OBJECTION LODGED

Waipa Post, Volume 42, Issue 3270, 10 March 1931, Page 5

OBJECTION LODGED

OMNIBUS TRAFFIC. CONTROL AUTHORITY'S CONSW.V ■;•: .STITUTION. Neither the Te Awamutu Borough Council nor the Waipa County Council approves the proposal from Hamilton regarding the control and licensing of motor omnibuses operating to various towns south of tfeat centre, and it would seem that other local bodies are also objecting. BOROUBH COUNCIL ATTITUDE. The Hamilton town clerk wrote re the recent conference of local bodies' representatives called to discuss a proposal to extend the No. 4 motor omnibus district, at which the following resolutions were passed:—.(l) " That this meeting approve the suggestion to expend the district (at present Hamilton Borough) to include the territory between Huntly and Kihikihi, Cambridge and Te Aroha, and the local bodies in the area be asked to confirm the proposal." (2) " That it be' suggested that the licensing authority, for the extended area consist of five representatives of Hamilton borough, together with the Mayors of Huntly, Ngaruawahia, Te Awamutu, Cambridge and Morrinsville, and one representative of the three counties."

The Mayor gave a verbal report on the deliberations at the conference, which he attended in company with Cr Spinley, as representing Te Awamutu Borough Council. He said that both delegates were frankly disappointed at the lack of explanation by the chairman (the Mayor of Hamilton) as to the reasons for seeking an extension of the area. The conference was, according to the chairman, called at the instance of the omnibus proprietors, but when certain vehicle owners sought to state the case as affecting themselves i they were ruled but of order, the chairman explaining that they had not'lodged notification. The position, as it affected Te Awamutu and neighbourhood, seemed to be that the Hamil-ton-owned bus service plied in opposition to the Kihikihi-Railway Station service, on the portion between Khikihi and Te Awamutu post office. The bus service does not ply to the railway station, and the other service has not enough support to warrant continuing a regular service between Kihikihi and the railway station. The bus service company was represented by legal counsel, who was given full opportunity to state its views—a distinct advantage over the other service peoole. Cr Spinley. added a few more particulars regarding information given or impressions gained at the conference. He was in full accord with the Mayor in opposing the scheme until such time, at- least, as all the facts are known. He felt that there was a desire at the conference to prevent thatj and this opinion was confirmed in his. mind because he could not ascertain the voting strength at the conference of the various local bodies. Hamilton seemed to have a preponderance of voting strength. The Mayor added that some points of the objective appealed to him as quite good, but he wanted to hear both, sides of the story before being caUeid upon to vote. He thought the conference had been called to hear bolb, or all, sides. It was reported that Cambridge and Te Awamutu boroughs had decided to oppose the scheme, and that Huntly borough Jiad determined to take no part in tne project. Waipa County had agreed to support the scheme, provided each of the three counties have one representative on the licensing authority* It was decided unanimously to oppose the suggestion, to extend the No. 4 motor omnibus district (at present the Hamilton Borough) to include an area sduth of that boiough.

WAIPA COUNTY'S STIPULATION. The recent conference at Hamilton to consider the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act, with the object of extending the No. 4 district to include all the territory bounded by Huntly, Te Aroha, Cambridge, and Kihikihi, was reported on bv Cr Peacocke, who represented the Wlaipa County Council at the conference. He approved the conference decisions in the main, but representation on the controlling body was not definitely decided. He understood that each of the counties concerned should have one representative, but the report of the conference made mention of only one representotive for the three counties. To Cr Saulbrey, Cr Peacocke said Cambridge borough had withdrawn, and Te Awamutu and Te Aroha boroughs opposed the extension of the district as contemplated. He thought the proposal would have to be submitted to each local body acected before it became operative. It was decided to stipulate for one representative of each of the three counties.