OTAKI BOROUGH COUNCIL

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11224, 1 June 1922, Page 6

OTAKI BOROUGH COUNCIL

QUESTION OF COMPENSATION. THE COUNCIL DIVIDED. (Special to “N.Z. Times.”) OTAKI, May 31. At a special meeting of the Otaki Borough Council, held yesterday, the Mayor stated that the meeting had been called to consider the matter of compensation to be paid to Mr Nicol on account of -land taken for the proposed waterworks. At the outset, the council, he said, had been asked to pay £7OO, but there was an understanding now that if the council paid £jtoo, Mr Nicol would allow the contractor to proceed with the work. He moved that Mr Nicol’s offer to allow the council to proceed with the work and to take land and easement rights for £2OO, be accepted. He thought, perhaps, that some councillors might think the amount excessive, but they must remember that the works would affect Mr Njcol’s lanff, while pipes and tank would cause inconvenience.

Councillor Taylor seconded. Councillor Bills thought the offer a reasonable one, and endorsed the remarks made by the Mayor. In answer to Councillor Broadway, tho Mayor said the area required was more than half an acre. Councillor Broadway considered the price too high, and maintained £IOO to £l5O quite enough. Councillor Cockrell considered the price much too high, despite the fact that the council had to enter on a man’s land. A road would have to he formed later, and Mr Nicol would benefit by an extra frontage. Personally, he would like to see Mr Nicol reduce his price. Councillor Taylor supported the Mayor, and said tho land was being taken to suit the council. He maintained it would cost a lot if taken under the Public Works Act. Councillor Kilshy objected to giving £2oo', and moved an amemlment that Mr Nicol be asked to reduce his price to £l5O. He considered the taking of the land would do no harm; in fact, he thought a £lO note would cover all damage. The property, he contended, would not bo injured, and he thought Mr Nicol should meet the council. If he did he would have no cause for regret.

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Broadway. It was decided, on the casting vote of the Mayor, to_ pay £2OO. He was supported by Councillors Bills and Taylor, while Councillors Kilshy Broadway, and Cockrell voted against this amount.