KIOREROA ROAD AGAIN

Northern Advocate, 15 September 1934, Page 12

KIOREROA ROAD AGAIN

COUNTY COUNCIL APPROACHED

NOTHING DEFINITE YET. PREVIOUS DECISION REAFFIRMED. “NO MAN’S LAND” QUESTION. ■; ® Another_! excursion into the mazes and by-ways surrounding the question of the construction of a road from the; town. to the Railway Wharf, was undertaken by the Whangarei County Council at its meeting yesterday. A deputation .from the Whangarei Borough Council and Whangarei Harbour Board waited on the council asking for , co-operation in finding ways and means of making arrangements for the completion of a portion of the road to the-wharf; The w£ole‘ question was fully discussed again, but the council declined to make any cash contribution towards the road, passing a motion reaffirming its previous .decision that it would accept dedication and undertake future maintenance, once the road was constructed.' •It was decided, however, to support, any move towards obtaining another:‘grant from the Government. The discussion .turned on a strip of road described by some members as “no man’? land.” Mr E. G. W. Tibbits pointed out that the position at present was that the Public Works Department had offered £2,500 for the construction of tho ! southern portion of the road, and the Borough Council had offered to build the road to the" borough boundary at a cost of between £7OO and £BOO. This left a strip of road in between which would cost £1,950, according to the Harbour Board engineer. The County Council was asked for help in finding some means of. completing the road, The Borough Council could not spend money on road construction outside the borough. Mr T. Mitchell asked that the county councillors should take a broad view of the position and not let their minds go back to when the scheme was a debatable subject. The scheme was now

noticeably in being and could not be

turned to practical use till there was a road to the town. This point must be the concern of all the local bodies, the county included. He was not suggesting that the county was avoiding its responsibilities, but he mentioned that although the Harbour Board had carried out the scheme it was the ratepayers of the whole rating district who had paid. “The broad view should be taken,” said Mr Mitchell, “and until a road is built there can be no revenue from the outlay. Your ratepayers have been levied upon to pay and with a road connection there should be a reasonable chance of easement of the rate. If you will join in and see if we can decide on any conjoint action there should be a reasonable prospect of going to the Government for further assistance for the scheme.” Harbour Board Status. Mr J. A. Finlayson, chairman of the Whangarei Harbour Board, pointed out that the Harbour Board was not a road-making authority. The £2,580 offered by the Public Works Department hinged on the Borough Council making the road to the borough boundary, and the money could not be drawn until that was done. The Harbour Board, however, would do everything in its power to help in the construction of the road, and the only hope of inducing industries to commence operations at the port and to relieve the burden of rates on the people of the district was to get a road built. The construction of a road would be a great assistance to the ratepayers and any move to make the port revenue-producing would benefit all the local bodies. Mr H. E. Hewlett stressed the importance of the road to the district. A large amount of money had beep spent at the port and the only hope of revenue was to get a road constructed. The support of the county, either morally or in cash was asked. Mr Mitchell stated in reply to a question that the Borough Council would build a bridge over the stream at the foot of Cameron Street and make the road to the borough boundary at a cost of between £7OO and £BOO. There was then a strip of “no man’s land” to the portion of the x-oad for which the Government grant of £2,580 was available. This strip was estimated to* cost £1,980.

Mr Finlayson pointed out that the Government grant and the borough’.-' contribution was available on condition that the remainder of the road was completed. Cr Elliott suggested that moral support would not be of much value. It seemed to be a riding matter, but for the riding to do the work was out of the question. Mr Tibbits: “The county has more influence with the Public Works Department in regard to obtaining an additional grant.”

Change of Route. The county chairman, Mr L. Webb; “The last Harbour Board deputation to the council said that the Harbour Board was now in a position to construct the county portion of the road at no cost to the,council. How have the conditions altered?” Referring to the original route selected, Mr Mitchell said that the road would have had to be taken through Hoey’s orchard and the paying of compensation for the removal of 257 or 287 fruit trees was too big an obstacle. He had seen recently that compensation of £7 10/- per tree had been established in one court. He did not think there had ever been a chance of raising a loan for compensation as well as construction on the original road route. Personally, he would favour the borough and county each contributing £SOO and asking the Government for a further grant. He believed the completion of the road would be good business and would bring the day nearer when the ratepayers would be relieved of the rate. Mr Webb suggested that the borough should take “no man’s land” into the borough seeing that the road would benefit the town. There was some discussion as to which authority this piece of land actually belonged, and it was pointed out that it was geographically within the borough, but actually in the county. Position Discussed. The whole position was discussed by the council after the deputation had retired. & Cr Stephen: “In the eveift of the road being constructed, who would maintain this strip?” The Chairman: “If it is outside the borough, the county." The clerk: “All the road-line from the borough boundary is harbour endowment land. The Harbour Board asked us some time ago if the road was I

