TAKAPUNA BOROUGH

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 938, 3 April 1930, Page 9

TAKAPUNA BOROUGH

LOSS BY RE-VALUATION PERMIT DECLINED An echo of last year’s litigation, Mowbray v. Takapuna Borough Council, concerning the subdivision of land on the lake watershed, was heard at a meeting of the Takapuna Borough Council last evening, when the Minister of Health, the Hon. A. J. Stallworthy, notified that his department would liquidate the cost of the action to the. borough. This was paid in accordance with an undertaking given by the department when, the embargo was enforced in 192 5. Mr. Stallworthy added that the Government was not prepared to continue to bear such liability, consequently the indemnity must be withdrawn. Members expressed astonishment at this latter statement, and it was resolved to convene a meeting of the North Shore Water Board to consider, the position which has been created as the result of the Ministerial withdrawal of the indemnity. The Mayor, Mr. J. W. Williamson, presided over a fully attended meeting. Advice was received that the borough’s annual contribution to the War Memorial Museum was £166, practically the same amount as last year. An existing street light near the foot of Milford Road is to be shifted to the beach, in order to permit members of the local surf and football clubs to indulge in training during the winter. Surprise was expressed by members when advice was received from the Valuer-General that several applications for revaluations had been received under section 50 of the Valuation of Land Act, 192 5. The schedule showed one case where the existing valuation of £5.630 would probably be reduced to £3.255. The town clerk, Mr. H. L. Bowden, said that apparently the council had no right of objection under the section. He pointed out that in the event of a reduction to the lower figure, the council would lose over £IOO yearly in rates. The borough building inspector reported that he had declined to issue a permit for the erection of a block of shops at Hall’s Corner. He had taken this stand because the contractors had not submitted the detailed plans required in such work. As the building was well under way, the council resolved that a prosecution be instituted for the breach of the by-laws, and that if the' required detailed plans were not lodged immediately, application would be made for an injunction to restrain the builders from proceeding with the constructional work.