THE TE ARO RECLAMATION QUESTION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 780, 11 February 1887, Page 10

THE TE ARO RECLAMATION QUESTION.

At the meeting of the Harbor Board last Friday the Secretary read the following communication, which he stated had been forwarded to the City Council, previous to the last meeting of that body on the reclamation question. It was as follows : The Board having passed a resolution adopting the report of their Committee, which was to the effect that your recommendation be agreed to, subject to the further consideration of the two points of compensation to boat clubs, and right to lease in perpetuity to boat clubs, proceeded to consider the points reserved. On consideration of the first point, namely, “ That the question of increased cost, if any, of piling over reclamation as a foundation for the boat shed be ’determined prior to the completion of the agreement, and that, should it be found to be more expensive, a lump sum should be inserted in the agreement in preference to clauses providing for a sub-

sequent assessment, I was directed to point out to you that the Board are at a loss to understand why the Council should prefer a method which appears to them to be cumbrous and unsatisfactory, and likely to be productive of future disputes, instead of the more satisfactory method of settling at once a point which can be readily determined. The Board, being unwilling to wreck the negotiations on this point, have paased the following resolution : —“That the Board agree to waive the first point reserved, on the understanding that such compensation (for the cost of piling over reclamation), if any, be granted only in respect of the Star Boating Club’s shed.” At the same time the Board strongly hope that the Council will see their way to adopt the simpler plan. With regard to the second point reserved—i.e., with regard to the power to be granted under the agreement to the Council to issue leases for boating purposes (for 250 ft lineal of the proposed face line in the plaoe previously agreed upon) —the Board came to the following resolution: —“That the power to lease be restricted to a period of 21 years from the present time.” lam directed to point out to you that there appears to be a misconception on the mutual positions of the Board and the Council in this matter. The Board have general power (subject to approval of the Government) under the Harbors Act

to construct works anywhere within the harbor, irrespective of the question of the freehold right of the Council to a portion of the bed. This power was re-affirmed, probably unnecessarily, but still specifically set forth in the Queen’s Wharf Sales Act. The position, therefore, appears to the Board to be that they are willing, for the encotiragement of boating, to forego for a period of twenty-one years the construction of any harbor works in front of a space of 250 ft lineal of the proposed breastwork, and.<to enter into an agreement with the Council to this effect, thus enabling the issue of leases during that period to boat clubs, to whom the water frontage is essential. The Council, on the other hand, desire the Board to give up their rights in perpetuity. This the Board declinee to do, but I am directed to point out to you that at the expiration of the first twenty-one years it will be perfectly competent, should the state of the trade and the other interests of the port then warraut it, for the Board to agree to leave their rights in abeyance for a further period to be then determined upon between the bodies. The Secretary also read the reply from the Council, which enclosed the notice of motion passed by the Council on the Board’s letter.

The motion was as follows: —That the Council accede to the request of the Harbor Board to limit compensation to the case of the Star Boat Club, but that believing the providing of means of recreation for citizens to be under its care, it cannot consent to abandoning the right it undoubtedly has at present of providing Bites for boat sheds. The Council, however, recognising that the exigencies of the port may at some future date necessitate an alteration of the present proposed arrangement, has limited the term of any lease of a boatshed site to 21 years, and hopes that the Harbor Board will trust the Council to act in a liberal spirit should circumstances require the Board to ask the aid of the Council in furthering the interests of the port. The Mayor stated that he was certain that some members of the Council did not thoroughly understand the position of affairs between the two bodies on the boatshed question. There was some misunderstanding on both sides over this question of the boatshed sites, and he thought, with a little further consideration, it could be settled. The Chairman said he did not fully understand what was meant by the last resolution of the Council.

Mr Duthie was of opinion that the Council did not thoroughly understand what the Board meant in their communication to the Council.

After some further discussion on the matter it was decided to send a letter to the Council further explaining the matter, and stating that the Board would be glad to hear from the Council before the next meeting of the Board.

Affairs having taken this turn, Mr Duthie asked leave to postpone a motion of which he had given notice till next meeting. The motion was as follows :—That the Board resolve itself into committee to consider the position from the failure of recent negotiations with the City Council, and what legislation will now be sought to attain the right to execute works that, in the opinion of this Board, are now necessary or may be required from time to time for harbor accommodation, in which the Board is prejudicially restricted by the rights of the Council under the Te Aro foreshore grant ; that on resuming the Board will consider and deal with any report of the Committee.