LARGER BOROUGH

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 122, 19 November 1940, Page 9

LARGER BOROUGH

OPPOSITION VIEWS

COUNTY EVIDENCE

HILL AMENITIES

The Commission which is to report to the Governor-General in Council on the advisability or otherwise of extending the # area of the Lower Hutt Borough continued its sitting today, when further evidence called by those opposing the Lower Hutt Borough Council's petition was heard.

Mr. H. Robinson, the Hutt. County clerk, re-examined by Mr. T. C. A. Hislop, counsel for the Hutt County, stated that last year the area proposed to be included in the borough received a total expenditure, including general county expenses, of £7625. The revenue from the area was £8118.

Mr. A, Burgess, of Normandale, said that his own property was within the borough. The Normandale United Progressive Association, composed of borough and county residents of the district, had two meetings on the subject of inclusion in the borough. The first meeting decided to support the county in its opposition. Witness had a house and half an acre of ground. He relied solely on tank water, and sewage was dealt with in a septic tank. The property had been in the borough since there was a borough. The other residents, both borough and county, in the district were in the same position. The objection of those residents now in the county to inclusion in the borough was that they would obtain no advantages commensurate with the rise in rates. Recently a house in the borough part of Normandale had burnt to the ground, and the fire brigade, which was present, could do little because of the lack of water. Cross-examined by Mr. N. T. Gillespie, counsel for the borough, the witness said that he believed his association had discussed the matter of water supply with the borough engineer. The engineer had said that during the war the scheme would be too costly.

Mr. Gillespie: Unless the county residents were prepared to come in and share the cost?

Mr. Burgess: I don't know about that. • ■

In reply to a question by the chairman (Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M.), witness said he was sure development would be much more rapid if water and drainage were provided. Dr. E W. Giesen, who resides in the western hills south of Liverton Road, said that he had made his own arrangements as regards water and drainage The adjoining country was steep. Some of the neighbours used tanks for water supply, others streams. Mr. Gillespie: I.find it necessary to cross examine these witnesses because of vthe extreme surprise expressed by Mr. G. G. G. Watson, who gave evidence yesterday, when he was later told of the rates he would have to pay under the borough. He said he had worked them out to be over £30, as against £14 7s 6d he was paying under the county. We found yesterday they would be £17 9s 6d. I suggest that, if Mr. Watson could be misled, other residents might well be in the same position.

Dr. H. E. Gibbs, whose property adjoins Dr. Giesen's on the south, gave similar evidence. His holding of 16 acres, he said, was impossible of subdivision. Cross-examined by Mr. Giliespie, he said that beyond knowing that the borough rates would be more, he had not closely considered the matter of actual'costs. Like Dr. Giesen's, his reasons for staying out of the borough were not entirely connected with, rates.

In reply to questions by Mr. Goulding, the witness said the matter of whether there could be pollution of borough water supply by septic tanks was one of degree.

Mr. H. Adams, of the county part of Normandale, said that the settlemerit part of Normandale was opened in 1903 to relieve city congestion. Most of the small sections were in the Lower Hutt Borough, but the proposed extension included almost all the }ai-ger sections, from six acres upwards. He held; 31 \ acres. A neighbour holding two acres across the road in the borough paid over £10 in rates, the same amount which witness was paying. Witness's rates had actually gone down a little. Neighbours in the borough had had no improvements to their properties apart from the original road cut. Cross-examined by Mr. Gillespie, the witness said there had been some re-j cent settlement in the borough area,but not so much in the county area. | He wished to encourage settlement ] there, and had sold three sections \ totalling lh acres. ' Mr. E. F. Rothwell then indicated he would call evidence on behalf of W. G. and G. R. Kells. Mr. Gould-' ing stated that the Commission did I not want to hear evidence concerning the hill country owned by Messrs. Kells in the vicinity of Liverton Road (Western Hutt). Mr. Rothwell said that the Mawson | plan was intended to be put into operation over a number of years. It was in reality a plan of complete development of the valley. Land in the northern part of the valley had been ac- \ quired by the Housing Department, but it was significant that it had immediately been leased back by the Department to the venders. - That seemed to indicate that the • land would not be required for a time for housing purposes. It would be a considerable number of years before the northern land would be required. Several borough witnesses had favoured compact expansion rather than sporadic development. All evidence for the borough was based on a continuance of the present rate of expansion, he continued. He submitted that the development rate, of the past few years was not a normal one. There had been a boom in housing construction, due to the lack of building in the prevoius four years. It was absurd to expect settlement to continue at the same pace during the war years. There was nothing to stop the borough applying for a further j extension in ten years' time. The j Urban Farmlands Rating Act could be invoked to^ cause a rate reduction for market farmers, but it seemed absurd to extend the borough and then take a compensating step. He relied ou the previous evidence to support his case. . MARKET 'GARDENERS' CASE. Mr. T. P. McCarthy, counsel for the Hutt Valley Producers' Association, said that the association was a limited liability company with a membership of nearly a hundred market gardeners. Every member had to draw most oi his income from market gardening The majority lived in the county, north of Park Avenue, a few in the Epuni district, and a few in the borough. The unimproved value of the entire area of land sought was £274,000: that of the land owned by the market gardeners was £76,442 Counting leased lands, the lands operated by the gardeners totalled at least one-third of the total unimproved value of the areas sought by thej borough. . |

