TRAMWAY BOARD WILL ASSIST IN PROVIDING NEW SHELTERS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19230, 18 November 1930, Page 4

TRAMWAY BOARD WILL ASSIST IN PROVIDING NEW SHELTERS.

| Members Voice Objections To Court’s Order For Removal Of Present Building. (4 TF the present shelter has to go the board will assist in A providing others.” declared Mr W. Hayward (chairman of the Tramway Board), at yesterday's meeting of the board, when the decision of the Supreme Court in the Cathedral Square case was under discussion. He stated that the board had agreed to help the City Council in its legal costs up to £IOOO. Strong objection to the decision of the Supreme Court that the tramway shelter must be removed from Cathedral Square before the end of June was voiced by members of the board. The board did not pass any resolution on the subject, but the chairman denied the suggestion that the Board was contemplating some legislative move winch would have the effect of frustrating the order of the Court.

“ Since last meeting, the Chief Justice heard an application from the City (Council for a postponement of the order under which the shelter and the conveniences attached have to be removed,” said the chairman. “ The Chief Justice granted the application, but made a stipulation that the shelter must be removed before the end of June. It is presumed that the next step "will be taken by the City Council calling upon the board to remove its portion of the building, that is, the open portion and the inspectors’ room. The north end was erected by the City Council ifself.” Mr Hayward added that a Christchurch newspaper had pointedly inferred that the Tramway Board was contemplating some legislative move which would have the effect of frustrating the order of the Court. Such a move had never been discussed nor had it been mentioned, so far as he knew, by any member of the board Mrs E. R. M'Combs said that the board .should make an etlort to retain the present shelter. The new ones which were to be built would not be so convenient as the present ones. They would be open to the wind and rain and, in her opinion, in the interests of its own business, the board should make a strong effort, and should join in any effort that was being made, to retain the shelter. Mr D. S\*kes said that he understood that the Court's order included all buildings, which meant underground as well as those on the surface. That would mean the removal of the conveniences and he was of the opinion that the lack of conveniences now was a disgrace to the city. He was sure that 90 per cent of the people werQ in favour of the shelter remaining. He held very strong views on the subject and he knew that the shelter was a great convenience.

“ When I see women and children there on a wet day, I thank God that the shelter is there,” added Mr Sykes. “ The Square should be for the use of the people and not for a memorial to the dead or anyone else. 'We should support the City Council right up to the hilt. We should not only back it up in words, but also in action and stand our own share of the cost.” Mr E. H. Andrews said that there was not much to gain by the board considering the matter at present. It was certainly a subject that should be discussed by the new board. He agreed with Mr Sykes that tram users would be put to a great deal of inconvenience if the shelter were removed. Mr Sykes was also not far wrong when he had said that the conveniences were not all that couTd be desired. Some of the newspapers had been implying that it was the result of the case which had caused a search to be made for a site for conveniences, added Mr Andrews. lie wanted to give that an emphatic denial. The past two or three councils had been searching for a suitable site for conveniences. He believed that the bulk of the people were strongly against the shelter being removed or, if not that, against the idea of having no shelter there at all. He belie\*ed that it would meet with the approval of the bulk of the people if the shelter were improved. “ We have got to bow to the inevitable and recognise that the shelter must be removed.” continued Mr Andrews. He said that tramway passengers could not be expected to wait in inclement weather without a shelter. There were shelters in other towns, both Wellington and Auckland. Shelters were absolutely necessary and the board would have to join with the City Council in providing them for the benefit of tram users.