constructed that it be vested in the council. .If the road is built the land would probably not be producing revenue for at least 10 years and the county would collect no rates.” Cr Blake: “It appears that the county has been misled. The Hax'bour Board told us some time ago, as I under-stood it, that the whole road would be constructed without cost to the council. Now Mr Finlayson says that-a further portion of road will have to be built. This portion seems to have been diverted from the borough to the county, though it was never actually accepted by the borough. On the other hand ii the road is built, and the port pays it is going to help the ratepayers. , I do not think, however, the road, if constructed, slxould be entirely a riding matter. It would not be possible for the riding to maintain it. The road should be, and would be, declared a highway.” The Responsibility. Cr J. A. S. Mac Kay said it would appear that the matter of.the construction of the strip of road was the duty of the borough. It was not out of the borough because it was at present under water. As soon as it was reclaimed it must be obvious that it v/ould be part of the borough. As far as his riding was concexmed he would be opposed to contributing anything, and the main traffic to the majority of the ridings was by rail. If the county could assist in obtaining a grant it would be a different matter.

[ Cr Hayward: “We have to face this position.' The expenditure has been made. We authox-ised it and we must admit that we have a certain amount of responsibility. Wo are feeling the rate and we are not going to get relief until the hai’bour has been made rev-enue-px-oducing. While some ridings may not get a direct benefit, being sex-vod by the railway, it is a county and borough matter and we have to face it. The borough must admit that when the land is reclaimed all the land will eventually become part of the borough and I think we should recognise that. If the Government sees that we are prepared to contribute towards something for which we are not dix-ect-ly responsible, I think there would be a better opportunity of obtaining some money from the Public Woi’ks Department. The Harbour Board cannot construct roads .”

The clerk: “Yes, they can under section 165 of the Harbours Act. That provides for the construction of x-.oads.’' Mr Haywax-d: “That is quite a different thing. But it is a responsibility on the council to see that the port is revenue producing and a small contribution from each riding would show that we are prepax-ed to do something

to assist the Harbour Board. The moral effect may be very helpful. Cr Elliott agreed with Cr Hayward and considered that if the council made a gesture and gave a smallsura it would be a move in the right direction. It would indicate, to the Public Works Department that the council was interested in the success of the scheme.” Cr Morrison; “We should give moral or financial support if possible.” Grants Required. The chairman: “I would be prepared to do all I could to assist in getting a further grant from the Government, but to contribute out of my riding funds this year is impossible and I think the majority of the ratepayers would strongly oppose a further cash contribution to the Harbour Board works.”

Mr Webb questioned why the work of building the road was proceeded with before it could be seen that a road was in sight. Cr Stephen said he would be in favour of assisting in the raising of a further grant from the Public Works Department. It seemed as if the borough would eventually take the new road into its territory and get the revenue and he could not see why it could not extend its boundary now. It seemed as if it were trying to get as much assistance as it could from the council and the Government. The council should not take too narrow a view, however, though the position of the ridings was acute indeed. Amendment Carried. Cr Hayward moved that the county contribute £3OO out of its general funds towards the building of the road on a basis of rates collected, the money not to be paid till the end of the present financial year. Cr Elliott seconded the motion. Mr Webb moved an amendment that the council re-affirm its previous resolution to the effect that the council would, when the road was constructed, accept dedication and future maintenance, and also that the council would assist in any way in its power towards the obtaining of a grant to finish the piece of road in question. He intimated that he would be prepared to take part in a deputation to the Minister in this connection. Cr. J. A. S. Mac Kay seconded the amendment. Cr Hayward, replying, maintained that now the wharf was in existence the road should be built to enable the port to become revenue producing. If not, the people would go on indefinitely paying the rate. The amendment was carried.