THE BOATING-SHEDS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5731, 28 October 1905, Page 2

THE BOATING-SHEDS.

HARBOUR BOARD AND ROWING CLUBS. _ ' STATEMENT BY MR FERGUSON. Mr TV. Ferguson, secretary of the Harbour Board, yesterday forwarded to Mr H. D. Bell, as president of tho New Zealand Amateur Rowing Association, tho following letter on tho question of tho site for the boat-sheds, with reference to which a deputation waited on tho Board on Thursday:— “I am directed by the Board to inform you that the matters brought before tho Board by you and the members of the deputation that waited on tho Board yesterday will receive its careful consideration, but I am, meantime, to reply to some o-f th'o statements mad© which appear to require an immediate reply.

“ It is tmo that the Board in 1886-87 was desirous of limiting the powers that the city had to reclaim, as such rights of reclamation -would have imperilled tho water -approach to the Queen’s Wharf, a property which, together with tho city rights of access to the harbour, tho Board bad purchased from tho Council i.i 1831. A reclamation had been completed by tho - Council along tho foreshores and including Victoria street, and there was no prospect that tho Council would be in a position to carry on tho balance of tho To Aro reclamation for many years to come. Tho Star Boating Club had been dispossessed by tho reclamation, and a site had ocen found for the club-house on tho seaward side of Victoria street on tho north side of Harbour street. “Tho Board required further wharfage accommodation, and public opinion urged that it should take the form of berthage nearer to To Aro than the Queen’s Wharf. The Board 1 entered into protracted negotiations with tho City Council. An agreement was arrived at ns to the extent of reclamation, and it was arranged,that the Board' should provide funds for tho reclamation from the Queen’s Wharf southward by tho prepayment of the' sum of £39,000 due to tho Council in 1907 in part payment for tho purchases mad© from the Council under the Queen’s Wharf and Store Sales Act. 1881. This sum was found to bo sufficient to complete tbo'reclamation to a point about balf-way 'between Cuba and Taranaki streets to the site now occupied by the Wellington Rowing Club. “It is not, however, strictly correct to say that it was at tho Board’s instance that a portion of ho defined lino was appropriated for boating, and that the Board now seeks to abolish the right of frontage . conferred in tho Reclamation within the Harbour of Wellington Act, 1887. “ Tho position then existing was set out in a letter to the City Council, dated January 22pd, 1887, which was published in tho ‘ New Zealand Times ’ of February sth, and which contains tho following:—‘With regard to the second point reserved—i.o., with regard to the -power to bo granted under the agreement to tho Council to issue leases for boating purposes (for 250 ft lineal of tho proposed face line in the place previously agreed upon), the Board came to tho following resolution: “That the power to leaso be restricted to a period of twenty-one years from th© present time.” I am directed to point out to you that there appears to be a misconception on the mutual positions of the Board and tho City Council ‘in this matter. Tho Bpard have general power (subject to tho approval of the Government) under the Harbouns Act to construct works anywhere within tho harbour, irrespective of tho question of tho freehold right of tho Council to a portion of tho bed. This power was reaffirmed, probably unnecessarily bub still specifically forth in tho Queen’s Wharf Sales Act. The position, therefore. appears to the Board to be that they are willing, for the encouragement oi boating, to forego for a period of twenty-one years tho construction of ,! Jr wor,:s in front of a space of Soffit lineal of the proposed breasts W ai to e .? tor into a ’n agreement with the Council to this effect, thus enabling the issue of leases during that penod to boat clubs, to whom the water front is essential. The Council, on the other hand, desire the Board to gave up their rights in perpetuity. Tin’s the Board declined to do, but I am directed to point out to you that at tie expiration of the first twenty-one years iu will be perfectly competent, should the state of the trade and the other interests of the port then warrant it, for the Board to agrpe to leavo their rights in abeyance for a further period to be then determined upon between the bodies.

