CITY COUNCIL.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1936, 8 May 1880, Page 3

CITY COUNCIL.

Feiday, May 7. A special adjourned meeting of the Council was held at 7 p.m. Present—His Worship the Mayor, Crs. Gapes, King, Bishop, Taylor, Hulbert, Lambert, Ayers, Wyatt, Chorrill. The Mayor read the following correspondence re the loop lino in Yictoria street: — “ May 6tb, 1880. “ Sir, —We are in receipt of your letter of this day’e date, instructing us to give notice to the Canterbury Tramway Company that you object to their loop lino in Yictoria street, and we have to advise you that we have written to tho company accordingly.—We are, Sir, yours. &c., “ Gaerick and Cowlishaw. “ The Town Clerk, Christchurch.” “ 6th May, 1880.

“Sir, —I have just received your letter of this date, informing me that the Christchurch Municipal Council objects to tho loop line proposed to be constructed in Yictoria street, opposite the Market place. In reply, I have to say that the work referred to is not a loop lino, but simply a passing place for the tram oars, only to be used in case of necessity, and is permissible by tho' deed of concession and Governor’s Order in Council. I will however bring your letter under the notice of my Board of Directors at their first meeting on Tuesday next. —I have, &0., “J. E. Brown, Chairman.”

His Worship said he had seen Mr Garrick with reference to acting for the City Council, or any other of the bodies for which they were representatives, and he had stated that they would act for the Council in all matters except those connected with the Drainage Board, for which they felt bound to act, as having called them as it were into existence. He might say also that the Tramway Company, so far as he understood, had considerably modified their views as regarded the occupation of Cathedral square. Or. Taylor said that ho understood the present meeting was convened to consider the deed of concession proposed to be granted to tho Tramway Company by tho City Council to extend their tramways along the Ferry road. Now he (Cr. Taj lor) had read this deed of concession, and ho objected to it most entirely as being altogether one-sided. What he would desire to see was that tho chairman should lay before them a written application setting forth what the Tramway Company required, totally irrespective of what had been granted by other Councils. He thought when Councillors had read the deed they would agree with him.

On the motion of Or. King, the deed was read by the town clerk. On arriving at that portion of it which gives the Tramway .Company power to glass over footpaths to make wailing rooms, Or. Taylor said that was one of the points he objected to. Or. Ayers asked whether it was not a fact that a previous Council had given the tramway company the same concessions as given in that deed. Or. Bishop said that he had read the deed of concession given by the City Council, and it was exactly the same as the one now read. There was a concession to[glass over the footpath in Cathedral square. Cr. Gapes said that the principal considerations wore the glassing over of the footpaths, and the granting of loop lines where desired. Or. Hulbert said that the concessions asked for were that loop lines should be placed where it was deemed necessary for tho convenience of the company. The convenience of the public, which was the object they should have in view, was altogether omitted. He thought that the proper way would be for the Council to have a right to object to loop lines whore they were opposed to the convenience of the public. Cr. Oherrill pointed out that the chairman of the company had stated that they did not require the concession regarding glassing over of the footpaths, as stated in the deed read. Or. Ayers asked whether it was understood that tho Tramway Company, in abandoning their idea of running round the Godley statue, intended to avail themselves of the right, ns alleged, for four lines in Cathedral square ? The Mayor said ho understood tho chairman to say that they intended to transfer tho block in Cathedral square to tho Market place, whore they intended to have a passing station.

Or. Ayers thought it would bo better for the company to go round tho statue rather than fill up tho square with tho four lines as contemplated. Cr. Bishop pointed cut that tho clause in the concession of the la'c Council was simply ultra vires. No Council hnd power to give private persons power to build a room over the public footpath. Or. Cherrill said that it was simply making a room of it, as it appeared now. Cr. Gapes pointed out that the Council had power to grant private persons permission to build verandahs.

Cr. Bishop said that was perfectly true, but what was the meaning of tho words, “ power to build a central depot, with waiting-rooms in Cathedral square.” Or. Taylor said ho would move—“ That this Council declines to entertain the request of tho Tramway Company to lay down a line

through High street to the Ferry road, or any other line, unless previous application, with all particulars of the works to be carried out, is sent in to the Council for its consideration.” He desired to make the future operations of the company more in accordance with the views and convenience of the public. That was his only reason for moving the resolution he had. After some discussion, Or. Hulbert suggested that what would simplify the matter would be to say that the construction of loop lines, the erection of verandahs or waiting rooms, should be subject to the consent of the City Council. [Hear, hear.] i The Mayor pointed out that in the dead of concession it was provided that power should be taken to extend over any other streets than those named specially in the order. This would give the company power to go over any streets in the city over which the tramways were not constructed. Or. Oherrill said it appeared as if the company wore trying to get the blind side of the Council. They should have ssnt them a draft of the actual deed which they desired the Council to sign. Ho did not understand bow the Tramway Company could request the Council to sign a deed which they had not before them.

