Taylors Mistake bach owners get respite

Press, 9 July 1986, Page 9

Taylors Mistake bach owners get respite

Taylors Mistake bach owners bought a little more time yesterday when the issue of the baches again came before the Christchurch City Council. The owners will not immediately have to remove their baches, the licences for which ran out on March 31 this year.

But members of the council’s parks and recreation committee confirmed that the baches will have to go — but not until alternative sites in the bay are available. That depends on the establishment of a special holiday zone for baches and the installation of a sewerage system for the bay.

The committee yesterday recommended that council go ahead with the establishment of a residential holiday zone, on confirmation of the Christchurch Drainage Board’s intention to install a sewer. .

The board at its March meeting gave provisional approval for the scheme and has asked for council endorsement of the scheme. A likely date, if that endorsement is given, is late next year.

The establishment of the holiday zone will not give bach owners the permanent presence in the bay they seek. The land in the, probable zone is privately owned and its development for bach sites would be entirely up to its owners.

Bach owners would have to meet market prices for the bach sites. They would be given no priority over other buyers.

The spokesman for the owners, Mr Trevor Rowe, is unhappy that they still have no guarantees of being able to remain in the bay. All the owners want is to stay, he says. They would be happy to reach a compromise on where they could put their baches in the bay. The steps taken by the committee yesterday to proceed with the holiday zone and reconfirm the requirement for the baches to be removed no later than one year after alternative sites in the zone become available, gave no guarantees. Mr Tony Hearn, Q.C., solicitor for the owners, believes a private act of Parliament is one way of resolving the dispute between the council and the owners that would ensure a permanent presence for the owners in the bay. He told yesterday’s meeting that the owners and the council could negotiate a solution setting aside land in the bay as esplanade reserve and local purpose reserve. That solution could be sponsored as a private act. If the reserve land was vested in the council it would have authority to grant leases to bach owners for their baches on the local purpose reserve.

That way the council could give priority to the existing owners. The City Solicitor had recommended that the council seek a declaratory judgment from the Court over the legality of the baches. He believes the council does not have authority to renew past licences for the baches.

The last licences issued for 10 years without renewal expired in March.

Because the baches are on legal road, a point in dispute, he says it cannot renew the licences.

The City Solicitor’s advice to the committee was to seek a judgment on its authority to grant licences for buildings on legal roads. That, said Mr Hearn, opened the question of whether the land was indeed legal road. That would have to be dealt with by an ordinary court action and would be long and expensive.

The committee opted yesterday to get Mr Hearn and the City Solicitor together to discuss the present occupancy of the baches.

With licences expired the bach owners have little more than squatters’ rights at present. Mr Hearn and the City Solicitor differ in their interpretation of the legality of the baches, but Mr Hearn believes they might be able to reach an agreement.

Councillors also believe agreement is possible in light of the good will between council and owners. Most said yesterday they would prefer to settle the matter quickly

Cr Louise Moore said the baches should be allowed to stay in the interests of fairness and because the council had encouraged people to build there in the past.

The committee also recommended that the council formally endorse the sewerage proposals of the Drainage Board and inform the owner of Bach 52 that it would have to

be removed to make way for the sewer line. The issue will now come up for discussion at this month’s council meeting.