CLASSIFICATION APPEALS

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5167, 19 August 1927, Page 4

CLASSIFICATION APPEALS

(Continued from Page 3.) were established. The ratepayers enjoy the benefits of that scheme equally, and should pay for the arterial drains which make a continuance, thereof possible. “Take section 13 of the Hauraki Plains Act, 1926: (1) All lands are liable—there is no exemption ; (2) there is no limit to the maintenance rate, which is now 3.67 d in the £ ; (3) there is no appeal against classification ; (4) all the settled flat land is A.

“Before the Royal Commission in 1910 Mr R. W. Bagnall (who is one of the objectors and whose 150 acres, or so in Turua township were classed A in 1923) in his evidence refers to the then state of the estate which he and his brothers owned. This estate comprised nearly the whole of the old Hauraki district, and from it most of the present objectors come. It very important to note that the Covvernment commenced its operations in 1908 or 1909, and' it opened the first hind in this district in 191.0. After it had proved the possibility of ”endcring the swamp fit for settlement, in 1911 Bagnall’s opened their block. See the plan where they stated the land was all well drained. Their scheme, of subdivision was made possible by the work of the Government. In 1916 the Hauraki Drainage District was formed as a temporary expedient and until the Government area was ready for local government. In 1924 the Horahia Drainage District was constituted and took over from the Government. In 1926 a Commission was held and the two districts united as from April 1, 1927.

“Now coming to the case for the appellants, I submit the onus is on them to show’ that they have been unfairy classified. How has that onus been discharged ? First by my friend saying that Mr Willy’s classification was done in defiance of the statute, that Willy was instructed by the board to classify all in one class, that it was done by his fireside, and that it was no classification, at all ; next my friend referred to a hotly contested Commission and an election that was a hot contesthe then called a number.of his objectors and Messrs Sims and Johnson. I will deal with his case in that order.” EVIDENCE OF CLASSIFIER. Mr W. E. G. Willy, farmer, Turua, the board’s classifier, was the first witness. He stated that he had classified the Horahia Board’s district in 1925 and no objections had been received, although the same system had been adopted as now used by him. He did not agree with the. methods of. classification of Messrs Johnson, Walters, Sims, and the other witnesses when applied to flat swamp land. His system was the same as that of the Crown. In basing his deductions he first considered whether the land required drainage, and then how the land would be affected by the drains in existence or to be put in The lands of the ten appellants were able to take advantage of the system by the settlers constructing their own internal drains. If this was done, full advantage could be taken of the board’s system. Theise lands were generally the same as those of the other settlers, and could get the same benefits. No instructions as to the method of classification he was >° adopt were received from the board. He had inspected all the land, and had not made the classification by his fireside, as alleged. He had not inspected the land of two of the ten appellants, but had viewed it from the drain bank. Six months ago he had inspected the whole area. He had spent four days in inspecting the land in the old Hauraki Board’s area when making the classification. Prior to amalgamation the Hauraki Board members had contended that their lands were sufficiently drained. He bad visited the Public Works Department office and ascertained the nature of its proposed works on, the Waihou River frontages and had taken these factors into consideration when making his classification. There were approximately 100 miles of drains and 52 flood-gates in the whole of the United Board’s 23,000 acres. The average valuation was £2O an acre. Three of the present board members were settlers of over 16 years’ residence, and the board had approved of his classification. To Mr Clendon witness, stated that he was clerk of the Horahia Board for two years and four months, and except for one occasion had never made a classification. The board had not given him any instructions whatever as to how he was to classify the land. He had examined hundreds of properties, including practically every one of the appellants’ properties. He was personally acquainted with every farm in the district. He had not made notes: when on his inspection. Land which touched a board drain at any point was classed A. It wqs the duty of the board to provide an outlet and the duty of the settler to provide means of taking .water to the outlet should he desire drainage. He bad taken Into consideration the works proposed to be done by the Public Works Department, as the classification was to be done according to the benefit derived from any drainage works, irrespective of who did the works. In any case, the department’s Waihou River stop-bank was to be taken over eventually by the drainage board. The lands oil the Piako River frontage were no better situated for drainage than the land near the Waihou River, where all but tivo of the appellants lived. The system of classification stated by witnesses for the appellants was not applicable to Hauraki Plains land, though it would probably be desirable for rolling country. His reading of the Act was that class A land was that which received direct benefit from the works of a drainage board. The land Drainage Department used the same system of classifying as he had used.

