TOWN HALL SITE.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 15 February 1901, Page 4

TOWN HALL SITE.

At the Borough Council meeting last night, the sub-coinmittep brought up the followi -g raport, with letters attached :

•• Y ur Co .. .. e i>v ni -.'-nd that the Vltno hp «,sk. d tn fak- a poll as to • i ■ v 'h" Twn Riil b■• er cted on the , ■ r S'r-f-t B't" ■"- the Church of g , ~| bum -■■ off-red by the Council for tiie sura of £SOO for f acre. A. Matheson, Chairman." OFFER OF CHURCH RTI9FRVE. "To Borough Council.—ln reply to your favour of 19th inafr, we beg to state that at a meeting of the Vestry held this morning, the Trustees are willing to dispose of a portion of the church land for the purpose of erecting a Town Hall and Municipal Buildings for the sum of five hundred pounds, and under certain conditions to be hereafter determined upon. Subject also to the approval of the Bishop of the Dioeese and the Public Trustee, J. G. Thomas,') Church B. Mabin, j Wardens."

solicitor's opinion.

Re Town Hall Site—The question submitted is: (a) Can a poll be taken to decide on site; (b) if so, what is the proper way to take it; and (c) who are the persons entitled to vote. In reply I have to advise that there is no provision for taking a statutory poll on a question as to choice of sites, and the result even if taken would not be binding. It is, therefore, unnecessary to answer the remaining portions (b) and (c) of the question. If it is proposed to raise a special loan for the purpose of acquiring land (which you have the right to do) under Section 121 of "The Municipal Corporation Act, 1900," a poll could then be taken whereby you would get the opinion of the electors as to the particular land proposed to be purchased; but Ido not see any legal way of taking a poll as to one site against another. The other question submitted is if Boundary Street is decided on as a site, can the Council build without first going through the form of reducing the width of the street. I understand that some doubt has been

expressed as to whether Boundary Street at the point in question is merely 00 feet wide or whether the whole open space is street. lam clearly of opinion that the full width, viz., from Griffen and Smith's to Flanagan's corner is a street as defined in Section 209 of " The Municipal Corporations Act, 1900," which reads as follows :

209. The word " street" means and includes the whole of any land lying within any borough constituted under this Act (whether upon or at any time after the coming into operation thereof) that :

1. Immediately before the date of such constitution was a public highway under the control, as such, of any Borough • Council, County Council, Road Board, or Town Board ; 2. Is laid out by the Council as a public highway after the date of such constitution ; 3. For twenty years next before the date of such constitution has actually, whether legally or not, been maintained and controlled as a public highway by any one or more of such local authorities and used by the public. As the whole width is, in my opinion, a street, it must be dealt with as such. The Council would not have power to build merely because it was a street. Sub-section (k) of Section 212 shows what you may erect on a street; but this certainly does not include a building such as that proposed. The Council would, therefore, have to take steps to cither wholly stop the street (which, I take it, is out of the question) or to diminish the width which cannot bo less than 60 feet. By Section 236 the Governor may by Order-in-Council under certain circumstances allow a street not less than 40' feet; but I do not think the circumstances apply to this case, and am of opinion that if the width of street diminished, at least 66 feet should be left at one side or the other. You would, of course, have to take the risk of actions for compensation at the suit of the pro-perty-holders now abutting on the street. I: would, therefore, suggest the advisability of first finding out what amounts (if any) such persons will claim before going to any expense in the matter.

If the Council decided to diminish the width, you would not be bound in this case to offer the land to the adjoining owner, as Section 240 only provides that the Council may sell " where the land is no longer required for public use," and subsection 2 of Section 140 allows you with the approval of the Governor in Council to apply the land to any purpose of public convenience or utility.

If compensation asked by Flanagan for injury on account of diminishing the width was considered exorbitant, the Council could take the whole of his section on compensation to be arrived at by arbitration as for a public work which compensation in any caso would not exceed the gross value as shown in the valuation of the property. M. Hannan." Mr Sheedy said it was evident from the solicitor s opinion that it was nearlv impossible to build in Boundary street, and the Church of England reserve was perhaps more central and certainly more convenient. Mr Flannigan would require a good ronnd suni for his section. He would like to see the question adjourned for two months. The Mayor said Mr Flannigan would require at least £6OO. They were now in communication with him on the subject. Mr M'Lean thought they should allow the vote to be taken and decide the matter one way or the other. Mr Joyce was in favor of Boundary street as being tho only proper site for a Town Hall. Mr Petrie held that a vote shoiild be taken as soon as the actnal cost of obtaining both sites was .available, and this was what the Committee was endeavouring to obtain. The Couucil was well awaro that the vote of ratepayers was not a legal one, but it was intended all the same to give the electors the choice, as the counail would agree subsequently to the vote recorded.

The report was upon the motion of the Mayor referred back to the Committee to obtain the required information. This will be forthcoming in about a week's time'