stated that the rating of St. Mary Magdalen parish had been greatly increased by its recent revision.
Concerning Roads. On the 5th of April, Coun. Poole submitted the desirability of either removing the galley sheds on the east side of Harold road and employing the ground to greater profit, or of throwing it entirely open, so as to widen the road, which he considered as being too narrow now that a noble building [the Queen’s Hotel] had been erected on the opposite side. He was in favour of the latter plan, and he would move that the matter be referred to the Stonebeach Committee. Coun. Winter and Coun. Howell also favoured the widening the road and leaving the land open. – Motion carried. On the 3rd of May a letter was received from Mr. Charles Amoore, asking that the galley sheds might not be removed until the ground was really wanted. This was also referred to committee.
Dedication of Roads. On the recommendation of the Roads Committee, on the 3rd of May, it was resolved that the road round the Archery Ground should not be accepted and dedicated until certain alterations had been made. Also, that the Board accept an offer made by Wastel Brisco, Esq., for widening and improving the roads at Trinity terrace and from Upper Trinity terrace to Verulam place, on certain conditions.
Roads on the Eversfield Estate. On the 6th of September the Roads Committee reported their approval of the plans of Pevensey road, Dane road, and Brittany road, provided larger drains were put in; also the upper part of Church road. – Report adopted.
Halton Roads. The same committee at the same time recommended the non-acceptance for dedication of South-terrace road, Halton, as it required to be metalled and channelled(sic). Coun. Putland argued that there was no necessity for metalling and channelling, it being a green road which would not take 5/- a year to keep in repair. He would like to know why the Halton roads were not to be protected as were Wyatt’s road and the Station road? – Coun. Winter was opposed to taking over the road. – Ald. Rock thought as there was no one else to take care of the road the Board should do so. As to the expense, that would be entireland(sic) in the hands of the Board. – Report adopted.
The Halton Pathway. On the 6th of December the Roads Committee recommended the Board to decline Mr. P. F. Robertson’s application for permission to divert the path which skirted the boundary of his western wall, notwithstanding that he had the consent of the owners of the adjoining property. Mr. Robertson wrote that the locality would be much improved by the proposed alteration and that the road would not remain in its then unsightly and discreditable state. He simply asked for a committee to meet for fuller explanations. The fact -
