PETITION REFUSED

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIV, Issue 231, 12 September 1934, Page 3

PETITION REFUSED

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FROM ONE COUNTY TO ANOTHER. (Own Correspondent). WAIPUKURAU, Sept. 11. Two ratepayers in the Patangata County’s area to-day sought permission from the Patangata County Council to transfer their properties to the Waipukurau County’s area, on the grounds that they had not any access to any road in the Patangata County, and that the whole of their transport traversed the Waipukurau County’s roads. The petition was refused.

The matter arose out of a communication from Messrs. L. M. Monckton and A. W. Elliott, in which they advised that they had petitioned the Waipukurau County to allow them to transfer the portions of the land now in the Patangata County to the Waipukurau County, the area being about 4240 acres. As the council was aware neither of the writers had any access to any road in the Patangata County, all their transport going over Waipukurau County roads. The writers therefore asked the council to facilitate the transfer, Waipukurau County Council having agreed to same. The chairman, Mr. C. Pattison, stated that the petitioner-, would bo liable for their share of the £209,000 special bridge loan, which fact they both realised. The chairman was prepared 'to grant the request solely because they had not any access to any road in the Patangata County, and for no other reason, so that if the rest of the ratepayers in the riding later decided to leave the county, the council would not have created any precedent. “My ratepayers have had two meetings already,” continued Mr. Pattison. “At first they decided that they would transfer to Waipukurau, but"on the second occasion I pointed out that they would still be liable for their share of the charges on the bridge loan, also that a commission was coming round shortly, and, as we -didn’t know what alterations it might make, they would bo well advised Io wait. They feel that they have been very unjustly treated, and although they realise that they would still be liable for the bridge loan, if they transferred, they fear that they may become liable for further charges in the future if they re main in this county.” Cr. C. R. Edgecombe: Is it a fact that these riding's were in the EpuI raima riding once? The chairman; No. in the Tamumu riding. Cr. Edgecombe suggested that if the petitioners made application, their rates, after administration expenses had been deducted, should bcah«n-’.ed

over to the Waipukurau County tor the maintenance of their road.

“This proposition,” continued! Cr. Edgecombe, “has been made before, and 1 consider that if it were put inte operation the petitioners would not ba being harshly treated. They are not the only ones who have no access; 1 know of others. I don’t think that this request should be granted till the council sees what action is taken by the commission.”

Cr. R. H. White: When this amalgamation proposal first came before us, I thought the big dog was going to eat the little dog, but it seems now that the little dog is going to eat the big one, and because it can’t eat it whole, it is going to do so in little pieces. Cr. Edgecombe: ll’m, that may be.

Cr. J. D. Ormond: 1 think that it would only be a fair proposition to ask them to hold off till tho commission comes along, then we can see just where we stand, and judge the ease exactly on its merits. We sympathise with their views, but consider that at this juncture it is a little premature. Finally, on the motion of Cr. Ormond, seconded by Cr. Edgecombe, it was decided to reply to the effect that, while the council sympathised with the views of the petitioners, it thought it would bo premature to grant the request till tho commission had been round. Then, if nothing were done, the case would be reconsidered and dealt with on its merits.