HUTT MERGER

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 223, 17 June 1936, Page 12

HUTT MERGER

Conference of Local Bodies

FURTHER STEP TAKEN Setting Up Qf Committee Recommended REPORT TO BE PREPARED Further steps toward exploring the practicability of the amalgamation of the Hutt Valley local bodies were taken at a representative conference called by the Lower Hutt Borough Council last night. The local authorities represented were the Lower Hutt Borough Council, Petone Borough Council, Eastbourne Borough Council, Hutt County Council, Hutt and Petone Gas Lighting Board and the Hutt River Board.

After a long discussion the conference recommended the appointment of a committee consisting of the mayors or chairmen of the authorities concerned, together with representatives of the Upper Hutt Borough Council and the Makara County Council, also the director of town planning and an officer of the Internal Affairs Department, to report back at a later date to the conference.

A proposal to appoint a committee wholly of outside experts was defeated, Tlte Mayor of Lower Hutt, Mr. J. W. Andrews, presided. “It is generally accepted that a drastic overhaul of the local body system is necessary in the Interests of efficiency and economy, and that a lot of dead wood should be cut away so that healthy growth may be stimulated,” said Mr. Andrews. Suggestions concerning one form of amalgamation or another have been advanced at intervals during the past 36 years. In 1900, when the combined population of the area represented here to-night was about 5500 it was deemed desirable by one large section. The population to-day is over 30,000. From then on several proposals have been made, and reports drawn up, but without any tangible results. The conference has the commendation of the Minister ot Internal Affairs, and I am sure it has also the good wishes of the majority of the thinking people both inside and outside its areas. There are no natural boundaries between the areas represented here, and the whole district has one community of interest, even though governed by so many different bodies. The facilities for recreation, education and social services provided by some portions of the district are used by all portions. The population is increasing more rapidly than in any other part of New Zealand, and the available land in the boroughs will soon be completely settled. “We must zone the whole district into areas most suitable for residential, commercial and industrial development, and control the density of population in the zones. It is much easier and cheaper to prevent slums than to remove them. It is necessary to restrict ribbon commercial development, which, if unchecked, will react detrimentally to existing centres, and may even result in blighted commercial areas. “I would surmise that there are more anomalies, owintr to unnatural boundaries, in this area than in any other area of like size in New Zealand. “It is essential that the situation should be taken in hand at the earliest possible moment,” continued Mr. Andrews. Detail for Experts. “The question of detail can best be left to experts, but 1 do trust that this conference will affirm the principle that a simplification of the present topheavy form of lix-al government is essential, and that community of interest, natural physical features, and planned economy, shall determine the boundaries of tlte city that shall rise gloriously from the present conglomeration of local body areas, with paper lines only separating the various units. There is no time to-night to discuss the innunjerahle advantages that must ensue from specialist handling of each of our departments. That also is a question that can l>e left to experts. “The problem the conference must face seems to me to narrow itself clown to this: The population of this area is growing so rapidly that we must plan for the future, and we cannot ge’. the best out of our planning while we remain such a tangle of separate little bodies. Previous efforts may not have been entirely successful because of alleged parochialism and the fear of the big boot. “I trust that any misgivings liar.; been removed, and that the community of interest that undoubtedly exists over the whole area, coupled with a common desire on the part of the people’s representatives to tender a real public service, will enable us to rise above the petty things, and to view the question as a truly national one. I am positive that every part of the projected city area has much to gain and nothing to lose from the realignment. There have been numerous similar amalgamations In New Zealand, and there is not one ease where the citizens have subsequently been sorry. The separate parts of the area have rapidly grown together, until now only imaginary lines separate them. “The planning o f this combined area, the study of past population growth and trends in development, the estimate of future population, its location and density—all this will enable the engineers to plan adequate services, will save costly duplication, and in tin long run will benefit every ratepayer ami citizen. These things are worth while, and I know we are wise enough to see the necessity, and big enough to cjo now the thing that must be done some day.” Mr .Andrews (hen moved: “Thar this conference approves the principle of amalgamation, and recommends the appointment of the following committee to bring clown a report: Mr. T. Jordan, Mayor of Mastertou. and president of the Municipal Association of New Zealand: Mr. R. B. Hammond. Director of Town Planning: Mr. G. J. J. Foil, public accountant. Wellington: Mr. A. Harper, of the Internal Affairs Department.”

The committee would report on: (1) Recommended boundaries: (2) basis for amalgamation: (3) representation on new city council; (4) location of civic centre; (5) system of rating; (6) such other matters as it deems essential.

