BOROUGH BOUNDARIES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4751, 15 September 1924, Page 3

BOROUGH BOUNDARIES.

COMMISSION’S FINDING. REASONS GIVEN BY CHAIRMAN. The following letter was received by the Paeroa Borough Council at Thursday’s night’s meeting from the Minister of Internal Affairs:— “ Referring to your communication of June 25 last, pointing out that if effect were given to the recommendation of the recent commission and certain lands were excluded from the borough, a certain road would still remain in the borough, notwithstanding that certain lands adjoining it would be included in the county, and at the same time urging further consideration of the question of costs of the Commission, and that at least the Railway Department’s land, which is included in the lands referred to in the council’s petition, might be includde in the borough, I have now to inform you that I duly communicated with the Stipendiary Magistrate (Mr J. G. L. Hewitt) in regard to the several matters referred to in your letter, and I have received the following advice ” (1) certain roads were not excluded from the borough with certain adjoining lands. “ The portion of the road referred to marked to B on the plan was intended to be excluded from the borough and included in the county, and should have been coloured blue on the plan. The question of control of the other portion should be easily arranged between the two local bodies. and if they, are, unable to agree can be adjusted under section 12 of the Public Works Act, 1909.” (2) With regard to the question of costs. *‘(a) On the petition of the Paeroa Borough to exclude certain lands from the Ohinemuri Countv and include the same within the Borough, the Borough Council wholly failed in its claim, and so costs were awarded against the Borough Council.” “ (b) On the petition of certain ratepayers of the borough for exclusion from the borough and inclusion -in the county of certain lands, the contest was between these ratepayers and the borough, the county taking no part in the proceedings. Under these circumstances we did not consider ’t fair to saddle the county with any costs and the order of reference did not permit of our allowing costs against any of the petitioners who did not succeed in their claims. “ (3) The statement in the report that the Railway Department was indifferent as to whether the land now referred to remained within or out ot the borough was based on inference drawn from the fact that the Railwajr Department stood aside and neither directly nor indirectly took any steps to place its views on the matter before the Commission. With regard to paragraph 1, I enclose herewith a further map showing the rreas, coloured blue, which the Commission recommends be excluded, from which you will see that the part o? the road marked A to B is intended to be excluded from the borough. With regard to paragraph 2, I have to Estate that the costs referred to therein v ill not include solicitors’ or witnesses’ costa, but will only include the costs of the Commissioners’ fees. It is proposed to issue an Order-in- . Council at an early date excluding the land coloured blue on the map, together with that portion of the road marked A to B, the alteration, as already agreed up6h;- to take effect as from April 1/ next.''. An Order-in-Council will also be issued under section’ 132 providing, in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission, that the costs thereof shall be defrayed by your Council. “With.regard to paragraph 3, dealing with the question of the proposal to include certain railway land in the borough, I have to inform you that I have been in consultation with the Minister of Railways regarding the matter, and find that his department is in favour of the inclusion of such idilway land in the borough. It is not possible to include such land without a further petition, as action cannot be taken on the petition already presented by your council, seeing. that the Commissioner recommended that effect be not given to such petition and the law only allows Z effect to .be given to the petition of a borough council if the Commission so recommends. The matter appears to be one which might be. dealt with under section 134, it being assumed that there are no electors in the area, it being Government property. It is realised that the petition of your boron ch included other lands in addition to the railway land, and .’n view of the fact that the Railway Department i-uppoits your council’s desire to have the railway lands included in the borough. I am prepared to favourably consider the request. It is, however, considered desirable that the views of the county council should be obtained, seeing that the County Council opposed your council’s petition. I have therefore to suggest that your council consult with the County Council, and if possible obtain its consent to the' inclusion of thq railin the borough. Your council should subsequently forward another petition, under section 134 of the Municipal Corporations Act, praying for the inclusion in the borough of the land in question. The petition must be publicly notified—that is to say—a notication must be published of the proposal to present a petition, setting out the objects. The notice should be published in the newspaper circulating in the borough and county, and a copy should be forwarded with the petition.” The Ohinemuri County Council also wrote advising that it agreed to the inclusion. After a lengthy discussion it was decided that a petition be forthwith presented to the Governor-General in the terms suggested praying for thclusion in the Borough of Paeroa of tiie railway settlement area now in county, and that the Mayor take steps io give effect to the proposal. It was also decided to record the council’s appreciation of the manner in wlr’ch the county council had assisted the borough council.