ANDERSON’S BAY INLET

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27447, 21 July 1950, Page 4

ANDERSON’S BAY INLET

Reclamation Proposals

WAR MEMORIAL SCHEME

Views Of Ratepayers’ Association

The Anderson’s Bay Ratepayers and Householders’ Association seeks to clarify its position with reference to the reclamation of the bay and the. provision of a war memorial. The spokesman for the association, Mr W J. Mathers, at the first public meeting on the war memorial question, said that the activities of the association over the past five years had proved that the inlet could be reclaimed, either in whole or in part, if the public desired it. Mr Mathers added that consent had already been obtained from the Marine Department (complete reclamation), the Otago Harbour Board (partial reclamation), and the Dunedin City Council. He also informed the meeting that the consent of the Otago Harbour J3oard to a partial reclamation was subject to the retention of an approved balance of land and water, with a minimum depth of one foot of water in the area not reclaimed at all states of the tide.

The acting chairman of the Otago Harbour Board, on reading the account of the meeting, apparently wrote post haste to the Marine Department, Wellington, to see whether it was true that the department had agreed to a complete reclamation of the inlet. The reply was in the negative and was published in both the local newspapers, seemingly on the instance of Mr Knewstubb.

The association cannot produce the consent of the Marine Department to a total reclamation in that form, but states that it can produce evidence to the effect that should the Otago Harbour Board recommend a total reclamation, the Marine Department would not oppose it. COMMUNITY BENEFIT

The statement of the association continues: This association has never asked for the 162 acre scheme which was a product of City Council officers ana was estimated to cost £95,000 and may have oeen used to thwart the local agitation for some definite action after 40 years of talk. We did ask for compliance with the Act ot Parliament of 1910, which provides for an area of 10 acres to ne reclaimed as a recreation ground to be vested in the City Council (successors to the Town Board) and the provision of flood gates to retain a certain depth of water in the Bay at all tides. We have asked the Otago Harbour Board to state its willingness to vest this area and the City Council 10 state, its willingness to accept, and have also asked both bodies to carry out the Act and define boundaries of the area (we suggest the Tainui Inlet) so far without success, but we have discovered quite an amount of evidence of “ passing the buck.” We fell sure that many citizens of Dunedin do not recognise the fact that this district has absolutely no provision for recreation and that local children have to travel to- the Oval to play their games. The same applies to the growing districts of Vauxhall and Waverley, and seeing that there has been 40 years of talk the residents are surelv justified in demanding action. The smaller area referred to in the 1910 Act is the minimum demand of this association regardless of the war memorial scheme, which is dealt with as a special feature. T.his executive is not swayed by mere parochial interests as shown’ by its active support of the City Council deputation which came to the bay to' explain the Albert street extension and trolley bus schemes. Our proposition to create a playing area was referred to all other similar associations and in almost every case the replies on our files prove that the scheme is favoured as one of benefit to the whole community. We now ask for wide support in our efforts to secure action in place of words THE WAR MEMORIAL When we were asked to express our opinions, we registered strong opposition to any form of memorial which entailed large quantities of bricks and mortar and catered for only a section of the community—those whose memory is to be honoured came from all sections of the people. We therefore suggest the reclamation of the whole bay as a free and open area for the benefit of all—not forgetting mothers and young children —and summarise as follows:

1. The Harbour Board to vest property in the City Council. 2. The City Council to form Shaw street from Portobello road to connect with Musselburgh Rise (opposite the old quarry) and Somerville and Silverton streets. Also straigthen Marne street from the Portobello road to the tennis courts. Such work would provide improved access to the bay and Peninsula districts and lessen pressure at the Cavell street area. It would also remove the death trap at the junction of Larnach road and Marne street.

3. A srrfall area to be immediately prepared at the junction of the Portobello road and Shaw street to erect a rock base, concrete mounting and steel mast to bear a permanent light with a suitable inscription at the base; this memorial lamp to be financed from a publicly subscribed war memorial fund.

4. The Drainage Board to extend stormwater drains to the Portobello road and the Harbour Board to pump dredgings into the bay instead of conveying it outside the harbour. 5. The City Council to request the public to 'dump suitable filling material in prepared positions (such material as contractors’ debris, ashes and foundry waste, and other waste material excepting household refuse or anything which would encourage vermin. f

6. Financing of completion to be by public subscription. Thus would be provided a symboli-cally-suitable memorial, without excessive waste of money, which would in time become something of beauty and inestimable benefit to the whole community. A most objectionable area would be abolished and when the proposed road is completed along the present sea wall there would be within easy distance of the centre of the city a much-needed playing area more than twice- the acreage of the Oval. By straightening Marne street small coves would be available on the left (hill) side for the planting of trees and provision for family picnic parties. Parking spaces could be provided on the margins of all side roads and garden plots could be set out at many convenient spots on outer edges of the whole area. We register our opposition to the erection as a war memorial of a sports building to cater for limited indoor sports, and which would cost a very large sum and entail heavy maintenance in lighting, cleaning and general repair and upkeep. We oppose the taking of any part of an existing playing area for such a purpose and are not favourable to the placing of the memorial in an area bounded by railway and gas works and crowded in by industries. Finally, we ask Dunedin citizens to have vision and after carefully reading this statement, to taken notice when the public meeting is called oy the Mayor, attend in large numbers and vote* conscientiously so that the result may represent the wishes of the citizens. Members of the executive—R. A. Bridgman, G. W. Ferens, A. Glue, F. S Hanger, W. J. Mathers, R. A. Mitchell, H. G. Munro. W. W. Pearson, R. Scott, At A. Watt, H. J. Whitehead (secretary). R. T. Sando chairman. (Published by arrangement)