HARBOUR BOARD ALLOTMENTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12624, 3 August 1904, Page 3

HARBOUR BOARD ALLOTMENTS.

THE TERMS OF LEASE, BUILDING RESTRICTIONS REMOVED. At yesterday's meeting of the Auckland Harbour Board, Mr. A. E. Glover moved the rescinding of the resolutions previously passed by the Board in regard to the values of buildings to bo erected on leasehold allotments at the corner of Queen and Quay Streets, and in Quay-street, and that no restrictions be enforced as to the values of buildings to be erected on these leases. The standing resolutions provided for minimums of £4000 each for allotments 117, 113, and 119, corner of Queen and Quay Streets, £3000 each for allotments 121 and 122 (Quay-street), and £2500 each for other allotments in Quaystreet. Mr. Glover stated that the Board was losing £507 per annum on the Queen-street allotments, and an aggregate of £1035 on the several allotments, owing to the unreasonable restrictions. Intending tenants had withdrawn their deposits on account of these restrictions, and if removed, lie said, the allotments could be leased immediately. The three frontages in Queen-street, he believed, could be leased to-morrow if the restrictions were removed, and the aggregate cost of the buildings which would be erected would amount to about £25,000, and -would provide work for a. considerable number of local artisans. It was no use the Board keeping the sections for merry-go-rounds and other playthings for children. They always had the power to reject plans of unsuitable building.?. Mr. W. J. Parker seconded the motion pro forma. Mi. W. J. W. Philson opposed Mr. Glover's proposal, which, he said, was to rescind a' resolution carried at a previous meeting by a large majority of the Board. The reason why the allotments had remained idle was not because of the restrictions but because the ground rent fixed was too high. Only a few allotments were now available, and he was perfectly satisfied that the competition for these sections would increase year by year. In regard to the property at. "the corner of Queen and Quay Streets, it would be a disgrace, not only to the Board, but also to the city, to permit the erection of buildings thereon which were not of an imposing design. In fixing the cost of three buildings to be erected on a section 84ft by 118 ft at £12,000. the Board had not fixed an excessive sum, especially as at least £3000 or £4000 would be _ absorbed in the construction of the foundations. Apart from the question of adding to the Board's revenue, they were brought face to face with the question that to permit, the erection of unsuitable buildings on the available allotments would injuriously affect the value per foot of other sections, while, if the Board insisted on a good class of buildings being erected, the remaining allotments would be enhanced in value, ana would also readily let. Mr. \Y. J. Napier opposed the motion, and pointed out that several leases would be expiring in a. few years, when increased rentals would be obtained for them. Mr. Glover's arguments tended to support the resolution which i 4 wa? «ought to rescind, because it. would clearly not pay anyone to lease the allotments if they were not prepared to put up a three-storey building. The Queen-street- allotments were the choicest the Board possessed, and as three or four persons wanted the sections he believed they would in a short time go off. Ho did not see that it would pay anyone to erect a building of the value of £4000 on any one of the allotments; it was not intended that that sum should be the maximum, but only the minimum value of the building. Mr. J. A. Walker questioned whether the Board had power to reject plans of a building (no matter of what class) which was of the specified value. Owing to the Board's neglect to see that the plans were suitable, a one-storeyed galvanised iron building was allowod to be erected on ope of its leases. He was in favour of the motion, Mr. Napigr said the Board had power to reject the plans. The Chairman (Mr. J. T. Julian), supported the motion. The cost of a building depended considerably upon the interior work as well as the exterior finish. A number of divisions and cross walls added tc the cost, and these would bo necessary if the building to be erected wa-- divided into offices or for a private residence, but not for a substantial warehouse, similar to that being erected for Messrs. Ilipkinr and Coutts. to which no one oould reasonably object. The restrictions were quite unnecessary, and people might be inclined to erect buildings double the value stipulated, but they did not like the restrictions being imposed. He had applications that day for the sections, which could be let to-morrow were the restrictions eliminated. Mr. G. W. Bnsley objected to the removal of the restrictions as proposed on the ground that it would tend to cause unsuitable buildings to be erected. The don. E. Mitcholson, in opposing tho motion, pointed out that, when r. building I was erected the Board became a partner, j and at the termination of the lease the owner; therefore, a good class of building should be insisted upon. The Board would be doing c. wrong thing to permit, the rescinding of the resolutions. Mr. Parker argued that a person paying £6 per foot por annum for the land could not afford to erect a small building. Ho supported the motion. Mr. Glover corrected Mr. Philson by saying that the previous resolution was not carried by a large majority. On the proposition being put to the meeting it was carried by six votes to four,. the division being as follows (Mr. Philson having left the meeting at the time of voting)— Ayes: the Chairman, Messrs. Glovei. Parker, Walker, 1 axon, and Alison. Noes: Messrs. Grey, Basley, Mitchelson, and Na-pi-r.