‘Mexican stand-off’ on reserve

Press, 10 March 1984, Page 1

‘Mexican stand-off’ on reserve

By

PATRICIA HERBERT,

property reporter Mr Wayne Francis, the Westmorland developer, has deducted more than $2OOO from his latest rate payment to the Paparua County Council. His cheque has been returned. He was billed for $2462 but sent only $374 after deducting the amount he has paid in rates on reserve land in the subdivision since February, 1977, plus 13 per cent interest Mr Francis, who made headlines before Christmas when he ploughed up a playfield on the reserve, explained in a covering letter to the County clerk, Mr B. L. Mooar, why he had made the deduction. He said that after “various unfortunate actions” and “rather than extend any unpleasantness,” he had

sought an independent legal opinion on his longstanding wrangle with the council over the ownership of the land. He said that he had been advised that it was normal practice for developers to put reserve titles in the council’s name when depositing subdivisional plans in the Land Transfer Office. He had since done this. Ownership, he told Mr Mooar, was now where it should have been since February, 1977 — with the Paparua County Council. He said it would appear that the land should have been taken by the council then and that to have charged him rates on it after that was “outrageous, to say the least” Mr Francis’s solicitors have also advised him that the council overstepped its powers under the law in the

conditions it imposed upon him before it would take over the resesrve. He was required to plant the area in trees and to have adjacent propertyowners sign convenants absolving the council from any responsibility for fencing on the boundaries. The dispute developed out of the second requirement, which Mr Francis offered to meet by underwriting the council for any claims residents Flight make against it for fencing costs. The/Cbunty Engineer, Mr John /Annan, has said that this offer was unacceptable because . while the council would love to have a gentlemath's agreement on the matter with Mr Francis, a gentleman’s agreement cannot be concluded between 4n individual and a local /tody. ■ ; /One concern is that the

arrangement would expire with Mr Francis’s death but Mr Francis had dismissed this, saying that it could be made legally binding not only on himself but also on his estate. He said this week that he and the council had reached a position of “Mexican stand-off’ on the reserve. The council refuses to vest the land formally until the fencing covenants have been signed and Mr Francis refuses to collect the signatures because the titles have already been transferred. He concedes that the council would npt have approved the plans except that his engineer “pulled the reserve out so that we could get the rest of the sections deposited.” He also acknowledges that he agreed to the conditions it laid down for taking over the land but his solici-

tors have advised him that “consent cannot confer on a council jurisdiction which it does not have in law.” The row gained heat on February 1 when the council gave Mr Francis 14 days to remove long grass and “dead vegetation” from the reserve because of fire risk. He refused, saying that the reference was to trees which he paid for and which were killed when a council contractor sprayed the area for gorse. He would move them only after he had had them valued so that he could claim against the council for them. After that, Mr Francis asked his - solicitors for “a legal interpretation” of his position and he now says that the council should have taken the same precaution before risking a confrontation. “They look like getting a

fair bit of egg on their faces. Why should I pay $2OOO rates to them?” he said. “They have my money and as far as I am concerned they never had any right to it Whether or not I will sue ...” he said, but left the threat hanging. Mr Annan had “nothing to add” to Mr Francis’s comments but said that the council had sought “further advice on the whole subject from its solicitors.” Mr Mooar said that he had returned the cheque because “it was felt that the council must preserve its rights in respect of its claim for rates against Mr Francis on the land.” He said that if he had accepted the cheque it might have been construed that he also accepted the basis on which it was tendered.