SUBURBAN DESTRUCTOR

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18347, 13 March 1923, Page 8

SUBURBAN DESTRUCTOR

.'■■!&£ v';'"- '.. i,'."..':'*. ■'-''.' ',*■'' - : '";: VW ' ...V OPPONENTS AND COUNCIL. LEGAL ACTION PENDING. QUESTION OF INFORMATION. The opposition to the proposal of the Mount Eden Borough Council to acquire an area of 20 acres on Dominion Road for the purpose of erecting a destructor to serve the districts of Mount Eden, Mount Albert, and Mount Roskill, has taken a definite shape. At a special meeting of the Mount Eden Borough Council last evening, called for the purpose of confirming the special order necessary for the raising of the money required, it was announced that the objectors to the proposal were taking action in the Supreme Court to obtain a writ restraining the council from proceeding further with the purchase of the land. The Mayor, Mr. J. W. Shackelford, presided, and there were also present Messrs. E. H. Potter, J. P. Hooton, J. M. Melville, W. J. Hammill, T. McNab, J. Smith, W. Woolley, and G. L. Taylor. The special order gave the council authority to borrow £6000 for the purpose of providing suitable means for destroying refuse, the interest to be 6 per cent., with a sinking fund of 1 per cent., and the loan repayable on April 1, 1943. , . The Mayor moved that this order be confirmed, and this was seconded by Mr. J. P. Hooton. » The Position Reviewed. The Mayor gave a, resume of the events which had led up to the present position, and said that after several conferences with representatives of the Mount Albert Borough Council and the Mount Roskill Road Board the three bodies had agreed to unite to provide a better method of dealing with refuse, and the Mount Eden Borough Council had been specially requisitioned to take steps to raise the money without a poll of ratepayers. The Health Department, having agreed that the site was suitable, the oouncil was taking steps to provide the money, the purchase of the land being tho initial stage. The local bodies thought fit to acquire the whole 20 acres in order to give them facility to us© such portion as was necessary. They had now received notification that Mr. Hector Norman Preston was to move in the Supreme Court for a writ of injunction to prevent the raising of the money. The solicitor for the petitioner had offered no objection to the confirmation of the special order, but had objected to the council taking any further action. Mr. Shackelford added that the petition was supported by Mr. Hammill, a member of the council, and by Father Murphy, the pastor of the Church of the Good Shepherd. He thought there was not the least possible chance of the petition succeeding, although the ratepayers would be put to a great deal of expense. Letter In Solicitor's Hands. Mr. Hammill said he desired to ask a number of questions, but Mr. Hooton objected that if Mr. Hammill was going to prosecute the council they should not supply him with the answers. The Mayor, however, asked Mr. Hammill to proceed with his questions. Mr. Hammill then asked why a letter from the solicitor to the Dominion Road Ratepayers' Association had not been laid before the council. \. Mr. Shackelford: That is in the hands of the council's solicitors, and I cannot bring it before the council to-night. » Mr. Hammill: I think you have done wrong in not placing that letter before the council two meetings ago. This letter threatened proceedings if the council persisted in it 3 determination to raise the money to purchase the, 20acre block, and put forward the cojiteiition that the council had no authTTrity to raise money for the purchase of land, | a portion of which it proposed to use for | roads, subdivision and sale. Conference With Other Bodies. Mr. Hammill then said that they had not heard the report of the sub-committee which had endeavoured to arrange ' an overdraft to pay for the site, nor had they heard of any action being taken. Mr. Shackelford: When they have a report to present you will hear it. Mr. Hammill: They were not successful in raising the overdraft? Mr. Shackelford: You say so. On what authority did some members of the council confer with representatives of the other local bodies concerning the site? asked Mr.,Hammill. The Mayor replied that the conference was called at the request of the Health Department, and that the representatives of the council present wera the sub-com-mittee appointed by the council to deal with the question of the destructor, and until the mattar was disposed of they would continue 'to meet the Health Department. . . ■" • At the request of Mr. Hammill, the Mayor read the report of Dr. Hughes on the various alternative sites suggested by the Ratepayers' Association. This report is published elsewhere. J Mr. Hammill again asserted that this report, which he claimed supported the contentions of the association, had been suppressed. He said there were 330 houses already in the vicinity of the site chosen, and the loss to property owners would be about £25,000 as the result of depreciation following the erection of tho destructor. He quoted a solicitor's opinion concerning the powers of local bodies, and said the site was not being bought for a destructor, but for speculative purposes, the council having no power to raise a loan for such a purpose. The Mayor said the local bodies concerned had unanimously decided to adhere to the sit a chosen and they were quite able to meet the objections put forward. They were not a bit concerned. Tho motion was eventually carried, Messrs. Hammill %nd McNab voting against . it. .