THE BAY INLET

Evening Star, Issue 19892, 14 June 1928, Page 10

THE BAY INLET

MEHACE TO HEALTH POSITION OF CITY COUNCIL AREA VESTED IN HARBOUR BOARD. The General Committee, of the City Council reported' last' night ’ that a minute; by the town clerk (Mr C: A. Lowin) made it clear that, quite apart from the fact that tho Anderson’s Bay Inlet was not within tho city area, the council was neither tho owner nor tho controlling authority of the area. This question had arisen as a result of the complaint of residents of the Bay that there was a menace to health through tho putrefaction of marine animals on the foreshore at Anderson’s Bay. Cr Hayward (chairman, of tho General Committee) said the minute made it clear that tho council was not tho controlling - authority of tile area. Cr Campbell said it bad been stated by tho chairman of tho Harbour Board that the area was vested in the City Council. Ho did not suggest that the town clerk’s report was incorrect, but the public must be nonplussed hi regard to tho controlling authority of the area. He moved as an amendment that the clause of the committee dealing with the_ matter 1 i referred back to the committee. Negotiations could then be entered into between the two bodies and the exact position ascertained.

Cr Scott, in supporting the amendment, said ho did not think'it wise for two bodies to split hairs over a matter which was for the benefit of the Bay people. . Cr Snacklock said ho understood tho position was that tho City Council took over the responsibilities and liabilities of the Bay Town Board, which had the right, whenever it had. the money, to reclaim sixteen acres. , Ho thought that was the position to-day. In regard to the control of the inlet he did not think the council had any say in the matter. In view of what was suggested should bo done in the future he thought a move should he made to promote an amending Act of Parliament, which ho thought was necessary before anything could he done.. Personally, he thought the area should be reserved solely for public recreation, and not for building or any other purpose. At tho mayor’s suggestion the town clerk’s minutes was read.

The minute, read by Mr Lewin, stated:—

“Yesterday, Dr Crawshaw, tho medical officer of health, saw me regarding the nuisance- said, to exist at the Anderson's Bay Inlet, duo to the decomposing marine animals that have been left there by the action of the sea. I have looked , carefully .into the position of this matter, because of the re-' ported statement by the late chairman of tho Harbour Board to a deputation to the effect that the area where the nuisance existed was the property of tho City Council, and that any action that was called for must come from ns.

“Without going into detail, L have ho say that T think the statement- as reported by tho chairman cannot ho established. The whole matter rests, upon the true meaning of certain sections in ‘ TheOtago; Harbour Board Land Vesting Act. 1910.’ and an agreement made in 1915 between the Harbour Board and the late Bay Town Board. The City Council comes into the matter as the successors.of the Bay Town Board. The-Act in question provides that the whole area of sixty acres of the inlet .is vested in the Harbour Board, but the said board is required to set aside ten acres, out ol the sixty acres ‘in such position and with such boundaries ’ ns may be agreed upon between tho two boards that is, tho Harbour Board and the Bay Town Board. Then the area so set apart shall after the date fixed for that purpose by tho two boards cease to be vested in the Harbour Board, and become vested in the Crown, subject to Part 11. of tho public Reserves and Domains Act, 1908. If tho boards fail to agree upon the position and boundaries of tjic ten acres and the date upon which'it shall cease to vest in the Harbour Board and become Crown land, subject to tho Public Reserves and Domains Act, then the Minister of Marine may make a decision on the points, and the issue.of a proclamation is to be conclusive evidence on tho two points whether thesame are made by agreement or alternatively by the decision of tho Minister. In September, 1915, a lew months before the district became merged-in the city, the Bay Town Board entered into an agreement with the Harbour Board. The agreement is a very crude production in so far as giving effect to the provisions of the statute is concerned. It simply stipulates that tho ten acres to bo set aside should form part of an area of sixteen acres shown on a plan and subject to tho issue of an Order in Council under tho Harbour Act authorising the Harbour Board to reclaim it. It would he doing violence to tho facts to attempt to set up tho plea that tho agreement in question is an agreement in full terms of the statute to which I have referred. Possibly it might be said that the agreement does to some modified extent set out the position, because it establishes tho fact that the ten acres is to bo a part of the area of. sixteen acres shown in position on the plan, but it is silent on the : all-important matter of boundaries of that portion of the sixteen acres to which the Act refers as required by subsection 1 of section 4, and it is equally deficient in the matter of fixing'a date when the area shall cease to be vested in the Harbour Board and become Crown land. An effective test on this point could bo applied by asking the following question

“Does the agreement in question contain sufficient data to enable tho preparation of the proclamation referred to in sub-clause 3?. To that question I have no hesitation in saying emphatically ‘ No.’ “From a consideration of these facts it is, I think, quite patent-that the reported statement of the chairman of the Harbour Board that the City Council is concerned in the area is not supported by the facts, but that, on the contrary, the area in onestion is still vested in the Harbour Board in terms of its 1910 Act. That point is, I think, clear beyond the least possible doubt. But even supposing that the agreement could by some method of contention he held to take the area out of the Harbour Board’s vesting Act. the City' Council still remains without' authority over it. ..When the area ceases to vest in tho Harbour Board’ it becomes Crown land, subject to Part 11. of the Public Reserves and Domains Act. It does not automatically vest in the City Council, nor would it have so vested in the Bav Town Board had that bodv remained in existence. Before the" City Council could assume any function over the area after it ceased to be vested in the Harbour Board it wouhl require to have the authority of an Order in Council under sections" 40 and 47 of the Domains Act appointing it a domain board. It will bo.seen, therefore, that as the matter stands at

present the City Council has no semblance of control over tho area, aud any nuisance that exists there is a matter for the Harbour Board as owners of tho ‘ land ’ which is outside the statutory boundary‘of the city. “ The remedy for tho removal of the nuisance is therefore a matter for the owners, but d, as has been said, the provision of flood gates at tbo bridge bo a remedy to chock the inflow of the annual invasion of the marine animals that arc responsible for the nuisance, then the provisions of subsection 4 of section 4 of the Act in which the area is vested in the Harbour Board would seem to be in poipt. That subsection stands alone, in tllat it is not contingent on agreement or, proclamation or any other modifying., provision, save that when the area is; reclaimed tho flood gates shall not be ‘called for, as indeed there would be no ■ need for them.

“ The' subsection is as follows ‘ Tbo Otago Harbour Board shall erect,flood gates at or about the bridge in that part of the Lower Portobcllo road, between Sunshine ami Craigleith. as shown on plan M.l). 3,348, referred to in tho said first schedule; and,such flood gates shall be controlled ami maintained by the Bay Town Board.’ ’’ . ‘ Gr--Hayward stated!,Qha.t as a member of; the Harbour^ : Board as well ns ,of .the council die could not say anything with regard to the future of the inlet.’ He asked the council to pass the- report of the committee; there seemed no necessity to hold it back. The amendment was lost, and tho report of the committee adopted.