DUAL ROAD CONTROL

Taranaki Daily News, 19 March 1921, Page 5

DUAL ROAD CONTROL

LOWGARTH SETTLERS DISSATISFIED. WANt TO JOIN ELTHAM COUNTY. The Lowgarth settlers living on the Finnerty Road, in the Stratford County, who petitioned the Eltham County Council some time ago asking that their auctions be included in the Eltham, County, forwarded a petition to the Stratford County Council at its meeting yesterday requesting that the council take the necessary steps to merge their properties into the rating area of the Eltham County. The petition, which was signed by nine ratepayer#, was supported by a deputation consisting of Messrs. Gray, Johnston, Babington and Thrush, waited on the Stratford Council yesterday afternoon. Mr. Gray pointed out that the petitioners were dissatisfied with the dual control of the Finnerty Rood, particularly in regard to the amount of work done upon it. He stated further that none of the settlers on the road did business in Stratford, and used only the Eltham roads. The chairman (Cr. E. Walter): Where does your cheese go to? Mr Gray: At present it comes to Stratford, but when the bridge is through part wi|l go to Stratford and part to Eltham. In reply to another question, Mr. Gray said the cheese at present was going to the Ngaere railway station. He added further that they got all their goods through Eltham, thereby using thtf Eltham roads much more than the Stratford roads. Cr. J. O’Neill: There are more tarred roads in the Eltham County, but before long there will be plenty of tarred roads in the Stratford County. Mr. Johnson, in the course of some remarks in support of the request, blamed the Stratford Council for the delay and high cost of the Finnerty Road bridge. The chairman explained that the difficulties in connection with the bridge were not the fault of the council. A spirited discussion followed regarding the work on the bridge, the deputation complaining that money had been wasted. Mr. Thrush said that another complaint was that the petitioners were paying rates spent on other roads, but this statement was denied by councillors. Mr. Johnson said that the Eltham rates would be heavier than .Stratford, but they did not mind high rates if they had good roads. He described the Stratford roads as an abomination. Cr. Anderson strenuously denied this statement, and a heated took place. Cr. Anderson said that he had no say in the control of the road, but this was absolutely untrue. The chairman stated that the council, as a body of business men, would have to strenuously oppose the request of the. petitioners as long as the heavj; traffic was using the Stratford roads. reply to Cr. Pitt, the deputation said that the petition was not the outcome of their grievances in regard to the building of the Finnerty Road bridge. After the deputation had withdrawn it was decided, on the motion of Cr. Anderson, seconded by Cr. Belcher, that the petition could not be entertained.