NORMANBY TOWN DISTRICT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 6 August 1924, Page 5

NORMANBY TOWN DISTRICT.

PETITION FOR EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN AREAS. ENQUIRY CONTINUED. The Commission continued their healing of the petition yesterday. Air Coleman, opening for the petitioners, referred first to the grounds on which the petition was presented. Me said that the lands owned by petitioners, situated in the town district, were farming or grazing only, and compi ised 38b acres out of the total area ot 640 acres in the district, mole than half the total area, including stieets and roads. The rateable area, unimproved, was £24,043, out of a total value of £40,797, and 21 persons sought exclusion, paying more than half the total rates. The land was held in considerable areas and all in the outskirts. There was no possibility of using the lands, even in the future, otherwise than for fanning. In the town district there were 601 town sections less than one acre each, 88 being built on, and three of these being unoccupied. There were 13 business premises, three being unoccupied, there was great room for expansion in the inner area, only -one residence having been erected there in 10 years. It was no advantage, he added, to his clients to be in a town district, for there were no facilities such as some similar districts provided, and the number of ratepayers had gone down. He maintained that the rates were oppressive .and unreasonable, being 4d in the £ on unimproved value where in the past they were less. Again, he said the County Council rates were more in keeping with the capacity of the land to pay, being on capital value, equal to half the town rate. He said the petitioners likewise considered the administration of the council much more efficient and economical, a fact which mpst be fairly obvious to the Commission. Referring to balancesheets of the Town Board, he stated that the proportion of expenditure on salary to that on public works was 19.21 per cent, and administration to public works 38.5 per cent, while in the county it was. 7.07 per cent and 24.4 per cent respectively. He urged that it would thus be seen how the difficulties had come about and how the system of rating on unimproved value had pressed hardly on the petitioners, for where town and pastoral areas were on the same system it pressed on farming areas where the rate was high. It was, too, impossible to make improvements on such areas as could he done in the inner area. The petitioners therefore deserved to be allowed to secure the advantages .of being excluded from the town district. Dealing with the productivity of the land, he said that it was about about a cow to two acres, and at a 4d rate it meant an impost of £2 per cow. Attempts to alter to capital value system and to merge in the county had been defeated because the voting power was in the inner area. Instancing a case of inequality in taxation, he said that in the heart of Nor-; manby the whole of the rates on property in the whole of Stafford street was £ls; showing very pointedly the injustice ..done to the outer area.

The first witness called was Mr C. J. Preston, who said he was a farmer for 14 years in Normanby, owning 92 acres in the town district, the rates on which w’ere £lO9 12s 4d, equivalent to 23s per acre. He also held 40 acres adjoining in the county, on which he paid rates totalling £l6 19s 4d, equal to 8s 7d per acre. The land in the county was similar in quality to the other, and. would graze-, a cow to two acres. The Town Board rates were equal to 46s per cow and the county rates to 17s 2d per cow. He had at one time been chairman pf the Normanby Dairy Company, Town ' Board, and other local institutions. His valuation was £6577 unimproved, nearly £7l per acre. At- the factory the average yield per cow for the past season had l>een 2501 b of fat, the highest ever known in the history of the companv. It had gone up 201 b since last year. He considered'a safe basis on which to compute the price of fat was Is 4d per lb',, and said he believed it was going down to pre-war rates. On this basis the average per cow was £l6 13s per annum, with 15s per cow for by-products. He estimated the interest on £l4O (cost of two acres) at £B, rates £2 6s, manures, fencing, etc., 15s, interest on value of average cow (£l2) 13s, and lie would allow 20 per cent for depreciation and risk on value of cows. There was also the Patea Harbour Board rate amounting to Is per acre. He considered that Normanby was too much cut up in the inner area already, and residents in that area were allowed to graze a cow at £1 each per annum, a privilege of which much advantage was taken. He gained no benefit from being included in the town boundary. There had been a sale of a six-roomed house oil one of the best sites for £l5O. The only metalled roads were the main roads and one small portion off the Mawhitiwhiti road. The rest were in grass, and there were no facilities but the lighting in the streets, which was a contract with, the Electric Company, the ho.use lighting being a matter of private arrangement. The general maintenance of the main roads and streets was had. Lands some distance away had been leased at £4 2s 6d, and he had leased one portion of his land at £5 10s, hut the lessee surrendered the lease. His efforts to sell had been frustrated by the rate question. Dealing with the Town Board operations, he said that they had no equipent and only one workman, employed for about nine months of the year. In his view if the petition were granted the burden would be lightened by about 50 per cent, and at the same time they would get more 'benefit and better roads. The road past his property was not a safe thoroughfare in his opinion because of the drop at the sides, and this the county would be able to obviate. To Mr O’Dea: The petition was signed at his house, and some names were included of those who did not sign.

