CLASSIFICATION APPEALS

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5188, 7 October 1927, Page 3

CLASSIFICATION APPEALS

HAURAKI DRAINAGE RATING.

DECISION IN FAVOUR OF BOARD.

Judgment in favour of the Hauraki United Drainage Board was given by Mr F. W. Platts, S.M.. in the Magistrate’s Court, Thames, yesterday in the case of the appeals against the

classification of land in the drainage

diterict for rating purposes. Mr E. L. Ai Walton appeared for the drainage board and its classifier (Mr W. E. G, Willy). and Mr E. J. Ciendon appeared for the appellants. In giving the decision the; magistrate said :— “The district of the Hauraki United Drainage Board comprises, 23,000 acres of alluvial land lying between the Waihou and the Piako rivers at levels that vary from 2ft above to 2ft below high-water mark. This area i s divided into 450 holdings. For rating purposes the board, acting under section 33 of the Land Drainage Act, 1908, nad its amendmentsi, has classified approximately 400 of these holdings as “A” lands—that is, land receiving immediate and direct benefit or likely to receive immediate and direct benefit from the construction of the board’s drainage works. The .50 remaining holdings have been classified as “B” lands —this is, they receive less direct benefit from the drainage operations. Forty of the 450 ratepayers on this classification list have appealed on the grounds that the classification of their properties as “A” land is unfair. A few years ago a vast swamp, the area under the control of the board has now' been reclaimed, drained, and made fit for settlement by the; operatoihs of the present board or of former boards in constructing an elaborate system of over 100 miles of arterial drains with '5O flood-gates, and by the operations of the Public Works Department in straightening the Piako River and in erecting stopbanks (now maintained or to be maintained by the board) for the protection of the low-lying lands on the river fronts. “All the appellants who gave evidence admit that without these drainage works their farms would not exist ; but they assert that their properties. are not sufficiently drained by the board’s drains to justify their present classification as “A” lands. They point to the classification of 1923. made by a previous, board, under which lands now’ placed by the new board in class “A” were classi-

fled by the old board partly in “A,” partly in “B,” and partly in ! ’D.” They assert that since 1923 there, has been no definite improvement in the drainage of their lands by the operations of the board. “The appeals; are supported by the evidence, of engineers and drainage experts, who maintain that for rating purposes the methods of classification applied by them to ordinary drainage districts are applicable to swamp lands like the Hauraki Plains. They contend that land must have

immediate and direct access to the w board’s drains before it should be classified as “A.” The are not, in agreement, however, as to tjhe definition of "B” lands. Mr S. B. Sim, an experienced drainage, engineer, would class as “B” all lands so situated that it is necessary for the owner to do a certain amount of work thereon before he can obtain the full benefiit of the board’s drainage works. Messrs Walters, Hughes, and Thomson agree with this opinion. Mr W. R. Johnson, an engineer of considerable drainage . experience and the 'principal expert for the appellants, takes) a different view. He considers that the property of a landowner who puts in his own internal or surface drains in order to get the benefit of the board’s drainage system might nevertheless be properlj' classified as “A” land. “The case for the board is that the method of clsasification advocated by the appellants and by their expert, advisers may be correct when applied to an ordinary drainage district that comprises plain and hillside and marsfialnd, but that it has no proper application to the lands and farms of the Hauraki Plains, which would have remained uninhabitable but for the arterial drains, the stop-banks, and , other works constructed or maintained by the board. The board contends that thedr works have made the di&trict fit for settlement, and that the properties of the appellants, practically created, as they have been, by the board’s operations, have received to a striking extent such immediate and direct benefit that the board is justified in placing them in class; “A.” “In taking up this position the board is following the ejxample of the Government, .which, under the provisions of the Hauraki Plains Act, 1926. has made or is making a large adjoining area of swamp land fit for settlement and has classified all settled flat lands therein as “A” land. This is as land receiving direct benefit from the drainage and constructive operations authorised by the Act. The engineers called asi witnesses by the board, and amongst whom are Government officials of wide experience in the drainage and reclamation of swamp lands, support the board’s classification. The, board has shown that since the last classification (1923) substantial progress has been made by the construction of n&w arterial drains and flood-gates, and that the Public Works Department is now engage! in the construction of an extensive line; of stop-banks (to be taken over and maintained by the board) that will prove of permanent benefit to many properties still liable to flooding. including the farmlands of sev- .. eral of the appellants. “Counsel for the board has pointed out that they© is really very little difference in the amount of taxation to which “A” and “B” land is liable. The present rate on “A" land is 3%d in the £ (unimproved value), and on “B” land it is The full limit of drainage taxation is about 3s nei acre, and it may be noted in passing that in a case recently before theCourt settlers from the Hauraki United Drainage District valued land there at from £5O to £lOO per acre. “It is settled law that the board’s duty Is to construct and maintain

the arterial drains required for draining the area, under its control. The board has no authority to make the internal drains necessary for completing the drainage of private property, or to connect such drains with the board’s arterial drains. That is a duty that falls upon the landowner (Wood v. Taranaki Electric Power Board, 1927. N.Z.L.R. 392, Hall and others v. Olana D. 8., 1927, G.L.R. 61).

“In the opinion of the Court the classification list prepared by the board should be upheld. “The appeals are dismissed ; the question of costs to stand over for consideration between counsel and the registrar.”

Mr Ciendon advocated that the ease was more or less a test case, and he w'ould suggest that it was not an instance where the appellants should bear the costs of the defendant board. Mr Walton intimated that, the, board did not seek costs.