He made his submissions as follows: From the point of view of the market gardeners it was not in their interests that their land should come under the borough, because of the extensive and immediate increase in rates which must ensue. The borough rates had risen steeply in the past, and gave every indication of continuing to do so. There could be no adequate safeguard that the borough would treat the gardeners as satisfactorily from their point of view as the county did. It was not in the interests of the consumers that the market gardeners' tenure of lands should be in any way disturbed.

He then cited instances of differences in rates on market gardening lands which were continguous. One man in i the county who paid £1 13s per acre lin rates was near another in the borough who paid £68 for 5i acres. Another property in High Street, south of Park Avenue, had three acres in the county and Hin the borough. The unimproved values were about the same, but the borough rate was £37 12s 4d and the county rate £4 15s. An area of just over nine acres in the county paid £20 10s, but another nearby in the borough of 4J acres paid £41 13s 3d. When he asked for a water supply, this last man was told he could get it only if he piped it at his own expense down a private -road from Park Avenue. •

Mr. McCarthy said these cases were not selected for any other reason but that they provided a ready basis of comparison. The most unfavourable case from his point of view was a piece of land the unimproved value of which was £600, and the capital value £2480. It paid £16 10s 8d in the county, but in the borough the rates would be over £32. A piece of land across the road paid £3 16s, but under the borough the rates wotild be £30. | The borough could give the market gardeners nothing they had not pro- ] vided for themselves. They had alii provided an abundant water service, which cost them up to £400 each for plant and drilling! They could pump from 5000 to 8000 gallons an hour. The rise in rates would spell ruin for many, and would lead to a general exodus from the valley. A market gardener who had been in the borough for 22 years paid the following rates for 51 acres:—l9lß, £16 15s; 1931, £47; 1932-33, £44; 1940, £68 16s Bd. PROMISED CONCESSIONS. In regard to the attitude of the Mayor and councillors concerning concessions to the market gardeners, Mr. McCarthy expressed his appreciation of the offer concerning the Urban Farm Lands Rating Act. It was not quite as simple as it sounded, however. The borough had had an urban farm lands roll for seven years, but it was the experience of the farmers that they had received little or no assistance from the borough. The attitude of the borough had been to fix the lands at the Government valuation, and let the men go to the Court if they wanted a reduction. The borough opposed them at the Court, and assistance, when granted, varied from 15 to 3 per cent. He admitted that Mr. Andrews would reverse this policy, but Mr. Andrews would not be Mayor for ever, and there could be no guarantee that the council would not revert to its past policy. It would be necessary, if adequate help were to be given, to write the land down to as much as a tenth of its Government valuation. Counsel went on to refer to the Kuku land offered to the market gardeners. Many people had tried market gardening in that area, and all had failed. He did not know of one case in the Hutt Valley where a market gardener had failed. The Hutt Valley was unique in New Zealand in growing properties. There was no other suitable land within 100 miles of Wellington. Mr. Goulding: How is the name Kuku spelt? Mr. McCarthy: We say the name is descriptive. (Proceeding.)

In the report of the evidence given by the Mayor of Lower Hutt, Mr. J. W. Andrews, before the Commission yesterday it was stated in error that the library services were used by 66 per cent, of the people in the borough and 5 per cent, of those in the county. The figures given by Mr. Andrews were 6 per cent for the borough and 5 per cent, for the county.