Mr Coleman explained that these were included at the instance of the department, because it was pointed out by the Minister that by their noninclusion they would be isolated, and such a position could not be tolerated. Mr O’Dea said that the Undersecretary should not have gone out of his way* to direct petitioners, and that the matter should 'have been left entirely to the Commission. Continuing his evidence, examined by Mr O’Dea, Mr Preston said that Voullaire had been included as a householder and Hughes as a leaseholder, and the two Maoris as owners. Mr Hair had signed originally, but had withdrawn, and a number had not signed at all. Mr O’Dea, comparing Normanby with other town districts, said that if the petition were granted it would have only 254 acres left, and be the smallest in the Dominion, whereas the average town district had an area of 931 acres. Kaponga had over 500 acres, of which 372 acres were used as farming land, and Ormondville was nearly equal to the maximum allowed.

1460 acres, and a radius of four miles. He considered Normanby might then just as well go out of existence. He instanced Sandon. and Bulls, the former in the Manawatu County and the latter a town district, and said there was no comparison in facilities and conveniences between the two, the latter being much preferable. If the town district .were thus cut down they could not carry on. Continuing, Mr Preston said that there were miles of paths, but unformed. The farmers would not be able to farm at all if a 6d rate were imposed. The board were wasteful in their expenditure from having i\o equipment. The Town Board had been m existence since 1882, and this wa* the first occasion on which a petition had been presented for cutting out certain areas. A poll to get ratinsr on capital value had been defeated^and also a merging proposal. Having an inner and an outer area would not benefit him. He had acquired his land in sections at various dates—first 36 acres and then 38 acres in the town, and later 39 acres in the county, and recently a small area for a home for himself. He found he could not buy a section so small in the county. Although some of his land was close to I'b® town and some of it abutting on the park, he still wished to get outside the borders. He had served for five years on the Town Board, and‘had always the same views on the subject of his land. "When he leased part of his land at £5,10s butter-fat was up to 2s per lb. The lighting of the streets was good, but it did not extend to his boundary. The administration expenses or the _ board were, in his opinion, heavy in proportion to exuenditure on works- He considered that the board could not reduce the rates, and did not know what they would do if the big areas were cut out. Even if the county were up to.the board in tlie matter of rates he would still go out and get the better services. He believed that there were no loans current Normanby, while in many similar districts such as Manaia they had laised large amounts for town services. He had sold one section at £2OO per acie at the peak of the boom, but knew of several cases of higher prices being secured.

Mr O’Dea said, in regard to traffic on the mam roads, that when the Auckland route and Mokau bridge were opened there would lie heavier through traffic, hut the Main Highways Board would help to deal with .that traffic.. He considered the Normanby main road was a credit to the considering the circumstances. , pe t ltion w,ei ' e 'granted threehiths of the area would he excluded, and only about a quarter of the main road. In the two stretches of main road there were 142 chains and it was pioposed to exclude 30 chains. .i Mr Gardnei ‘> Mr Preston said that there was no footpath on his side of the Mawhitiwhiti road, and the town Board would still control the load on his\frontages. He was paying on a value of £7O per acre in the town district and about £65 on .the 39 acres in the county. When the last valuations were made he did not lodge objection because he was laid up and unable to attend.' Some neighbours, however, lodged objections. To Mr Ooieman -. In 1922 the rate was 3 4 -cl in the £, and had been as high as 5d on an old valuation. Mr Coleman submitted that the Commission had such a wide scope of reference that they could decide either to grant with or without modifications or not to grant at all. The Commission then adjourned for luncheon.

William Mathieson, as agent for certain native lessors who had leased lands on the outskirts of the town district, stated in evidence that a rent of £3 per acre was being paid, the lessees also paying the rates. There was no advantage accruing through " rr being close to Normanby. Henry D. Hughes, occunier of 32 acres of native leasehold land, said he was paying a rental of • £lO5 per annum and rates amounting to £27 16s, although owing to a number of pine trees growing on his holding he could only milk 15 cows. His rates therefore worked out at 35s per cow. He had considered leasing another 32 acres next to his present property, hut he had given up the idea, as. with rent and rates on the same basis he would not receive sufficient reward for his labour.

Daniel J. Hughes, lessee of the 32 acres occupied by the former , witness, said be derived no benefit from the Normanby Town Board. He considered that the County Council roads would be preferable to those supplied by the Town Board. Air O’Dea said that the Countv Council would only look/after their main roads, and to support this argument .he referred to the conditions prevailing in Nolantown, where, residents complained most grievously of their treatment b.v the Countv Council. * *

In reply to'Mr O’Dea, witness admitted that in offering the lease for sale he had asked a certain price for the goodwill.

