A PROPOSED NEW ROAD

Evening Star, Issue 15032, 14 November 1912, Page 6

A PROPOSED NEW ROAD

ON THE PENINSULA. ALLEGED TO BE OF NO PUBLIC VALUE. AN INTERESTING INQUIRY;, A of special interest, to settlers on the Peninsula and to public bodies-in generalwas ventilated officially this morning at the Law Courts,' where Mr W. S. Short, of the Public Works Department, acting under instructions from the Minister of Public Works, held an inquiry.

The subject of the. inquiry, was the proposal of the Peninsula Road Board and combined objections 'against it by many settlors. Special interest was invested in the matter by the fact that the objectors allege that the work would be of no public benefit whatever, but would only benefit two members of the board, who were alleged to be interested in a lime business in the district.

The main reasons for the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry were set out in the Commission. Briefly put, these were That the Peninsula Road Board had laid before the Governor a memorial containing a list of the lands proposed to be taken from various sections in block 1, Peninsula Road district, for the purpose of constructing a road, such lands comprising a total area of 10a 3r 28.7p; and that a number of settlers had objected to the board’s proposal on the following grounds—(l) That the said board have proceeded arbitrarily and have not vouchsafed to grant any information to the ratepayers concerning the proposed undertaking; (2) that the proposed undertaking is one of great magnitude, and will involve the road district in an.expenditure of many thousands of pounds, probahlv' amounting to £15,000 or upwards; (3) that the said board have no money to carry out the undertaking without borrowing; (4) that the proposals of the said board have not been referred to ■ the decision of the ratepayers as they should have been ; (5) that the construction of the said work will cause serious loss and damage to several freeholders, and Textile said board open to heavy claims for compensation; (6) that the existing . road meets all the requirements of the district, and could be materially improved by a small expenditure; (7) that the .chairman of the said board and his predecessor in office have acted male fide and in their own interests; (8) that the Peninsula Road Board district is essentially a dairying district. ‘ The Commiseioner explained that the facts which had been laid before him were to a large extent set forth in the Commission itself. The board proposed ‘to taka land under the Public Works Act, 1908, for the deviation of the road in' question. Had there been no serious objection to their proposal there was no doubt that - a proclamation would have been issued with•out any trouble or inquiry whatever. The Government as a-rule did not seek to interfere with the action of local bodies unless there was a strong case put forward against a proposal. The petitioner.!,in this case asserted that there was a strong case for interference in the present instance, the matter had come before the Government as a result of the receipt of seWral letters wmch had been written bv interested parties, mainly in respect of the peti. tion which had been sent up bv 75 or 76 persons. He went on to sav that his instructions were to inquire into and to repqrt whether or not: (1) The existing, road will meet all reasonable future requirements of the inhabitants using the name, and if not, whether it is possible to eo improve the same by the expenditure cff small sum of money that it would f&Ut* all reasonable traffic requirements forth* future. (2) It is desirable in the public interest to take the said lands for the pur poses aforesaid, having regard not only to present but to reasonable future traffic requirements, the cost of compensating thi owners for the lands taken, and the land! injuriously affected, and the cost of constructing the proposed road. There was some argument between coun\r b >P hen6 'for the board) and -Mr V. C MacGregor (for the objectors)— ns to which side should begin.' Mr Mac- ' Gregor contended that it would shorten proceedings if the board presented the facts as to what they proposed to do, how much the work would likely cost, and what claims there were likely to be for compensation. Mr Stephens held- that the burden ot proof undoubtedly lav upon the objectors who were practically in the same position a 6 if applying for an injunction, they had made certain statements, which required to he substantiated, and they 6houl<J tead.

The Commissioner, after ruling in favor of Mr .Stephens, said that he had. in company with representatives of either side, gone over a part of the road on Tuesday Jast. and had come to the conclusion that the cost of forming the proposed new road would be considerable, and that probably there would be several claims for compensation. Mr MacGregor said that as far as his instructions were concerned His\Vor»hip’s conclusions were correct. u * -Mr Stephens sold that evidence would be submitted to show that the compensation vould imt be considerable. A great oeal <ie ponded on the question ns to whnt «inn would be considered considerable. Evidence would also bo submitted as to the amount of compensation their valuers considered- would be paid. Mr MacGregor remarked that Mr Stephens must be speaking of the amount of compensation that would be offered rather than paid. objectors was then opened by Mr MacGregor, who said that the objectors mam contention was that the board e proposal was uncalled for and extravagant. The objectors were ratepayers and some of them were landowners wnose land would be prejudicially affected n. j . u a j d f, P ro P' , «l "■' er o carried out. ire detailed the various grounds of their objections, and contended that an ox penduur© of not more than £SOO would make the existing road adequate for the. present i equipments of the district: and that it was not desirable in the interests of the genera! public to take land and make the road as pioposed. The reasons fox these contentions were that the existing road was adequate, that the cost of compel tion (probably from £7.000 to fifToom wWd be out of all proportion to the C fits provided by the. road, that the cost of constructing the road would bevo n We -certainly over £5,000, and that the hoard had no funds available, and were unable to keep the existing roads in decent repa,r. many of which were mare important to the settlors than the main road in question (upper main road), which vas an excellent road. Thom would ba some evidence to show that the proposal as not made m the general interests of he ( district, but in the private inter Js c,,nirni ' Rn . r>f th <“ board (Mr Riddell) buJnSr '«th him in a lime business. As far as he conld ascertain, tnose were ..he only jreop’c lifcelv to be leally benefited by a new road ‘such ast..at proposed. Rather than adopt such ... ridiculous scheme, continued counsel it would be infinitely cheaper for the board to acquire the freehold of the whole of the farms oi the objecting landlords. As regards die traffic on the road in the district, the heaviest was that from the lime pit. and even (hat was said to ho ever so much lighter than it was 30 vears ago. The dairy traffic had also shrunk considerably owing to the fact that creamcues had been established at different places on the Peninsula, which was really a big dairy farm. ‘ At Mr Stephens, in reply to a remark by Mr MacGregor as to theestimated cost of road construction, said that the board estimated the cost of constructmg the road at £3,896. As for'the -land required to be taken, £289 12s lOd.waa estimated to meet compensation claims. I hat sum represented the, value of the land taken.: They had not allowed ;for compensation for injurious affection, or severance of Lands.

Mr MacGregor then called the first of a ; 3 1 rJy large number ,of. ; witnesses. whose evidence, generally speaking, corroborated the concise statement counsel had made at the opening. ; The inquiry was proceeding at 3.150 p.m.