BOUNDARIES OF BOROUGH

Taranaki Daily News, 23 July 1931, Page 9

BOUNDARIES OF BOROUGH

DECISIONS IN NEW PLYMOUTH

DISPUTE WITH COUNTY COUNCIL.

OBJECTIONS OF OWNER UPHELD.

Th© commission which sat at New Plymouth in March to consider a petition for the inclusion in the borough of an area of land comprising three portions on the Fitzroy seafront between the Heriui Stream and the Waiwakaiho River, extending from the sea to the present borough boundary has recommended that the portion owned by Mr. George Colson, who with the Taranaki County Council objected to its inclusion, be not included in the borough until it shall be reasonably required for building purposes or- so ong as the land is used as a farm only or no part of the land is used for human dcupation other than is essential for farming purposes. The recomendations of' the commission are to be given effect to, the Department of Internal Affairs notified_ yesterday. The portion concerned is Pukeweka 17a, containing 61 acres 2 roods 10 perches. The other two portions conconcerned, Pukeweka 17b, containing 13 acres 1 .rood, and part A Harbour Reserve, 7 acres, and section 97, Harbour Reserve, 20 acres, the commission recommended should be included in the borough. No objection was made at the hearing to the inclusion of these portions. The commission, which comprised Mr. R.. W. Tate, S.M., Mr. W. D. Armit (Comissioner of Crown Lands, New Plymouth) and Mr. T. Sheehy (district valuer, New Plymouth), stated that the land about which there was the controversy was acquired by Mr. Colson 20-years ago, when it was a waste of ■’ shifting sand and clay. He had partly 4 developed and improved it, and had transformed between 20 and 25 acres from an almost valueless waste into productive grass land upon which he depastured dairy cattle. It was conceded that he had done admirable work in so transforming the land that it was now productive. The alteration was brought about by a slow process through planting lupin and later establishing a pasture. That was work which could not be hurried, and until, such time as the whole area •Was consolidated it was very doubtful if any permanency could be assured as to the general contour of the land. In other words, sand drift was likely to continue over a large part of the area, until such time as the actual consolidation was. completed. There was no human occupation of the land beyond a caretaker’s cottage. VALUATION AND RATES. The unimproved value of £324, which was assessed'by the Valuer-General on March 31, 1922/ would probably be increased on a revision of the roll values of the Taranaki County. At the hearing it was ascertained in evidence that Pukeweka 17 b was acquired by the New Plymouth Borough Council at a consideration of £2O per acre. This area was composed of undeveloped sandhills, similar in character to Mr. Colson’s property prior to the improvements effected by him. In evidence M r - Colson considered his property worth £6O an acre, and admitted refusing an offer of £4O an acre. As adjacent selling values determined the valuations under the Valuations of Land Act, it was evident to the commission that Mr. Colson’s property would, on revision of the roll, •be the subject of a very substantial increase in rateable value. The present roll- value was. approximately £5 per acre. .

Assuming that the Toll value was quadrupled, the following comparison would apply: The present county rate amounted to £-1 5s lid per annum, and the rate which Mr. Colson would be required to pay, if included in the borough on the same valuation and excluding any rating for existing special loans, would amount to £7 Os 7d. There could be no certainty that on the maturity of the existing special loans new polls would not be taken, when Mr. Colson’s rate, if included in the borough on the present roll value; would amount t to £l2 14s 9d. Assuming that the roll value was quadrupled on revision, the lower borough rate would exceed the county rate by £l'o 18s. 8d per annum, and. the higher borough rate would exceed the county rate by £33 16s 4d per annum. At the present time, when the Dominion’s overseas market© were depressed and dairy produce was returning a comparatively low value, there could be only a narrow margin of profit in* the working of this land, and increased rates would constitute a greater burden than the land should be required to bear. , .DEVELOPMENT NOT COMPLETE A further aspect of the matter was that the property was only partially developed, and an increased rating charge over the next period of five or.ten years, in the opinion <j>f the commission, would have a tendency to check a further reclamation of the area from a sand waste to a pasture land. Of the present borough amenities, the land made use of an access by way of Record Street—the only access—and of one lead of water from the borough water supply, this being adjacent to the borough-piggeries. The provisions of section 119 of the Public Works Act, 1928, could be applied towards securing a contribution ■ for the maintenance of the borough streets by. the county ratepayer, should the parties elect to proceed on those lines. It was doubtful whether two-thirds of that land was at all suitable at the present time for subdivision and settlement, on account of the shifting nature of the sand. In any case, it was the considered opinion of the commission that none of the land was so required at the present time, nor was it likely to be required for building purposes for any reasonable period—not for many years to come. If the effect of section 8 of the Municipal Corporations Amendment Act, 1928, were such that this land, while used as a farm and nothing but a farm, and while it was not required for building purposes, would be subject to rates not higher than county rates, the comissiou would be disposed to recommend that, on account of its geographical position, it shoud bo immediately included in the borough. After consideration of the decision given in respect of farm lands in the borough of New Plymouth following applications for relief under section 8, it was the opinion of the commission that •uch an effect would not be achieved. The relief of farm lands within boroughs had become a matter of pressing necessity in numerous boroughs in New Zealand, and the inclusion of Mr. Colson’s land in the borough of New (Plymouth under the present conditions, when he was purely farming the land, would have the effect of intensifying an existing evil. In respect of subdivision of the land, the commission was fully alive to the fact that the land should be subdivided under the provisions of the. Municipal

Corporations Act, and not under the provisions of the 'Land Act. The commission recorded its opinion that Mr. Colson or any successors in title should be compelled to subdivide under the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, and it considered that the” New Plymouth Borough Council should have ample opportunity of reopening the subject should present conditions alter. A great measure of control was provided in the Land Act, 1924, and in section 32 of the Town Planning Act, 1926. It was stressed for the borough, and this aspect of the matter was the strongest argument in favour of the immediate inclusion of the land in the borough, that the seafront was available for the erection of-week-end shacks, t’here was none of such erections on fhe land at present. It was agreed that the closest control was necessary in regard to such erections to prevent the congregation of undesirables on the seafront and to prevent the creation of a shim area. The Counties Act and Health Act provided a measure of control as regards the county authorities, but undoubtedly a greater measure of control was vested in the borough, on account of the existence of suitable bylaws governing the subject and the existence of an expert staff under the immediate control of the borough authorities.

The commission was of opinion that until the time came that the land was reasonably required for subdivision and building purposes, or so long as it was used solely for farming purposes, it should remain in the county, but as soon as any part was used for human occupation not essential to farming, it should be excluded from the county and included in the borough, despite any inequity that might arise in regard to the rates.