KRKBRIDE'S ROAD

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 05, Issue 48, 4 May 1942, Page 5

KRKBRIDE'S ROAD

QUESTION OF FENCING

TEMPORARY EX PEDIENT DENIED

Writing to the Couniy Council last Tuesday Mr B. S. Barry on Mr G. Kirkbride's behalf wrote strongly urging the Council to remove the gales on Mr Kirkbride's access road. Such road is the access lending to Mr Kirkbride's property and the fa?t that same is not fenced leads to great inconvenience and danger owing to stock wandering on the road. When ?dr Kirkbri.de is taking stock tC' or from his property it is necessary to employ extra drovers to prevent the stock becoming mixed, and also cattle lying on or being on the road create a clanger to anyone going into Mr Kirkbride's property. The read runs through Mr H. Wardlaw's property for not more than a third of a mile and Mr Wardlaw has been fully compensated for such land. It was asked why therefore, should he be still entitled to retain same as part of his farm, and council is asked to bear in mind that this is a public road property dedicated for the use of the public. The writer states that his client has at all times been willing to have the matter amicably settled and seme time ago agreed to the matter being submitted to arbitration. Everything in his power has been done to arrive at a settlement, and the writer states that it is not right that he or any other ratepayer should be forced to go to Court to enforce a right to which every ratepayer is entitled, that is a free and uninterrupted access to his own property. When the matter was first discussed it was misrepresented to ?>lr Kirkbride, in that he was told that the non fencing of the land was only temporary as there was no mcne3 r available for the fencing. It was soon found howewer that the real reason was because the: adjoining owner Mr Wardlaw, objected to the fencing and that the non fencing was to be permanent. Hence Mr Kirkbride refused to sign the agreement. The writer states that he is informed, by an independant party that at the council meeting before last' the Riding Member admitted that a mistake had been made in putting the proposal for non fencing before Mr Kirkbride. Thus some four years later the mistake had been made the members of the Council are informed of the mistake for the first time. It is now asked that tlie mistake be rectified, that Mr Kirkbride be granted his rights and that he have what eA'ery ratepayer is entitled to, a free access to his property over a public road. The council after considering the letter decided on the following mo- | tion: "That the council denies that the non fencing wa-s "only temporary."—that the council has no comment to make on the penultimate paragraph of letter of 27th April, which paragraph the council considers "hearsay"—that in the matter of Mr Kirkbride's application such gentleman has his legal remedies."