COBDEN COMMISSION

Greymouth Evening Star, 30 October 1931, Page 3

COBDEN COMMISSION

•pe+ition for exclusion LENGTHY EVIDENCE HEARD On the ground that a proportionate return was not being received from the Cobden Town Board for the rates collected, several ratepayers in the Cobden Town District, mostly engaged in farming, presented petitions to a Commission which sat at Greymouth yesterday, and sought to secure exclusion from the Town District and inclusion in the Grey County. The hearing occupied nine hours and did not conclude until 9.45 p.m. The Commission comprised: Messrs T. Cagney (Commissioner of Crown Lands for Westland) and M. Carmichael (District Land Valuer, Nelson). Mr. F. A. Kitchingham represented Messrs J. Steer and Keeney. Mr. T. F. Brosnan appeared for Messrs M. Minehan, J. Wisbey, amf others, and also watched proceedings on behalf of the Grey County Council; and Mr. W. P. McCarthy represented the Cobden Town Board.

Mr. Kitchingham stated that the sole reason for the petitions was not that-the petitioners wished to go into the County, but that they wished to get into a district where the rates would be proportionate to the benefits received, and not such as would “crucify” them from a farming point of view. It was pretty obvious that the farmers were carrying the rest of the ratepayers largely on their backs. William Evan Jesse Steer, manager of the Greymouth Motors, Ltd., stated that his father, Jesse Steer, was the owner of certain sections in the Cobden Town District. Since 1921 his father had spent more than £2OO per year on permanent improvements. About 75 to 80 acres were still in bush on hillside and broken country, Which it would not be economical to clean up. The rates at present on the usable land were about £1 per acre.' No benefits had accrued to the property by reason of its ihclusion in the Town District, and the access remained as previously, an unformed street. There was no access from the north. At present, the property was used only for grazing sheep, the only traffic being a lorry once or twice per week, bringing in sheep. To Mr. McCarthy: The only access was through the Cobden Town District. So far as h.e knew, no benefits were received from the sanitary service. He was not aware of any objection being made in 1920, to the inclusion of the property in the Town District. The farm was of 150 acres, and 75 acres were of no value, under present conditions. Mr. McCarthy: Are you prepared to give me that for nothing? lam looking for a piece of land of about 75 acres, for a golf links! Witness said he could not place a definite value on the farm. He could not say that the value was about £4OOO. He knew that a lot of money had been spent on it.

Mr. Cagney stated that the question should be answered more definitely. Witness said that the property did not belong to him. He knew, however, that there was an option to purchase it ten years ago for £4OOO, which was not exercised. Since that time the farm had been improved to the extent of £2OO per year. He explained that the previous lessee had let the property go back. The drains were all blocked* up, and the land had reverted to swamp. Most of the money spbnt sihce had been expended on restoration work.

Mr. McCarthy said that the present Government capital valuation was £2571, and the unimproved value was £960. Witness stated that the value of the farm had decreased by about 2/6 in the pound, since the option was put on the property. The increase in rates had been caused by rating on the unimproved value, in Cobden, plus the increase in the Hospital Board rate. The latter increased from £ll 13/3 in 1921, to £2O 15/- in 1931. Mr. McCarthy pointed out that the Hospital Board rate would be payable, in whatever district the farm was loCelt 6(1. In reply to Mr. Kitchingham, witness said that the £4OOO option was given in the boom time, about 1917, but it was not exercised. The lessee finally walked off the farm.

