BOROUGH BOUNDARIES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4712, 16 June 1924, Page 3

BOROUGH BOUNDARIES.

FINDING OF COMMISSION. STATEMENT DY THE MAYOR. At the Paeroa Borough Council meeting on Thursday night the finding of the Commission which sat in Paeroa in April last to Hear and consider. evidence of a number of ratepayers petitioning-for exclusion from the Borough of Paeroa, and also a petition by the Borough Council asking for the inclusion of certain land in the Ohinemuri County to be placed in the borough, was placed before the council. In the ratepayers' petition the finding states that the property of Mr M. Goonan and some Native property on the left bank of the Ohinemuri River, Paeroa, shall be excluded from the borough, and also all the flat land extending from the river side of Waihi Road to the river comprising Messrs G. Buchanan's and Barretts’ properties. The remaining petitioners for exclusion were unsuccessful. REASONS FOR THE FINDING. Following are the reasons given by the Commission for coming to the conclusions embodied in the finding. "In considering the questions involved in these proceedings we have been guided by the principle that existing boundaries should be allowed to remain intact unless good reason is shown fior altering them. In other words, that the duty of clearly prov , ing the necessity and advantage of alteration rests on the persons seeking such alteration. "Referring to the areas of laud other than the, portions that we have recommended to be excluded, coloured blue and green, respectively, on the accompanying plan, the main objection taken by the several petitioners concerned was that- the lands were farm lands and Were not suitably for sub-division. In all boroughs such as Paeroa there are certain lands along the boundaries which are more or. less open to objection on the ground advanced by the petitioners. It is. necessary that a borough should contain within its boundaries sufficient laud to provide the necessary revenue for the purpose of the borough, and to provide for reasonable expansion and progress. Foi’ these reasons greater areas are included than may at the time of constitution be actually necessarj r for residential occupation. "We are of opinion that the lands now referred to are in the main suit•able for sub-division, and that there is reasonable probability of their being required for this purpose within a few years ; the land on the northern boundary, because of its proximity io the new railway station and yards, " hich are shortly to be erected ; and tlie lands on the eastern and southern boundaries because it is evident - that settlement is trending in that direction, and because large areas of fiat land in the town itself are lowlying and subject to the lodgment of surface water. "We have, now excluded the areas shown by blue and green colours on the annexed plan for the reason that it is evident ..that they were originally included within the borough boun- . daries for the purpose of securing the gold revenue which became payable in respect to land fronting the river. Gold-mining operations have ceased, and this revenue is no longer payable, and the reason for their in- ■ elusion on this ground no longer exists. In addition, the land coloured green has no road access to the borough whatever, and the land coloured blue is subject to excessive flooding and is unfit for residential occupation. “For these reasons we recommend: 1. That the areas shown by blue and green colours on the plan annexed hereto b& excluded from the Borough of Paeroa and be included in the County of Ohinemuri, as they are unsuitable for municipal control. 2. In all other respects the boundaries of the Borough of Paeroa remain as at present constituted, the land within such boundaries being suitable for municipal control. 3. That the cost of and incidental to this inquiry be paid by the Paeroa Borough Council. SECOND PETITION. The petition lodgled by the Borougn Council to have certain land, including the proposed railway settlement, included in the borough area was also unsuccessful the Commsision advancing the following reasons ; "Proceeding on the principle by which the commissioners were guided in dealing with the petition for exclusion of cetrain lands from the borough, the onus now rests on the Borough Council to show the necessity for altering the existing boundaries. "Part of the land referred to in the present petition has been purchased by the Railway Department for the purposes of a railway settlement. The Borough. Council seeks to have this land included within the borough boundaries and, for the purpose of ‘squaring up’ the boundary, to include the lands of thle objectors on z each side of the piece so purchased. The land taken by the Railway Department will be used as a private settlement, the roads and other necessary improvements will be made at the expense of the Railway Department, and the settlement itself will be controlled by the department. The property, being Government property, will not be liable for rates, and the borough will derive no bejnefit in this way from .the settlement. The Railway Department is indifferent as to whether the land remains in or out of the borough. It has not asked t<> have the. land included within the borough, nor has it objected to its remaining in the county. "We think that in cases of this kind, unless there is somte special and pressing reason, land should not be taken from one local body and placed under the control of another except upon the request of a substantial number of landowners or occupiers of the land affected. In this case the owners affected, except cho Crown, obj'ict to the petition. We do not ’" think that the Council has made out a catfe for alteration, and for this we have made the recommendation set out in the annexed report. “For these reasons we recommend ; *-"l, That the land sought to be included

