LOWER HUTT BOROUGH COUNCIL

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2524, 27 July 1915, Page 8

LOWER HUTT BOROUGH COUNCIL

: -The Lower Hutt Borough Council met last evening, when there were present: Tho Mayor (Mr. H,, Baldwin), and Councillors Hodgins, Meldrum, Carver, Briissel, Clendon, M'Dougall, Ball, and Hobbs. ' Messrs. Divan Bros, stated the conditions under which they were prepared to dedicate land for street-widen-ing in Victoria Street, and on the motion of the _ Mayor it was' decided to ask tho engineer to report oil the cost of: (1) A concrete kerb and water channelj and"( 2) a footpath only. The. Health Inspector- reported two cases of diphthoria in Tama Street. Pursuant to notice the Mayor moved: "That as it is considered to be in the best interests of the borough that the borough solicitor should' be a resident of the ■ borough, Mr. E. P. Bunny be 'appointed to the position, as from, August-1, and that the resolution of July 15, 1901, dealing with a similar resolution; be rescinded." Tho motion was carried,' ' ■ The .engineer's report stated, in respect to. the recent storm, the 1 highest water mark found in the bathing shed r.orth of the bridge .was 55.88 above our ■ 'datum of 15ft. lOin. above mean high water in the harbour. Using, the same datum tho flood level mark on the bridge of tho flood of June, 24,. 1905, is 52.26, which was said to be Bft. 6in. above summer level. The mark in the bathing shed would therefore be 12ft., Sin. abovo summer level, tho highest recorded since the stop-bank ' was ' constructed. Tho highest of four notches cut by Mr. Kershaw (overseer to the River Board) on tho western pier of tho old bridge only gives 55.05, or lift. 4in. above summer level. Other marks taken give 55.09 and 55.35, the latter representing lift. Tin. abovo summer level. Notwithstanding the flood in the river there does not appear to have been an excessive amount, of rain in the Lower Hutt, and very little damage'has been reported due_ to slips. Water camo through the river wall at Tama Street, and measurements taken" showed that the water was 27 inches higher than the footpath. There wero several cracks in the wall, and although no serious damage was dono the opinion was expressed that tho wall could not be expected to stand many repetitions of the strain put upon it by tho flood.