SEWER CONNECTIONS

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 55, Issue 3941, 18 August 1937, Page 8

SEWER CONNECTIONS

ALONG PRIVATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY. BOROUGH COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Quite a lot of consideration was given by the Borough Council, at Monday evening’s meeting, to the subject ol borough by-laws and their effect on subdivisions which have prii ate rights-of-way. DRAINAGE OF SUB-DIVISION. Messrs Collins and Downes wrote in regard to the drainage of Mrs H. Y. Collins’ subdivision, and the Council s suggestions in response to an offer of a drainage easement over the rights-of-way 12 feet wide. Some points needed elucidation. Lots 4 and 6 had been sold, and it was not in the wri ter’s power to grant an easement where suggested. However, the purchaser had kindly consented to the proposal, and this could now be arranged when the exact position was indicated. With regard to the required contribution of £125, it was pointed out that only eleven lots were for sale and were to be, in fact, affected by the drainage scheme. Of these one lot, No. 17, would be very little benefited, so the additional cost must therefore bo borne by the other ten sections. Mention was made that il drainage were available in the right-oi-way it would be much cheaper for each section to connect to it than it the drainage were along the Frontier Road. It had to be admitted, however, that the fall would not permit drainage along that road, so tnat to argue that there would be a saving in that manner was hardly just. The sections had to bear ordinary drainage cost, and therefore the offer of £lOO towards the cost of drainage was, in the circumstances, a particularly generous offer. The letter proceeded: “It cannot be pretended that half the total cost of drainage in the borough has been recovered by direct contribution from property owners apart from loans and rates for the purpose imposed upon all.’’ A SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION. The Mayor said the Works and Finance Committees had agreed that the £125 asked for was reasonable. Really there should have been a chain wide street to subdivide the property, but the owners had elected to conserve space by adopting the panhandle system of subdivision. The case of Mrs Collins’ property was not unique. There were other similar properties in various parts of the borough. Without sewerage, the sections were practically unsaleable. If the Council sewered the area it would undertake expenditure that really need not have been made. Sewer connection could be made from Goodfellow Street. It was unlikely that the sewer would be taken along Frontier Road for many years to come; hence the decision in favour of Goodfellow Street. Crs Montefiore and Rainey thought the concession should be made if possible. The Mayor: The position is that by doing so we are making the owner a present of £lOO from the borough funds. There will almost certainly be applications of a similar nature. ENCOURAGE BUILDING. Cr Montefiore said there was a real need for more houses, and the Council should encourage building. The Mayor said all property owners paid sewerage rate, plus a fixed amount for each connection. Cr North suggested that a fair basis would be for each party to bear half the cost. The Mayor mentioned that no house could be built on any one of the subdivision sections unless the section was sewered. It was decided to adhere to the stated terms, Cr Montefiore’s amendment that if the sewerage cost less than the estimate the price to Mrs Collins be reduced proportionately, failing to find a seconder. During the discussion reference was made to a possible saving by the use of subsidised labour, but Mr Close said his estimate of £259 provided for this; without the subsidised labour the work could cost the Council £3OO. GEORGE STREET SECTIONS. The Mayor said he had conferred with Messrs Preston (representing Newton King Ltd.), and Oliphant (representing Mr Wilson) on the subject, and said the trouble was that Mr Wilson had secured approval of a plan by which he was enabled to erect four dwellings, three of them fronting on to the private right-of-way. The matter had a bearing on the Council’s roading, building, sewerage and water supply by-laws. The borough solicitor, appealed to, said the Council must abide by its by-laws. If a by-law were broken once it became nullified for the future. In the case of Mr Gibbs’ application the Mayor said the by-law required a 12 foot frontage to a public street, not to a private right-of-way. Mr Gibbs explained that the section was not yet subdivided, but the owner desired permission to give owners of other property abutting on the right-of-way the right to use it. The Mayor said Mr Wilson had an exclusive right to use his own right-of-way, but it he sold or leased part of the buildings he was debarred from

giving permission to the adjoining property owners. The right-of-way was restricted to one owner of the land served by it. Mr G. A. Gibbs, surveyor, attended in support of his plan and letter recommending that the right-of-way to Mr J. G. Wilson’s property off George Street be made a public right-of-way. EXTENDING BUSINESS PREMISES. A letter from Messrs McCarter, Preston and Edmonds applied for approval of an application by Messrs Newton King Ltd. for the provision of a public right-of-way to enable them to enlarge their present premises, ami thus relieve existing congestion. Cr Montefiore said the 12 foot right-of-way was for a dwelling, not for business premises.] He suggested amending the by-law when it affected business premises only. After all, all the property belonged to one man. The Mayor: No; Mr Wilson has sold or leased portions, and now there are several affected. Reference to the by-law showed that the clause made it. clear that the right-of-way was for the exclusive use of the occupier of the dwelling. If Newton King’s application were granted the right-of-way became a public one. It was suggested that there was an alternative by which Mr Wilson could purchase a 12 foot strip on tlie far side and give that as access to the dwellings. The present right-of-way could then become a public one. Ultimately it was decided to refer I lie matter to I lie Legal and Finance Committee. 1N FORMAT ION WANTED. When the Mayor mentioned that a legal opinion would probably be necessary to interpret the building bylaws, in regard to drainage connec-

tions on two or more huildin 1 or ■ ■ ed on one section, Cr Maxwell wanted to know more about it. The Mayor said the by laws insisted that only one sewerage c was necessary for each section, ten he was also of opinion Unit one ' eragc connection could not, or should not, bo given to two or more dwellings. He was informed of a case where four houses were io be ereeled on one section. If. in such a em-o. :• sewer blockage occurred who was to be held responsible? SHOULD BE CLARIFIED. Cr Montefiore said every Imm should be on one section. Cr Rainey thought. 1 lie pisilion should be cleared up. He mid ” -lood (lie by-laws would not permit of oim sewer for more Ilian one dw.'llim . The Mayor said water rule pa.’.ments were also affected. Ho su ... si ed referring the matter to I lie is’g.il and Finance Committee. It was agreed to adopt that course.