Tho Mayor thought it would be a saving of time to say distinctly what tho Council objected to. There was the provision as regarded loop lines. This, he thought, ought to bo passed so as to include the consent of the Council and also a statement where they intended to put them down. Also, that no verandahs or waiting rooms should be erected by tho company without first stating where they intended to place them, and obtaining the consent of the Council. They could not give them the power as asked to go on to any road, except those over which concession had been granted. He desired also to call the attention of tho Council to tho fact that tho provision for carrying metal free for the Council stated that it should not interfere with the ordinary traffic of the tramway. Cr. Taylor said that the Council would never require the company to draw a load of metal under those conditions. Cr. Oherrill moved as an amendment—

That before any further extension of the Tramway Company’s lines is consented to by this Council the plans of all loop lines, sidings, passing places, waiting rooms, and verandahs, must be submitted to this Council and approved by this Council, before permission be given to the company to carry out and erect the same; and the company must agree to the following conditions —‘ That the company must at all times give duo and sufficient notice in writing in case of their intention to repair or remove any part of the tramway permanent way. That no power to alter or extend any part of the line be granted except by special consent of this Council. The traffic on all parts of the lino to be under the superintendence of the City Council or its officers, and that the conveyance of metal and material for the use of this Council be carried on at such reasonable time as the Council may require.’ ” Cr. Gapss seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.

In reply to Or. Hulbert, the Surveyor said that the plans of the tramway and the original deed of concession were never submitted to him. Or. Hulbert called attention to the fact that the Tramway Company had a right to run on Sundays from the Sydenham Borough Council, and that was what the company now asked for from them.

The Mayor said he had received a letter from the man named Taylor, who had been fined £5 for obstructing the night soil contractor, desiring that leave bo given to him to appeal, as the time had gone past. It was resolved that the Council decline to give the leave required. Or. Hulbert asked what amount of money was being expended on the p-ivato streets. The Mayor said that 33,000 ft. of timber and a number of barrels of cement had been advertised for.

Or. Hulbert said bo should oppose any further expenditure being made on private streets.

The Mayer said that he had told the chairman of the finance committee that he should decline to sign any vouchers for works unless he was assured that they were actually necessary.

Or. Taylor regretted that the citizens had vetoed the loans for channelling and taking up the old debentures. He might say that the question now had arisen when all works must bo stopped. Cr. Bishop would move —“ That the Council withdraw all tenders for materials for the present.” He thought that the ratepayers would find that the result of their votes that day would militate very considerably against the outside ratepayers, where the greater part of their opposition came from. Cr. Lambert seconded the motion.

Or. Gapes thought that if the loan for side channelling had been separated from the main questions, it would have been carried almost unanimously. The fact was the whole thing was muddled up. [Order, order.] The Mayor said, that there being only 92 votes informal showed that the public understood the question bettor than was expected. Or. King wished the Council to give the works committee power to finish the streets now in hand with the materials they now had.

The Mayor said that the town clerk ha d just informed him that the legal notices had been served, and moneys received on account of it. The fact was that a contract had been entered into which would really cost thousands of pounds. What was to be done P As regarded Or. King’s suggestions, he would like to ask that the works committee lay before them a statement of what the cost would be for the completion of these streets. Or. Cherrill suggested that it would be better to defer the consideration of this question until Monday. He would move as an amendment—“ That the matter stand over till Monday next.”

Cr. King seconded the amendment. Cr. Bishop said he would bo willing to withdraw hia motion. It was resolved that both motion and amendment be withdrawn, it being understood that the works committee do not open any tenders received or proceed with any new works.

The town clerk was requested to give a statement of the streets on which he had received payment. Or. Ayers asked what was the position of the water supply committee. Or. Bishop said the verdict of the ratepayers had discharged the committee. Or. Cherrill said it was probable that some few months hence a smaller scheme might bo propounded, which the water supply committee would have to carry out. The Mayor suggested that it would bo better to go to the ratepayers first, before accepting any engineering scheme. [Hear, hear.] The Council, after some further conversational discussion, adjourned.