RICHMOND GROVE

Southland Times, Issue 19294, 12 July 1924, Page 7

RICHMOND GROVE

QUESTION OF AMALGAMATION. COMMISSION OF INQUIRY. Yesterday a Commission of Inquiry, consisting of the Magistrate, Mr G. Cruickshank (Chairman), Mr K. M. Graham, Commissioner of Crown Lands, ' and Mr G. T. Martin, District Land Valuer for Southland, sat to consider the petition lodged by the Invercargill Borough Council to have an area in Richmond Grove brought within the Borough boundaries for the purpose of providing adequate drainage facilities. Mr Robertson represented the Council and Mr Haggitt appeared for the objectors. Mr Robertson stated that the trouble really originated owing to the lack of facilities for drainage. Block I. was subdivided into small residential areas which were practically without any means of drainage. Bamborough Road was wholly within the Borough, but the houses in Block I. were in the County. During the last four or five years there had been many complaints on the part of the residents, and the matter had also been taken up by the Health Department. Eventually a conference was arranged between the Borough and County Councils, together with representatives of the Health Department. The latter recommended that steps should be taken to bring these properties into the Borough as it was the only method by which the difficulty of drainage could be overcome. Prior to that conference a petition was lodged by a number of residents urging that they should be brought within the Borough. The County Council had no right to discharge deleterious matter into the Borough drains, and yet it was essential if proper drainage were to be provided, that the whole of the outfall from these propreties should be disposed of in this way. The County Council did not maintain a proper staff to carry out Municipal drainage. The County Council had shelved the matter and had not taken any steps to provide drainage. The County was a consenting party to the petition. Dr T. McKibbin, District Health Officer for Otago and Southland, stated that as far back as August, 1919, some residents of Bamborough Road petitioned the County Council for proper drainage facilities, but the County had replied that since the rates received from that area were small, it could not undertake to put in an underground drain. Some time later 11 ratepayers communicated with the Health Department asking that something should be done. Again in 1923, owing to complaints received, the Borough Council decided to block up all house drainage coming on to Bamborough Road, but before any steps were taken the Department requested the Borough to reconsider its decision. Seven of the ratepayers then petitioned the Council to have their properties brought within the Borough. The Borough Council accordingly asked the County Council if it would agree to have the area added to the Borough, and he understood that the County had raised no objections. The Health Department regarded the matter as an important one from a health point of view, not only in regard to the residents within that particular area, but for the residents of Invercargill generally. Immediately this area was brought within the Borough it would receive the advantage of the Borough’s sanitary and drainage services. The building of new houses would also be regulated by the Borough by-laws. A possible alternative was the provision of a sanitary service by ihe County Council, or the formation of a Town Board. The experience of the Department, however, had been that these services were not so satisfactorily carried out as they were under a Borough. Thomas O. Fox, Borough Engineer,