POSITION “INTOLERABLE.” James Keeney, farmer, North Beach, stated that he and his brother, Michael, ' had a lease of their mother’s farm. They had been there eight years, next April. During that time, the property had received no benefits whatever through being in the Town District. The land was used solely for dairying purposes, and there was only one house on it. The total rates, including hospital, had increased from > £lB 15/- to £44 3/4. If they lost their town milk supply, they could not carry on for a factory, on their present rates. They could not “make a do of it,” even if butterfat were 1/6 per lb. They could not spend one penny on farm improvements, by the time they maintained themselves, and paid their rates. Witness and his brother were single. At present, they employed two youths and a man. The access was the old pack track, and was only wide enough for one vehicle. It was no better today than when they went to the farm in 1923. Their main reason for wishing to get back to the County was that increased rates had made the position intolerable. They paid over £5O in rates last year. Mr. McCarthy said that the rales for the current year wouhl be £44 3/4. Witness said that, when under the County, before the Town Board took over, they paid about £25 in rates. They used the Cobden Town District as a means of access to the farm. Mr. McCarthy stated that, by selling milk in town, they would get three times the returns as they would if they were on similar land at Bell Hill dr Totara Flat, and sold milk for butterfat. , “We would need to,” said witness. He stated that the - depression was now on, and they had a lot of money on their books. A man who fed cows on the West Coast ran at an absolute loss during the winter. He and his brother were merely making a living at present, and’improving’the farm. in answer to further questions, witness stated that he was a member of the Cobden Town Board. He was of tho opinion that the subdivision of his mother’s land fronting Hall Street, beyond the Ward Street intersection, was absolutely out of the question, as the country was too broken, ahd they had only a chain and a-half frontage to Ward Street. No objection was made to the original inclusion of the property in the Town

District, but his mother was in the North Island at the time.

Mr. McCarthy: You have been some of the most recalcitrant members of the Town District?—We have been absolutely against being included in the Town District, because we are farmers. We have made some attempts to see if we could merge back into the County. In further reply to Mr. McCarthy, witness said they had the use of the sanitary service supplied by the Board, once per week. The Esplanade was graded when it was in the County. TFfrring the past eight years, the Town Board had put the grader on it twice. Mr. McCarthy: Were it not for the roads and bridges maintained by the Board, your farm would be of considerably less value?—Absolutely, because we would have no access at all. To Dit. Brosnan: It was more expensive to deliver milk to houses, than to a factory. To Mr. Kitchingham: Three Of the four houses on the Esplanade had been there for many years. There used to be many more houses there than there were now. Only one had been built during the past eight years on the Esplanade. During the same period, only one house had gone up •in the area bounded by Bright, Hall, and Ward Streets. In 1920, when the Board was incorporated, his mother’s farm was leased to tenants. Bright Street and the Esplanade, and all the streets he used at Cobden were formed long before the Town District was constituted. To Mr. Carmichael: They milked an average of 30 cows. To Mr. Cagney: He had never been approached about purchasing a building section. There were only about five chains fronting Ward Street suitable for subdivision. Half of the land fronting Fitzgerald Street would be suitable. To Mr. Brosnan: Fitzgerald Street was all overgrown, and buildings could not be erected close to it. The frontage was not desirable for building purposes. Mr. Brosnan: It would be the last place you would go for a building section. Mr. Kitchingham stated that, before the war, the sections in that locality were sold to the Land Board at an upset price of about £l7 10/- per section. They were then all vacant. Witness, in answer to Mr. Kitchingham, said that there were quite a number of vacant sections in the oldersettled portion of Cobden. Mr. Kitchingham stated that he had also been instructed to appear on behalf of Mr. Matthews, who owned sections on the hillside, but this application was objected to by Mr. McCarthy, and was ruled out of order, on the ground that it had not been advertised. SECOND PETITION With regard to the petition of Minehan and others, Mr. McCarthy also objected, on the ground that the necessary notice had not been given to the Town Board.

