Paddington Council and Bridges.
Page 11
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
At the last meeting of Paddington 1:1-oroukh Council the works-committee presented the following report :— "The borough surveyor having informed us that the draft of a proposed order, prescribing regulations in substitution for tnose contained in Article XIV. of the Heavy Motor Car Order, 1904, dealing with the subject of bridges under Section 12 of the Motor Car Act, had been circulated amongst various authorities, including railway and canal companies, in England, the Local Government Board were asked to furnish the council with a copy or copies. The Board have, however, merely stated in reply that copies have not been furnished, by them to the councils of any borough. In this connection we would point out that, prior to the adoption. of the regulations under the Motor Car Order, 1904, no adequate opportunity had been given to the corporate bodies likely to be affected, of expressing their views thereon. Great dissatisfaction was expressed at the recent conference that the local authorities were not consulted upon this matter.
"We recommend—(a) That the Local Government Board be informed that, in the opinion of the council, before an order is issued prescribing regulations in substitution for those contained in Article XIV. of the Heavy Motor Car Order, 1904, dealing with the subject of bridges, an opportunity should be given to the various local authorities concerned of expressing their views upon the matter. (b) That a copy of the foregoing resolution be forwarded to the City Corporation and the Metropolitan City and Borough Councils, and that they be asked to support the same by passing a similar resolution."
The consideration of the report and recommendations was adjourned for a fortnight. [The statement that corporate bodies were not given an adequate opportunity to lay their views before Mr. Long's Departmental Committee, which sat under the chairmanship of Mr. ifobhouse nearly two years ago, is contrary to fact, as representative evidence of this nature was taken.--En.]