RIPARIAN RIGHTS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 225, 20 September 1905, Page 3

RIPARIAN RIGHTS.

:■" • ■■■ -■ " m " '■ LONG DISCUSSION BY THE : HARBOUR BOARD. CONCESSION TO SHIPBUILDERS.' The Auckland Harbour Board yesterday afternoon discussed at great length and finally settled the question of granting riparian rights. An ordinary report of the Works and Tariff Committee, dated September 14, stated in clause 10 as follows: —"Allotments on proposed reclamation off Freeman's Bay: A report was submitted by Mr Logan on behalf of ship, yacht, and boat builders dated September 11, 1905, and from engineer dated September 12, 1905, respecting allotments on proposed reclamation off Freeman's Bay, when it was resolved, 'That the committee, having considered- report ■ from ship, yacht and boat builders, and from the engineeT, recommend that the western side of reclamation be utilised for ship, yacht, and boat building purposes, and that allotments be leased for a term of 42 years.'" The committee further submitted the following (clause 2 of their minutes of September 4):—• "It was resolved: "That Henceforth in leases of Hie' Board of all allotments adjacent to the water, a clanee be , inserted to the effect that if at any time the Board desires to proceed with harbour woiks which necessitate reclamation in front oi such allotments, no compensation shall bs payable to tlie lessees for the loss or water frontages.' "' The engineer's re-port on a recent conference with the ship, yacht, and boat builders, read by the secretary, stated that the conference was attended by Messrs R. Logan, jun. (iv the chair), Seager, W. H. Brown, Chas. Bailey, jun., W. Bailey, G. Fraser, J. Fraser, Henderson, and W. Lowe. The meeting was unanimous in choosing the western side of the proposed reclamation on account of the deeper water there. They decided to ask the Board for 50 years,' tenure, free use of water frontage to be granted to them for the first 25 years, and to be ! renewed to them at the expiration of that period, if not required for other purposes, for the remaining 25 years of the lease. Should the Board require to disturb them at the end of the first 25 years, they would ask that a new site and cost of removal should be found and borne by the Board. It was agreed that the length of allotments should be 400 ft or thereabouts, and the widtt not less than 50ft, <*rade to be 1 in 17, and that provision shcjuld be made for at least seven iron ainti eight wooden ship builders. One Ti'undred feet of the end ol the face should, be dedicated to a possible road round the cliffs. The Chairman (the Hon. E. Mitchel-, son) said the question was fully dis- ' ■cussed at the meeting of the committee, | and nothing there said caused him to take a different view of the matter. He would now move that clausY 2 be .adopted. In the case of Macklow Bros.' lease, the amount of money the Board was asked to pay for this particular water right was as much as all the rent that had been received since the sections were first.-leased, and the Board ought never to lepeat this mistake. Moreover, the natural increase of value of riparian rights should always belong to the Board. Mr Logan said the workers employed in-'=fh« trades - affected numbered-about 207 hands, receiving £-21,(h£2 per annum in wages. The engineers employed 457 hands, at a total wage of about* £40,574 per annum. This would be doubled-if proper facilities "were granted by the Board. The first cost of boats buiit in and trading out of Auckland was £ 140,000, or, Including schooners, scows, oil launches, fishing boats, yachts, etc, a total of £300,000. The iron and steel vessels owned at Auckland, and running in local trades, cost £281,550, and with other vessels, particulars of which were not available, would cost £300.000. This iron shipbuilding was work that could be done in Auckland just as well as anywhere else, with proper facilities. j Mr Napier stated that some years I ago Auckland was pre-eminent for woodlen shipbuilding, and there was no reason why it should not become pre-emin-ent in iron ships. He could remember the time many years ago when it was predicted that Auckland would become a second Glasgow. It was to help this line forward that the Board was offering such liberal facilities as indicated in the committee's recommendations. There was, however, no likelihood of I the lessees being disturbed for many I years to come, because all the money the iioard could borrow for the next twenty years would be absorbed in the I reclamations on the eastern side and Mechanics' Bay. The shipbuilders were creating a storm in a teapot. Mr Parr said no industry could succeed without certainty of tenure of their premises, if extensive shipbuilding plants were to be erected. It was idle to contend that at the worst the Board would only take away the l&t*? front, leaving everything else, because what else was left? It wais impossible to carry on the business without water j frontage. He woulu move, "That the I following words be added to clause 10 !as an amendment, 'Provided that the I lessee be not disturbed in the enjoy- . j ment of his water frontage for the first I ten years of his term, and after that, should the Board resume the riparian I rights, the lessee' shall receive 12 months' prior notice.' " Mr Basley, seconding the amendment, , said the shipbuilding industry was allied lo the much-despised shell and brick industries which they had heard , so much about in the past, but which had made Auckland able to receive the ocean tramps that now came here. The discussion then reverting- to , clause 2, Mr Parr moved the insertion of words to make it read as follows: — "That henceforward in leases by the Board of all allotment* adjacent to the . water, except the allotments referred to in clause 10 of the Works and Tariff Committee's report of September 14, 1905, a clause be inserted to the effect that if at any time the Board desires to proceed with harbour works which necessitate reclamations in front of such allotments, no compensation shall be payable to the lessees for the loss of water frontages." Mr. Logan asked if it was reasonable to give only 10 years when some shipbuilders would want to spend £10,000 on their allotments. The chairman said the Auckland ships referred to by Mr. Logan as being built in Sydney were built there not so much because of. better ya*a>, but because all the machinery and fittings were allowed to come into the Commonwealth free of duty, provided the hull of the ship was built in Syiney. That meant a saving on a vessel of 8000 or 9000 tons of perhaps £ 1500. If the shipbuilders were not satisfied they should j go elsewhere and seek freeholds. Mr. Parr: "Where?" A member: '.Try Pon.sonby."

