DIXIELAND BATHS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 258, 31 October 1928, Page 13

DIXIELAND BATHS.

parks committee veto.

SIX VOTES TO TWO.

DECISION TO BE CHALLENGED.

As mentioned last night in the "Star" the Parks Committee of the Auckland j City Council (to which the matter had been referred with power to act) refused to lift the injunction against the Dixieland Cabaret Company building sea baths opposite the pulic park at the end of Point Chevalier. The Marine Department gave the company permission to erect baths opposite the cabaret, but the company wished to put the baths a little further along the beach in front of the park. It will be remembered that the council got a Supreme Court injunction against the batliß being in this position. The chairman of the Parks Committee (Mr. J. Knight) moved, and Mr. J. Donald seconded, that the injunction be not lifted.

The Mayor (Mr. G. Baildon) said that if the council agreed to allow the baths to be erected opposite the park the company would put them a chain away from the cliff, instead of the thirty feet if they were erected opposite the cabaret. A chain width would give plenty of room to pass along the beach. He thought that would be much better than a space of thirty feet With a bridge connecting baths and cabaret.

Mr. J. W. Kealy considered that, the Government having given permission to erect the baths, it would be wiser to let the baths be built in front of the cliff opposite the park, than in front of the cabaret.

Other members of the committee pointed out that it was no affair of the council if the Government chose to give permission; the beach should not be obstructed by any baths, and if the Government allowed the beach to be spoiled, that was the affair of the Government and the company.

When the motion refusing to lift the injunction was put it was carried by six votea to two —those Voting for it being Mies Hasten, Messrs. Knight, E. J. Phelan, J. Donald, J. B. Faterson, and G. Newcombe; those dissenting being the Mayor and Mr. Kealy. Company Not Satisfied. Interviewed this morning, Dr. F. J. Rayner, managing director of the Dixieland Company, said it was intended to contest the committee'* decision, by applying for an order-in-council giving the company permission to erect the baths one chain from the shore opposite the park site. He pointed out that the main reason why the baths were objected to by the council was that they would spoil the beach. If the baths were erected opposite the cabaret (and the company held the Marine Department's permission to put them there) it would far more affect the sandy part of the beach than if they were erected one chain from the cliffs at the park end, where there was no sandy beach to spoil, only rocks, and that part was not ÜBed by the public. '