc en in in the matter. "In the first place it was clearly understood by as that the road to be taken crossed the Maitai river at the ford in use, known as Pole ford. It now appears from an inspection of the plans that the road does not cross at Pole ford, but extends beyond the footbridge and terminaltes there with no connection on to the road or the opposite side, except 'by footbridge. This was not at all our intention, and I will be pleased to know whether you wer aware of /the fact at the time the -plar.i were signed that the road extended as it now appears on the plans? If you were, we were distinctly misled by your letter of the 7th of June, 1912, in which you state the road to be taken was '/the road as at ; present in- use through your pro•perty from the city boundary to Lin ton's.' That letter containing the above quotation was sent to us along with the plan for our signatures, and '•elying on that, we signed the plan. In the same letter you say 'the present fence between the Maitai river and the road to be the /boundary between the road and your land.' "We relied also on this statement; but we find unfortunately that this representation has not been carried out on the plan of the road attached to the proclamation. We will be glad to know whether you were aware of this fact when you submitted the plaits us for 'signature ? The position now :s most unfortunate. We /have either 'been un'intPintional'ily misled lor" (deliberately trapped For some time past our right? have been deliberately ignored and set at defiance by a certain meddlesome section of the . public: but we cannot holievf that you have intentionally misled us ir the matter referred -to, and we shall be pleased with youv assurance to that effect. If. both of us have misunderstood the position, then I must ask you to have it rectified in accordance with the representations in your letter of the 7th June to which I refer you. As matters now stand, you have no road or access to the ryver at the present Pole ford, which passes over portions of my land. My daughters and I will be pieased to meet the 'Council in a friendly way to adjust the difficulties that have arisen, failing which we must ourselves move in the matter of protecting our rights and hav ing -the representations of your letter oi the 7th June given effect to. In tih< meantime we will 'be glad if you will let it be known that you are quite competent of dealing with the position yourselves. that we may 'be protected from thepetty annoyances to which we have, been recently subjected." Referring to thejna-tter in his monthly report, the 'County Engineer (Mr. Whiteside) stated : "An inspection of the obstruction complained of on the •'Maitai V'aTley road confirmed the statement that ihei-" -footbridge at Pole ford was on the legal road." Tihe City said that when ."fhe saw Mrs Richardson about the matted he; .had suggested that she should consult a/Solicitor, :but had tbeen. told that, site preferred to deal with the Engineer. _The Chairman and /Councillors were under the impression that Mrs Richardson had given the Council a, road right through the property. Mr. Hoult said tihe tiire had come when a .strong stand should be made.. He moved that the fetter should be ree'eived. Cr. Everett was of opinion that a confusion of the terms "road" and "roadway" had arisen. He thought Mrs Richardson should lbs informed that the Council did not wish to re-open the question. So far as -the fence was concern ed, the writer should be informed that the fence be' allowed to remain in its ."3resent position, and furthermore that if she feels aggrieved, and takes action, the Council could only express its regret. Cr. Macrrahon suggested that a deputation should wait .on Mrs Richardson ir: reference to the matter. After further discussion the following resolution was passed : "That this Council regrets .that there should be any misunderstanding in connection with. t>he matter referred to, and as the agreement had been signed, the 'Council declines to re-open the matter." Mr. F. G. Gibbs wrote under date 7th October : "With regard to the track to the bridge above Pole 'ford, about which thtdeputation from the Chamber of Com merce made certain representations to the Council at its last meeting, I beg to point out .that according to the plan lodged "at the Lands and Survey Office, the road granted to Mrs. Richardson in "exchange for certain other iroads includes the section from Pole Ford to a point a little above .the :bridge. The position of Pole ford is not indicated on the plan, but ths bridge is a-short distance bslow the point marked F. The legalitv of the track from the ford to the bridge is therefore altogether beyond dispute." The- Council' declined to order the removal of the fence. date 21st 'October Mr. F. G Gibbs further wrote as follows: "Going up the Maitai Valley on my bicycle yesterday I found that a fence had been erected right across ihe whole width of the.road iust above Pole ford, so that it was impossible to gain access to the footbridge. The road in'auestiou was recently dedicated as a .public road by Mrs. Richardson in consideration of certain other roads being closed. As it was quite impossible for me to pass the obstruction with -try bicycle. I exercised 71Y legal righ't as a traveller on the King's highway ;to remove a portion of the. fence. I desire now respectfully to isk of you that you will take the necessary steps to prevent the re-erection of the fence." In concluding his letter Mr. Gibbs expressed the hope that the Counil would led to consider all the more favouribly the request of the deputation which waited UpOon it at its last meeting asking that all fences in the Maitai Valley encroaching upon the public road should be removed. T/he Council resolved not to object if Mrs Richardson applied for permission to erect a legal fence.