OXFORD-TO-SEA SCHEME

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25970, 25 November 1949, Page 3

OXFORD-TO-SEA SCHEME

BOARD MEMBERS AT RANGIORA

MAYOR’S MOTION OF OBJECTION

The benefit of the Oxford-to-the-sea scheme to the Rangiora borough, the lack of opportunities for-ratepayers to object to it, and the provision for compensation to be paid to land owners were the. main points discussed at a meeting in Rangiora last evening, attended by representatives of the North Canterbury Catchment Board. About 100 persons attended.

When the questioning from the floor had concluded, Mr W. Machin, the chairman of the board, who was in the chair, began to declare the meeting closed. As he was speaking the Mayor of Rangiora (Mr C. W. Tyler) rose, but Mr Machin continued, and the meeting was formally closed. Mr Tyler, with the support of the majority of those present, then put the motion: “That this meeting objects to the as far as Rangiora is concerned,” and it was carried unanimously.

On the request of Mr J. Matson, only those who would be included as ratepayers if the scheme was proceeded with, voted, and 10 persons who would not be ratepayers did not vote. Mr Matson said that after most meetings the newspaper reports had said that the meetings had been attended by many outsiders, and he wished to make it clear that this was not so.

The Catchment Board should give the ratepayers of the district a chance of objecting to the scheme, said Mr Tyler. The only objections that they had been allowed to make were against their classification for rating. If the board was going to undertake such a work as the Oxford-to-the-sea scheme, it should allow every chance for the people concerned to say whether or not they were in favour of it. “What is the use of coming to this meeting where we can only hear your scheme again?” he asked. Mr Machin replied that he doubted whether the opposition to the scheme was an great as some of its opponents said. He had heard that quite a number of those men who had originally either signed the petition or lodged objections, after having heard the board’s explanation of the scheme, were considering withdrawing or had withdrawn their opposition to it. He had taken a careful note of the number of people who had attended the four meetings, and one conference held so far by the board, said Mr Machin, and he found that there were only 203 who were affected. He had purposely left out of this number persons who were not ratepayers and had counted each person only once, no matter how many of the five meetings he had attended. “I fail to see that 203 people are a® considerable quota of the 4000 classifications,” he said.

"We think that you have included Rangiora simply because it has a high capital value,” said Mr Tyler to Mr Machin. The Magistrate’s decision as to whether or not an area should be included in the classification and what its classification should be was final, said Mr Machin. The borough did not think it fair that, it being only one hundredth part of the area, it should have to pay about one-tenth of the cost of the scheme, said Mr Tyler. Compensation Proposals “Have you made complete provisions for compensation?” asked Mr Tyler. As the scheme was receiving a Government subsidy, such provision should have been made. “We have made provision on what we think is a fair figure,” answered Mr Machin. The board had always been able to reach settlement on compensation matters by negotiation, he said, quoting the Selwyn river scheme as an instance When Mr Tyler asked how much had been allowed for compensation to land owners who would be affected by the 11 miles of diversions covering an area of 700 acres. Mr Machin said he would not give him the answer in figures, because he noticed that the Borough Council’s two solicitors were sitting ' with the Mayor, and he would not be

tricked into making a reply which could later be used against him in Court. “I refer you to the scheme.” he said. Mr C. S. Ayers, a member of the board, asked the chairman if he could read the relevant extract to the meeting from his copy of the scheme, and received Mr Machin’s permission. Mr Ayers then read: “No provision has been made in the estimates for compensation except for the area actually required for new works such as the Eyre diversion. Mr Ayers: There you are. No provision is made for compensation. Mr H. W. Harris, the board’s engineer: I think Mr Ayers’s interpretation is wrong. Mr Ayers said that he could not find an item “compensation” in the tabulated expenditure included in his copy of the scheme. Mr Machin: The board has provided what it thinks is necessary. Mr Ayers: Would you add the word compensation to that? Mr Machin said that Mr Ayers was the only member of the board who was against the scheme and he would not be led on by him. . Mr F. T. Ager asked Mr Machin if he would tell the meeting who had asked for the scheme. Mr Machin replied that various individuals over a considerable period had asked the board to control certain problems in their own areas, some of which had been troublesome for many years. “We have evidence to prove that Rangiora needs protection from flood waters.” said Mr Macnin. Mr G. A. McAlpine disagreed, stating that although the borough was subject to flooding from within it was not liable to ..be greatly affected bywater from outside its area. After Mr Machin had formally closed the meeting, Mr Tyler put his motion and 'also proposed a vote of thanks to the speakers, which was carried by acclamation.