HUTT PARK

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 116, 12 November 1935, Page 19

HUTT PARK

QUESTION OF RATES

PETONE WILL PAY SHARE

The Petone Borough Council decided last night to pay its share of the rates on Hutt Park this year. The question of the payment of rates on the park has been a vexed one for many years. A letter was received from the secretary of the Hutt Park Committee asking the council to pay its share of the rates on a population basis. The total revenue of the park was stated to be £750, and the standing charges £450, leaving £300 available for the work of improvement, provided the committee did noi; have t° pay rates. The committee was working to a definite programme of beautification, and in time would -be able to pay rates out of revenue and still carry out the work of beautification. The share of rates of the, boroughs'was as follows: —Lower Hutt £78, Petone £57, Eastbourne £10. It was not possible to obtain i legislative relief from the payment of rates on the park. Councillor E. T. E. Hogg said that enormous improvements had been carried out at the park. Although the committee was comprised of the representatives of three boroughs, the area was liable for the payment of rates. The idea of levying rates on the three boroughs was only an arbitrary way of saying what each should contribute. Reserves cost a lot of money. Hutt Park brought in a substantial amount in revenue... An alternative suggestion had been made that instead of paying the rates on a population basis the boroughs should make a grant, as they did towards other reserves. Last year Petone had paid, but said it would not pay again. Of all the boroughs Petone was the most out of pocket, as in the case of Lower Hutt it received rates from the park, besides paying them, and Eastbourne paid only a small, amount. . : The chairman of the Hutt Park Committee (Councillor R. W. Toomath) said the paying of £150 in rates out of revenue would seriously hamper the work of developing the park. Councillor V. A. Noble asked how long it was proposed to carry on development work before paying rates out of revenue. ■ '..'■'■ Councillor Toomath replied that in perhaps three to five year's the committee would be able,-'to meet all charges and still carry^out the developmental work. ,?■". ■ ..; ' • Councillor Hogg pointed out that the agreement about paying could be made every year. ■;■■■ '■■■■"■• • Councillor G.Lphdbn moved that the council make the-' contribution towards the rates. THere ; was no doubt:, that Hutt Park wai a wonderful asset to Petone, he said. ' •■.■',' Councillor J. Huggan seconded the motion. ■:'■';--:'" , ■ ■"-''.■ Councillor Toomath . stated that the committee; asked for contributions for rates on the. area-used solely'for recreational purposes.' v ~'■-..■" "SHOUJjpiNOT PAY.?' Councillor D. MiDickspn said he felt strongly that the borough should not pay. He did not want •anyone to think he was antagonistic to-the Hutt Park Committee, but his view was that as Hutt Park was a public recreation ground he could see no reason why rates shouldbe paid on it at all. These rates were being paid to another local body and not to the committee. A: speaker had said at the meeting of ttie' Hutt Park Committee that the Lower Hutt Borough Council was put to the expense of maintaining the roads in

the vicinity of the park, but there were private residences in these streets, and the streets "were not being maintained for the sake of the park. There was a time when other local bodies were agreeable to the exemption of Hutt Park from rates, but this was not the case now. There was no money on the estimates for the payment of rates on the park. Replying to the point about exemption, Councillor Hogg said that local legislation of this type could only be obtained with the assent of all local bodies concerned, and there was the opposition of the Hutt River Board and the Lower Hutt borough. Councillor J. R. Gaynor, who is a member of the Hutt Park Committee, said that he had considered the matter since the last meeting of the committee, and he did not see why Petone should be the only one to pay hard cash. In Lower Hult's case it was only a book entry, and Eastbourne's contri-. bution was so small that it did not count. Councillor Noble made the point that the committee was able to apportion the ground for various sports. Councillor Dickson moved as an amendment that Petone should pay £1 towards the rates, but there was no seconder, and another amendment, moved by Councillor Gaynor, that the committee . set up to co-operate with other local bodies should see the Lower Hutt Borough Council on the matter was defeated. The motion was carried.