TITIRANGI ROAD DISTRICT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 14440, 29 October 1917, Page 3

TITIRANGI ROAD DISTRICT.

AN OBJECTION DEALT WITH

In the Gisborne courthouse this morn,-, ing Mr \V. A. Barton, S.M., held a Kilting to hear . objections . to inclusion m Sumpter special rating area, Titirangi Road District. This area was formed for the purpose of raising a loan of £800 to construct a road and bridge to connect section 313 Ivaiti with the main Wainui road. . There were three objectors — F. J? Lysnar, C. W. Ferris, and RFerris — the grounds being that the objectors would not be benefited by tlie proposal. Th© clerk of the Cook County Council (Mr John Warren) wrote as follows: — "Herewith I have the honor to find for your consideration and further procedure a list of ratepayers proposed to be included m & special rating district for the purposes of providing interest and other charges upon a loan for providing £800, to be raised for the purpose of constructing a road and bridge to connect the divisions of Section 313 Kaiti with, m^in Wainui road." He, also enclosed a list of persons who raised objections. . , . t , _. lH F. j. Lysnar raised an objection to i having his name included m the roll of the Suraptea* special nating district, on the ground that his property would nob benefit by the proposal. The -objefitions,, lodged .by Charles William Ferris and Reihi Ferris were withdrawn. , Mr Stock represented the Cook County, Council, and Mr Burnard represented objector r lsr F. J. LysnarIn opening Mr Burnard said the position of the objeotor was extremely difficult, because he did not know whether a different, scheme had been proposed. In his opinion the whole matter had been out of proper procedure. Tho petition was not m keeping with the required formalities. The street the petitioners intended to extend was not a dedi-fiated;-xoa<jl- A. question to be decided was whether or not the road giving access, to M^,Lysnar> property was dedicated or not-. 'Moreover easier access was given to /Mr ( .F r Lysnar's sections by another road- altogether. To imagine any extra value would be given to the objector's property, counsel contended, was ridiculous. Mr Lysnar .deposed that he was the owner of -certain sections set out on the plan (produced). The first intention was to make a connecting road along the beach : and the . latter, was to make it through Mr Murphy's property.' The M^rtstrate : , Let us have the intention fully described. John Warren said. a list was first received m July 1917 of persons consenting to he rated. It was explained' by a meipber that it was intended to borrow a sum of £600 to connect section 313 Kaiti to the main Wainui road. It was . shown that the beaoh site was unsuitable. -.It was th3n. resolved to arrange * for a better line of road.

Mr Bumard: The first* intention was^, to make a road along the Wainui beach ?.j —Yes. ,{,> The Ma^isir'atb ':. Was there any osui* ter ptbpoisalTi-KXniy that li was deaMJed lo find a better line of road.

Continuing Mr , Warren spdd the matter " ' again came tip Jou ' Septeipber 3, tliis" : time. Co raise- £800 to make the road through Mr Murphy's property. Two " days later the Board again met, and after some discussion it was decided to hpyei' a. special ratipg. area dgfinedj i°? :' the purpose of raising £800 to connect) '' section 313 with the Wainui road. Mr Bumard : Has Murphy street been' dedicated? — -NoHas it been formed? — No. So, tha!b_< at. _ .present the proposed sWei&e ;&',&& extension of Murphy street whibh lisle} not yet been dedicated? — ; V«jj.'«; : ' -*;... V Ate the loan pionieis partly, to be used inieTpciiig.and metalling Murphy street? r-T^tj-jsj./so. Thi*t',mean-s he will get his road free of ,b_*^*ge?yYes. CbjiN^ti Iday that the road leading to theJbSs&li— the middle xoad-^-is. a public road.?— l do not know whether it is a ruad'er^ not. It is shown m late surveyiiVg^fin^as a public road. Mr*' , «|pjck: Mr Murphy wasi giving his land free of cost? — Yea.

Witness; said negotiations were opened with Mr .& H. Lysnar. for the forming; of the road.

Mr Burnard objected, but Mr Stock said he would, like to show that Mr F. J. Lysnar v "Wtas approached m, th«. matt er, but it was dropped as he Tra/nted £250 per acre for his land. Mr F. J. Lysnar went, ifltb the box a-gain, andi said his property did not abut on Jshe new proposed road. There were noyrbeojrds; m the Cook Council offioe ofythe dedication. It was a road set apart because .of a Maoriajba, but it was nev^ , dedicated, Assuming that it was a public road, he had praAUcally no land to out. up into. small seewns. A few residbp^b houpght summer -Mouses on the beach; and he "contended thUt /thgy were trying to make him assi&fc m paying for itt, to* wjmjd, jvptsb^ deriving a#.y benefit. He only used the land m questing for„gi?azing, and had never had any bfiors for it.

Mr Stock: You are the only objector? — I 'don't know.

Counsel said the ratable value was £8469, and f his (objector's) waa £1572. -llierefore, if £800 had; to bo raised the rate would he very small. William O. Skeet, r" trpayer m this special district, said h» knew ithe ohjector's properties, and considered he would ' benefit, as. he had no other outlet. IjE a. road was taken iv Mir G. Lysnar's property, it would be much more expensive m many ways, as, m tlhe first plaoe, the land alone would have cost £500.

Mr Burnard : Assuming that Mr F. J. Lysnar lias a. right-of-way -tihrough Mr G. H. Jjysnar'a property, would the proposed road benefit him? — Yes, oonsiderablv.

Do you know lie has- to bear just on a fifth of the cost"? — Mr Lysnar's value is £1500, -while mine is £500. W. Paltridge. of the. Survey Office, produced tlie official map of the Coojc County, which showed that the road m question waff a public road. The road was hot dedicated but \yais shown as a road in^lß6*6, and- all subsequent plans show ifc to be a public road. The roadway "was 100 links wide. William Martin, said! he had done surveying .woi*K, and had property m the district. He considered the objectors' laud ; would benefit by tho proposed *road, niore than his own. The t other; s proposed, road yrould f haye cost; considerably niore, without taking into consideration the "purchasing of the property.' He contended that objector >roUld ..have .--'to a road m aiiy case «if he .wished. to cut up Ins property, and if would have to connect with the road' proper. yrryyz "':\: r y ' ' y ■•".'">.' :" a '" ! ,',i Rpbei-fciH^eji'qfeHier fate^er concerned,' #i.M;Q.wnf $rop6rty valued at. £425," 'We knew' that the proposed road would benefit Mr Lysnar's property. ' Mr ;. Burnard said fee 'con^dered .'the position was perfectlyTilaih':' it fya* (\\&i he Would 'be able to =feubW ide fiy fWiriing. another road 1 from the }»roposed road.' , The witnesses' had.. all said the objector would benefit, but they were all parties to the proposal. Further, the properties of Mi* Lysnar were m two lots, arid to cut them up he would have to.put.doyn ttf»-o roads... The only demand m. existence •was 'for beach sections, and people would not be prepared' to pay high prices for property away back. The cost of; laying down branch' roads was iM3jt; feawWer unless high prices were* runng, foi;. *t^e property. The Magistrate said the question for ■ him to decide **Vas whether or not the objector, jrpuld bepefit by the proposed >road,"and he was of the opinion that he would- TKe irihjeiition ivas -dismissed.