The Commission reserved the point, but decided to take evidence on the second petition. Michael Minehan, farmer, of Cobdeh, stated that he had lived 24 years in the area affected. It consisted of 11 acres, comprising two blocks. When he purchased the property, all the houses now there were there then. He received 12/6, 15/-, and £1 from three houses, exclusive of the one he lived in. He used the eleven acres for farming, and wintered about 17 or 18 cows there. He had another farm, in the County, beyond Steer’s, and his herd was on that farm in Summer. The road from Hall Street to the Esplanade was in about the same condition to-day as it was in 192 Q, when the Town Board was formed. Witness was one of six residents who refused to sign the asking for the formation of the Board. During the Board’s control, Bright Street had been graded twice," and the North Beach once. The footpath formed outside his boundary fence was formed by Witness. The Board had done nothing towards forming a footpath. The gas main ended on the eastern side of Hall Street. There was no water service laid on, and the electric light Was not supplied by the Cobden Town Soard. There was a weekly sanitary service, but that cost 7/6 per quarter, in addition to the rates. That service would be the only loss if they went back to the County, and that service could very well be done without. The rates on his 11 acres amounted to £l6 10/5. Mr. Brosnan: You know what plant the Board has? “They may have a couple of shovels, h pick, and a wheelbarrow!” replied Minehan. He stated that the street formation in progress was being done by the use of unemployed labour. The Westland Land Board sold sections on the beach road about 20 years ago, but no houses had .since been built on thenn Witness sold his milk to another man, and used the road only for private purposes. His objection to remaining in the Town District was that the rates were too high, and were continually rising. The rates had more than doubled themselves in Cobden since the Board took control, but no service was given. To Mr. McCarthy: He considered that he would pay only a little over half his present rates, if his property were in the Grey County. He admitted that he had a motor-lorry and a dray, which he used for carting shingle in Cobden. He had three houses on the 11 acres, including his own. Mr. McCarthy: For 11 acres and three houses, you are paying £l6 10/5 per year, about one-third of what it would cost you in the Borough of Greymouth! Witness pointed out that there were not the same facilities at Cobden as there were at Greymouth. He admitted that a bus service ran past his door at Cobden, and finished aboiit 30 chains further on. There was one electric street light on his frontage, and it was paid for by the Board. He forgot about that when he said he received no service. His other farm comprised 80 acres. Only about .four of his 11 acres were good, dry laud Which he could plough, and four acres comprised tailings. The spring tides went ’right through the middle of the place. If streets were put in, three acres would be suitable for building purposes. Until he became aware of the other petitions, he took no steps himself, although he signed a petition years ago to go back to the County. Mr. McCarthy said that the capital value on the three houses and 11 acres was £1579, and the unimproved value £2lO. To Mr. Brosnan: The reason the buses went to the end of Bright Street was because there were facilities for turning. To Mr. Kitchingham: A lot of people in, the Town District generally had always wanted to gpt back to •the Cbuhty, aS a much better service

was given by the latter. A s.trong section of the people were in favour of the residential portion being included in the Borough of Greymouth, and the remainder in the County. A considerable number of sections in the settled portion of the township were available for building. James L. Wisbey, who has been residing on the North Beach road for about seven years, stated that no houses had been built on the road in that period, and there were only four houses there. The land along the road had all been worked. Land could not be sold in that locality, and it would be hard to give it away. During the past seven years, the grader had been on the road only once. The roadsides -were overgrown with lupins and gorse. The only service supplied by the Town Board was the sanitary service, and that had been paid for extra. He would prefer to do without it. There was no gas, water, or street lighting. The township had not developed at the North Beach end, and he did not think it would develop. The strip of Bright Street from Hall Street to the Esplanade was a dead end. Only one house had been built there in the past seven years. The development of Cobden was in the back streets, towards the hill. Mr. Brosnan stated that all the petitioners were of the same mind, and he did not intend to call further evidence. JURISDICTION QUESTIONED. Mr. McCarthy, on behalf of the Board, aked the Commissioners to reserve the question of their jurisdiction. He contended that the Commission was not properly constituted, and that it had no power to enquire into the petitions.

