PROPOSED ROAD TO SUBWAY.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 618, 22 March 1921, Page 5

PROPOSED ROAD TO SUBWAY.

DIFFICULTY REGARDING LAND. OWNER'S OBJECTION. At Wednesday night’s meeting of the Pukekohe Borough Council the question of the proposed road leading t 3 the subway from Manukau road , was under consideration. The Mayor urged that steps be taken, to acquire the necessary land from the owner of the property under the Public Works Act. He pointed out that the road was absolutely necessary, and as the Council had decided on the route, something of a final nature was necessary. They had endeavoured come to some amicable tinargument with the owner, but he had refused to have any dealings a ; t all.

Cr. Patterson said in any case the road was only a by-track and would be serving only one body. He thought that the matter could be held in abeyance. They had managed up to the present and could do so for another 12 months.

The Mayor thought the position should be faced. He suggested consulting the Council's solicitors to ascertain the necessary procedure, and he moved to this effect.

Cr. McGough seconded and contended- that the road would be a main one as soon as it was opened. It was not a side track as referred to by Cr. Patterson.

Gr. Patterson: I would like to know where the Council will get the money to fight the .case. A Councillor: Out of the general fund.

The Mayor said the Council had given an undertaking to have a road constructed if the Railway Department erected the necessary subway. Cr. Hamilton reminded Cr. Patterson thfct the road was not for the benefit of the A. and P. Show, but for all concerned. Just recently the Council had passed a by-law prohibiting stock being driven down Harris Street. The object of having the subway constructed was to allow of a stock route to keep stock from the main streets of the town. The Mayor endorsed Cr. Hamilton’s remarks and pointed out that East Street bridge was dangerous for anyone using it when cattle were about. Ti: was absolutely essential that the stock joute should be provided. Cr. Bilker said the owner of the property'should not fight the whole of the borough. The road was in the interests of the whole district. The Mayor: The owner ‘refused to deal with us. • Cr. Davsh said the owner was convinced that the route through his property was the best one, but he did not want his property cut about. The motion was carried. Cr. Patterson dissenting. The Mayor subsequently moved that before the resolution was put into' operation, the Council again approach the owner of the property to see if some amicable arrangement could not be arrived at. He pointed out that no one wanted to' proceed under force, but in this case they were compelled under the circumstances to do so. The motion was carried.