TAKAPUNA WATERSHED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19956, 26 May 1928, Page 12

TAKAPUNA WATERSHED

PLIGHT OF LANDOWNERS. DEPRECIATION OF PROPERTY. TWO COURT ACTIONS PENDING. There are approximately 80 owners of land in the Lake Fupuko watershed at all of whom stand to loso heavily if the stalemate regarding the right to build is allowed to continue indefinitely. The ban which the Health Department has placed on the erection of dwellings, while safeguarding the North Shore water supply from the risk of pollution, has caused drastic depreciation in the value of private property and grave personal loss to a large number of people. The total rateable valuo of the lands in the watershed last year was £BO,OOO. Since the Health Department imposed the building prohibition the value has dropped to £42,000. There are many individual cases, however, in which the Government valuations have been reduced 80 and 90 per cent. Many of the owners who have received assessments this year from the Valuation Department find their properties have fallen in value from £4OO an acre to £SO an acre, this being the Government's basis for valuing grazing land. As some of this property is endowed for religious bodies, and most of it is intended for eventual subdivision and sale for building purposes, the predicament of the present owners is an unpleasant one. Not only have they been deprived of potential income, but also they rankle under the knowledge that for years they have been paying out, under the high valuations, large sums in rates which they have no legal right to recover. In the light of the new assessments the ratingcost in relation to revenue has been exorbitant. Effect of Act Not Realised. The present state of affairs had its origin in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act, 1913 (since superseded in favour of the North Shore Water Supply Act, 1.924), which empowered the Lake Takapuna Board of Control to conserve and maintain the purity of the water supply of the lake. Few people at the time realised the future implications of the authority conferred on the newlyconstituted body. One owner stated yesterday that it "filched away the rights of the owners of the freehold to build on their own land." He said that noteven the legal minds engaged at the time appreciated the consequences of the legislation, mentioning, in extenuation, that the clause dealing with the matter was only one of 135 provisions contained in the Act. This Act, together with Section 61 of the Health Act, 1920, dealing with the pollution of watercourses, are the' main authorities turning on the situation. The section reads: "Every person commits an offence and is liable'on summary conviction to a fine of £IOO who directly or indirectly pollutes so as to be dangerous to health, or offensive, or unfit for domestic use, the water supply of the district of any local authority, or any portion of that supply." This clause is considered by the owners to be too general in character to apply to their case. If it were used against them in a Court of law they submit the onus would be on the Health Department to prove that percolation of refuse actually could occur in the Pupuke watershed. The possibility of contamination from dwellings situated further than two chains away from the lake edge is very much doubted. Purchase of Strip Favoured. Many of the owners have cherished the hope that the local authorities would either buy the land outright at an adequate valuation or reserve a narrow strip round the lake and free the balance of the land for close settlement. If the strip were two chains in width it is believed the distance would effectively prevent any trace of refuse from reaching the lake waters. As things are, building is prohibited within 30 chains of the lake in the case of some properties. Many attempts to dispose of private property in the watershed have been nullified through the building prohibition, and to all intents and purposes the land is now hopelessly locked up until relief is forthcoming. The only existing subdivisions are on paper, it being impossible to effect a sale while the restriction continues'. The Borough Council's policy is to refer all plans for subdivisions in this locality to the Health Department, which invariably vetoes approval. As a result of the owners' determination to bring an end to the deadlock, two actions are pending in the Supreme Court. One of them seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Borough Council to approve a subdivision which has hitherto failed to pass the Health Department and the council. The council will defend the case in conjunction with the Crown solicitor, instructed by the Minister of Health..