Mr. Parr: "No one will sell for shipbuilding at Pbnsonby. We have something_better to do -with the land there? , Mr. Philson said riparian rights had been too freely given in the past, and unsightly, broken' down buildings had been erected, which certainly did not warrant Sir. Logan's remark that the absence of riparian rights would not warrant the erection of valuable buildings. They had been in possession of those leases for 10 or 20 years r Mr. Mennie: ''That's the reason. It's too short." 3lr. Napier: "27 years, srfme of them." Mr. Parr: "This will encourage worse buildings." . i Mr. Keys supported the motion, and contended that nobody who proposed to spend £10,000 on buildings would spend it Harbour Board leasehold. They would go to deep water. Mr. Parr: "To Australia." Mr. Keys: "There's no need to gb to Australia for deep water." , Mr. Napier: ."There's 92ft at Kauri Point." Mr. Keps anticipated tbat if riparian rights were granted for 10 years to the boat-builders, they would be demanded for other paxts of the reclamation by timber merchants, engineers, and others, and the Board would be unable to refuse. Mr. Mennie urged the Board not to take too selfish a view of the matter, but give a little encouragement to important industries. , In all parts of the world these facilities were granted. Mr. Brown said both Mr. Napier and the chairman bad been blowing hot and cold by saying in one breath: "We can't ; grant even 10 years' fixity of tenure, be- | cause we may want to close up the water front," and in another breath: "You can rely on having 25, 30, or. even j 40 years before that frontage will be touched." Mr. Hutchison said the discussion showed that it was improbable that any j reclamation would he made to the westAvard"of the position for another 20 ' years. The Board's funds would not permit it. For that particular part, therefore, he would agree to the granting of 10 years' fixity of tenure. Mr. Napier advocated the introduction of the Glasgow lease system, which was in vogue in Wellington. The amendment to clause 10 was then put to the vote and carried by a majority of one, a division, showing that Messrs. Da ere. Pan , , Hutchison, Brown, Basley, and Mennie suported it, and the chairman and Messrs. Keys, Laxon, Napier, and Philson opposed. Mr. Logan was debarred from voting as being an interested party. On the motion of Mr. Napier, the following words were added, "but shall not (after the 10 years) receive compensation in respect of riparian rights." Mr. Logan proposed that ihe term of fixity of tenure be 21 years, instead of 10 yeare. but he 'was defeated by one vote, himself, with Messrs. Mennie, Basley, Brown, Dacre, and Parr voting for J it, and the chairman and Messrs. Napier, Hutchison, Keys, Laxon, and Philson against. Clause 10 as amended was then finally adopted. Clause 2, as. amended by Mr. Parr, was then adopted without a division. The chairman said the result was that,! with the exception of the shipbuilders on the western sido of the reclamation, the Board had resolvel to grant no more water rights. The engineer would proceed with his plans accordingly. I == • I