SAND PIT.

Waikato Times, Volume 112, Issue 18777, 27 October 1932, Page 3

SAND PIT.

AREA AT No. 1 BRIDGE. APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO WORK COUNCIL RESCIND PERMISSION. A petition from a number of residents of the vicinity of No. 1 Bridge, Hamilton, emphatically protesting against any license being granted to work the sand pit there, was before the Borough Council last evening. The petition alleged that when the pit was previously worked it was found that the residents’ and property owners’ houses were filled with fine sand, which penetrated every nook and corner, including their food. It was considered by the petitioners that the re-opening of this pit would not only be a nuisance In Itself, but a menace to the health of the residents in the vicinity. Accompanying the petition was a notice of motion by Cr. W. W. Dillicar “ That the resolution passed at the meeting of the Council on September 21 granting permission to an applicant to remove sand from a section near No. 1 Bridge be rescinded." Letters from the applicant were also tabled. He stated that his former application had been misrepresented, adding that he desired only to remove a portion of a mound of sand situated behind the Hamilton' Domain Board’s property. Further, he guaranteed to create no nuisance whatsoever, the sand required being situated well back off'the road. There would be no machinery erected. Should the application be successful he could safely say that no complaint in regard to dust would be lodged.

Should be a Park. ; •Cr. Dillicar said he thought the Council, at Its previous meeting had granted permission before It had realised what it was doing. When previously worked the area had been an appalling nuisance Co nearby residents. The petition proved the amount of opposition to the proposal. “ Why the people nearby when the sand was worked before breathed it, ate It, and slept In it,” Cr. Dillicar remarked. Continuing 'he suggested that instead of being'worked the area should be made Into a beauty spot. An Idyllic place could easily be made of it. Cr. Dillicar proposed that If the Council thought fit t-o rescind the motion a committee should be appointed to confer with the Domain Board, which owned must of the area applied for and had already granted the applicant tentative permission, to get it to fall in line with the oouncil. At Cr. Dillicar’s request the town clerk, Mr W. L. Waddel, read reports written in 1927 by Dr. S. Boyd, medical officer of health for South Auckland, and Mr J. W. Lewis, borough inspector, in reference to a factory formerly in operation on the site. Dr. Boyd stated that the counoll had no power under the Health Act to stop the factory. The sand was not injurious to health and he did not consider the closing down of the factory would eliminate the sand nuisance. This was caused chiefly-through the action of the wind, sun and rain. Mr Lewis considered the factory a nuisanoe, but thought that the wind and sun was responsible for 75 per cent of the trouble. Applicants Assurance. After several councillors had expressed themselves In favour of Cr. Dillicar’s motion and agreed that on his and the petitioners’ evidence that the working of sand would create a nuisance, the Mayor, Dr. F. D. Pinfold, remarked that a misapprehension existed. There was no suggestion to dig a pit or erect a factory. The applicant gave assurance that he merely wished to remove several hillocks of sand by hand, bag it, and have it carted away for export. He guaranteed to plant grass on the area as he finished with it. “ I think that if we attempted to clean the place up we would make more of a mess,” continued Dr. Pinfold. “ One of the petitioners has since informed me that had he known the full facts he would not have signed it. It would be rather unkind of the council to stop an Industry, the giving of work to men, and the coming of money to Hamilton.” In answer to a question the borough engineer, Mr R. Worley, stated that the Domain Board owned nine tenths of the area applied for. On being put to the vote Cr. Dillicar’s notice of motion that permission be rescinded was passed, the Deputy Mayor, Cr. A. J. Denz, Crs. C. J. W. Barton, W. Bourne, H. D, Caro, F ll.‘ Clapham, W. A. Curtois, Dillicar, F. J. Farrell, H. M. Hammond, C. Lafferty, Garrick Nisbet, and S. V. Tyler voting in favour, and Dr. Pinfold against. A committee consisting of Crs. Bourne, Clapham, Denz, Dillicar and Nisbet was appointed to confer with the Domain Board as suggested by Cr. Dillicar.