NORMANBY ROAD.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5066, 17 December 1926, Page 2

NORMANBY ROAD.

PETITION FOB BITUMINISING. DISCUSSION BY BOROUGH COUNCIL Considerable time wjas taken up at Tuesday night’s meeting of the; Paeroa Borough Council with discussion on the following petition signed by some 12 or their agents, having property Normapby Road:—

“We, the undersigned ratepayers, knowing that your council has authorised the expenditure of .certain loan money to bituminise a 20ft strip on either side of Normanby Road from Spry’s Corner to Victoria Street, and to suitably crown, regrade, and scarify the remaining strip in the centre, are of the opinion that the time is now opportune to complete the whole work by bituminising the remaining centre strip for the following reasons : “1. That while the already authorised work is in progress the completed work could be accomplished at a. considerably lesser cost than would be; the case if the council decided at Some future date to bituminise this centre strip.

“2. The elimination of the dust, nuisance.

“3. The materially lessened cost of future maintenance and the uniformity in the main street of the, borough.

"We request, therefore, that your council take the necessary steps under the Local Bodies Loans. Act, 1913, to obtain the necessary consent from the ratepayers affected from Spry’s Corner to Victoria Street to the raising of a special loan for 36% years; sufficient in excess of the present authorisation of loan money Jo complete the work. We understand" the rate required to cover the loan would not exceed one penny in the £ on the unimproved value.” ' The petition was presented, by Cr. E. A. Porritt, who supported .the suggestion that the whole of the street should be bituminised. He explained the section of the Act authorising a special rating area, The signatures to the petition were those of ratepayers, and, in addition, the two local bank managers had recommended the petition to their head offices. There was only one ratepayer in the area who had not signed the petition. He suggested that the .town clerk be authorised to set the machinery in motion to give effect to the petition. Cr. G. P. de Castro asked Cr. Porritt to. state .the ratepayer who had not signed the petition. Cr. Flatt said that the position was an awkward one, and he hoped the Mayor would not rush the matter. The Mayor (Mr W. Marshall) explained that the position was that 75 per cent, of the ratepayers were in favour of the proposal and represented 50 per cent.' df the capital value of the area, and the council could go ahead and give effect to the petition. It was obvious .that the council could not help granting t.he request of the petitioners;

Cr. J. Pinder said he would not stand Tor any expense in connection with the loan. \

It was explained by Cr. Pofritt that ratepayers one section back from the main stree,t would be liable for the rate. ;

Cr. Edwards pointed out, that there were a number of ratepayers whose names hajd not appeared on the petition.

The Mayor explained .that a special roll would be necessary, and objections would be dealt with by a stipendiary magistrate. No poll Would be necessary.

Cr. Pinder said that there was “a back-door stunt” about the petition. The work was a big undertaking. Cr. de Castro said he did not agree with the principle of creating a special rating area. He had only beqn approached that afternoon, and had not signed the petition. It, had been a surprise to- him when the petition was shown to: him. Many people would sign a petition without givingdue consideration to the matter. The councillors were entitled to fully consider the matter. The. travelling Public had the advantage of using Norma;nby road, and he. failed to why a certain section should be rated to provide a bituminised street. He said that he had previously not supported the expenditure of £l4oo’ on Normanby Road, and he had to be consistant. One’ signature to the petition could be regarded rather as: a joke; • as the ratepayer could not pay his; present rates.

Cr.. Edwards said that the spirit of the petition was admirable, flf the petitioners were prepared to shoulder the burden he would like to see the request given effect to. He was jus|t afraid, however., that some o'f the ratepayers had signed the petition without realising the significance of the project. He moved, as an amendment, that the petition be deferred for one month in fairness:, to all concerned.

Cr. Flatt seconded, and said that he would like to point out that a bitumen street did not obviate the dust nuisance. I, was the duty o'f the council to assist ratepayers; , and while admiring the petitioners,, he was rather afraid the matter was be,ing unduly hurried.

Cr. Silcock agreed with the amendment, and said that he was desirous of 'aissisting the ratepayers concerned, but hq thought an opportunity should be given for due consideration. Cr. Hare said that the petitioners evidently thought the project an urgent one, especially •as evidenced by their desire to keep down the cost of thq work.

Cr. Porritt pointed out that his resolution did not authorise the loan, but merely the machinery necessary to set the matter going. Cr. Pinder objected to the resolution on account o’f the work being carried out to the detriment of subsidiary streets. Cr. Brenan said he intended to support the amendment because he had been consistently opposed to special rating areas.

The Mayor pointed out that in the event of the amendment being carried it would kill the petition; .and also the proposal. He agreed entirely with the' petition,'but doubted ff the main street could be proceeded with without the risjk of holding ? up

other urgent summer works. It was obvious that the petitioners;’ request could not be given effect to unless the project was carried out in conjunction with the works at present in hand.

Cr. Edwards repeated that he endorsed the spirit of the petition, and his idea was not to kill the petition ; but it was not reasonable to support the matter without due consideration. The Mayor said he did not wish to suggest that Cr. Edwards had moved the amendment purposely to kill the petition. He could not understand how any councillor could be opposed to such a; progressive measure. Cr. Porritt said that the petition had only bee.n instituted on Monday, and he had been consulted and asked to present it that afternoon. He failed to see how the matter, could affect the councillors before the presentation of the petition. Cr. Flatt proceeded to make some explanation, when Cr. de Chjstrp rose to a point of order.

The point was, upheld by t,he Mayor, .who put thq amendment, which was carried.

Cr. Porritt then moved a further amendment, that the petition be deferred for one week.

In seconding pro ’forma Cr. Silcock asked if full information with reference to the rate, etc., would be supplied before that meeting. The Mayor said that full particulars .would be; supplied. The amendment was then, put and carried without further discussion.