William H. Le Fleming, owner of 30 acres of farm land in the town district, said his rates on that area amounted to £25, equal to 16s 8d per •acre. He was also the owner of 101 acres of adjoining land in the county, on which he paid rates amounting to £3l 9s sd, equal to' 6s 2d per acre. Ho had signed the petition on the grounds that the rates were oppressive and burdensome, that he received no return from the Town Board for the rates he paid, and that he would get better treatment from the County Council. The cost of production was so high, now that the farmer could not afford to pay such rates. He considered that Normanby was a more progressive town 40 years ago than it was to-day, and at the present time there was no justification for its existence. Samuel Anstis said his rates on 26 acres of farm land in the town district worked out at about £]j an acre, while on 59 acres adjoining' in the county lie Tjaicl rates amounting to 9s 8d per acre. Since he had taken over the land in the town district in 1912 his rates to the Town Board had been doubled, but he had received no extra benefits. Leonard Cecil Jackson, the owner of 27 acres on the outskirts of the town district, said his rates amounted to £27, or £2 per cow on the carrying capacity of the land. He had paid £lls an acre for his land, and although he had not charged a penny for his labour he had made a loss during one year on his farming operations. George W. Gane said his rates on land in the town district amounted to £1 an acre, and his property fronted on to a mud road, which was impassable nearly all the year. The bulk of the streets in Normanby were surfaced with grass, cows lieing registered by the Town Board and allowed to graze on them. This concluded the evidence for the petitioners. Mr O’Dea, for the Town Board, pointed out that by cutting out the area as proposed more than three-fifths of the area of the town district would be taken away from the Town Board. In other words, the commissioners were being asked fo recommend the disestablishment of the Town Board. He could see no procedure .whereby the

Town Board could divest itself of the main road which had been vested in it, and it meant that if the request of the petitioners were complied with two-fifths of the present area of the Town Board would be asked to carry on the support of four-fifths of the present roads. The tendency in New Zealand to-day was not to do away with town districts. The average areaof town districts in New Zealand was 931 acres, and if the request of the petitioners were acceded to Normanby would be reduced to being the smallest town district with an area of 250 acres. Continuing, Air O’Dea quoted the areas o,f farm lands in other town districts, Ivaponga with a total area of--500 acres, 372 acres of which . were iann lands, being a case ip point. He failed to see liow Normanby, with two-fifths of its area gone, could carry on. Donald A. Stewart, clerk of the Normanby Town Board, said that rates <|n the unimproved value amounted in all to £689. Rating on the capital value had been proposed, but the; issue had been defeated at two different polls. The rate struck was 4d in the £ 2d to the Town Board and 2d to the County Council, although the T?" n Board expended the whole of that rate, which' was not touched by the county. At least three-fourths of their revenue was spent on the main road. The Town Board also provided electric light, a town hall, recreation ground, 7i miles of footpaths, and issued licenses for cows to graze on the roads. Witness also mentioned thflll four persons holding farm land on thfe outskirts of the town district had stated that they were against the proposal to merge into the county. In , reply to Air Coleman, witness asserted that when the debt of about £4OO to Count y Council had been paid off they would be able to drop their rates to 3d and still carry on quite well. There were 3£ miles of metalled roads 311 tho town district, and with the indebtedness to the County Council cleared off and assistance from ' the Alain Highways Board they would he able to manage. Air Coleman then quoted figures from the Town Board’s balance-sheets, •and asked the clerk if, after deducting £4BO of administration expenses from the amount of rates received, whether the Town Board would be able to pay off its indebtedness to the County Council and maintain the area under its control in a fit and proper condition. Witness considered it could he done They had got into debt with the County Council for the tarring of the main road, but they had already paid off £6OO of the debt. * ; Mr Coleman said that benefits would still be retained, if the petition were acceded to; in fact, the County Council -were prepared to give an assurance that cows would still he licensed to graze on the roads. Ernest Peach considered that under the Town Board’s care the roads had improved during the past three years. They were much better than' the Waverley roads. Normanby offered an advantage in that a man could obtain cheap rent and could have a garden and run a few cows at no great expense. Charles Coad gave corroborative evidence concerning the assertion that if three-fifths of the Town Board’s area were done away with the whole town district would have to go. E. Ale Ewan, while admitting that things had been bad in Normanby, said he considered that from this time forth Normaiiby would progress, as it was now in the position of a suburb of Hawera. Tbere N was not an unoccupied house in the town, and they wished to maintain home rule. Air. Houston, for the County Council, said that that local was taking up an attitude of entire neutrality, but they were in accord with the stateent that if three-fifths of the areft. were taken into the county the remaining two-fifths could not carry on as a Town Board. The County CounCl [ had certain special loans over the whole of the county, and it would rot lie right. that any new area coming into the county should escape those special rates. The County Council therefore asked that if any area were merged in the county that area should ieceive exactly, the same treatment in regard to rates as the rest of the county. Provision .in this direction could he made by special legislation. Jbe commissioners then adjourned to make their report.