BIRKENHEAD POLL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 46, 24 February 1936, Page 9

BIRKENHEAD POLL.

BOROUGH SEWERAGE SCHEME

LETTERS FOR AND AGAINST.

Two letters relating to the poll, which is to be taken at Birkenhead to-morrow on the proposal to sanction a loan of £28.000 for a sewerage scheme, have been received by the editor of the "Auckland Star."

The first letter is signed "Ratepayer' and is as follows: —

The drainage scheme which the Birkenhead Borough Council has asked the ratepayers to approve at the poll next Tuesday has many weaknesses and disadvantages, of which, the follow ing are a few: — 1. Tho clanger of pollution to our harbour and foreshores by the outfall in Chelsea Bay. 2. The non-rating of the Chelsea sugar works, which means that tho largest and richest of the ratepayers, the Colonial Sugar Company, will escape the payment of the special rate for drainage.

3. the scheme at best only covers approximately half the borough s population. • 4. When the inevitable larger North Shore drainage plan is carried out in a few years' time it will mean that thousands of pounds now proposed to at Birkenhead will be utterly waßy l addition to tho £35,000 to be spent on the public construction of the scheme the section of ratepayers affected will liavo to find from their private purses approximately another £ 15.000 for installation, this being calculated on the council's estimate of an average [ expenditure of between £20 and £30 each house, but we must recollect that the average expenditure for installation in Xorthcote was £35' each.

6. It is contended, as an inducement to the ratepayers, that this drainage scheme will improve the capital value of the properties, but such has not proved the case at Xorthcote, where all properties are equally as unsaleable as at Birkenhead.

It would be far wiser to await the big Xorth Shore drainage plan which is promised, shortly and eliminate the •danger of the pollution of our immediate foreshores' with its risk to Birkenhead's- present position as one of Auckland's healthiest' suburbs and to include within the large scheme a much wider proportion of our population, who are ignored in the present half-pie plan. The great majority of Birkenhead people favour drainage, but dislike the crude and unsatisfactory scheme now put forward by the council. Mayor Replies to Criticism.

The second letter is signed by the Mayor of Birkenhead, Mr. George Mills, and is in the nature "of a reply to the writer of the first letter. / It is as follows:—

Sir, —In reply to the assertions made by "Ratepayer," I desire to make the following comments, viz.:—

(1) "Ratepayer" need have no apprehension in regard to the location of the proposed outfall midway between the Birkenhead and Chelsea wharves. The outfall will extend out into the main channel, the outlet end being covered by Oft of water at mean low tide. It is emphasised that the effluent will definitely not be in the form of "crude" sewage, but will be treated and clarified, and it is accordingly claimed, that the discharge could not create any sort of nuisance whatever. Furthermore, the outfall and tanks and, indeed, the whole •scheme, has been approved by the Health Department, Public Works Department, Local Government Loans Board and the Auckland Harbour Board, which speaks for itself.

(2) The exclusion of this property was -decided upon after careful consideration of all the circumstances, including the legal position. The land in question is that occupied by the Colonial Sugar Company's refinery at Chelsea and the large watershed area, none of which is subdivided nor likely to be so divided in the near future for building purposes.

3. The scheme comprises the more closely settled portion of the borough, and it is estimated that at least twothirds of the borough's population reside in the proposed drainage area. In any case, "Ratepayer's" • objection appears irrelevant, and is obviously illogical, inasmuch as the excluded portion of the borough comprises exceedingly eparsely populated areas consisting almost entirely of rural land, much of which is subject to the Urban Land Rating Act. Furthermore, the scheme is capable of expansion at any time in the future as the growth of population in the outer district warrants it.

(4) In view of the recent report of the engineer to the Auckland and Suburban Drainage Board, supported by the two visiting experts, it is reasonable to assume that the capital cost of a combined system for the northern boroughs (£290,000) renders such a scheme impracticable for 10 to 15 years or more. However, the Birkenhead scheme has been designed with a view to linking up with the major scheme if and when tho same is proceeded with. The only part of the Birkenhead system which could not be embraced would be the treatment tanks and sewer outfall, estimated to cost £3474.

(o) The council's estimate of £20 to £30 is based on good advice supported by independent estimates.

(G) I am not prepared to discuss the selling values of properties in Birkenhead or elsewhere, but would point out that many potential buyers and homebuilders are not tmreasonably prejudiced against districts lacking up-to-date drainage facilities.

In conclusion, permit me to refute "Ratepayer's" final suggestion, that this is a "half-pie" or ill-considered scheme, and to assert most emphatically that in submitting the proposal the borough council lias had regard to probable future developments. By reason of the low rate of interest on the loan (3J p?r cent) and assistance promised by the Unemployment Board, the proposal is the most attractive yet presented to the ratepayers in this connection, and the council has no hesitation in recommending it for adoption.