BONE OF CONTENTION.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 700, 9 May 1916, Page 3

BONE OF CONTENTION.

WIDTH OF ALDWIN'S ROAD. CITY COUNCIL'S ACTION. PROTEST FROM WOOLSTON. Once more the question of the width of Aldwin's Road was before the Christchurch City Council last evening. Some time ago an application for the exemption of the road from Section 117 of the Public Works Act—which provides, inter alia, that, except where specified by the local authority, the frontage of adjoining land shall be set back to a distance of 33ft from the centre line of the road—was refused by the council. Subsequently, the council altered its decision. A little later the Linwood representatives on the council tried, without success, to induce the council to revert to its former refusal of the application.

A letter from the Under-Secretary for Public Works, enclosing a copy of an objection by the Woolston Borough Council to the proposed exemption, was read to the City Council last evening. In this letter, the Under-Secretary wrote:—"lf the road is a boundary road, as stated by the Woolston Borough Council, then, no doubt, the wishes of the borough will have to be considered, and, under the circumstances, I suggest that your council endeavour to come to some arrangement with the Woolston Borough Council in respect to this matter."

The Woolston Borough Council's letter to the department pointed out that that body was anxious that the boundary roads should be 66ft wide, and it had recently passed a resolution specifying that in most of the streets in the borough the building line should be at least 33ft from the centre of the road. Cr H. F. Herbert, in moving that the department's letter be received, said he was very glad that Woolston had protested. It showed that it had the interests and the future of its own district at heart. Aldwin's Road was an arterial and a boundary road, and should be 66ft wide. Cr McCombs seconded the motion, and also welcomed the protest. Aldwin's Road was essentially an arterial one, connecting two other arterial roads-i-the New Brighton Road and Ferry Road. The City Council had made a very great mistake, indeed. It had already had to face all sorts of difficulties in St. Albans and elsewhere, owing to the want of foresight of old local bodies around Christchurch, and its experience should have taught it. He hoped that the matter would be hung up until the council came to a new decision on it, or the Government blocked its weakness.

Cr Burgoyne said he would support the motion if the mover would add to it that when the Woolston Council had considered the question of widening the street this council would also consider it.

Cr McCombs: It's not a question of widening, but of exempting. Cr Burgoyne: Let Woolston remove the mote from its own eye first.

The Mayor considered that Woolston should widen its own side of the street first. It would be quite time for Woolston to lodge a protest when it widened its own side as much as the City Council had done to the City side. The motion was carried. Cr Sullivan: I move, as a representative of Linwood—

The Mayor: Well, we know their views quite well, Cr Sullivan. Cr McCombs: He*s within his rights in moving a motion, your Worship. Cr Sullivan was then allowed to speak without interruption. He moved that the council confer with the Woolston Borough Council on the matter of the road. In the case of a boundary road, he said, the two local bodies concerned should act in conjunction. Cr McCombs seconded. It was, he said, an utterly misleading argument to say that Woolston had not done its own side. That was not the point. The Woolston Borough Council had not carried a resolution exempting the road from the provisions of a law which a wise legislature had placed on the Statute Book to protect local bodies. The City Council had carried such a resolution. The Woolston Council had no mote in its eye on that particular question. A consultation with Woolston would not only be courtesy, but might lead to some adjustment of the matter. The motion was lost, on division, six voting for it and seven against. The "Ayes" were Crs Herbert, Sullivan, McCombs, Millar, Taylor, and Jameson, and the "Noes" were Crs Reynolds, Peek, Burgoyne, Beanland, Williams, Scott, and the Mayor, Cr Sullivan then stated that the Linwood representatives had unanimously decided to make representations to the Government on the matter.