Harbour Board Refused Land For Stone Quarry

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29055, 18 November 1959, Page 9

Harbour Board Refused Land For Stone Quarry

'An Interlocutory injunction restraining the Lyttelton Harbour Board from the purported taking of 112 acres of farm land facing the harbour for the quarrying of stone was granted by Mr Justice Shorland in the Supreme Court on Monday. The injunction was sought by the owners of the land, Derrick William Joseph Gould, a company director, and Johh Churchill Elworthy, a sheep farmer. Mr A. C. Perry appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr N. H. Buchanan for the board.

[The plaintiffs’ objection to the proposed taking of the land will be heard today at a meeting of the board.] According to the plaintiffs’ statement of claim they are owners of a 1020 acre block of land extending over parts of Taylor’s Mistake, Sumner and Lyttelton, part of which faces Lyttelton Harbour.

In August, 1958, after permitting the board to test the land for hard rock deposits suitable for use as facing stone for protecting its new reclamation, the plaintiffs were asked to sell 15 acres of the land to the board.

The plaintiffs declined to sell any part of the land, and when the board later sought permission to quarry for facing stone on the land, for the payment of a royalty, they told the board that the proposed quarry site was the best summer grazing on their property. They pointed out that the board’s operations would result in a loss of stock carrying capacity and that grass lands would be affected by dust. A proposal by the plaintiffs to grant the board access to the property, on payment of £5OO for the first year of its operations, and on condition that the soil and grass lands were restored, was accepted by the board on October 17, 1958. The board, however, had never paid this sum. A later offer by the board to buy between 100 and 150 acres, including the 15 acres originally sought, was refused by the plaintiffs.

A quarrying agreement proposed by the plaintiffs was not accepted by the board, and on October 1, 1959, the boat'd advised the plaintiffs that it intended taking about 112 acres of the land under the provisions of the Harbours Act, 1950, and the Public Works Act. 1928.

Such a taking was claimed by the plaintiffs to be a breach of the contract entered into by the parties. It was claimed also that the board did not require the land for its harbour works, but only the stone, ami that the area sought was excessive to the board’s requirements, and the taking of it was not authorised by statute. The taking of the land would create grave difficulties in farming the rest of the property, and involve the plaintiffs in heavy expense. While quarrying operations were necessary for a limited period this would not justify the permanent taking of the land. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that as the first year of the board’s operations had ended its continued occupation of the land was a trespass, and had caused a loss to the plaintiffs.