H—2B

The Commission feels that, for general information, certain principles should be enunciated which should guide local authorities in applications for extensions of borough boundaries and which should also serve to indicate the type of evidence which the Commission requires in such cases. These principles are : (1) Where substantial residential building activity has taken place in concentrated areas just beyond the borders of a borough, then a prima facie case exists for the inclusion of these areas in the borough. (2) In order that a borough may plan adequately for its future services such as drainage and water and for town-planning, an area sufficient to cover potential increases in the borough population for a period of ten years should be incorporated within the borough boundaries. This will enable urban subdivisional standards to obtain, including adequate formation of roads and footpaths. Many cases have been brought to our notice where subdivision has taken place in county areas and substantial building activity has commenced or has been completed where roading standards are very low, no facilities are available for ensuring that drainage, sewage, and water can be provided, and where the minimum section is 32 perches or more, which is considerably larger than the minimum section in most borough subdivisions. The net result has been that if such areas are included in boroughs the borough has immediately been faced with substantial expenditure for bringing the roads up to borough standards, in the construction of footpaths, and generally in the provision of borough amenities in this area. In so far as forward thinking can anticipate the direction in which residential and other development is to extend in the next ten years, the boroughs should, in applications for extensions, make provisions for such increases. (3) In deciding whether or not additional areas should be brought into the borough, consideration must be given not only to the potential housing demands, but also to the question of adequate commercial and industrial areas, together with adequate open spaces. This principle really means that some serious consideration should be given to the general principles of town-planning so that adequate provision can be made for potentialities. Unco-ordinated development, either internal to the borough or as between two co-termmous local authorities, can create problems which are insoluble or soluble only at excessive cost or great inconvenience to the parties concerned. In this particular connection the evidence of the representatives of the Mines Department threw a completely different light on the potential activities of the Housing Division, and, as will be seen in the sequel, we make some suggestions on this particular question. (3) Extension of Boundaries: Otorohanga Town District As mentioned earlier, a landowner interested in the subdivision of properties in the Otorohanga County adjacent to the Otorohanga Town District petitioned that the area be brought into the town district. In view of its experience elsewhere, the Commission, before hearing the petition, requested that the Otorohanga Town Board and the Otorohanga County Council consider the possible redrawing of the boundaries of the town district so as to (a) include in the town district all areas at present developed for residential purposes, and (b) provide for a reasonable expansion of the town district to take account of potential development. As a result of conferences between the two local authorities concerned, specific agreed proposals were submitted to the Commission, which considered these proposals at the same time as it heard the evidence on the petition. The principles enunciated in the Huntly case, quoted earlier in this report, were applied to the Otorohanga case. Not all the proposals of the two local authorities were accepted by the Commission, since it appeared that one area which the two bodies considered should be included in the town district was subject to flooding and otherwise unsuitable for urban development. A small area not proposed by either body was also included in the town district because the Commission, with the approval of the parties, considered that this area would logically be subject to development as the Otorohanga Town District grew. The scheme as ultimately promulgated by the Commission was accepted by all the parties without objection. A further petition by the Otorohanga Town Board that its status should be raised to that of a borough was deferred meantime, since it did not appear to the Commission that the town district was suffering any disabilities by operating under the Town Boards Act rather than the Municipal Corporations Act.

14