Mr. Kitchingham said that the point should have been raised at the outset of the proceedings. Some indication should be given of the ground for the objection. Mr. McCarthy stated that Section 2 of the Commissions of Enquiries Act prescribed certain purposes for which Commissions might be set up. He maintained that a Commission of this kind could not be set up under Section 7 of the Town Boards Act. The section gave the Governor-General power to enlarge or curtail the boundaries of a Town District, but no procedure whatever was laid down in the Town Buildings Act directing the method under which the Governor-General might act. The Municipal Corporations Act and the Counties Act provided for the setting up of a Commission consisting of the Commissioner of Crown Lands, tho District Valuer, and' a Magistrate, the latter to act as an independent person. Both the Acts prescribed conditions upon which Boroughs or Counties might enlarge their boundaries. Although there was nothing in the Town Boards Act setting out procedure, it was submitted that the conditions of the Municipal Corporations Act must apply to the Town Boards Act. Section 2of the Commissions of Enquiries Act provided that the Governor-General might appoint a Commission to enquire into questions arising out of the administration of the Government, the working of existing laws, the expediency of proposed legislation, or the conduct of an officer of the Public Serviced The admission or exclusion of areas by a Town Board did not come under the Commissions of Enquiries Act. Mr. Brosnan agreed that there was considerable doubt whether the Commission, appointed under the Commissions of Enquiries Act, could deal with the present petitions. Mr. McCarthy quoted authority in support of his point. Mr. Brosnan said that, according to Mr. McCarthy, there was no provision under the Town Boards Act for a Commission, but that was not so. Under the amending Act of 1912, Section 2 provided that, after the presentation to the Governor-General of a petition, the Governor-General might direct the setting up of a Commission consisting of tho Commissioner of Crown Lands and the valuation officer of the district, the Commission to have all the powers of a Commission under the Commissions of Enquiries Act, 1908. There was provision for the setting up of a Commission, but whether that Commission could deal with the exclusion of areas, of course, could be argued. Mr. McCarthy argued that the amending Act applied only to the constitution of a new Town District, and not to the alteration of boundaries. The Board went into the matter with the Minister of Internal Affairs. They wished to make a counter-petition, but were informed that a Town Board had no power to acquire any further areas. That could be done only by the presentation of a petition signed by twothirds of the ratepayers resident in a particular locality. A Town Board could not include any outside areas, although Borough or County Councils had power to do so. Mr. Cagney said it looked to him as though Mr. McCarthy was right. Mr. McCarthy contended that Section 2 of the Commissions of Enquiries Act set up limitations. It was a point, agreed Mr. Cagney. Ho presumed that tho Internal Affairs Department would go fully into the matter.

Mr. Brosnan said he was instructed only on Friday, and knew nothing of the actual constitution of the petition itself. Ho had some doubt, if the Commission were constructed under the Commissions of Enquiries Act, whether it had power to deal with the petitions.

Mr. Kitchingham said it appeared as though the Commission was appointed under the Commissions of Enquiries Act. However, the Commission had been appointed, and the proper course would be for the objectors to apply for an injunction. Mr. Cagney stated that the appointment Was sufficient warrant for the Commission to proceed. Mr. Brosnan said the only point which occurred to him was that, as the petition had been sent in, and had gone through the Department of Internal Affairs, the Commission, on the face of it, should be valid and proper. On the other hand, he was bound to confess that there was a good deal of merit in Mr. McCarthy’s objection. Mr. Cagney held that there was nothing for the Commission to do but to proceed under its appointment. Mr. Brosnan said that the Commission could make its report, and the question of validity could be decided later.

Mr. McCarthy agreed to proceed; subject to the reservation of the point raised, and without prejudice to any action it might be necessary to take on behalf of the Board.

