CITY COUNCIL AND HARBOUR BOARD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13925, 5 December 1908, Page 6

CITY COUNCIL AND HARBOUR BOARD.

RIPARIAN RIGHTS QUESTION.

The oft-discussed question raised by the City Council's decision to acquire Harbour Board property, known as the Freezing Company's reclamation, ; for the purposes of a power-house site, received further ventilation at the Harbour Board meeting yesterday.

Tho Chairman (tho Hon. E. Mitchelson) said ha had asked the Board's solicitor (Mr. Russell) to be present in connection with, a statement made by . the Mayor (Mr. Myers) at a meeting of the City Council the previous evening. A misunderstanding had ; arisen. After a conference in the Mayor's room, respecting the Drainage Bill, he (the speaker) was asked to remain, to discuss the reclamation, and was asked if the Board w;ould offer any objection. He at once stated that, provided the Council did not encroach upon riparian rights, he thought tho Board would have no objection. That was on July 17. -It was distinctly ■ stated then that • the riparian rights were not to be interfered with. ,The matter came before the Board in due course, and as soon as he saw the plans he noticed that tho Council had encroached beyond the boundary, and would thus be taking riparian rights. \ The Mayor took exception to his (the speaker's) remark that the arrangement had been departed from by ■ the engineers, but ho (Mr. Mitchelson) had been referring to the first conference arrangement, and the Mayor to tho second. At tho second conference the city and the Board solicitors and the city and electrical engineers, were present. The city solicitor asked him what objection the Board had to the plan*. : ; He at once pointed out that the plans showed that the Council was taking riparian rights, Mr. Cotter then asked tho city and electrical engineers about it, and they both; replied that, they . encroached upon the. riparian I rights deliberately and intentionally, so that they ' would secure water frontage to' land coal. ■"• '

Mr. Russell: That is so. 1 can confirm that. -

Mr. Mitchelson said that the Board then bad notice of tho taking of the land. The Board's surveyor's nlans showed that the Council was not only encouraging riparian rights on one side of the i ground,; but : also on the _ other, on the north boundary 2ft below high-water mark, and 18in for half the eastern boundary. Subsequently, with Mr. Russell, he; agreed to a compromise, subject to ratification by tho Board. Ho thought it a fair compromise, .because there Wasrib possibility of reclamation taking place beyond where Mr. Hamer's plans showed the limit, but the Board considered that the compromise. would he tying the hands of future boards, and threw it out. If the Council put in an amended plan embracing only the Freezing Company's reclamation, then the whole trouble would bo ended. The Council had decided to approach the Governor? for consent, and so the Board would ,have ; to act, too. He moved, "That a memorial be presented to the Governor, under the Public Works Act, objecting to the proposed taking of the Freezing Company's reclamation by the City, Council, and that the solicitors be instructed to take the nocossary steps in this direction. - -

Mr. J. Kneen seconded the motion.

Mr. A. J. Entrican said there had never been any intention on the part of the City Council to take riparian rights. All that was wanted was the option of having a gantry to swing coal from colliers across the road, "which would lie the water frontage. The Chairman: Then you must alter your plans. Mr. Entrican: Would the Board give an undertaking that, in the event of any reclamation, the southern boundary of the frontago road should bo the northern boundary of the Board's property? The Chairman : I see no objection to that, and if the Council communicates with the Board to that effect 1 .think the whole difficulty will be obviated. In the meantime, as the Council has decided to petition the Governor, we must pass our resolution. ■■■'. The motion was then carried unanimously.