MIRAMAR PARK.

Evening Post, Volume LXXI, Issue 135, 8 June 1906, Page 2

MIRAMAR PARK.

* < THE COMPANY. AND THE COUNCIL. TROUBLE AHEAD. Matter for reflection for the residents of Miramar was afforded by wtiafc took place at the meetiag of the Borough Council last night. The Town Olerk reported that ho had written to Miramar Limited asking what the company proposed to do in regard to setting aside au area of 484 acres as a public reserve, as the roads proposed by the company, for Miramar North encroached' on tha area which was to be set aside by the company for that purpose." t ' ' , • The company replied in terms which caused some perturbation among councillors present. Ifc ha^ never (so ran the letter) stated that the forty-eight and ahalf acres referred to would be reserved for recreation purposes, or would not be sold, nor had the company in any prior transactions with the council concerning roads or otherwise ever treated that land as a public park. Whatever the company might have done in connection •with that ar«a was a, matter entirely between the company and the purchasers from them. The> company also failed to see what the council had to do with that land ; the company had no intention to set aside as a- recreation ground, and if the council. did not furnish the company within seven days with its requirements in the matter (of roading) the company would take steps to compel it to carry, out its functions. "Warm, 'isn't it?". remarked Councillor Richards, as the reading of the letter concluded. The Mayor : The matter is open for discussion. Councillor M'Grath : There is not much discussion about it. I suppose it will be a question of law. ■ Councillor Richards moved, and it was seconded by Councillor Brodie, that the j letter be referred to the borough solicitor for his advice: - • t The Mayor said he had gone into the matter fully. There was not a shadow of doubt iii his mind that Miramar Limited from the first led the council to understand that the 48J acres shown' on the plan was to be used for park purposes. In fact, the company went so far as t^o- . say that even should v certain body refuse to accept the park it would always be used for a park, it would not he i»t up for any other purposes. Tha^. bf^ng so, the Miramar Borough Council .on, several occasions had granted Miramar: Limited concessions which it would not have done had it thought that any portion of thtft piece of land would be used for building allotments. Councillors were present as the ( representatives 'of, the ratepayers, and therefore he took it 'that it was their duty to protect' the ratepayers as much as they possibly Could, and there was not the least doubt; ■ that people had bought sections adjacent to the "park " and in that portion Qf Miramar on the distinct understanding that that piece of land was to be a recreation ground — not belonging to the borough, but to the syndicate.. He had gone into the .matter with the borough solicitor, and he (the solicitor) considered that they had very good grounds to go upon. Several roads had been laid out leading up to that "park" which the council would not have granted had it thought or been given to understand that .any portion of the proposed "park" was to be used for anything else than a. park. The council had granted concessions to the company on that distinct •understanding. He it was the-, duty of the council .Jo protect the ratepayers to the best of its ability. He would advise the council — and he was saying that advisedly— rto recognise no more plans that the company might send in — recognise no roads, especially, in the area of the "Park," until Miramar Limited either assigned the lanfi as a park _ or. gave some indication of its intention in reference to that area.In the "plan before the council, and also' in a subsequent plan, .the area was mentioned as a park, and at several meetings held in reference' to the tramways on« member, of thq Company in particular laid great strew* on tho fact that that piece of land was to be given to the borough as a' recreation ground. Now the company said 'that it was never intended for recreation purposes. He took it that tho council had a very good ground for withholding its consent to any further dedication of roads of any kind, more especially roads through that piece of land, . until Miramar Limited gave some indications of its* intentions in reference to that area. The company was trying to play with the council, and he was not going to be played with co long as he had a seat there. Councillor M'Grath . Would it not b« advisable to lodge a caveat against dealing with tha& $&<& iff land? The Mayor: That is a, matter for thu council to consider if its takes any further action. The Town Clerk also reported that he had written (under advice) to the Registrar of Lands stating that in regard to thY subdivision of Miramar the seal of the council had been affixed under, a misapprehension, and that it now appeared advisable that . the position should be more clearly defined, .as the company had since proposed subdividing part of the park. • 4 Councillor Wardell said he must enter his protest in .regard to that letter. It was certainly a matter that should have been brought before the council before the letter was sent. Had the Mayor the written advice of the solicitor that that letter should be sent? The Mayor : I advised it to be sent, and I will take the responsibility.Councillor Wardell : It's a most monstrous proceeding. The Mayor . You may think 60. Councillor* Wardell : I do. The council, he added, agrjsed to affix its signature to a certain deposited plan, and now attempted to withdraw its consent. Of course, it could not withdraw it ; but it was a most monstrous affair that such a letter should have been sent. He most emphatically entered his protest against the manner in which that had been done. Regarding the whole question, it was • inadvisable for him to say very much. He could only repeat what he had said previously — the contention of Miramar Limited was that this council had no standing in the matter at all. If there was a claim against Miramar Limited for damage for ' any of these matters — The Mayor: Breach of promise — Councillor Wardell : It could only be made by those who had bought land from the company, and he urged that it was doubtful if the council could spend the ratepayers' money in actions of that description. ... The Mayor contended that tho company was committing a breach of faith, not only with the ' ratepayers, but with the council. Ho considered it his duly to take steps to try and prevent any further damage being -done. There waa not time • to, call the .council together ; hence his action in the matter. He "was quite prepared to stand by it. It was qujte possible that, at the next meeting he" might have some further information for them. i On the motion of Councillor Brodie, seconded by Councillor Richards, the ac- | tion of the Mayor was approved. Councillor Waruell ai»»eutsd. ,