CASE FOR BOARD. Mr. McCarthy outlined the case for the Town Board, and proceeded to call evidence. Frederick Lovell Turley, a member of tho Town Board, and a resident of Cobden for 16 or 18 years, stated that there was no question that the township had gone ahead by leaps and bounds since the Board was formed. Roading facilities had all been improved, electric street lighting had

been installed, a sanitary service had been established, during the past twelve months a considerable amount of footpath formation had been done, and the Loans Board had now been asked to sanction a loan of £B5O, to complete Ward Street through Hall Street to the Esplanade and to continue Fox Street to Hall Street. The latter was to be continued to Keeney’s property. Mr. Keeney, as a member of the Board, supported the loan proposals. It Was also proposed to buy a truck and other facilities, to metal the whole of the roads. It would be the first loan raised by the Board. There had been a steady increase in the population of Cobden, and a considerable increase in the number of new buildings in the past year or two. There -were not more than twenty sections south of Hall Street, suitable for building purposes, at present, and some of them were at an excessive price. The natural outlet for Cobden’s development was in the direction of the properties of the petitioners. Practically the whole of Minehan’s land which was wet could be drained and cut up into building sections. Land was very scarce in Cobden at present, and the Town Board had failed in an effort to secure a twoacre block for building purposes. Houses and sections were considerably cheaper at Cobden than at Greymouth. Witness did not think that the general rates had gone up in Cobden more than in any other town in New Zealand. The reason for the increase in the rates on the objectors’ properties was the adoption in 1928 of the principle of rating on the unimproved value. The Town Board did not want farms in the area, but wanted the farming land cut up for residential purposes. There were not nearly so many complaints regarding roads now, as there were when Cobden was part of the County. The reason the large petition was signed, to get the Town Board established, was the dissatisfaction of the people with the County administration. There had since been a wonderful improvement in every respect. Since its incorporation, the Board had neither got into debt nor borrowed money. “Is not its credit too good?” asked Mr. Brosnan.

Witness replied that its credit was wonderful. To Mr. Kitchingham: He was on the roll as a ratepayer, but did not. know whether he paid any rates or not. The property in Ward Stret was in his name, but other people were interested in it.

MV Kitchingham stated that he wanted a definite answer. He did not want to be kept there all day, by Turley “hedging” questions. Wtness said that he held the property in trust. If it were sold to-day, he would not take any part of the proceeds. Continuing, witness stated that in his opinion, Cobden had made more progress, comparatively, than Greymouth had, during the past ten years. He had no figures to substantiate his opinion. Mr. Kitchingham stated that, in 1925,26, there were 247 ratepayers on the roll. The increases in ensuing years were nine, one, eight, and six. In five years, the number increased from 247 to 271. Witness said he regarded that as a considerable increase. Mr. Kitchingham said it was desired to have the 232 acres concerned in tfhe petitioners’ properties secured for residential purposes, whereas it had taken about 70 years to settle 90 acres at Cobden. Witness sqid that he did not recollect a discussion at any meeting of the Town Board with regard to getting the area of the Town District enlarged. Efforts had been made to have Bright Street and tho Esplanade declared a main highway, because it was considered that the natural main highway from Buller to Greymouth should come around over Point Elizabeth. It would be a definite mis-statement of fact to Suggest that the Town Board’s finances were in such a state that the Board could not keep the road up, and therefore wanted to throw the responsibility of doing so on the public of New Zealand. The gas street lighting was in Cobden before the Board was incorporated, but the system was very poor, and was not improved until the advent of electric lighting.

ALLEGED “TWISTING.” After some questions about the location of the rifle range at Cobden, verbal warfare broke out, Mr Kitchingham accusing witness of “twisting” in his replies to questions, and stating that he was not going to be insulted by witness. The latter also stated that he was not going to be insulted. Mr. Cagney intervened, and informed witness that there was no need to raise his voice.

