Sounds park board offers compromise in ‘Saunders affair’

Press, 4 December 1978, Page 2

Sounds park board offers compromise in ‘Saunders affair’

Nelson reporter

Because the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) and the Minister of Lands (Mr V. S. Young) are examining reports on what has become known as the “Saunders affair,” the Marlborough Sounds Maritime Park Board was unable to reach finality on the subject at its meeting on Friday. Mr Harold Saunders, his I wife, and four children live lon Arapawa Island, in the Tory Channel of Marlborough Sounds. In building a new home, Mr Saunders encroached on to Sounds foreshore reserve and the board has ordered him to remove that portion of the house on the reserve — an order which virtually requires the demolition of a near-completed house. The matter has been discussed for much of this year by the board, various decisions arrived at — including one at the October meeting that the board prosecute Mr Saunders — and it was hoped to complete the matter at last Friday’s meeting after consideration to a notice of motion from Mr E. Farnell. The decision to prosecute Mr Saunders had not yet. been acted upon, the chairman (Mr I. B. Mitchell) told the board. This was partly because of the General-Election and also because soon after the meeting, he had received a request from the Prime

i I Minister through the 11 Minister of Lands for i-1 information on the subject, j (This had arisen from a ■ I telephone call Mr Saunders s I had made to the Prime 11 Minister. The facts, as they 1 stood, had been sent to Mr ■■ Young’s secretary. ; He did not wish to discuss these (the facts), in open ; meeting because he did not > feel that Mr Saunders i should hear about the f matter through the news i media before the Prime [/Minister had replied t ipersonally to him. ?! Mr Farnell felt - that the 1 material sent and other i matters should be given to » the board, at least in t committee, and he moved t that the board go into committee. This motion was i carried. > When the board resumed s in open meeting 30 minutes - later, no statement was r made to the two newspaper 1 reporters present. Without further 3 discussion, Mr Farnell then t moved his notice of motion r — the revocation of the f previous meeting’s decision to begin legal proceedings ; against Mr Saunders. t He said he would also ? move that the board advise ) Mr Saunders that it viewed s with serious concern any ; unauthorised erection of > buildings on reserve land ? but that it would not take i any further action to require ; the removal of the house

extension provided Mr Saunders carried out certain undertakings. These were, that within ■two months he demolish an ■ existing small shed close to the concrete jetty and a small bach partly on recreation reserve, and that he enter into a bond, to be supported by a caveat on his property title, that within two years he resite on his own property a big shed partly on recreation reserve.

The notice of motion was seconded by Mr D. W. McDonald. Mr Farnell said he brought these motions forward “because I feel we could solve this situation, the like of which I hope we never see again.” He felt that the board could compromise and meet Mr Saunders half way on the subject.

There was little direct discussion on the motions. Members felt that it would, at that stage, be wrong to make a decision on them when the Prime Minister was investigating the matter. It was, therefore, decided to let the motions lie until the Prime Minister had made his reply to Mr Saunders. It was further decided that if a reply was received soon a special meeting of the board would be called for in January to deal with the motions.