SUMMER BOUNDARIES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16327, 17 January 1921, Page 8

SUMMER BOUNDARIES.

POSITION OF MOUNT PLEASANT. COMMISSION OF INQUIRY. Tho Commission of Enquiry regarding proposed alterations to the boundaries of th© Sumner Borough by the excivisiou of the Mount .pleasant area continued its sitting to-day at the Chrisfc- ! church Magistrate’s Courthouse. Mr E. M’Carfrhy, S.M., presided, with him being Mr H. 1> - M. Haszard aud Mr D. G. Pullar. Mr G. Harper appeared for the petitioners, and Air J. J. Douga.ll for the Sum no i Municipal Council, which op posed the petition. I‘he Heathcote County Council was not represented, but it was stated at tho Commission s first sitting that it- favoured the petition asking that Mount pleasant should be excluded, from the Sumner Borough. Jolm Fuller, law clerk, the holder of fifty acres in the Mount Pleasant area, stated that he wad one of tlie petitioners asking for the exclusion of Mount Pleasant from the Sumner borough. No resident in the Mount Pleasant area was a member or the Sumner Borough Council. This he considered a weakness as the Mount Pleasant area, though sparsely populated, was an extensive one. To Mr Dougall: Witness anticipated less rating if Mount Pleasant were attached to the Heath cote County. "Witness did not know that counties could : impose double the rates that a borough coin’d. Mr Harper said that by the time tne matter before the Comisaion was settled the new Counties Act would be in force. Coder this Act & county could only rate in respect - of work going to be carried out in the county. Separate accounts had to bo kept for each riding, and if Mount Pleasant became a riding of the Heath cote County Mr Harper submitted that rates imposed in the riding must be spent on work in it. _ ! Richard Maffev, another of the peti- j turners, said that Mount Pleasant re si- ; dents could not be any worse off if the area were included in the Heathcote County. Witness had held property at Mount Pleasant since the time if was incorporated in tho Sunnier Borough. Nothing had been done for Mfcunt Pleasant by the Sumner Borough Council—not even a light erected to show the Mount Pleasant Road. Samuel Irving M’Harg stated that he owned and grazed land on Mount Pleasant. Witness had very bad access to his property. He bad had to pay for a waterworks arid other loans, yet the Sumner Borough could not give him a cupful of water. Witness’s rates had been more than doubled, but he had not received a penny in return for them. If the Mount Pleasant syndicate had not formed and maintained a road witness could not have got oil to his property. Henry S. Hobday, recalled, said that tho Mount Pleasant Road was a Crown road, vested in the Sumner Borough Council. r llie road had been -maintained up to the present time by the Mount Pleasant Syndicate. Witness handed iiv correspondence between himself and the Sumner Borough Council, showing that the Morten Estate had offered to expend £6900 in reading the area if the council would take _ over the roads when completed. This tlie council declined to do. Witness was cross-examined at some lencith by Mr Dougall. This closed the case for the petitioners. In opening the case against tho petition Mr Dougall _ said that the only grievance the residents had was that Ihev received nothing in return for their rates. It was some thirty years since the borough of Sumner was formed. At that time the Morten estate owned two-thirds of the borough, and no objection was made to the borough incorporating the estate. Th© present was the first attempt to alter the. Sumner boundaries. Mr Hobdav’s evidence showed that tlie inhabitants ot the Mount Pleasant area expected the are% ro be fairly thickly settled in the near future. Witness would adduce evidence ro show that Mr Hobday wished the Sumner Borough Council to read Mount Pleasant. Tlie Mount Pleasant syndicate had built the Mount Pleasant road without consulting the Borough Council, thus showing a gross disregard of faw and defiance of the Borough Council. Mr Hobday’s evidence was tlie strongest possible evidence against the exclusion of the area from Sumner. It find been said that the Sumner Borough Council had spent no money on roads. A great deal had been spent on M’Cormick’s Bond, which was the only access t>v land to Sumner. If that road were handed over to Heath cote it, might he neglected, anc! thus do incalculable harm to Sumner. Counsel submitted that the exclusion of Mount Pleasant from Sumner would be an act of retrogression and against the principles of good government. Tf the Commission decided to throw tlie Mount Pleasant urea into Heathcote counsel predicted that another commission would he necessary to settle differences between tne county and the Dorough. He sub- ; mifcted also that before the area irer(' excluded a poll of ratepayers in the nrea should he taken, as many of them were not conversant with the actual position regarding rating. The tendency to-day was tor outlying boroughs to join the city and there were many who advocated that tho seaside boroughs should become part of Greater i Christchurch. If this came about it would not bo desirable for Mount Pleasant to ho part of the Heathcote County . James Henry Wray, borougn engineer, Sumner, gayc evidence as to the configuration of Mount Pleasant and its drainage. He stated fSiat £7.9 had been spent this year on Maffev*.s Corner (M’Cermiclc’s Koad), and the incidental expenses ior patching were £25 or £3O. There was more metal put into Malfev’s Corner last year than into the whole of the rest of the road from there to Sumner, including the streets m Sumnei. Witness gave evidence as to the unformed roads on 1 Mount Pleasant. If the area were far*ther opened up for settlement there would he no difficulty in extending the borough water supplv to it. George Valentine SiddalV, Town Clerk of Sumner, stated that the Scarborough settlement at Sumner now had water aud other conveniences extended to it. If the Mount Pleasant area grew as Scarborough had done no doubt it would eventually have tlie same advantages. In witness’s experience a county did not give tho same value to the ratepayers for their money as a borough did. The Hon John Barr, M.L.0., Mayor of Sumner, objected to the exclusion of the area concerned. Topographically tho top portion of the area was a wedge lie twee n the boundary of Eyttelton and Redoliffs. There was likely to be trouble in the future if that , part were deleted*. The configuration was such that Truscott’s land and other land in that locality would pass its drainage through Redcliffs. The whole of the sewage of this area would have to he carried through Sumner as the Heathcote River would prove nn obstacle to it being carried away from Sumner. At the present time Sumner hod a drainage scheme for the whole of the borough. Mount Pleasant had been said to be farming l’and—that was natural if the intention were to lessen taxation. When witness went to Sumner first Clifton was a sheep run. The best illustration of the transformation of a sheep run to a residential area was to he found in the settlement of the Monck’s Bay Estate. .In 1904 this was Mr Monck’s sheep run. It was bought by a syndicate in that year and ( was cut up into building sections, vary- ( ing from a quarter of an acre to from . three to four acres It was roaded ( bv the syndicate to the satisfaeion of the local authorities. The roads were completed azrd taken over in 1909. To-