Continuing, witness said that he did not know of any protection against stray bullets on the Hall Street side of the rifle range. In his opinion, no protection was necessary. Mr. Kitchingham again took exception to witness’s replies to questions, remarking that everyone knew Turley was wasting the time of the Court. Witness: I think it is the other way around. You get mugs sometimes to deal with. Witness said that Cobden had made its most rapid progress during the past three or four years. He had an idea that a considerable amount of Government money had been lent there for building purposes. A lot of extra work had been done on street and footpath formation under the No. 5 scheme. Otherwise, a good portion of the work would not have been done: but that also applied throughout New Zealand, and particularly in the Borough of Greymouth. The Board was applying gor a loan of £B5O, to provide material, machinery, and supervision. Had it not been for the No. 5 scheme, a much bigger loan would have been necessary, probably £2OOO to £3OOO. Mr. Kitchingham: Earlier in your evidence, you said £4OOO or £5OOO. Turley stated that his remarks were not then being taken ‘down by the typist. Mi-. Brosnan, after reminding Turley that he was on his oath, pointed out that the Commission had the same powers as a Magistrate. He wanted simplo replies to his questions. Witness: You will have them in my way, if I am answering them. Witness said that the grader had been over Bright Street, from Hall Stret towards tihe sea, two or three times during the past five or six years. i Mr. Brosnan: Minehan has sworn i that it has been over twice since 1920. ■Do you say he is right or wrong?—l do t not see anything wrong with his statement, but it might convey a wrong imi pression. Did Minehan commit perjury when 'he swore that?—Certainly not. ■ What is the wrong impression?—The inference is that during the ten years no money has been spent on that pori tion of the road. Can you tell me when the grader -was over it? —Twice in the last two years. Do you swear that? —Certainly. Has the Town Board got a grader? —No. It is the County grader. Have you seen the grader on the road, yourself?—Yes, twice in the last two years.

Mr. McCarthy: We can support Mr Turley’s statement in that. Mr. Brosnan commented that, while Turley objected to cows in the township, he kept the racehorse Arch Arrow in the paddock at the back of his place. Witness stated that there was a demand for building sections at Cobden, wherever they could be secured. Some sections were being held for speculative purposes, “to rob the public.” There were two Public Trust sections near the school, but they would not put a price on them. To Mr. McCarthy: The increase of ratepayers from 247 to 271 meant a new building in each case. “BETTER UNDER BOARD.” David Cochrane, a member of the Town Board, stated that he had resided at Cobden for 24 years, with the exception of a break of three years. He was one of the original members of the Board, in 1921. In 1928, he purchased the property in Bright Street, which he previously leased, and spent £650 on improvements. He started in a small way, and had made a success of his storekeeping business, principally on account of the progress of Cobden. His expenditure had been more than justified by the results. Since 1921, there was no question that the township had gone ahead. Extra buildings had gone up, and footpaths and roads had been improved considerably. Quite a number of short pieces of road were made when Cobden was in the County, but the people had to pay half the cost. Residents also had to pay for the (installation of gas-pipes from the main. Witness spent £4O himself. Under the Town Board, that did not apply. Generally, in his opinion, Cobden was better off under the Board than under the County Council. There were not many vacant sections left in Cobden, suitable for building. He considered that Minehan’s place was in the natural part of the township, and was suitable for subdivision for building purposes.. The bulk of Keeney’s land was also suitable. Keeney’s property and the rifle range were the only suitable places left for residential extension. He had great faith in Cobden.

“It’s a poor man who won’t stick up for his own country!” commented Mr. McCarthy. Witness said that the road giving access to Steel- and Keeney had been kept by the Board, aiid kept Well. To Mr. Kitchingham: The Board had not formed any road from the Esplanade to Steer’s property. He admitted that the farming industry should bo encouraged, and that it was having a bad time at present. Mr. Kitchingham said that the increase in the amount paid by each ratepayer in. five years had been 31 per cent., whereas, in the cases of Steer and Keeney, the increase had been 80 per cent. Was that fair? Witness replied that it was not for him to say, but he knew that, if the farm land went back to the County, the Board would have to close up, as it could not carry on. That was his opinion. The’ loss of the rates on the farming properties would make a big difference to the Board.