Witness was, examined a.t length by Mr Olendon concerning certain farms at Huirau Point of which part sloped to the Waihou River but which could be drained if necessary to a board drain. Since tire 1923 classification much drainage, work had been done. Tlie Horahia-Opou special loan and its subsidy had been expended. The

Piako Road drains.had been laid back, as also had .the Whfirepoa Road drains; The Taipara drain had been made and the Te Kauri greatly improved.

In reply to Mr Walton witness stated that it was no uncommon thing on the Plains to drain against the fall of the land. WAIHOU STOP-BANKS.

Mr A. P. Grant, of the Public Works Department, Paeroa, produced a plan showing the department’s proposals with reference to the Waihou River stop-banking and the alterations to the existing drains and the new drains which would be rendered necessary. Between Pekapeka Road and Gumtown Road there would be six outlets through the stop-bank to the river. The proposals would provide for the adequate drainage of the land af; fected. To Mr Clendon witness said it was estimated that the stop-bank would be completed in about a year. MR. TAYLOR’S EVIDENCE. Mr E. Taylor, Lands Drainage Engineer, Kerepeehi, in charge of the Lands Department’s works', stated tht he would apply Mr Willy’s method of classifying land in the Hauraki district. This system had been adopted by the Lands Department’s assessors both on the Plains and on the Rangitaiki Swamp. Generally it could be said that the level of the land varied from 2ft below to 3ft above high spring tide level. Some complaints had been received concerning the department’s method of classification. It was often necessary to drain against the fall of the land, but as there was such a little difference in levels this presented pp difficulty. The department’s idea was to provide the outlets and leave the internal drains to be constructed by the settlers. The drainage rate last year of 3.67 d in the £ was practically all absorbed in maintaining the arterial drains. To Mr Clendon witness stated that settlers had the right of appeal against the A classification. He did not agree with the method of classification adopted by Mr Johnson. Each method had its merits, but either one system must be applied generally right throughout a district. He favoured Mr Willy’s method. In reply to Mr Walton Mr Taylor stated that the authority given his department under the Hauraki Plains Act was practically the same as the instructions to drainage board classifiers under the Lands Drainage Act. FURTHER ENGINEERING VIEWS. Mr E. F. Adams, surveyor and civil engineer, Thames, gave it as his opinion that the whole of the drainage system was inefficient on the ground of improper outlet facilities. He would advocate improving the floodgates as much as possible and then adopting mechanical means to expel the water. It was impossible bo define the disabilities of any area, as had been attempted by Mr Johnson and the other classifiers. He would therefore endorse Mr Willy’s and the Lands Department’s method of classifying, for generally the farms received equal benefit f;rom the drainage works. He had always held this view. A FARMER WITNESS. C- W. Parfitt, farmer, Pipiroa, stated that his farm was rated by the Lands Department as A although the department only provided an outlet and he had to provide the internal drains. There was no discontent in his district against the department’s classification, which was all A. He was of the opinion that no other system would be equitable'. As the soil only drained naturally for less than a chain it would be necessary to give effect to Mr Sims’ contention to provide drains every two chains. These drains would cost at least £1 a chain to construct and 5s 9d an acre a year to maintain. They would so cut up a farm that it would be useless. Surface or underground, drains would also be necessary. In addition to these charges the, settlers would b<> rated for the maintenance of the main outlets. Drainage boards were limited in their rating powers, and on the Plains the limit was 2s 6d an acre at the present valuation. Without the arterial drains it would be impossible to farm such land as the Plains. SETTLERS FAVOUR “ A.” F. L. Hamilton, farmer, Turua, stated that at one of the public meetings at the Huirau Road factory, which was very largely attended on account of a recent flooding, certain improvements were discussed and a committee was appointed to investigate and report to a later meeting. The committee reported, and one of the items submitted was for a flat A rate. There were objections to various parts of the report, but no objection was raised by any settler to the A classification of the whole of the proposed rating area. Mr Walton said that this was the board’s answer to the ten appeals, and he explained that if the Court decided against it, he wished for an opportunity of contesting the evidence of Mr Johnson.

The magistrate intimated that he would hear the appeals of further objectors and those of Mrs Markham, Messrs W. McCowatt, G. Gray. J. Hall, C. Ansford, R. H. Heappey, and J. H. Cartel - .

The hearing lasted from 9.30 a.m. until 6.30 p.m., and was then adjourned till some date after the 23rd.