DAMAGED ROADS MENACE MOTOR TRAFFIC IN CITY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17879, 22 June 1926, Page 12

DAMAGED ROADS MENACE MOTOR TRAFFIC IN CITY.

COUNCIL BLAMED FOR STREETS IT DOES NOT CONTROL.

The Council was oftexi blamed for streets it had nothing to do with, said Councillor E. H. Andrews, when reference to the unsatisfactory condition of certain streets which had been damaged as a result of excavations for extensions of the sewerage system was made at last night's meeting of the City Council.

Councillor T. H. Butterfield drew attention to the unsatisfactory condition of Matlock and Mackworth Streets, Woolston, in which the drainage work had been completed about two months ago. He stated that the streets were so bad that business people could not go along them with any sort of motorvehicle with safety, and had to carry goods from other streets. He asked the chairman of the Works Committee (Councillor Andrews) if steps would be taken to see that the Drainage Board put the streets in order. Councillor Andrews, in reply, said he knew the two streets that had been referred to and admitted that they were in bad order. Smith’s Road in the same locality was also quite as bad. The contractors for the Drainage Board were required to put the streets into proper order, but they had a certain period in which to do the work and consequently they delayed it until the last. The council was often blam ed for streets it had nothing whatever to do with. The c ommittee was trying desperately make arrangements with the Drainage Board or its con-tractors,-through the board, to set aside

a sum of m9q*y with each contract for putting the streets in order again, the City Council to do the work. He only knew of one instance of this being done and that was in connection with Ensor’s Road.

“I personally don’t resent criticism, and I don’t think any member of the Works Committee resents it,” Councillor Andrews added, “but in this one instance we received £4O from the contractor for putting the road in order where the trench had been excavated, and I take exception to an article that appeared in the motor section of the ‘Lyttelton Times.’ ” The article, he proceeded, had been put in the paper, as others had been, without a knowledge of the position. The article said that the road was impassable and suggest ed that the money had been spent elsewhere. The position was the the council had received £4O from the contractor and the whole of that money had been spent by the middle of May. He had driven over the road on Friday last, and it was in quite good order. That, as far as he was aware, was the only case in which the council had received money from a contractor, but the committee wanted the contractors to come to some arrangements in the matter. It was no use blaming the council, as it did not have the money available, and if it had it would be only throwing it away to spend it on those streets which were dug up for drainage exten-