ST. ALBANS BOROUGH COUNCIL.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11481, 14 January 1903, Page 5

ST. ALBANS BOROUGH COUNCIL.

THE PETITION FOR SEPARATION,

A special meeting of the St. Albans Borough Council was held last night. Present—The Mayor (Mr T. H. Davey) and Councillors P. J. Barlow, H. E. Morgan, A. H. Hobbs, R. _\I. W. KeLg, G. Hyde, and J. Anderson.

The Mayor said the meeting was called to consider the report of the committee eet up to report on the petition submitted to Sir Joseph Ward by a number of persons in the rural portion of the borough, asking that that portion of the borough be severed, and added to the Avon Road District. He Tead the report of the subcommittee, which stated: —That of the 58 signatures on the petition, 12 were those of persons not on the roll, 24 those of tenants, and only 22 were those of owners. That it would be a. retrograde step to .partition the borough, and that the chief reason on which the petitioners based their plea {the adoption of the rating on unimproved values) liad been brought about by the vote of the people, and that at the time that poll was taken the rural land in the borough was excessively valued. The area proposed to be detached comprises almost all the land available for cu---ng up into residential allotments, and negotiations are in progress for such cutting up. The division of the borough would be a menace to the health of the people, as buildings might be erected under Koad Board laws which would not he permitted under the more stringent laws applying to boroughs. In addition, the division of the borough would leave the recreation ground, on the purchase of which the majority of the people agreed, in one corner of the borough, and those separating from the borough would escape payment of their portion of the interest on the purchase money. The recent revaluation of the borough will considerably lighten the burden of taxation on the petitioners, and for these reasons the committee recommended, ithe council to strongly protest against the proposed severance, and advised that petitions should be circulated, and signatures obtained to them, protesting against the proposed severance of a portion of the borough.

The Mayor also read a letter from Mr J. Haughey, Hill's road, objecting to his property being included in the area to be seveced. Cr. Barlow, in moving the adoption • of the report, complimented: the Committee on the thorough manner in which they had dealt with the matter. Hβ consid-ered that a great mistake would be made if any portion of the borough were eevered. Cr. Keig seconded the motion, and pointed out that the petitioners themselves would, on due consideration, not regret it if tltetr request was not granted. Cr. Anderson supported the motion, and said that the petitionem, when the new rate was struck, would find that they were not so badly off. j Cr. Hyde also supported the motion. Cr. Hobbs considered that the law under which the separation of the borough was sought was intended to promote, progression, and not retrogression. The revaluation of the borough had removed many ol ■the grounds upon which separation "was asked for, and the position had entirely changed. Cr. Newton said separation wonld be a backward step. There was no doubt that lust yt-ar the petitioners had t,«:«:n~ uardiy treated, but wheieas the rate last year was 3d in the £ on the unimproved value, the. rats* this year would be. not more than 2d in the £. : The motion was agreed - to. and the iv.atter of approaching the Government in ccnneetion with the subject was left to the Mayor. Cr. Newton and the. Cleik. The text of the petition to the Colonial Secretary, protesting against the *-:-\erance of a portion of tlie borough, reads cs follow* :■ —(1) That the plea of the pttilionHrs for secession, viz., that the adoption of the Rating en Unimproved Value Act presses heavily upon them, is incidental t<> the adoption of any new reform, and Jtkewve affects other owners in the boruuarh. tVJ) That the adoption of the Rating ou L'nhnpreve.t Values was brought about by tiie vet* of the ratepayers. (3) That under the Government Valuation (it Land Act, 1£96. 1 ih:- rura! lands in the borough were e.vee*--•ive'.y valued, bat tL-is will be r.-medied j by tha re-valuation of the borough n«J"»v i taking place. (4) That the area proposed to be detached. includes ne-arlv tha whole nt tlie lotul tinw β-vailahleitt the ijorouatl

!for residential purposes, and already negotiations arv proceeding for cutting up sony? ;of the blocks for building ekes. (5) Should ! tii- proposed 'area be detached, buildings nould be erected without respect to road.-, drainage, regulations or restriction* of any kind, and would be a serious menace to the public health of the borough.' (6) The secession of the proposed area would leave the recently-acquired Recreation Ground on the outskirts «f the borough. i 7) Ti>e movement is a retrograde step, and .should not be countenanced.