KENT TERRACE HOLD UP

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 46, 18 November 1926, Page 6

KENT TERRACE HOLD UP

REVIEW OF THE CASE SUGGESTED COMPROMISE The following statement has been made for publication by those who obtained the recent injunction restraimng the City Council from proceeding with lhe proposed work in Kent and Cambridge terraces: “As there appears to be an impression abroad that the work of putting Kent Terrace in shape for the forthcoming visit of Their Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York has been held up in consequence of the application by certain citizens for an injunction, it is perhaps desirable that a brief categorical statemen of the facts

should be presented. “ (1) October 11: The Mayor declined to hold up the cutting down of the trees lor even one week

“(’J) October 13. The Supreme Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Mayor and council froc cutting down the trees and preventing their converting any part of the canal reserve into street, with leave to apply for recission at short notice. “(3) October 14: The plaintiffs, through their solicitor, without prejudice (and subject to certain conditions affecting the plantation and reserve south of Vivian Street), agreed to offer no objection (if the Court approved) to the council proceeding with their plans for the portion of the canal reserve north of Vivian Street, and to the construction of a cross street between Vivian Street and Buckle Street. "(4) October 21: The council rejected the offer of the compromise without making any alternative proposals. "(5) November 1: The council applied to the Supreme Court for a rescission of the interim injunction. The Court refused to rescind, and offered the city’s counsel the choice of an absolute injunction, or an adjournment sine die, with right to apply for a hearing at ten days’ notice. Counsel naturally accepted the latter alternative. “(6) November 11: At the suggestion of the Acting-Prime Minister an effort was made to reach a compromise (with a view to avoiding the appointment of a Commission), further concessions to this end being made by the plaintiffs (subject to the approval of the Court).

“<7) November 12; The council again rejected any compromise, notwithstanding the Acting-Prime Minister’s mediation, and made no counterproposals except the suggestion that a well-known architect should be a member of the tribunal proposed by the Acting-Prime Minister. “(8) November 12: On the rejection by the council of the overtures made at the instance of the Actiug-Prj>ne Minister, the plaintiffs suggested, as a means whereby the improvement of Kent Terrace north of Vivian Street could be proceeded with in its entirety, that (subject always to the approval of the Court) they would take no objection to issue of a modified proclamation giving the council .lie following powers:—(a) To deal with that portion of the canal reserve north of Vivian Street according to the plans submitted by the City Council to the Government;: (b) To make a cross street between Kent and Cambridge Terraces across an asphalted or grassed part of the canal reserve, between Vivian Street and Buckle Street; provided that the council should take measures to put the plantations south of Vivian Street in order, and that any proclamation relating to the canal reserve south of Vivian Street (with the exception of the cross street before referred tol should be deferred until such time as the Town Planning Board, to be appointed under the Town Planning Act, 1926, should have approved any alteration as part of a town-plan for Wellington. “('.)) There lias never been any need for the council to stop the work of preparing the flower and grass plots in Kent Terrace between Elizabeth Street and Vivian Street. It has certainly been precluded by the injunction from converting any part of the reserve into a street, but garden plots of the same width as those already made (north of Elizabeth Street) might easily (between October 11 and November 16) have been completed. Even if the full width of the reserve is maintained at this part (north of Vivian Street) it will not be practicable, from the point of view of symmetry, to make the plots any wider than those already made, so that there seems no cause, but perversity, why the work has been held up by the council.

“(10) As the council has rested its proposals on traffic considerations, it is perhaps desirable to explain what the council proposes to do. It is proposed to throw at least 11 feet of the reserve into the street known as Kent Terrace, and at least six feet of the reserve into the street known as Cambridge Terrace, and reducing the width of the plantation to about 21 feet. Kent and Cambridge Terraces are to all intents and purposes one thoroughfare, and though there is not yet any by-law to that effect, one-way traffic is tacitly observed by’ common consent, southbound traffic going by Kent Terrace and northbound traffic via Cambridge Terrace. The exception to this is the electric tramway, both north and south lines being laid in Kent Terrace, the north line being on the west side lying close up to the footpath alongside the reserve. The south-bound vehicular traffic therefore travels on the east side of the tramlines. It is now proposed that sufficient space be provided for vehicular traffic between the north-bound lines and the reserve, for the purpose of allowing south-bound motor traffic to pass between the north-bound lines and the reserve. What chances would pedestrians have of getting across the sweet safelv with this conglomeration of traffic? It is surelv apparent that the danger to human life would be immensely increased by fast-moving vehicles passing on both sides of a two-wav electric tramwav. That the necessity for the widmiin" of these streets has not vet arrived is evidenced bv the apparent intention to park motor-cars along Cambridge Terrace Tf the traffic is alreadv so congested that widening is essential, how can narkin" in such a busy thoroughfarebe testified? "(11) There has, banpilv. been no personal animous displayed in the controversy, nor is there occasion for any.”