COUNTY TO BOROUGH

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 845, 13 December 1929, Page 1

COUNTY TO BOROUGH

RATEPAYERS’ PETITION “ALMOST NO-MAN’S LAND” Reasons prompting ratepayers of a section of Waitemata County to have their properties com 4 under the control of the Birkenhead Borough Council were heard before a commission, this morning. Mr. J. C. E. Hewitt, S.M., chairman. Mr. O. N. Campbell, Commissioner of Crown Lands, and Mr. W. G. McClintock, district valuer, were the members of the commission. Mr. J. P. McPhail, Mayor, and Mr. J. W. Cocks, town clerk, represented the Birkenhead Borough Council, Mr. H. Bay, councillor, Mr. C. A. Cawkwell, county clerk, and Mr. Andrew Murray, engineer, the Waitemata County Council, and the named ratepayers petitioning were Messrs. N. G. Swanson and F. Taylor. The arpa concerned is county land in a triangle bounded by Northcote Borough, Birkenhead Borough and Onewa Road. Frank Taylor, residing at Calliope Avenue, said his quarter-acre section had no drainage or refuse collection. The water-supply was through a three-quarter-inch pipe and the minimum water charge was £ 2 10 s. Answering Mr. Cawkwell, he said no satisfactory terms had been obtained from inquiries concerning sanitation facilities. The strip of land, he said, should, for the benefit of all, be included either in Northcote or Birkenhead. “VALUE FOR RATES” N. G. Swanson believed residents would be better served in every way by being taken into Birkenhead. Better value would be obtained for the rates paid. “Our sections are practically in a no-man’s land,” said the witness. “We have no drainage, no refuse collection and no sanitation.” A ratepayer whose house was in the county but with a portion of the road frontage in Birkennead Borough. L. T. Hayman, sought the inclusion of his property in the boiough. He said rates would be cheaper in Birkenhead and the properties would have the advantages of any borough improvements. “The county has no desire to oppose the wishes of the people,” said Mr. Cawkwell. Continuing, he submitted that the petition did not comply with the terms of the regulations, m that it was not verified by declaration. Twenty-three ratepayers were affected, Mr. Cawkwell said, and 13 4-5 was the number required for the petition, and not 11 as named. Mr. Hewitt: Your objections will be noted. If they are correct, 1 don’t know why the commission was set up. However, we will judge the case on its merits. To support the council’s claim that the area had not been neglected, Mr. Murray quoted figures of expenditure. Were the area to be reduced in size, works in the remaining properties would not be economical. An objector to the petition, Joseph Hay, thought Northcote should be joined were a change to come about. The decision was reserved.