BOROUGH BOUNDARIES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4684, 7 April 1924, Page 2

BOROUGH BOUNDARIES.

COMMISSION AT PAEROA. SITTING COMMENCED. At the Courthouse. Paeroa, on Friday morning, a Commission, comprising Messrs J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M. (chairman), W. F. Marsh, Commissioner of Crown Lauds, Auckland; and W. F. Wallis, district land valuer, Morrin:ville, commenced its sitting in connection with a petition for cessation from the borough. Mr J. L. Hanna appeared on beha’f of the Paeroa Borough Council, and Messrs E. W. Porritt and C. N. O’Neill bn behalf of various petitioners. The chairman explained that there were two petitions. One was from a body of ratepayers asking to have certain of their lands excluded from the borough area, and this was opposed by the Paeroa Borough Council. The second petition was lodged ly the Paeroa Borough Council, praying that -ertain lands adjacent to the borough be included in the borough area. The petitions would be heard separately, but any evidence taken m one that was relevant to the other could he used.

Mr Porritt stated that the 22 petitioners for whom he appeared objected to inclusion in the borough because they contended that the areas essentially farm areas and not suitable for subdivision ; neither was there any demand for sections on the outskirts of the town. It . would be impossible for the ratepayers in those areas to receive sufficient benefits from the Borough Council, and he contended that it was unfair that such properties should carry burdens in the form of rates. Mr Porritt referred to the areas facing the Ohineiniiri River which had been brought into the borough area to enable that body to collect gold duty, but bat industry had ceased to exist, and that portion of the river had been taken over by the Public Works Department for river improvements. Various plans and particulars of the areas in question were submitted. Mr O’Neill appeared for five petitioners in the northern area of the borough, and showed that the petitioners’ farms did not in any way lend themselves to borough control. It was not fair that a farm should be rated on the unimproved value. Mr ?’orritt" produced a compilation from the Official Year Book, 1924, .f the value and population of the Berough of Paeroa, and also a copy of the N.Z. Gazette of September 27, 1923, setting out the loans authorised for the borough. George Buchanan, farmer, Paeroa, said that he and his wife were owners of certain properties within the borough and sought exclusion. The total area for which exclusion was soUgnt was about 114 acres. The property would derive no benefit from municipal expenditure, as the land was suitable and used as a stud farm. Out of an expenditure pf £6OOO propose ! for reading purposes he would receive no benefit in the area for which exclusion was asked. The land would derive no benefit from an extension of the present sewerage system. The Public Works Department had carried out certain .stop-banking operations which had seriously affected his land, and in his opinion the proposals by the bo’ough could not be carried out. The position applied to the properties of Messrs Vincent, Beattie, Coupe-.', Barret'., and W. L. Buchanan. The major portion of the properties was subject to flooding, which would have the effect of rendering .sewerage useless on account of the silt deposits. Since the inception of the borough a bridge had been remodelled with pipes, the road had been .scarified and partly metalled, the footpaths had been partly cleaned, but the watertables had never been cleaned. It was a main road, and was in a worse condition than when the county council had control. The property had boon cut up in 1896, but there had been uo demand for the sections as building sites. The sections on Abrangi block were used for cropping and grazing, and had a poor road access of a bad grade. Aorangi Road did not touch on the section for which exclusion was asked. A good house had been built bn the Aorangi block, but there had been ho demand for it, even at 6s per week rental. The Railway Department had inquired for land in the locality, but when witness quoted his price the offer was -not accepted. With the exception of an expenditure of. £ll to deepen a drain the borough council had not spent anj' money on the block during the last ten years. There were 4'Bo dwellings and shops in the total area of the proposed new borough, and there were 21 buildings in the area for which exclusion was asked. Inside the proposed new boundaries there were 1298 small sections spread over 1315 acres. There was ample land available .n the borough for buildings purposes for many years to come. The total number of signatures of the petitioners had been obtained, although the Act only required one-fourth of the total names.

To Mr O’Neill witness said that prior to the borough taking over the land from the county the rates were based on the annual value, as against the unimproved value system of rat--ing to-day.

Mr Buchanan said that he had lodged objections to the seweiage loan proposals but had withdrawn them at the request of the them Mayor and borough solicitor, and had been told that if he did so the rate would not be collected, but he had bad to pay his rates in full some time baca to escape the 10 per cent, penalty. To Mr Hanna witneste said that he realised what the .status of his property would be if excluded from the borough. He admitted that he was the prime mover in arranging for the petition for exclusion. A’ difficulty ir. the way of disposing of part of the Airangi block to the Railway Department vas the bad access. Sewerage ahd town water would add no value tc the .sections because the land was not suitable for cutting up. The sitting was then adjourned until Saturday morning. On resuming on Saturday the evidence of Mr Buchanan was proceeded with.

