IMPORTANT LAND DECISION

Chronicle (Levin), 31 July 1946, Page 8

IMPORTANT LAND DECISION

-Press Associptip'p

SUBDIYl'siON AND COUNGIL'S ItEQUIREiyiENTS

B(y Telegraph-

KUTUUUA, July «3U. A judgineiit of importance to landowners and mnnieipai corporations, was given today by Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., on behalf of a Commission appoijited to hear the appeal of the Glenholme Estate Ltd., of liotorua, against the decision of the Rotorua Borough Couneil with respect to a subdivisional pian lodged by appellant for approval. Mr. Paterson was chairman of the Commission and Messrs. S. Morris Jones and T. Jackson were assessors. Mr. N. I. .Smith, of Hamilton, appeared at' the hearing for the appellant and Mr. A. X. North, of Auckland, for the corporation. • There was a langthy review of authorities quofed by counsel. Mr. Paterson said the Borough Couneil had intiniatecl that its approval to th^ proposed suiidivision would not be given unless and until the eompany had complied with the couneil 's short standard specilications for subdivision. Condit.iohs imposed by the corporation were those it required to be fullilled before it aecepted a dedication of streets under section 125 of the Publie Works Aet 1920. The real issue between the parties arose under this section and not undesection 332 of the Municipal Corporations Aet 1933, which had been involied oy appellant. This latter Aet was never really in issue because the respondent had approved of the subdivisioiiaj pian and the requisition iusisted on by the couneil related solely to the acceptance "of the dedication of roads under the Publie Works Aet. An amendment to the Municipal Corporations Aet requneij that the 'work of making all ne\ streets shown on the pian, should hrsi be eompleted to the satisfaction of tne couneil. These words, however, did not affeet the present appeal because the corporation had not soiight to take ad vantage of such power. If it had done so then no doubt an appeal would he certainly as to the imposition of such a eondition in toto or as to the standard of construction required. It was prob-.| able that these words did not entitie u couneil to impose a higher standard oi construction than it would be entiMe.l to impose under the Publie Works Acf before aceepting dedication or a liiglur standard than that providod by its own by-laws. The appeal was dismissed on fhe ground that the couneil had approved of the pian submittod. It was without foundation. Costs were allowed respondent.