HOARDINGS.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18362, 21 April 1925, Page 8

HOARDINGS.

RENEWAL RIGHTS. Street hoardings again claimed the attention of tho City Council at the meeting held last night. A letter was read from Chandler and Company, Ltd., in reference to tho Council's decision not to renew licenses in respect of the hoardings in Colombo street North, Ferry road, and at the corner of Somerfield and Colombo streets, and asking that tho matter bo reconsidered. The writers alsp asked that the Council lay down some definite principle defining, as far as the present Council was concerned, its position in regard to their business. This letter was held over at the last meeting of the Council pending the disposal of Cr. Cooke's notice of motion relative to hoardings.

Cr. Cooke's notice of motion was: "That subject to Messrs Chandler andCompany complying with tho instructions given by the Council in referenco to the hoardings situated in Colombo street South, in the northern part of the city, and in Ferry road, the Council shall grant a renewal of this year's contract, and shall in future give three months' notice that licenses shall not be renewed in tho case of objections upheld by the Council." Cr. Cooke said that for the present year the Council should allow the hoardings to stand.

The motion was seconded by Cr. W. H, Winsor.

Cr. J. K. iWelier said he hoped, the Council would adhere to' its former decision. He coud not understand Cr. Cooke's attitude in the matter. ThO hoardings in question had not been licensed, yet the owners were, putting new advertisements on the boards. One such notice advised the people to vote for the speaker as the new Mayor. • The Council should insist that its decisions, should be respected.

Cr. W. E. Leadley said that if the objections still held, the Council should adher6 to its former decision. Cr. C. P. Agar said the hoarding fees should be increased. He wa3 informed by an advertising expert that the hoarding fees of £2OO a year received by the Council represented an annual advertising value of £I2OO.

Or. E. H. Andrews said that Cr. Cooko's motion, if adopted, would help the Council in arriving at some definite policy. Cr. E. McCombs said the proposals in the motiou represented the only fair course the Council should take.

Cr. A. Williams said the firm in question, had they possessed any business acumen, would not have defied the Council in the way they had. The Council had received objections, and had acted accordingly, and its decisions should not be flouted. The firm in question should be treated as any breakers of by-laws Were treated. Cr. A. W. Beaven said that some of the hoardings were an eyesore to neighbouring owners. Cr. H. T. Armstrong said that the nonrenewal of licenses should be conducted in a reasonable way. The Mayor said the advertisements objected to had been removed. Cr. Cooke sajd he did not think the contractors had been treated fairly by the former decision of the Council.

Or. Cooke's motion was carried by ten votes to seven, the voting being: Ayes (10): Crs. MeKellar, Andrews, J. Anderson, Wingor, Carr, Howard, MeCombs, Cooke, Armstrong, and the Mayor. Noes (7): Crs. Williams, Beanland, Agar, 0. Anderson, Beaven, Leadley, and Archer.