NOT YET SATISFIED

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12618, 1 December 1926, Page 7

NOT YET SATISFIED

KENT TERRACE AGAIN ! , OBJECTORS’ UNUSUAL COMPLAINT MAGISTRATE CRITICISED A statement which, although somewhat unusual in character, is nevertheless to the point, lias been issued by the objectors to the Kent and Cambridge terraces work, which was recently declared by a magisterial inquiry to be a proper one. The statement declares among other things that the magistrate delivered his judgment upon unsound reasons. It is averred that tile magistrate in giving his decision in the case, based his findings upon grounds which were diametrically opposed to the conclusion reached, which had been proved (so the document goes) by the exposition of the council's plans and proposals as elicited at the inquiry. While the ostensime purpose ot the council’s action in altering the terraces mentioned was to provide for greater room for traffic, the objectors declare that the real purpose, as disclosed at the inquiry, was for the parking of motor-cars. Traffic congestion was proved to be a bogey by the council’s plan, which disclosed that the part of Kent and Cambridge terraces opposite Queen Victoria’s statue was to be maintained at its full width and not reduced correspondingly with the rest. TWO-WAY TRAFFIC “Though from the very obvious advantage afforded by the doubTe thoroughfare of dividing the traffic,” th« statement- goes on, “neither the City

Council nor the objectors, nor any of the witnesses at the inquiry suggested anything but one-way traffic on either Kent or Cambridge terraces (except the existing north-bound tramway in Kent terrace), Mr Page reports in favour of two-way traffic in each of Kent and Cambridge terraces. Nevertheless, Mr Page says the proposal of the City Council is a proper one. It is patent, therefore, that his report is not based on, or warranted by, the evidence given at the inquiry, but on a singular opinion of his own, which cannot be endorsed by anyone with any experience ot traffic management. PARKING AR>_.. ‘ Further proof that the verdict is not based on the evidence given by witnesses at the inquiry is afforded by that paragraph in Air Page’s report where he refers to the acquisition and disposition of other city reserves, which is irrelevant to the question at issue—viz., the conversion of part of the Canal Reserve into street. “It was acknowledged in evidence that there had been a plan to park cars in Kent terrace, but because the city advocate rested his case on the strip to be taken off the reserve in Kent* terrace as being required for south-bound traffic, Mr Page discarded the theory of using* it for parking cars, or, as one of the council’s witnesses seemed lo think, ;or a footpath. “A large proportion o: Lie witnesses emphasised the increased danger that would arise from allowing southbound vehicles to pass north-bound cars on the right-hand (west) side (even if it were lawful), one responsible witness characterising it as a ‘death trap.’ WHOSE OPINION? “Air Page is certainlv entitled to his personal opinion, hut when, as a Board of Inquiry, he ignores the very strong evidence of experienced motorists on such a point as this, his opinion is worthy of no more weight than that of the average man. “A still further proof of inconsistency between Mr Page’s ‘reasons’ and ‘conclusions’ of his findings is the fact that the proclamation asked for does not embrace the widening of Kent terrace at the site of the Queen Victoria statue. The absurdity of two-way traffic on Kent terrace, as predicated by Mr Page, is apparent, unless the reserve is narrowed right through to Courtenay place, which would also involve the abolition of the tramway siding recently put there at considerable expense. “How then, can the proposal of the City Council bo regarded as a proper