LYTTELTON HARBOUR BOARD BILL.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 10130, 1 September 1898, Page 3

LYTTELTON HARBOUR BOARD BILL.

CONFERENCE OF LOCAL BODIES. A conference 01 representatives of local bodies, appointed to consider th: Lyttelton Harbom Board Bill now before Parliament, was held at the City Council Chambers last night. There were present—Messrs J. AL Douglas (Alavor of Wool«ton> in the chair, Crs. C. AL Gray and J. T. Smith (City Council), R. Al. Taylor and W. Jacques (Sydenham). J. Stanley Alonck and W. Rollit (Sumner). R. C. Bishop (New Brighton), A. B. Aforgan and C. Burgess (Avon Road Board), A. Chalmers and G. Lewin (Lyttelton,). H. T. Johnston and H. G. Ell (Spreydon Road Board). Low (Woolston), John Deans (Drainage Board). Aiessrs C. Hood Williams (Secretary ot the Lyttelton Harbour Board) and E. R. Deacon (a member of that body) were present hy invitation. The Alayor of Woolston was voted to the chair, and the Woolston Town Clerk was appointed clerk to the Conference. Apologies were received from Aiessrs E. AlcHaftie and G. Alclntyre. The Chairman complained that no intimation of the Bill had been sent to the local bodies, nor had they been sent copies of the Bill. The Secretary of the Harbour Board had courteously supplied plans, however, for their information. He read the Bill, vesting portion of the foreshore of the Heathcote Estuary and river in the Lyttelton Harbour Board. Ho pointed out that if the land for four chains on the inner side of the Cave Rock was handed ovei to the Harbour Board, the ingress and egress of the public would be prevented. Tliis Bill vested miles and miles of foreshore in the Board, and affected considerable interests— municipal, Drainage Board, public and Crown interests. The vesting of this land would be an additional security to the de-benture-holders of the Board. It would prevent the future right of conversion at a lower rate for the benefit of the people, so that charges could be lowered. AL' Deacon pointed out that an amendment to tiie Bill had gone to the House. The Bill was brought down in consequence of it having been found that the Harbour Board had no power to let a portion of land in Sumner for which application had been made. The amending Bill, however, also excepted the approaches to places like the Cave Rock. He was sure the Harbour Board had no sinister motives. They wanted control over reserves which were practically no man's land. The Chairman pointed out that the Bill would give the Harbour Board the right to enforce the clearance of the river for navigable purposes. The Heathcote bridge would, if the Board desired it, have to be removed, and the river would have to be kept clear. Air R. AL Taylor asked All Deacon if it was not possible that the reserve he had ferred to could be vested in the Sumner Borough Council. Air Deacon said it would be a splendid thing if the reserves situated in Sunnier were vested in the Sumner Borough. Council, but there was no chance of tfaat being done. Air Hood Williams (by request of the Conference) explained the reasons for the Bill having been brought forward. The Board had decided to introduce the Bill to give them power to lease certain portions of the foreshore. This was contemplated in the Act of 1883. Any lease of the foreshore could only bo for a period of fourteen years. If the Lyttelton borough wished to lease a bathing place, at present the.Board could not give it them. The Bill gave the Board the right to grant a lease for fourteen years. It would also give the Board power to permit people to erect jetties, and to make-re-stricted charges for the use of them. It reserved to the public the right to use the foreshore. The Bill was duly advertised for three weeks, and copies were open for public inspection. He had ascertained by telegram from the different Harbour Boards, by request of the.member in charge of the Bill, what foreshore they had vested in them. Auckland: had" in effect, "The whole of the foreshore by Crown grant," Wanganui "the whole of the foreshore from the town to the heads," Timaru "the foreshore for two miles nortii and south," Westport "four miles," the Bluff and Oamaru "the whole of the foreshore," Wellington "apparently the whole," Gisborne "about 100 acres," Otago "the whole of the foreshore," New Plymouth "the whole of the foreshore by Crown grant." Thus it was apparent tKat the other Boards, had the foreshore vested in them without the restrictions which the Lyttelton Board would have. In reply to a. member of the Conference, Air Williams said the reserves "Shag Rock and Cave Rock" and their approaches were reserved for the public for ever. Air Ell said the telegrams Alt Williams had read appeared to relate to the approaches of the harbour, but the Lyttelton Board wanted to get possession of both banks of the Heathcote and the Avon a certain distance up. Air Chalmers said he mistrusted the Harbour Board. He wanted to know whether the Government chain was to be included in the four chains of foreshore to be vested in the Board or not. He complained of the dictatorial spirit of the Board. Lyttelton wanted to protect her interests. Mr R. C. Bishop said the people of New Brighton objected to the fee simple of any land in their jurisdiction being vested in an outside body. The Board might sell its interest without reference to the borough, and this the borough objected to. He quoted an instance of what might happen. The Borough Council had had to call for tenders to prevent the erosion of the banks. Under the Bill the borough would have to still keep' the banks in repair, and it would be in the possession of the Harbour Board. The key to the neck between Sumner and New Brighton would in time become valuable, when the population became sufficient to warrant communication, and the completion of the circuit. This would be the property of the Harbour Board. New Brighton entered a protest, therefore, against the alienation of any part of the foreshore. Mr Taylor pointed out that when the Auckland Harbour Board had become impecunious it had sold some of its foreshore for sixty years. He agreed with the Mayor of New Brighton. The Bill was not wanted at all. Air Bishop moved—"That in the opinion of these delegates it is advisable that the foreshores and all reserves within the boundaries of the various local bodies should be vested in such local bodies, and we [protest against any other body having control within the limits of the several boroughs affected." The Alayor of Lyttelton seconded the motion. Although he thought the Bill was "cooked" for the session, still an expression of opinion from the delegates would be very timely and have excellent results. Air C. AL Gray said his colleague and himself had not given an expression *of opinion; they were sitting in judgment as it were. He might say, however, that his sympathies were at first for the Lyttelton Harbour Board, but after listening to what had been said he failed to see wQiat object the Board had in bringing the Bill own at all. He supported the resolution. Mr Jacques said he was of the same opinion as the last speaker. The small point which had given rise to the Bill having been settled satisfactorily, he could see no motive for the Bill. " He would strenuously oppose the infringement of any public rights. He would vote for the resolution. The resolution was then put, and carried unanimously. Air Bishop proposed that the resolution, together with a short precis of what had been said, should be forwarded to the members of both Houses. He would be glad to underwrite the expense. Air Chalmers seconded the motion. His Council would, he thought, pay half the expense. The resolution was carried. The meeting terminated with a vote of thanks to the Chairman.