within the Borough of Paeroa is unsuitable for muicipal control and that .v i>c not included in the Borough oi Paeroa, but remain within the County of Ohinemuri. 2. That the costs of and incidental to this inquiry be paid by the Paeroa Borough Council." THE MAYORS' COMMENT. Commenting on the findings of the Commission, His Worship the Mayor (Mr ,W. Marshall) made the following statement: "One reason given why the Aoraugi Block should not be included in the borough was that 'the Railway Department is indifferent as to whether the land remains in or out of the borough.’ No evidence was given al the Commission by tlie Railway Department, and it seems passing strange that a report of a Judicial Inquiry, where ail evidence is taken on oath, should contain an assumed reason. Further reason given was that the Commission thinks that ‘unless there is some special and pressing reason land should not be taken from one local body and placed under the control of another local body except upon the request of a substantial number of owners or occupiers of the land affected.’ The effect of this reasoning is that land adjoining a borougn can continue to increase, in value mainly by the expenditure of public money and enterprise, and tlie owners have tlie principal right to say when they shall make some contribution to the costs of the benefits they receive. "I am sufficiently a Radical to disagree strongly with such a position. As ’a matter of fact, Parliament has already made special provision for the inclusion of lands adjacent to boroughs which, in the opinion of the borough council, should be included, but the methods adopted by the Commission nullifies the special advantage which the section of the Act gives. Tlie original petition was prepared and lodged by one or two dissatisfied ratepayers, who hoped by this means to secure a reduction in their annual rate accounts. From this .standpoint the result is a dismal failure, but, unfortunately, it is also distinctly disadvantageous to the Paeroa Borough.

•The area proposed to be excluded is not definitely and exactly defined, and hi regard to one petitioner’s property the exact effiect on the borough revenue can only be ascertained after a separate valuation has been made by the Valuation Department; but the position has been analysed correctly enough and indicates the effect it will have generally. "The report appears to show that not one yard of streets will bq taken out of the borough ; nor will the annual expenses of the borough be reduced one penny. Approximately 120 acres of land is to be excluded, having a total rateable) value of £2883, ot which £930 is native land. The only rate that will be affected is the general rate the total loss of which will be £45, of which £l4 10s is native rale, leaving a balance of £3O 10s European. The total general rates on the European properties under a county rate of 2d in the £ will amount to £24 15s, so that the petitioners will save altogether about £5 15s 3d per annum.

"The law provides that the cost of Commissions must be borne by the local oodies, yet the whole cost of the Commission is to be paid for by the Borough Council. The petitioners have succeeded in giving the Borough Council a lot of hard work and trouble, as well as hindering progressive work ; they have put us to a cost of about £lOO this year, and to an annual recurring loss of from £2O to £45 at least, and the personal advantage that they have secured is £5 or £6 per annum all told. Thus, when the petitioners have saved £5 or £6 it will have cost the Paaroa borough ratepayers approximately £l3O. There will thus be an annual loss of about £3O immediately to the borough, and a gain of about £24 15s to the OhinemuA County Council. "The petitioueu’s’ personal rights may justify their actions, but it should be clearly iecognised that those rights have been exercised at the expense of thei ratepayer of the Paeroa Borough, and while the petitioners are personally esteemed citizens they must be regarded as opposed to the interests of the borough, no matter at what cost, if their individual interests are affected. “While it is quite impossible to prevent the definite progress of Paeroa, actions .such as the petitioners’ do impede the progressive movement, and it calls to all who do belieive earnestly in Paeroa’s future to stand together aud resist, with all strength, any efforts which are made for. individual gain at the expense of the remainder of the borough.’’ The following resolution was unanimously carried: “This council strongly protests against the decision not to include the railway settlement area within the borough, and the apparent intention to leave half a street in the borough without any land on either sidfc of the street in the borough, and a further length of street all i ; n the borough and the land on one side taken out; also against the whole costs being av arded against the borough, and that Mr H. Poland, M.P., be requested to present this protest to the Hon. Minister for Internal Affairs, and that a copy of the report and reasons be handed to the press.” Or. Flatt said that he thought the counpil had been unfairly t’eated. He considered that anything in the nature of justice should never be submitted to a commission. Cr. Brenan suggested that tlie petitions should not be gazetted until the council had had an opportunity of considering the cost of maintenance of the road passing through county area property. His Worship said that if the council’s protest was not upheld an application could be made for a GovernoiGeneral’s warrant. Cr. Edwards supported the remarks of the Mayor. It was decided to comply with the reoiiqs*. of the Department of Intelnal Affairs and give an undertaking that if any loan proposals were brought forward prior to April 1, 1925, the areas proposed to be excluded from the borough would not be Included in the rating area,