Mr. Kitchingham said that, excluding the hospital rate, the amount would only bo £73. Witness stated he had thought it was more than that. Mr. Kitchingham: Then it would not be very serious? —It is not for me to say. You are one of the Cobden Commissioners? —Worse luck! You have a go at any local body! Losing £73 would make a difference to the Board. There would be a saving in the maintenance on the road. The small property holders, people who had homes in Cobden, were keen to have the unimproved system of rating. Do you think it was an injustice to Steer and Keeney, that their rates should have gone up in this undue proportion? They could not help being farmers; that is their livelihood. Witness admitted that they could not help farming the land. He was certain that they could sell ajl their sections, if they sub-divided their land to-day. He honestly believed that all their sections could be sold.

Mr. Cagney: Within how long?— Within five or six years. There is a big demand for building sections at tho present time. Continuing, witness said that he would not like to express an opinion as to whether it was fair or unfair that the average rates on residential properties should be increased by 31 per cent, and the rates on Keeney’s and Steer’s properties increased by .80 per cent., in a period of five years. To Mr. Brosnan: It would be a serious matter for the Board if the farming properties went out of its district. It might mean that the Board would have to go out of existence. Then all this evidence we have heard about requests for the subdivision of this land has nothing whatever to do with it?—l am only one member of the Board, and I am giving you my opinion. I put it to you, that there is no demand for building sections on the properties of the petitioners?—There is a big demand for building sections, irrespective of where they are. Ido not know of a section for Sale in Bright Street that is worth having. Witness added that there was great difficulty in finding sections at the present time. He had had at least six enquiries during the past three months. His sole interests were bound up with tho progress and extension of Cobden, but he conceded that there were merits in tho point of view of the petitioners. Hall Street, to the end of Bright Street, had been graded twice over a period of three years or less. From the end of Bright Street to the boundary, it had been done once. Whatever flat land was on the street outside Minehan’s property was put there by Minehan. Tho Board gave him permission to take the material, when tho street was being improved. The Board had one roadman to attend to all its streets. It was true that parts of Minehan’s land were under water at times, but it could be filled in, aS Minehan had already done with a large portion. To Mr. Carmichael: He did not think it would cost more than £5O or £6O to fill up the welt part of Minehan’s land and make it suitable for building sections.

SURVEYOR’S EVIDENCE. James S. Ford, surveyor, employed on part-time work by the Cobden Town Board since March last, stated that part of his duties comprised the supervision and direction of the labour em-. ployed. Hall Street was formed from Bright Street to the intersection of Ward Street, but the latter street was ndt yet connected up. Witness had instructions from the Board to delineate the boundaries of Hall Street to Munro Street, which was done. The work was done to enable the street to be formed, and a working specification was submitted. He received similar instructions regarding Ward Street, and the work was done, right down to the Esplanade. Keeney’s property

