THE FORESHORE QUESTION.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XVII, Issue 5795, 16 June 1890, Page 2

THE FORESHORE QUESTION.

Messrs Finn and Chrisp, Harbor Solicitors, have furnished the Board wifch the ' following opinion on the leasing of the foreshore : — " We have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, herein dated the 13th inst., requesting our opinion in writing as to whether the lease submitted by the proposed lessees to the Board for execution is in order, and if it may be executed by the Board. Ifc will be necessary to refer to the powers conferred on the Board , from time to time as regarding leasing any part of the foreshore, suffice to say that; -. prior to the Governor-in-Council declaring the Board subject to the provisions of the Local Bodies Powers Act, 1C37, (thafcison the 28th of November lust) the Board could lease any portion of the foreshore for a term not exceeding thirty years by complying with the provisions of section 138 of the Harbours Act, 1873. The, Board being now under fche Public. Bodies Act, 1887, the Board can only lease the foreshore land in manner provided by section 15 of this Act, that is with the consent of the Governor-in-Council. ' ' Clause 3 of the conditions prepared by the Committee provides * That buildings at the value of 20 years 'purchase shall be ferected by the lessee within 12 months of the lease being taken.' and this condition is embodied as- a covenant in the proposed lease on the part of the lessees. We arej of opinion that such a covenant is ultra vires the Board, * and inconsistent with all the provisions of the Harbor Act as regards foreshore lands. It may lie impossible for the lessees to comply with this covenant because the provisions of Sections 153 to 160 both inclusive of the Harbors Act 1878. apply to all Harbor Boards. See. 154 provides thafc , ' no Board, or other body, or any person'" or persons shall commence, make, erect, or construct or place any pilo or other structure in or over through or acirqss tidal lands or % tidal water without the consent of the Governor-in-Council ia first obtained ' in, the manner provided by sec. 156, and sec. 155 provides that any Board or person so offending shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding LlOO and LlO a day for every day such work shall be allowed to remain after notice to remove has been given by a Minister of the Crown. Now, if the approval of the Governor-in-Council. cannot be obtained, then the Lessee cannot under a' very heavy penalty comply with the co\ eiiant, yet it is stated in the lease .' that iri^asjßrof the breach of non-observance of any covenant, condition &c, contained or implied on the part of the lessee, the Board may re-enter and re-possess the land as in their first or former estate \ We are for the reasons stated of opinion the Lease is not in order and should not bo executed by the Board,

PROTEST BY BOROUGH COUNCIL. A special meeting of the Borough Council was held this afternoon, when there were present : The Mayor (Mr Townley), and Councillors McLernon, Dunlop, Lewin, Lucas, Taylor, Coleman, Harding? Whin^ ray, and Hepburn. The Mayor said that at the last meeting of the Harbor Board it was decided to lease the foreshore, and last Friday a requisition to call a meeting was handed him. The foreshore in question abutted on the Borough property and it adjoined the Borough bridge. He had objected unsuccessfully at the Harbor Board, and ifc was the Council's place to move if objection was to be taken. The Clerk read a reply from the Harbor Board which notified that the Board did not consider the objections urged by the Council sufficient, and the lease would be carried out. Cv Dunlop said a month ago the Council discussed the matter, and it was agreed to enter a protest. Any action to be taken Avould have to be taken by the Council. He did not wish .to assail the Harbor Board's right to lease the foreshore, but there was a proper way to do so and a proper . time. There should be some provision that the foreshore should be leased in one continuous line, so that buildings would not be put out to the water line and would not interfere with the width of the channel. The question which would then have to be considered was the inconvenience in opening the bridges and thecost. Thecostwoulcl be somewhere about LlOO, whilst the quid pro quo was not near that amount. If the rent had been sufficient and other conditions put in the lease probably there would have been no objection. Vessels | lying at the building would cause a hind- ! rence t» traffic on the river, and the projection of the building would probably cause a divergence of the stream. He did not believe in hindering any local industi/, if it was a public industry, but he did nob believe in one person being benefitted to the detriment of the many. He thought they should enter a protest fco Government on the matter, /s 1 an instance of how detrimental it was to lease theforeshore, years ago people were allowed to erect buildiugs on the Yarra indiscriminately and all sorts of boiling downs, and like establishments were on the river causing terrible stench. Since then these places had been abolished and the course of the stream was being straightened. Cr Whinray said the whole of the building stood on the foreshore between high and low water mark and he had never heard of such a thing. It would obstruct the working of the swing and navigation. The channel would likely be shifted and cause the swing to be shifted. North Gis»borne would grow largely and they had to consider the inconvenience to people there. If the Board had put up a sea wall lower down the river it would have done some good. They had a right to bring it} to the iwtice of the Marine Board,