FARM LANDS WITHIN FEILDING BOROUGH

Manawatu Times, Volume 64, Issue 39, 16 February 1939, Page 2

FARM LANDS WITHIN FEILDING BOROUGH

Owners Petition for Exclusion

ONLY REMOTELY POTENTIAL BUILDING SITES

On the plea that the land was used for farming purposes, that it was only remotely potential as building sites and that it did not enjoy the borough services, the owners of several properties yesterday presented their case before a special commission at the Feilding Magistrate’s Court for exclusion from the borough. Tho sections of land concerned are situated in the vicinity of Sherwill and Pharazyn Streets and ranged in area from 5 acres up to 17 acres, *ho owners being Mrs. J. C. Mclnness, Mrs. J. E. Cattell, Mrs. E. Maguire, William Alfred Sandilands and William H. Gibson. s

The members of the commission were Messrs. R. M. 'Watson, S.M., H. McIntosh, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Wellington, and D. P. Varcoe, Government Vainer, Palmerston North. Mr. J. Graham represented the petitioners and Mr. T. Pagan appeared on behalf of the Feilding Borough Council, to oppose the petition. In opening the case for the petitioners, Mr. Graham referred to the finlings of previous commissions which had adjudicated on lands within the borough and to areas which had been excluded as well as subsequent boundary and adjustments. He also referred to tho 1928 Commission on Rural Farm Lands which sat in Feilding, citing the comment of that commission in respect of one area of land, contiguous to that which was tho subject of the present commission, “ . . . he received no

benefit from borough loans and it is obvious ho can, at present, receive but little.” That, said counsel, was in 1928 and the position was unaltered to-day. Tho land which was the subject of the present commission was unsuitable for building purposes in that it was lowlying, was not served with by water or sewerage or footpaths, and it was unlikely that it would be required for residential purposes for many years to come. The areas were purely farming propositions. The total area involved was 56 acres. The 10 acres owned by Mrs. Mclnness was let at £2 per week and was used largely for grazing purposes, the owner paying the rates and insurances on tho.house. Of the 13 acres owned by Mrs. Cattell, 11 acres were let at a rental of £3O per year for farming purposes. There was no house on the 11 acres, but Mrs. Cattell had her .residence on the remaining two acres. Mrs. Maguiro owned five acres with a house and this was let at 30s a week to a drover who kept his horses on the property and also kept a cow. Mr. Gibson’s property of 17 acres was let, with a further 15 acres contiguous, but not in the borough, at a rental of £.128 per annum for farming purposes. The 10 acres of Mr. Sandilands was farmed in conjunction with contiguous land belonging to the Sandilands 'estate which had an area of 51$ acres. Counsel proceeded to deal with the objec- ‘ tions raised by the Borough Council. It was contended by the borough that the land must bo regarded as potential building sites, but counsel said that while tho owners had held high hopes of that for many years, those hopes had not been realised. The owners had also hoped that tho borough would have done something regarding water and sewerage services, but nothing had been done. All the evidence of building activity in the town tended to show that residences were being erected in the area served by both water and sewerage. All the land concerned had been on the market for years, but it was not attractive to home-builders because it was not served by the borough services. As to the claim that they wero potential building sites, counsel suggested that they might be in half a century, but at tho present time there was no indication of any demand for the land. The borough claimed that tho "whole area was capable of being drained, and counsel agreed that that would be possible at a cost. It would also be possible, at a cost, to give the properties water and sewerage, but as tho properties fell away from Ivimbolton Road, it would present engineering difficulties to provide the sewerage.

Counsel went on to show that the properties had received very little benefit from the classification of 1933 and