The motion was seconded by Mr. LW. Wise. Mayor of Eastbourne. Mr. A. Scholefield, Mayor of Pet one. said his views on the principle of the

amalgamation of the bodies concerned were well known,

“In discussing this important question. I sincerely hope we shall get away from the parochial viewpoint which always stood out predominantly when the question of amalgamation of local bodies in tlte valley, Lower Hutt and Petone in particular, was discussed,” said Mr, Scholefield. "Let us forget we are councillors for the resjiective local bodies, remembering W are citizens of the valley, and let us display a broad outlook. Is it not more important to realise that there is a population of approximately 27,000 within the combined area of two of the boroughs represented here, Lower Hutt and Petone, the residents of which have the right to demand that the best communal services should be given them, and that the district comprising the combined areas should be so developed as to bring about the highest possible standard of communal development? Can this be given while the people and areas are divided into a number of local bodies? “The time is ripe to review the .services of the valley and see whether they could be economically coordinated and extended to cope with future developments.' Also, whether comprehensive services could not be instituted through amalgamation of all or some of the local bodies in the Hutt Valley. These should be more economical and beneficial than the maintenance of a number of separate local bodies.

“In my opinion the most favourable opportunity from every point of view for the amalgamation of Lower Hutt and Petone was in 1927 when the councillors of each borough met in conference, the outcome of which was the appointment of Mr. G. J. J. Feil to bring down a report for submission to a further conference in the near future. It -is not to the credit of the then Mayor and councillors of Lower Hutt that the information required by Mr. Feil to compile his report was refused by them, causing the report to be hung up for a period of over two years for the simple reason that the Lower Hutt Borough Council desired to retain the sole control of the development scheme they had in hand, also to await the time when Lower Hutt’s population exceeded Petone’s. These are not wild statements, but declarations made by members of that council. No wonder it has been said by Petone residents that under a scheme of amalgamation they would be saddled with the expenditure of the development which has and is taking place in Lower Hutt. “Two questions of vital importance to Petone are: (1) Will Petone residents, under a scheme of amalgamation, be saddled with the cost of development which has taken place and is still proceeding elsewhere? (2) Will Lower Hutt, having the larger population, dominate the position to the detriment of Petone’s residents, who will have numerical strength on the combined council?”

Mr. Scholefield presented figures to show that Lower Hutt borough was paying interest on loans to the extent of 8/71 per £lOO more than Petone, and Eastbourne 3/6 per £lOO more than Petone.

“Returning to the two vital questions concerning Petone, I submit Petone’s more favourable financial position. The fears expressed are, under certain conditions, unnecessary for the following reasons:—(l) That clauses 141 to 151 of the Municipal Act, 1932, provide for a wards system which If given effect to would give representation according to population; (2) that clauses 77 to 81 of the same Act make provision for the levying of rates in such a. manner that the rates made and levied in any one or more of such wards may vary from those in another or others.

“If these were put in operation, each of the boroughs uniting would have its just representation on the council. Also they would have a separate rating area, and therefore would not, as stated, be burdened with the expenditure of the development that has taken and is taking place in Lower Hutt particularly.

“Despite what action has or has not been taken by past councils or their representatives, we should display a broad, unbiased outlook when discussing this important question.

"Providing that each borough amalgamating would be constituted as a separate ward and as a special rating area, with sole power to elect such number of councillors assigned to it by proclamation, then, and then only, should Petone be asked to be a party to the amalgamation. Amalgamation on the lines suggested would localise development expenditure and financial commitments for the time being, but it would enable us to get together anti tackle problems which the increased population of the lower part of the valley has produced, and future development would create.

“Whatever our views as individuals or collectively as a council may be, the electors have the right by vote to determine whether amalgamation shall or shall not take place,” said Mr. Scholefield, who suggested that a separate vote should be taken by the electors of each borough concerned, a majority In each borough being essential. He moved as an amendment:— “(1) This conference appoint a fftialified accountant to bring down a comp.rative report of the affairs of the local bodies represented at the conference, covering the seven years ended March 31. 1936.

“(2) That the town clerks of the local bodies concerned confer with the accountant and supply the necessary data and figures required by him to enable him to prepare the report. “(3) That upon completion and presentation of the report it be circularised to each local body for their immediate consideration, after which the delegates resume and further consider the question of amalgamation tn the light of the report and opinions of the local bodies on the question. “(4) That this conference recognise the right of the electors of each local body to determine by ballot whether their respective local bodies shall be a party to amalgamation, in any form, of all. or some of the bodies concerned.” The amendment was seconded by Mr. E. T. E. Hogg (Petone Borough Council). ’ Hutt County’s Opinion.