had natural drainage facilities, and no great expense wquld be involved. The land was suitable for subdivision for residential purposes, provided access Were provided. So far as Minehan’s property was concerned, drainage might be difficult, as the land was lowlying. The Town Board some time ago very foolishly gave the Domain Board the right to fill up the mouth of a creek, and as a result the means of drainage of the whole of the southwestern swamp portion of the Town District Was blocked up. He did not think there would be very much expense entailed in reopening the drainage and getting rid of the swamp. Minehan’s property, with others, would then be all right. Witness had been asked by three members of the Board to prepare a report for the next meeting. Witness did hot know of any other portion of 'the district Suitable for expansion, /the township must expand towards the North Beach, and the whole of Keeney’s property naturally lent itself to 'close settlement. Minehan’s property was quite suitable for subdivision and settlement. To Mr. Kitchingham: It was due to the advent of the ’No. 5 scheme that Witness was employed. Prior to that, one roadman was employed by the Board, and he Was the only petmanent outdoor employee. Witness gave details of the work proposed to be done with-the £B5O loan money, including the purchase of a lorry. No provision was made for any wbrk on Hall Street or Ward Street whtjre it fronts Keeney’s property. Without No. 5 scheme labour, the £B5O loan Would be inadequate. Apparently, the Cobden people did not like Native Reserve sections. He saw a beautiful quarter-acre section sold the other day for £5O. To Mr. Brosnan: Bright Street was graded in June or Julyjast, under his supervision, four or five days being spent on the work. The street was also rolled. Witness had not been able to provide the footpath, having neither men nor material. There was a lake on Minehan’s property, but witness did not expect any difficulty in draining it, if the natural outlet were re-opened. He agreed that the ? lake was not as high as the level of the road, and that Bright Street Was higher than the portion of Minehan’s land around the lake. The lake, however, was. only a slight depression. The acquisition of Minehan’s property for subdivision was not a pressing hiatter. There were sections available, which had street access and other facilitiOfe. To Mr. Kitchingham: The ihafh difficulty with the Board’s finances was due to the intensity of the traffic in Bright Street, including the bus Service. Probably 75 per ceh't. of the Board’s available revenue whs expended on Bright Street, so fat as Witness knew. To Mr. McCarthy: In his opinion, the work done by th© Board had Ween very creditable. The work on Hall and Ward streets was held in abey-. ance, pending the hearing of the petitions. , , TOWN CLERk.

Ellen Davison, Town Clerk, Cobden, stated that the estimated population at present was 1200. The number 'of electors at the last election, held in 1930, was 822, and about 304 votfed. The number of ratepayers at presfeht was 277, and the estimated number at dwellings was the same. The number of rateable properties whs 404. The capital value at March 31, 1931, Was £140,107, unimproved value £31,841, improvements £108,266. In 1921, the values were as follows: — Capital £96,446, unimproved £31,053, improvements £65,393. The last valuation, completed on March 31 last, was opposed by the Board, find actual reductions were made by the Assess-' ment Court on the capital value. When the Board was incorporated, it took over a funding debt bf £2300 a 8 118 share of the County Council's obliga-

Wbfis. A balaWcO Of 5a 4d was still owing. There was also an annual paymeht'di £74 1 Bs, the Board’s ftWoWofa of the charges for the upkeep of bridges taken over from, the County. The Board had no other bbli£a f tions. The length of metalled road fl ih the township was four arid three-quarter mites; formed, but not me'tailbd, ’half a mile; tracks, threequarters of a mile; unformed legal i'badfe, tour and JMIISS. To Mt. KiVchihfeham: The Board’s objections, to the last valuation were based bn the Capital value of practically feVery properly. There were 179 objections lodged by the Board. The capital valuations did not affect the Board, so far as they could see, apart thrift the ’amount of the hospital levy. The reasdn ‘for the Board’s objections ri'ris that the valuations were excessive, and they did 'riot know whether fee ratepayers ‘would realise that the effect bi the high valuations would be to raise the hospital levy. Ih the cases of Steer and Keeney, the Bbhrd objected that the unimproved value was. too low, and the capital Vallie too high, blit the Court upheld the valuations. Mr, kitch'inghain said that the Board’s administration expenses ha? increased from £193 in 1925-6-to £535 in 1930-31, arid would be higher in 1’931'32. ‘ #

To Mr. McCarthy: werb ratepayers. in Cobden - owning ten oh bleVeft sectibhs. B'dinb land was held by. estates, and had not .changed hand| fbr years. There were a number or sections Vacant ■in the Nelson Quay vicinity; but they were swampy. They tvbi’b all included in the estimate ot 464. Borne houbs wbrb briilt on twd sections at .Cobden. .. . - - . This concluded, the evidence, and Mr intimated that the commission would report in due course.