ANNUAL CHARGE FOR PRIVATE SIDINGS CONSIDERED UNFAIR.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18804, 5 July 1929, Page 6

ANNUAL CHARGE FOR PRIVATE SIDINGS CONSIDERED UNFAIR.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WILL TAKE UP CASE. “ The matter arose through a new clause which the Government wished to insert in the agreement with holders of private railway sidings. As a result the agreements were scrutinised and holders found that the recommendation of the Fay-Raven Commission that no annual charge for such sidings should be made had not been put into effect.’’ In these words Mr W. Machin explained to the council of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce last night the cause of a movement to have the annual charge of £SO on private sidings abolished. Mr Machin suggested that, as the matter affected all holders in New Zealand it should be referred to the Associated Chambers of Commerce Probably there was some other reason /or the £SO charge, argued Mr J. W. Graham, on whose suggestion the matter was referred to the chamber’s Truck Shortage Committee for preparation of a case to be presented to the Associated Chambers. The matter was ventilated by a letter from Mr C. J. Wilson, a member of the council of the chamber, who wrote stating that at a private meeting recently held of the holders of railway private sidings in Christchurch it was decided to approach the Government to obtain the abolition of the annual charge made for the right of access which in Christchurch and other large centres was £SO per annum. This charge was considered quite unfair, for the reason that all siding owners had paid the Railway Department for the cost of constructing the sidings, and had, in addition, to pay when called upon to do so, the cost of any repairs required to keep the siding in safe working condition. To charge a rental on top of that gave rise to resentment and a feeling of unfair treatment. The writer drew attention to the findings of Sir Sam Fay and Sir Vincent Raven in their report of the Royal Commission of inquiry dated 1925, in which the}'- stated " that no rental in addition to the cost of construction and renewals be charged on private sidings.” The private meeting had decided to obtain redress through the chamber, and, if the matter were taken up, to approach other chambers throughout New Zealand- with a view to making a united protest. Mr Kent, Divisional Superintendent of Railways in Christchurch, had agreed to supply a list of all owners of railway sidings.