Subdividing Lake Land

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 529, 5 December 1928, Page 6

Subdividing Lake Land

BUILDING SITE PLANS REJECTED

Test Case Against Takapuna Council

Preliminary argument to what will be virtually a test case to determine whether persons may build on the watershed of Lake Pupuke at Takapuna was heard in the Supreme Court this morning. Douglas Ramsay Cargill Mowbray moved that a rule nisi made by Mr. Justice Herdman for the issue of a writ of mandamus against the Takapuna Borough Council, be made absolute. Mr. McVeagh represented plaintiff and Mr. Meredith and Mr. Lowrie the Borough Council. Mr. McVeagh said the plaintiff had tendered plans in March, 1927, for a proposed subdivision. The council intimated that it would approve three out of five sections, the remaining two being Rejected as forming part of the lake watershed. Mowbray then informed the council that one section was intended only for a quarry. The local body had, however, maintained its refusal. “I cannot understand what the objection is about,” said Mr. McVeagh. “We are merely asking for approval of a plan, and not for building permits. The council is squealing before it is hurt.” Counsel read correspondence from Dr. H. Chesson, medical ..officer ox health, asking the council to withhold approval of the plan pending further investigations. “You have already received intimation,” wrote Dr. Chesson, “that you will have the assistance of tlie Crown Law Department in the event of proceedings being taken against you.” “I must point out that such reference to the marshalling of the Crown Law forces is a most ex-

traordinarv thing.” said Mr. Met eagh. “It savours of Tudor absolutism. There has been shilly shallying by the Borough Council to this very day. Mr. Meredith submitted that all the reference to the marshalling of the Crown Law forces was irrelevant in that it all took place long after the council's refusal of the plan. In any case, it was a new council that had embarked upon the correspondence with the health authorities. Counsel objected to anything since March, 1927, when the plan was refused. “■What right had Dr. Chesson to interfere in an application for a subdivision?” challenged Mr. McVeagh. “I must formally object to the admission of this correspondence,” Mr. Mei’edith said. Mr. Justice Frazer remarked that no harm could come from a recital of the view of the Health Department. His Honour would note the objection in the event of future argument. Mr. Meredith contended that Mr. McVeagh had not established a case and had proved nothing. The council had simply refused to permit a subdivision according to its powers under the Municipal Corporations Act. If defendants had not considered the plan there would be grounds for application for mandamus. No malafides had been adduced. Mr. McVeagh replied that the logical result of Mr. Meredith’s argument was that land-owners were placed at the mercy of a borough counciL “I can find no power in the Act to disapprove,” counsel went on. “A local body could demand redrawing of a plan, provision of roading, etc., but it had no power to say “You shall not subdivide.” Legal argument is proceeding.