H—2B

the case because no provision had been made in the extra-urban planning scheme for the extension of the existing mining villages. It was maintained by the County Council that better living-conditions would be available to the miners if, as a matter of policy r residential development was confined to the Borough of Huntly. The Housing Division has been active in the Huntly area in providing residences for miners and others living in the environs. The early part of this development took place on the western bank of the river and was incorporated in the borough in 1944. Subsequently the Housing Division commenced operations in the county area just beyond the boundary of the borough on the western bank of the Waikato River. Fairly extensive housing development was proposed in this area. The Raglan County Council proposed that a large area approximating 1,000 acres should be taken into the borough so as to provide adequate room for future development. As part of its general policy the Local Government Commission requested information from the Mines Department as to future mining operations in the immediate vicinity of the Huntly Borough, as well as seeking information from the Housing Division and Maori Affairs Department as to their operations in the district. Evidence on all these questions was given at the inquiry held in Huntly on the 16th and 17th February, 1948. From this evidence it appeared that some portion of the areas proposed to be included in the Borough of Huntly would be used in the immediate future for opencast mining. Other evidence showed that another portion of the area was swamp and liable to periodic flooding. Still another portion of the area was so located that drainage and sewage works would present extreme difficulties. The Huntly Borough indicated that it was prepared to take over such area as could be developed for residential purposes within a reasonable period, and considerable evidence was adduced as to the possible future development of Huntly. The decision of the Commission was that an area much smaller than that proposed by the Raglan County Council, but still adequate to provide for the possible expansion of the Borough of Huntly for the next ten years, should be added to the borough. It was subsequently indicated that this decision was acceptable to both the borough and to the county. It should be mentioned in passing that by bringing together the Housing Division, the Mines Department, and other interested Government Departments, the Commission was able to do something towards the co-ordination of the activities of the various Departments operating in this area. The problems investigated at Huntly are similar to the problems emerging in various parts of the Dominion. In particular, the question as to potential building development was emphasized as an important factor in determining the possible extension of borough boundaries, and the Commission, as part of its findings in the Huntly case, enunciated certain principles which it suggested should have universal application in deciding such applications for alterations of urban boundaries. We reproduce hereunder an extract from the report of the Commission dealing with these principles : Principles which should determine Extensions of Borough Boundaries The questions which emerged at this inquiry are of more than local interest. Evidence is not wanting to show that in many cases in the Dominion urban population is " spilling over " into county areas, and substantial residential development is taking place in county areas just beyond the boundaries of existing boroughs; in many cases this is taking place because of the non-availability of building sections within the borough, although there is no doubt that in some cases it is taking place because of two other factors : (i) The more favourable and less onerous provisions as to subdivision contained in the Land Subdivision in Counties Act than the provisions obtaining in boroughs; and (ii) The lower standards required for roading and other similar amenities in the county subdivision.

13