TOWN PLAN REGION

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 897, 14 February 1930, Page 8

TOWN PLAN REGION

CITY SCHEME IS REJECTS BY RURAL BODIES '

“WHAT BENEFIT TO Fearing teat their djsV . might become involved i„ n'f”* seen expenditure, a majority rural local authorities, at * * ference in the Town HaM Cl '" chamber last evening, regional town-planning -, K I * prepared by the Auckland I*l* Council.

A contributory reason for the ration was the disinclination of bodies to support £. scheme which t?* felt could be of no benefit i 0 (L districts. Forty delegates rept**? ing 24 local authorities were p- e - ]' Mr. G. Baildon. Mayor of AuckW presided. Mr. T. Bloodworth, chairman of a City Council town-planning co*® tee. is not disappointed in that «" council s plan was approved ~bv large authorities in immediate imi-ty to the City. Mr. Bloodworth moved that an of 1,985 square miles, from th e ern boundary of Rodney County u the southern boundary of Frail' County, should be recommended to the Town •Planning Board and ti local bodies concerned as suitable b inclusion in one regional scheme. In seconding, Mr. E. H. p otte j Eden, favoured the: inclusion ot a. rural counties because modern titf! had made unity of town and counts imperative in regional planning. “SIGNING BLANK CHEQUE"

“If this scheme is adopted j bodies will in effect be asked to a, a blank cheque.” said Mr. C. F. Geu ner. New Lynn. He moved the amend ment that any local body should haui the right to withhold itself from elusion in any region if it so desired : He believed that New Lynn was capable of developing its own art , than anybody sitting in Wellington« elsewhere. Mr. L. E. Kerr-Taylor, Weitemju County Council, seconded. In reply to Mr. Gardner, Mr. Bloodworth said the Act allowed for tie point raised in the amendment It was not the function of the region;;! committee, to authorise expenditnn of money. All it had "to do was u prepare a scheme for local bodies tj carry out. "Franklin County cannot suppon any scheme that will involve tin council in any further expenditun. It’s row is hard enough to toe si- i ready,” said Mr. M. R. Grierson. “ENTIRELY UNFAIR” “The present proposals are entire? unfair.” declared Mr. >i\ M. Water, Manulcau County Council. Ever;■thing pointed to centralisation in Weft ington. That was one aspect whiej the county opposed more than any. thing else At a recent meeting the council had passed a resolution agreeing to tilt general principle of town planting, but no opportunity had been girt; to county councils to place their vies; before Parliament, before the passing of the legislation. Until such tils as matters relating to representation, compensation, centralisation of cottrol, allocation of cost of preparir: schemes were considered and del nitely settled, the council could no; support any movement having the otject of bringing the existing pror, sions of the Act into operation The Waitemata County Council, said Mr. G. O’Halloran. had no desin to be included in the proposed regie: because the district was very i; tered. Inquiry as to how Rodney Coin::. a farming district, would benefit icde the projected scheme was mads tj 1 Mr. W. J. Scholium. Answering, Mr. Baildon aited ; whether the county would rather joi: with a smaller region to the nonbward. A local authority had to jon with, one area or another. LONG VIEW NECESSARY Speaking on finance, Mr. G. W. Elehison, Auckland City Council. »- the City.would find difficulty enouf: in meeting its share of £4,Wi. Nevertheless, it was apparent to the council that the scheme warr.inteits support. The points objected tl by the Manukau County Council conii no doubt be adjusted. Mr. Hu'chisffi appealed for a long view of Atcilaoi In the future. Mr. J. Franklin, Papatoetoe, sE the district had already involved ititin an expenditure of £SOO in prepa-’-ing a planning scheme. Would town board be called upon for saf more? Mr. Baildon: The City Council t engaged on a plan which will cost t*J City hundreds, if not thousands, * pounds. I dare say what we ti" spent will be taken into consider tion by the town planning committtc “We have simply wasted our hi* coming here,” a delegate commef ll '- disgustedly. “Anything we do s liable to be overruled,” he added- ; Mr. Baildon said -the local bootf" - ha dto express an opinion, so tie.’was no wasting of time about it p 1 When Mr. Gardner attcirp'cd } speak on the motion. Mr. Baiio--ruled the amendment out of order he “could not see any meaning in t Mr. Gardner thereupon nC'' “ a new amendment, that the boundary of the region be tha ”WCreek—which excluded New W®* The amendment lapsed for want oi seconder. ■ Mr. Bloodworth’s motion was by 17 votes to 13. The districts voted as f°U® w: TW. the motion (10), Auckland City (*T cil. Newmarket. Mount Eden, Moil t Albert. One Tree Hill. Devons*-; Takapuna, Northcote. Birkenhead j Papakura; against (11), i Franklin. Waitemata and Counties. New Lynn, Glen ** i Mount Roskill. Mount V-’cUir?'' Henderson, Helensvilie. and «*“• rewa. The representatives of hunga and Papatoetoe retrained!®" voting, as the matter under c:ras! "fJ tion had not been discussed h 7 respective local bodies. ■ The decision of the B now be made known to the of Town Planning. Mr. J. W. M 4 * v who will define, with a comniissM® be set up under the Town P lan Lj' Act, the boundaries of the j regions into which New Zealand? be divided.