stated that the whole of Lindisfarne, with the exception of Bamborough Road, had been sewered and that would be completed within a month or so. Only the houses on the West- side would be sewered, as the houses on the East side came within the County. In the event of this area being brought within the Borough, sewerage and a water supply service would be provided. To Mr Haggitt: It all depended upon the Council when the work could be carried out, but it was a small undertaking and there was no reason why it could not be carried out almost immediately. Thomas William Smalley, one of the petitioners; stated that he had resided in Bamborough Road for the last 12 years. When lie first resided there were only four or five sections built upon, but sever al other houses had been erected since. All the sink drainage from the houses was discharged on to Bamborough Road and created a nuisance. At the present time he was paying 30/- a year in rates to the County Council and received nothing in return. He considered that he might as well pay a little more and get something for it. Charles William Smith, also a petitioner, stated that the state of Bamborough Road at the present time was a disgrace to any borough. Drainage was urgently required. Thomas Groves, rates clerk for the Southland County Council, stated that the rates on the properties which it was proposed to bring within the Borough, were 1 11-16ths of a penny on the unimproved value and a hospital rate of 3-llths of a penny on the capital value. Ralph Bleakley, Borough Inspector, stated rhat every summer a nuisance was created by the stagnant water lying on Bamborough Road. The position had become so acute .hat the Borough had served notice on the residents that unless they ceased to drain on to the road steps would be taken to block • heir outfall. The only way by w’hich this nuisance could be overcome was for the n.sidents to have their drains connected :th the Corporation sewer. At present here was no necessity for the Corporation o take the sewer up Bamborough Road is all houses within the Borough could be : rained into the St. Andrew Street sewer. F. W. Burwell, Town Clerk, said that he did not remember a definite conference taking place between the Borough Council and the County Council, but representatives of both had gone over the ground together. The County Council had adopted a neutral attitude. Mr Haggitt, for the objectors, said that altogether there were 69 objectors to the petition, and of these 26 resided in the area which it was proposed to bring within the area. It must, have been obvious after hearing the evidence that it was simply a question of three or four residents at the top end of Bamborough Road agitating for amalgamation in order to obtain drainage facilities. Dr McKibbin stated that the agitation first commenced in 1919, and that in 1923 the Borough decided to block up the drainage from the properties on the East side of Bamborough Road. Seven ratepayers of Richmond Grove had then petitioned the Council to be brought into the Borough and the Council had proceeded under Section 133 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1920, to bring the petitioners and a number of other residents within its boundaries. Prior to 1920 that could not be done, and it was obvious that the Borough, in order to get over the difficulty it was in by continually being harassed, decided to bring about some finality by proceeding under this section of the act, for the simple reason that it could not get a sufficient number of residents to sign the petition to enable it to proceed under Section 132 of the Act. Before the boundaries could be altered under that section a petition required to be signed by one-fourth of the persons entitled to vote. Under the Consolidating Act of 1920 new provisions were made whereby the Council could petition to have the boundaries altered. So in this case, as the Council could get six or seven ratepayers to sign the petition, it was decided to seek the aid of Section 133, which was most unfair to the 62 objectors. Under Section 132 it was not only necessary that the petition should be signed by one-fourth of the ratepayers, but even after the Commission had sent forward its report, the Governor-General had power to order that a poll should be taken within the area affected. The main objection in the present case was the question of finance. If the area were brought into the town the rates would be increased at least three times, while no material benefits were to be gained except by a few. According to

Dr McKibbin, Richmond Grove, would become a Utopia within a year or two, but other places which had been within the Borough for years and years had not been greatly improved. Apart from that altogether there were plenty of areas within the Borough which were still available for those who desired to live in the town, and there did not appear to be any reason to prevent anyone living outside the borough if they desired to do so. In lieu of coming into the Borough the objectors asked to be allowed to form a special rating area and to attend to their own sanitation. The Borough certainly had the facilites for carryng out this work, but apart from the actual cost, the residents would have to pay extra rates. James Stanton, farmer, residing at Richmond Grove said that he owned five acres within Block 1., and he had no objection to this being brought into the Borough. He was of the opinion, however, that if properties outside of that block were brought in it would result in hardship to anyone holding more than a quarter acre section. It would not only mean heavy rating, but the boundaries of the properties would also have to be altered. The only part of Richmond Grove which was unsanitary was that portion facing Bamborough Road, and this could be drained either into the Park drain or into Puni Creek. There was no reason why any other portion should be brought into the Borough. Patrick Stanton stated that he resided in Richmond Grove and owned several sections within the area which it was proposed to bring within the Borough. His father also owned 2| acres in Richmond Grove. His father was an invalid and was solely dependent upon witness. The only way in which he was able to keep things going was to run a few cows. If these properties were brought into the Borough and he had to pay higher rates it would result in hardship. Should the properties be brought within the Borough, certain improvements to roads would have to be carried out and the residents would be called upon to pay extra rates. The petition to come within the Borough had only been signed by severa of those residing on the East side of Bamborough Road, who were affected by the question of drainage to a much greater extent than those in other parts were. He was of the opinion that the County Council should borrow money to carry out any drainage necessary. Martin O’Brien stated that many of the properties within the area were ideal from a working man’s point of view, but if brought within the Borough many would have to sell out. He had no objection to his own property in Bamborough Road being brought in, but other parts were not likely to receive the same benefits from amalgamation. The Commission adjourned its sitting until 10 a.m. to-day.