As the City Council did not to the Board’s terms, the Board drafted a bill for introduction into Parliament winch contained a clause enabling the Board to grant licenses to elute for boat skids, etc., on the defined line for a term not exceeding twenty-one years. "Subsequent negotiations took place resulting in the City Council giring way on the question of a continuing right

to grant lca&o& to boat clubs and agreeing to limit th-e right to ler.so to twcuty-ono years, the Hoard paying the sum of £SOO towards the cost cf the reclamation of sites for the boating dubs. This agreement way embediod in a deed dated May 12th, ISB7. and the ncossary clauses to embody it were introduced, hy mutual consent of both the local bodies, hy the Local Bills Committee into the bill, and subsequently became law. The position may be summarised that the Board paid the sum of £SOO, and agreed to the reservation of 250 ft of frontage,- now occupied by the avals, Star, and Wellington Clubs, for twenty-one years. ‘Tn quoting the last sentence of section 12 you have omitted To notice, and to quote, an early portion where the Corporation are given permission to lot for boating purposes for a term ‘not to extend beyond tweuty-ono yeans from tho passing of this act.’ The act is dated Juno 10th,1837, and tho twenty-ono years expire on June 10th, 190 S. It is, therefore, not right to say that ‘it is the right so conferred at tho instance of the Board that tho Board now seeks to abolish.’ It is rallfar that tho time has closely approached when tho agreement, deliberately entered into in 1837, pught to be consummated and the frontage rights restored to the Board. “Foreseeing that the time was approaching when the leases would terminate, provision was made in connection with the boat harbour for sites for tho various yachting aud boating clubs in a position which it was hoped would be satisfactory and where a permanent location could bo obtained in a central and easily accessible position, being closely adjacent to tho tramway service of the city. “Tho paragraphs of your statement commencing, ‘The Board would have no power,’ and ‘The Board aro now tho landlords,’ are evidently’ based on some great misapprehension of tho position. Tho Board are not now, aud will not, under the act of 1898, become the landlords of the land on which tho Naval, Star, and Wellington Bowing Clubs’ buildings stand (except that the "Wellington Club’s shed is shown by survey to a small extent to overlap the boundary of the Board’s land), and tho Board have directed mo to point out that they do not understand why the question of the deviation of the defined line by tbe act of 1898 should have been alluded to by you in connection with' the boatshod sntes. You must surely bo aware that no deviation of tho line takes place near tho present boatsheds. From a point some 830 ft to tho eastward (near tho foot of Tory street if prolonged seaward) the line limiting tho reclamation in the act of 1887 was deviated thence to tho eastward, so as to provide that tho graving dock should have an additional length of 150 ft. “I am unable to understand your allusion to tire lands comprised in the second, fifth, eighth, and fourteenth schedules. These lauds aro all situated inside tho defined Jino of 1887, and, necessarily, when the lands vest in tho Board, the Corporation rights and restrictions thereover cease. 1 regret that you sllould have expressed that you have no means of judging why the defined lino was altered. A visit to my office, or an intimation thajt you desired to see tho plans, would have brought forth an explanation of the position that, I believe,"would have convinced you of the Board’s absolute good faith 1 and consistency in tho matter. I trust that you will still enable mo to sliow you tho plan, when I shall bo able to prove to you that tho Board only required tho limit of reclamation to be put back from’ tho westward of Tory street thence to the Queen’s Wharf, aud that it was fixed to tho eastward of Tory street on the Council's own line, which passes at a point near the northeastern corner of tho present corporation yard as far seaward as tho Council had power to reclaim under tho To Aro Reclamation Act. There never has been any suggestion that the Board should reclaim outside tho defined line uear tho boatsheds, and clause 7 of tire schedule to the act of 1898 reads: ‘ Tho Board will not reclaim' from tho sea any of the land described in tho fifteenth schedule’ —such land is all exterior to the defined line. “Tho Board, not owning the land on which the boatsheds exist, is not concerned with their tenancy, and no suggestion has boon made that" the water frontage will be required prior to 1908. Whether it will then be required is a matter of policy for tho Board to consider, and the result of their deliberations will be duly conveyed to you. “With reference to the last paragraph in. your statement, marked 6: — ‘The question of rente or terms or conditions on which sections could be arranged for. the boating and yachting clubs at the boat harbour has never been before the Board er considered in any way.’ At an interview I had tho pleasure of having twelve months ago with some gentlemen representing the boating interests, I was asked what I thought tho sections would bo worth, and I said probably a pound a foot frontage. That estimate was simply my own personal one, given on tbe spur of tho moment, and was certainly not intended by mo as an indication of what the Board would require. ' “As. your statement has been published, I am' directed by the chairman to iive a copy of this letter - to the press.”