TOPICS OF THE DAY

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4336, 20 April 1901, Page 4

TOPICS OF THE DAY

THE WAHTER STREET CASE. iir J. U. W. Aitkwi gave bis side of tiro case at the Opera House lust night i>.i regard to the*Waller street transaction. Having explained that Walter street was 33 feet wide, be staled that a street 63 feet wide might have been cut through the centre of the acre of land to connect with Walter street, but doing this would have created such miserably small, narrow sections, that there would have been room only for cottages of two rooms there. (A voice—’■Question.”) Mr Aitken quoted figures in support of his statement, and said that, as the City Council by-laws required 23 feet depth behind a house for air space, this v culd have left a building frontage of cnly 25 feet. When the plan was submitted to the City Council, they decided that they would allow it hut that whoever built houses upon that laud—and this was registered against the land, and the buildings could not bo .put otherwise— must build those houses S 3 feet tack from the centre of the .street. This would give G 6 feet of air space. It was perfectly true that that 66 <Vet would not be in the street, bat was.it not much better in r. small street, where there was practically no traffic, that portion of the 66 feet should bo included in the gardens .attached to the houses, with flowers growing and (shrubs growing, rather than that the houses should stand on to the roadway? ('Cheers, and soma ironical laughter.l The suggestion had been made that the owner of the property, being a Councillor, a. deal was' made with -tie Council. Tie fact was j

that Walter street v. as not at' present lip-tied, -avD at. (!n> corner of ingc.-t' c ..ricot. aml the Cl*y Council had raa.dc : r. itipalihien turd i\ lamp liottl ! It mVo 1 vd at tljo mites" . ’ vr, r v that lamp ■was -!r;r ■■■■■: -v at the 'e.s.peir- e f the of the -land. vho v.-fiud have to 1 Ps-hd !■- ' a 1 ’ That «'W Vh-Vp-i or rt le jmj auttJe with »fee uy : -> : -> Tm- cA, wvh r ’mew of thin h Act of Thirlia-uent winch would ureve-.it on;. ; t;."i I’.ttn? in I tie smure. jl-t O.h- \itken» did • li know of it, and It- did net Ittiiiit tlie Co.U’-A'hjr U'l’r.t oi it. The City t-y.iie: had marvelled When he found ih» provi-imi deal in" will. .hi-. m:;'.'.<-r n the centre of the 3'iil.iio tVoriis A-t. The npplicrdmi. was load'.' to the Council on the -lib Ofloh. -; the AC was. pas-ed on the 2Uth October, so tha*- the -applicant must ha vc been a clever man indeed if he could have seen vital v,as ceminc:. Ho was tony (hat there veers in Wellington some por.‘ons, .including persons in high authority, . who seemed to think that l;he City Council did its very best to bring about the existence of shuns. The Council, since he hud been a member, had done its utmost to prevent- slums from being created in Wellington. and tin’s was true of every individual member of the Council.

THR MAKING OF SLUMS. Writing with -reference to the quo lion of the culling up of building allot incuts sanctioned: by the City Connei on the application of Councillor Mi frill, a correspondent, ‘''Truth.” says —" Mr Wilford. who seems to have placed the Minister of Lands beyond blame, might have done the- same for the Council while he was about the job. llis industry ought not to have ceased until it had discovered the fact 1 hat Mr McGill's plans was passed by the Council with the express . condition attached that no house may be built on any section within 33ft. of the crown of ine dedicated road. . Tims, the open space required by the Act of 1900 is secured. That being the whole question, the whitewash may now be .considered to at last include everybody.” Wo do not agree that there has been effective “ whitewashing ” of anyone connected with this sorry business. The Registrar of Lands is the only one whoso conduct aevor was questioned, and his action throughout appears- to be thoroughly correct. It is the merest quibble to vay that tho City Council is blameless because of its insistence upon houses being placed back 33ft from- tho centre of the roadway. The law requires that a road of 661‘t in width must be ‘‘irrevocably dedicated” to tho public before any building can ho authorised on it. In Mr McGill’s case this condition was not complied with, yet the City Council gave its approval to his plans.