NEW BOWLING GREEN

Waipa Post, Volume 45, Issue 3267, 13 December 1932, Page 5

NEW BOWLING GREEN

IN VICTORIA PARK.

j DOMAIN BOARD'S ACTION

The proposed enlargement of the preserit small bowling green in Victoria Park was again considered .at the Domain Board meeting on Monday evening, when the chairman (Mr C. G. Downes) reported that members had ; inspected the Park since last meeting I and there, conferred with the president and committee of the Bowling JClub. The plan prepared by Mr J. i W. Civil for the club had been examined on the ground, and the bowlers had expressed a decided preference for enlargement of the half-size green instead of putting down a new full-size ! green. Members knew the position, and the desires of the bowlers. Mr Gifford said the better thing would be for the present contour to be preserved, and the new full-size green be provided later on. Mr Empson was of the same opinion. To enlarge the present small green would ruin the park. He spoke as an old bowler. Mr Armstrong recalled that during his term, as Mayor the tennis courts had been provided and these destroyed the circular track. There had been objections, and laments that the park would be ruined. At that time there was no Albert Park. But if it was decided now that the circular track alt the bowling green end was not to be destroyed, the bowlers would probably elect to remain where they are. If their wishes were acceded to, he was confident that within two years all opposition would be allayed. He would not be sorry to see the oval track broken, because at present it conduces to cycling sprints that are hazardous to safety. Mr Savill asked why the oval track should be preserved? Was it required? It should not be used for cycling. -■.-. Mr Armstrong: But it, is. • Mr Empson moved that the Bowling Club be informed that the Board cannot accede to its request for enlargement of the -present small green. Mr Gilbert seconded. Mr Armstrong said he would oppose the motion, and assured members that they need have no fear that the path would be wiped out. It was reallv not essential. There was no such' provision at Cambridge Domain. n , ~ Mr Empson said at Cambridge there are beautiful paths on both sides of the playing areas. The chairman said the bowlers preferred the enlargement scheme principally on the score of expense of maintenance. If the Board rejected the application the club would remain as at present. Mr Gifford asked was it necessary to decide the matter. Could the application not be deferred for the new Board. The chairman said the idea was to get most of the work done by relief labour. Mr Armstrong said two halt greens would not be equivalent to one fuUsize green. A half-size green necessitates playing in one direction all the time. Mr Empson, as an old bowler, would realise this. Mr Empson said that he did realise it, but was still opposed to the application. , . .... To Mr Savill, the chairman said vs. the application is granted, a- good grassy path could be provided round the new area. > Mr Brown said he also could not support the bowlers' application. It would spoil the beauty of the park, for it would necessitate a bank over 7ft high over at the far side of the park. He would not oppose providing another half size green on the other side of the present path. Mr Savill said he was not a bowler, but the'main attraction at the park was bowls. Their greens present a very pretty sight. He would not like to see the application rejected without very careful consideration. He suggested deferring the application until next meeting. He moved in this direction as an amendment. Mr Armstrong contradicted Mr Brown's reference to a 7ft bank, with a narrow path on the top. Actually, a good bowling green was a really valuable asset to the town. Mr Rainey seconded the amendment, which on being put was carried. Mr Gifford said he was an old bowler, but could not agree that the Park would not be spoiled by acceding to the bowlers' desires. The bowlers were not the only section of the public entitled to enjoy the park.