day it wan settled, and no part of it was owned by the syndicate. In spite of nvo years of almost stoppage of building there were 100 houses there, and permits on hand for the building of others. Other illustrations of the transformation of sheep runs were to he found in the Richmond Hill and Scarborough settlements. These settlements were cut i p in much the same way as the Mount Pl'easant area was now being cut up. As regards the Mount Pleasant Road the Borough Council had no opportunity of approving it. It was “ Gazetted ” a Crown road, and “ thrown on to ” the council.

“It is stated that there is no community of interest between the petitioners and Sumner —what have you to say to that?” asked Mr Dougall. Witness: There is no pub at Redcliffs —that constitutes a community of interest * sometimes. There is a store, church, library and Post Office at Redcliffs. The nearest school, otherwise, is at Woolston. Mr Truscott, one of the petitioners, has to pass through Redcliffs to leaw© his property. The Borough Council, continued Mr Barr, spent as much money—perhaps more—in that portion of the borough as in any other isolated portion of th© borough. Much money had been spent in M’Cormick’s Road, which carried a steady stream of motor traffic during fine weather. The Borough Council’s electrical sub-station was situated on a portion of the Mount Pleasant area, secured for the council through the instrumentality of Mr Hobday. The residences on Mount Pleasant were supplied with current from the Sumner sub-station.

(Proceeding.)