MIRAMAR FRONTAGES.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1851, 10 September 1913, Page 9

MIRAMAR FRONTAGES.

« PROTEST MEETING. COUNCIL'S ACT CONDEMNED. About forty residents and ratepayers of Miramar assembled iu the Borough Town Hall last evening with the object of protesting against tho council's proposal to reduce tho minimum frontage of a dwelling from 40ft. to 33ft. Mr. John Campbell presided. He stated that 110 understood the feeling of thoso present to bo against the council's action. ' Ho considered that three or four men should not have taken such an important matter in their hands, without first consulting tho ratepayers. He then called upon Mr. H. M'Leod (an cx-Mayor) to speak. Mr. M'Leod referred to the period when the land in ■ Miramar was cut up, and stated that thero were then many sections in Seatoun, Karaka 13ay, and Worser Bay with frontages of 66ft. Sections were subsequently cut up in quarter-acro lots, and the resubdivision which followed gave sections with 66ft. frontage and a depth of 165 ft. A subdivision in Central Miramar followed, and sections were cut up with a frontage of 55ft. Afterwards there occurred a further reduction of frontages, which were brought down to 40ft. by 136 ft., or about an eighth of an aero. The 40ft. frontage, he submitted, was ample for a dwelling. The reduction to 33ft. would tend to cramp the dwellings. Supposing. he added, a person desired to build on a section with a frontage of 33ft., and required two rooms abreast. What would be tho position? These rooms would bo 12ft. wido each, making 24ft., and then tho walls would bring the'width lip to 26ft. 6in., and this would only leave about 7ft. for a passage by the side of the h'duso. '"That is to say," continued Mr. M'Leod, "if a porson wanted a hall, he could not havo it, with two rooms abreast.. You would have to consider that point, or go in for a two-storied building. The one-storied building is almost universally In town-planning," he said in conclusion, "we should always consider tho matter of getting the maximum amount of comfort."

In reply to a question asked by the chairman, Mr. M'Leod stated that he was a member of the council which reduced the minimum frontage to 40ft. by 136 ft., making a section an eighth of an acre. He further stated that the reduction of the minimum frontage to 33ft. would tend to increase tho price of the sections with tho small frontage. .

Councillor Telford said that ho was iu sympathy with the object of the meeting, but would refrain from making a statement. Councillor Stone also refrained from dealing with tbo matter.

Mr. W. Tomlin thought that in reducing the minimum frontage the council had taken a detrimental step. He considered that the tvholo trouble was duo to' land monopolists. Ho was strongly opposed to three or four members of the council passing a motion reducing the frontage of sections. "Surely to goodness," he continued, "wo have got a voice in these matters. Wo don't want slum areas. We want the 40ft. frontage. We will let Mr. Townsend and those who took part in the passing of the resolution seo that we are not going to bo hushed down at their wish."

~ Mr. Edwards: "We want plenty of Breathing spaco, and wo don't want cramped cottages." The speaker went , on. to say that by reducing, the sizo.of, rsections'-.tlio- price of land would go up. In his opinion, those present would have no difficulty in having tho council's resolution successfully rescinded. .

Mr. G. Day said that tho City Council to-day was- cursed by tho lack of foresight on the part of the early City Fathers. "Would you have a slum area like Haining Street?" ho exclaimed. He did not want to see a similar slum area in- Miramar, and was entirely against the council's proposal. Mr. J. Day said tnat the action of the council had been taken so quietly that it had come like a thunderbolt. It was desirable that tho 40ft. frontage should be sustained. •

Mr. Tomlin moved: "That this meeting of ratepayers and residents unanimously protests against the proposal to reduce the frontage of sections from 40ft. 1 to 33ft., knowing that it will be detrimental to tho future welfare of the borough." . Mr. Douglas/seconded the resolution, which was carried unanimously.

It was then decided to appoint a deputation to .wait on the council at its next meeting, for tho purpose of presenting the resolution-