Mr D. R. Hoggard (chairman of the Hutt County Council) said he was not in Jove with either the motion or the amendment. It was putting the cart before tlie horse. He thought the question should be referred to the mayors and chairmen of the bodies concerned. with the addition of Mr. A. Harper, of the Internal' Affairs Department. The county could not view with equanimity the proposal to take away from it its best rate area, leaving an uneconomic unit behind. Should it not be the whole county? Some safeguard would have to be devised whereby one class of ratepayer would not be penalised in favour of another. "IVe should not go frantic over, amalgamation," Mr. Hoggard said. "There is far more call for the rationalisation of private enterprise. You cannot, save money without dismissing men. Whether it is the amalgamation of local bodies or the rationalisation of private enterprise, it will result in men being deprived of employment.’’ Mr. M. J. Hodgins (Hutt River Board) agreed that a committee us suggested by I lie previous speaker should be appoint-

The opinion that the conference had proceeded as far as it could go at present was expressed by Mr. D. W. Campbell (Petoue and Lower Hutt Gas Board),

who said the sole question should be the adoption of the best measures for the prosperity of the Hutt Valley as a whole. The Minister of Internal Affairs had indicated that if the local bodies interested did not come to a decision the Government would come to a decision for them. A delegate: Question. Mr. F. J. Jones (Hutt River Board) said he thought his members were in favour of amalgamation. The board was not in the same position as Petone and Lower Hutt, and before they could give an opinion they would have to know the boundaries. He agreed with Mr. Hoggard regarding the committee, hut he thought that an expert town planner should be included in the committee. Eastbourne Approves.

Mr. E. W. Wise said that the Eastbourne council approved oi the principle of amalgamation. Mr. Hoggard's suggestion would help considerably and would get the conference further than the motion.

Mr. P. Dowse (Lower Hutt) suggested that the Mayor of retone accept the appointment of the committee proposed by Mr. Hoggard. The ratepayers should be given a lead by the conference. Everybody seemed to favour amalgamation and it appeared that it was only a quetsiqn of ways and means. No Mandate.

Mr. Hogg said he di« not feel that the delegates had any mandate from their councils to support amalgamation. So far as Petone was concerned, the council had a clear view of their ratepayers' opinions. They were against amalgamation. It was not a matter for the councils.

"Unless there are any clear benefits the Government will not Interfere,” declared Mr. Hogg. "It is not fear that brought us here, but it was a real interest in amalgamation.” There were many points to be settled before the Petone council could recommend amalgamation to its ratepayers or before the ratepayers would support it. One of these was the question whether Eastbourne should come in at present. It was separated from Petone by a fair distance, and he doubted whether that borough should come in at the present juncture.

Mr. Andrews, after consultation with some of the other chairmen, said he would amend his motion as follows "That the conference approve the principle of amalgamation and recommend tha appointment of the following committee: The chairmen of the local bodies represented, with the addition of Mr. R. B. Hammond, director of town planning, and Mr.'A. Harper, to bring down a report.” Mr. Hogg: I think we should have the Mayor of Upper Hutt. A voice: And the chairman of the Makara County Council. Mr. Hoggard : We should give them the right to be on the committee if they desire. The names were then added. Miss M. Magill (Eastbourne) said none of the delegates had a mandate from, the bodies they represented. She herself favoured amalgamation, but disliked the terms of the motion if it expressed an opinion; on the question. Mr. Andrews emphasised the desirability of outside investigations into the proposal for the reason advanced by the previous speaker. All he wanted was a motion that got tlte conference somewhere. Miss Magill said she did not wish it to be thought that Eastbourne was wildly in favour of amalgamation, or was against it.

Mr. J, G. Cutnming (Petone Borough Council) said Petone’s delegates had received no mandate from their council to commit themselves. Mr. Dowse contended that the conference was adopting too rigid a view. All

it was called for was to conduct an informal talk.

Inviting the conference to accept the general idea of his original motion, Mr. Andrews said he was prepared to alter it to some extent by removing the main objection by deleting the words "approves the principle of amalgamation." "There is a certain amount of "traybanging’ to-night to see if we live in certain districts,” said Mr. C. Ashton (Lower Hutt Borough Council). ‘‘We should work for the interests of the whole.” Mr. Scholefield withdrew his amendment, for which the following was substituted on the motion of Mr. Hogg:— “That the subject under discussion at present is worthy of serious consideration, and that this meeting recommends therefore the appointment of the following committee to bring down a report to a further meeting of this conference, the committee to consist of the mayors of Upper Hutt, Lower Hutt, Petone and Eastbourne, the chairmen of the Gas Board, Kiver Board. Hutt County Council, and the Makara County Council, and Mr. Hammond and .Mr. Harper.” Mr. Hoggard seconded. The amendment was carried by tea votes to six. The committee will report back to the conference.