LOCAL BODIES' LIABILITES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 153, 27 June 1908, Page 7

LOCAL BODIES' LIABILITES.

WIDENING NARROW STREETS. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) DUNEDIN, this day. Mr J. F. Arnold, M.P., has received a communication from the Government to the effect that it intended to bring down an amendment of the Public Works Act this session with a view of removing the hardship under which borough councils are now suffering in consequence of power that private owners have of dedicating land to them against their wish, and claiming compensation. It was Mr Arnold's intention to have introduced a private bill dealing with this matter, but it will now not be necessary.

It relates to a very serious trouble we have been fighting against for some years past," remarked the Town Clerk, Mr H. W. Wilson, when interviewed by a representative of the Auckland "Star" this morning. "Evidently tins proposed measure refers to the liabilities thrown upon local bodies by the Public Works Act in respect to claims that may be made under the provisions for widening narrow streets. Section 116 provides that persons cutting up estates for sale shall form the roads before dedication to the local body, which is all right, but section 117 provides that where land having a frontage to ah existing street of a less width than' 66 feet is subdivided into allotments for the purpose of sale, the owner shall set back the frontage of the land to a distance of at least 33 feet from the centre line of the road or street, and shall dedicate as a public road or street the strip, of land between the frontage line so set back and the frontage line as previously existing, and the land so dedicated shall form part of such existing road or street.' The Act further provides that the Owner of the land so dedicated shall be entitled to compcn* sation from the local body having control of the road. It is also stipulated that In assessing such compensation, the betterment principle shall be adopted. That is, the gain to the whole property from the widening the street shall be considered when assessing how much compensation shall be paid to the owner for the portion dedicated to widen such road. There is also provision in the Act that section 117 sh/ill not apply to any case where the local body declares by resolution that the provisions thereof shall not apply to such specified roads or any part thereof, providing such resolution is approved by the Governor-in-Council. Now, the effect of that so far as Auckland Council is concerned, is, that resolutions have been passed exempting different streets from the provisions of the Act, but, with only one exception, have they been approved by the Governor-in-Council. Local bodies have always considered the operations of this provision, to render them liable to sudden claims for compensation, which in aome instances might be for large amounts. There is also another point tha* requires consideration. It is quite possible for streets under that Act to become most irregular, as some properties might be set back upon subdivision, while others might still continue to front the narrow street. Then- again it might be that a whole street is widened with the exception of the corner section, which, if it fronted a 66ft road, the owner "could not be compelled to widen where it was Side on to a narrow street.

This matter has been br»ught before d several of the biennial sittings of the £j Municipal Association since 1902 as this a provVjo was in the Act of 1900, and car- f> ried da in the Act of 1905. The Muni- S! cipal Association in 1902 resolved that g, it should be. sufficient for the Council £ to notify, that it does not require to a widen any.street to stop the operation * of that clause, but this was not adopted C by the Government. Al lthat has been V done, so far* is that the Government l* has suggested\jt would be sufficient as a an alternative i* cases of narrow streets, 0 if the owners tf buildings where pro- £ hibited from budding excepting at 33 o feet back from tie centre of the road. I This also involves (ompensation, because J it practically debarsHhe owner from get- ) ting the value of many feet of his i land. Then, too, \here is the evil ' that in a case where a new building s was to be erected, it -would have to be set back, while it migXt be 20 or 30 years before other build'trgs would re- I quire replacing, thus you have an irre- 1 gular line of buildings. I c\ n asure you ] that Mr Arnold's bill is a very important t j measure for local bodies. t