To Mr Hanna witness said that when the offer of the Aorangi block was made to the Railway Department it was looked on as farming property. Farming areas in a borough voting on the unimproved value had absolutely no chance of getting a fair deal when it came to loan proposals for streets, which would be of no benefit. Re-examined by Mr Porritt witness said tiiat he had great difficulty in keeping his gates closed <>n account of the people who went through to reach a vineyard situated in the hills. If Onsiow Road had been formed by the borough council as requested the annoyance would have been avoided. Claude G. Kennedy, farmer, Paeroa, staled that he and his brother owned 103 acres at present within the borough boundary, and they asked for exclusion. The unimproved vhlue of the farm was £2lOO. Of the total area there were only 39 acres not subject to flooding. Six acres of dry land faced the main road, and accommodated the homestead and farm buildings. The sections could not be sold as building sections without detriment to the rest of the farm. There was no demand for building sections in that area. The sewerage system would not add any value to the property. An adjoining property, but in the jjounty area, was rated at 4s lOd per acre. H’- - rates to the borough last year on the property had been 12s 6 r .l per acie. and at the present time they were not making wages. The property did no: lend itself to borough control. Cross-examined by Mr Hanna witness said that the capital value el the property was £4300. • He approved of the unimproved value system of rating on property in the county. He contended that considering the small portion of dry land it would not pa.y to put a road through the property and sell portion of it for building purposes.

W. Dunphy, priest in charge of the Roman Catholic Presbytry, Paeroa, said that although the chtllXh property joined Buchanan’s property in part there was no desire to specie fri.-m the borough. The otfiUlings comprised a church, school, convene and other buildings.

To Mr Porritt witness fISMWd not admit that the property paid s to the borough. No arrangements had been made for an extension of the sewerage scheme. ! Thomas Chas. Bayliss, farmer, Pae ■ roa, another petitioner for exclusion, stated that his farm contained 31G acres adjoining Kennedy’s. Snd the general description of that land applied to his. His rates io the borough on the property were £1 per ac-e. The property was used solely as a farm, and he made his living off the 31 acres. The property had received no benefits from municipal expenditure, and the sewerage would not increase its value. When the laud was taken up the sections were surveyed, but that was before he purchased the property. Wit iiess admitted having sold one acre for £2OO, but. it had “picked the eyes’’ out of tlie farm.

To Mr Hanna witness said .that ne was desirous of being excluded frpm the borough because of the rates, pre - sent and future.

Thomas Barrett, .farmer, Paeroa, ■stated that lie was the owner of a farm of 21 acres within the borough. He sought exclusion on account of the land being farming land, and the rates being too high, and he feared future liabilities. The land was subject to flooding, and the larger portion of the property was. at present under water.

Michael Goonan, farmer, Paeroa, said he owned a farm of 34 acres on the western side of the railway line. The only access he had was through native property. He had not derived any benefit through being in the borough, and could see no possibility of receiving any. His land had been included in the borough when there had been gold extraction dredges m the Ohinemuri River. That work ha 1 been abandoned years ago, and there was no gold duty recoverable from the property. The Ohinemuri River was his frontage; and a portion of the land had been subject to floods. He blamed the borough for non-provision of roads.

Yngds McD. Duff, quarry foreman, Paeroa. said that his property was an the borough boundary, and he regretted signing the petition praying for exclusion from the borough. Mr Buchanan had asked him to sign the petition, and assured him that his rates in the county would be less. Ha had since found out that his rates in the county would have been £8 19= lid, as against £4 12s 3d which he was m w paying to the borough. The capital va’ue of his property was £7OO, and "the unimproved value £l5O, Ho considered that there was an advantage being within the borough.

Thomas P. Vuglar, farmer, Paeroa, said that 40 acres of his farm were within the borough, and he had signed the petition for exclusion hut afterwords withdrew his objection. He thought his rates were not burdensome at the present time. To Mr Porritt witness said that lie was a borough councillor, but denied that he had withdrawn his name from tlie petition because of the “barrack” he “had been subjected to. He admit? ted having facilities, that other petitioners did not have.

Edmund W. Porritt, solicitor, Paero>, said that he was one of the petitioners for exclusion from the borough, and had an area of 359 acres of land in the county and 14’ acres in the borough. His rates last year on the 3-59- acres were £l9 17s lOd, and on the 14 acres £l2 5,s lOd. Of the latter amount £3 fis 8d had been for a '-.eweragc rate. When the borough had been formed he had lodge-l an objection to inclusion. He produced evidence of a previous commission, and also particulars showing th-it there was no community of interest between his property and the borough. The portion of his property sold to the Railway Department wat the pit k of it, and the balance was unsuitable for town building sites, but he admitted that his area affected was verj’ small. To Mr Hanna witness said that he agreed with the ‘borough loan proposals, and had assisted all he could to get them sanctioned, and had borne his share. IWhen Ainslie Road had been formed he had given land worth

£4O an acre in return for land worth ’ about £3. Raora Road gave the onlyaccess to his new house, which wasnot ye finished." The establishment: of the railway settlement would not add value to the adjoining land be-_ cause there was no road access. The land was not subject to floods. To, be subjected to a .rate of 14s 4d per acre for the land was absurd, as-there were r.o advantages to be gained by being in the borough. The Commission is still sitting.