WIDTH OF STREETS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14209, 4 November 1909, Page 6

WIDTH OF STREETS.

MINIMUM OF THIRTY FEET WANTED [BY TELEGBAriI. —PRESS ASSOCIATION*.] Wellington, Wednesday. In the House of Representatives this evening Mr. McLaren moved the second reading of the Public Works Amendment Bill, the object of which is to allow the local authority to construct a street or road under the statutory width of 66ft, but not less than 30ft where it is difficult or inexpedient to construct a street 66ft wide. Sir Joseph Ward Opposed the Bill. Under the existing Act power was given to construct streets 40ft wide. The Bill would not only allow a reduction in the width in special cases, but would permit speculators in land to make narrow streets when cutting up a property. The congestion of traffic in Wellington had led to the corporation having to purchase considerable blocks of property for the purpose of widening streets, and it would be a mistake to reduce the width of streets, which was against the interests of the public. Mr. Luke suggested referring the Bill to the Local Bills Committee, and moved to that effect.

Mr. Fisher supported the Bill on the ground that in residential districts streets 66ft wide were unnecessary and costly to keep up ; besides, owing to the configuration of various localities in Wellington it was impossible to make streets of the statutory width.

The Hon. J. A. Millar opposed referring the Bill to the Local Bills Committee,' as this would lead to loss of time. The width of streets at present was narrow enough. He would vote against the second reading, Mr. Russell considered that the Bill might' be allowed to pass if safeguards were introduced to prevent its general application. The Bill would meet local needs in Wellington, where the price of land caused oppressive rents. The cost of making roads on high levels added considerably to the cost of land.

Mr. Luke withdrew his amendment. Mr. Massey supported the Bill, which he considered would do no harm.

Mr. Herdman moved as an amendment that the Bill be referred to a committee of the House to report thereon. ' • Mr. Ell opposed the Bill, which would be a retrograde step. He hoped the House would throw out the Bill, and that no similar proposal would ever be revived. Mr. Poole regarded the Bill as the embodiment of a shortsighted policy which would be detrimental to the cities of the Dominion.

Hon. R. McKenzie, and Messrs. Hogg and Laurenson continued the debate, and the Bill was referred to a special committee.