to illustrate this ho quoted the rates paid on Mr. Gibson’s property. In 1920 the rates paid on tho 17 acres amounted to £35 12s 2d on an unimproved valuation of £I2OO. In 1933 the valuation was reduced to £950 and the rates fell to £24 14s 9d, but in 1939 they were back to £3O 17s 6d. The other properties were similarly affected. The properties were subject to a steadily increasing rate burden and a further loan of £GOOO was under way, while in tho near future the borough would be faced with improvements to its water supply scheme. These properties which wero without the essential services should not be subject to the burden of rates for services they did not enjoy. Mr. Watson: Is it not a fact that a lot of loans are falling in in a few years? Counsel: That is so, but the tendency is for the rates to increase. Norman E. Gifford, land valuer, Feilding, gave evidence on behalf of tho petitioners, stating that he knew tho land, concerned and ho had endeavoured to sell several of the sections without success. The Sandilands area he had on offer at £7O per acre for four yearr without result. Tho land had a saleable value as a 10-acre unit, but there was no demand for such an area i ! cr cutting up for residential purposes, an<’ that applied to the other areas. Witness said that certain land in the vicin ity had been placed in his hands fo sale by the Public Trustee in half-acre sections at £3O per section. It war suitable for residential purposes, but did not enjoy the borough services and was too far out. There "was still :i considerable area within the four main streets, North, West, East and South Streets, available for residential pur poses, and this would be taken up before anyone would go further afield an'; take up property which did not enjoy a "water connection or sewerage. To' Mr. Varcoe: This land was hot wanted because of its distance fron: the town and the absence of the bor-

ough services. Mr. Watson: I think in the old days people needed a few acres because they kept a horse and trap and a cow or two and that has all changed. Mr. Gifford: Yes, that has passed. There is a very limited demand for such now and those desiring a few acres generally seek it outside of the borough. Continuing, witness said that the particular land would not be required for residential purposes for many years to come. Mr. Varcoe: Supposing tho borough supplied tho essential services could you get a sale of tho land? Witness: Yes, but the preference would be for sections within the area of North, West, East and South Streets. In reply to Mr. Mclntosh, the witness was unable to say how long it would take before the available land within the area of North, West, East and South Streets, was taken up. Evidence was given by Mrs. Mclnness that there was a 14-roomed house on her land of 10 acres. The rates in 1929 were £22, then they dropped 1o £l3 and were now back to over £l6. Witness was aware that she would be paying a slightly higher rato in tho county for a few years, but she desired to avoid the burden of the higher rates in the borough. Her land had been on the market for 12 years, but there

was no enquiry. If the land was not : so burdened with rates it was likely ; that it would sell. , Mr. Gibson gave evidence that his land was not served with water cr ; sewerage and was used purely as a farming proposition. Miss Maguiro , stated that her mother’s property paid j rates of £ll in 1929, while to-day the

rates were £l3. Evidence in connec- j tion with the rates on tho Sandilands property of 10 acres was that in 1929 the rates amounted to £2O, then they dropped under classification to £ls and were now back to £l9. For the borough, Mr. Pagan said that an important question for tho Commission to consider was tho suitability of tho land in question for

municipal control. As far as he could ascertain this question had never been fully examined and he suggested to the Commission that a perusal of the plan would demonstrate that the land was all suitable for municipal control. If the properties were excluded the question of the boundary would arise and counsel suggested that it would be very awkward 'since the only way in which the County Council could service the properties would bo over borough roads. It would mean division of control over roads. Tho location of tho properties was not, he suggested, suitable for County Council control. Clifford H. Tate, Town Clerk, stated in evidence that tho first borough loan would expire in 1946. That was a loan of £14,000, the annual charges on which amounted to just over £SOO. the sections concerned wero suitable for municipal control. In reply to Mr. Graham, witness said

the reason why water and sewerage had not been given these properties was a question of ways and means. The council had to walk before it could trot. ; In short, there had been no demand for ' the services and then it was a matter of ways and means. | Mr. Graham: So that there has been no demand?

| Witness: No demand to justify the expenditure. In reply to further questions witness said that no estimate had been taken out for supplying these properties with j water and sewerage. He would not admit that the only service the properi ' ties received was street lighting, but | ho admitted that tho tendency was to | build within the four walls of North,

West, East and South Streets and that there was plenty of land available for some years io come without going outside those four walls.

Thomas K. Hay, borough engineer, said that the land was all suitable for municipal control. The section of Mr. Gibson’s, at the corner of Reid’s Line and Kimbolton Road, could nof. be excluded from the borough without making it very awkward for administration. With sections on each side of the property in the borough and Gibson’s out it would mean divided control between the county and the borough.

This concluded the evidence and Mr. Pagan asked in the event of the Commission deciding in favour of the petitioners the exclusion order be made effective as from April 1 next.

Tho chairman intimated that the ‘fiomntission would take time to consider its decision and would take into consideration tho representation of Mr. Pagan.