BOROUGH COUNCIL.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 298, 27 May 1875, Page 4

BOROUGH COUNCIL.

LYTTELTON. Monday, May 25. The Council met at the usual hour. Pregent—His Worship the Mayor, Crs Chalmers, Hawkins, Graham, Buist, Grange, and Murray. , . , _. The clerk stated he had received £4 17s during the week. Correspondence was read from Messrs Joynt and O’Neill running as follows;—” We have been instructed by Mr Manuel Calo, of Lyttelton, to claim on his behalf the sum of £250, being the amount of damages which he has sustained in consequence of the action taken by the Borough Council of Lyttelton in raising Oxford street above its original level, thereby necessitating the raising of his house and the consequent loss of a sufficient foundation, the result being, as you are aware, that the recent floods have left his property untenantable and valueless. We entertain a hope that the Borough Council will compensate our client for his loss as above stated, he giving up to the Council all his estate and interest in the property, our instructions being, in the event of a refusal to do so, to take immediate legal proceedings for the enforcement of our client’s rights.” From Thomas Marks, thanking Council for advice sent, but stating that he would use his own discretion as to taking legal proceedings. From Mr Thomas Snoswell, asking the Council either to repair the damages done or to compensate him with the sum of £25. A report was read from Mr Sowden, foreman of works, re the proposed brick sewer in Oxford street, running as follows:—” I beg to report on the necessity of immediately haying a brick sewer laid at the top of Oxford street, between the property owned by Messrs Hester and Calo, The existing brick sewer is partially silted up owing to the collapse of the wooden culvert that abutted on to it, and I fear that a downpour of rain such as we had a fortnight since, might be the means of bursting up the brick sewer across the street, which would be a serious loss to the town; should the water subside sufficiently to allow the debris to be taken out, I will immediately have it removed.” The following report of the works committee was read:—“The works committee beg to report they have had the culverts examined from the upper part of Ripon street to the lower side of Winchester street, and they find that the culvert under Winchester street is in a very bad state. It is only made of wood, and has been in for some years, and it is quite possible it may give way at any time. If it should it would be most disastrous to the lower part of the town—viz, London street, Norwich Quay, and the railway near the new Government Buildings, The bad state of the culvert was represented to the Government when they contemplated putting the culvert in at the back of Mr Hester’s. Your committee’s attention was more particularly drawn to notice this, on the night when the culvert burst on Mr Hester’s property, and fearing that something might go wrong there, they (the works committee) went with the foreman, and were just in time, for the water had began to overflow the yard at Mrs Pearson’s, owing to the grating being stopped near the mouth of this culvert. Your committee, therefore, fear that unless something is done at once, first at Winchester street culvert, and secondly, having the whole of the gullies properly culverted with brick of sufficient capacity for extraordinary rainfall, the town and the railway will sooner or later suffer to the extent of many thousand pounds. Your committee would also draw the attention of the Council to the propriety of getting the power (if it does not already possess it) to have the control of the drainage on and from private property, as from what has just happened they now see that by the Council having control o this matter J proper sized drains of suitable materials might in all cases be put in for the general convenience and protection of the public. The works committee are now having the side drains on Sumner road cleaned out, when they intend to form up the footway above the Gas Company’s sections with the clay that is now being removed from the side channels.”

His Worship said that on receipt of Messrs Joynt and O’Neill’s letter he put it in the hands of the borough solicitor for his opinion, and in reference to Mr Thomas Marks’, the claim was ridiculous, and no further notice need be taken of it; as to Mr Bnoswell’s, he did not understand it. Or Buist said, and the foreman of the works agreed, that the damage done to Mr Snoswell’s property was very slight, and it was agreed to put it in repair. Cr Chalmers said that Mr Calo’s letter was written in ignorance of. their intentions. When threatened with legal proceedings they must not yield too easily. Or Buist thought the matter had better be referred to the Mayor to confer with the Borough Solicitor, and report next Monday night. The Mayor thought if their solicitor were instructed to write to Messrs Joynt and O’Neill on the subject informing what the Council meant to do in this case it would do. Or Hawkins then moved, and Cr Murray seconded —“ That the Borough solicitor write to Messrs Joynt and O’Neill, informing them of the action the Council were willing to take in regard to Mr Oalo’s property.” Carried. Cr Graham asked if this matter should be made public. The Mayor saw no objection. In reference to Mr Marks’ claim, the Mayor said it would have been properly considered had it been a reasonable one, but as it w?s so extortionate, they refused to entertain it. ur Graham moved, and Cr Murray seconded —“ That the report of the works committee be received.” Cr Graham said that the late fall of rain was not an extraordinary one, but had it continued ten minutes longer the damage would have been great. The Mayor said that an account of the matter should be sent to the Government. Or Chalmers hoped the portion of the culverts that would be at once formed would be done in such a way as to form part of a comprehensive scheme. Cr Hawkins advocated immediately proceeding with the work, for fear of another rain fall. Cr Graham proposed, and Or Murray seconded —“ That the leading portion of the works committee’s report be sent to the secretary of Public Works, and the services of (b« Provincial JSngiaier be requested,”

The Mayor said that the Government could be asked to give an immediate answer. Or Chalmers moved, as an addendum to the resolution—“ That failing that application being answered in the affirmative, the services of a professional gentleman be at once procured by the Mayor.” The resolution was then put and carried. Or Hawkins asked if any provision had been made for carrying off the storm water at the new works in Oxford street. Or Chalmers explained that two gratings had been put in, and the foreman of works also stated that great improvements had been made, and there was likely to be no danger from the water in future. In the case of the houses in St. David’s street, the foreman made a statement, and said the water should be led down by another channel. Cr Hawkins drew the Council’s attention to the state of the road in Dublin street, from the corner of London street to the culvert. The filth now ran down the middle of the road, and the stench was horrible. Cr Grange asked what the poor people could do? Why should not a pipe culvert be put down? Referred to the foreman of works. In reference to the Bridle path, it was determined that the foreman of works should mark off the road according to the plan. Cr r Buist asked what amount had been paid on account of the late fire. The clerk answered that £7 was the sum expended. The Council then adjourned.