REMOVAL OF GRAVEL.

Colonist, Volume LX, Issue 14859, 5 September 1918, Page 3

REMOVAL OF GRAVEL.

REQUEST BY WAIMEA COUNTY COUNCIL.

At Saturday's meeting of theMotucka Harbour 'Board, a deputation from the \\aimea County Council, consisting of Crs. Best (chairman) and Hewetson and Mr G. S. Whiteside, county engineer, waited upon the Board, asking for the rescission of the resolution , charging a royalty of sixpence per yard 1 on sand and. gravel removed from the foreshore in the Tasman districts (says the "Star"). Cr. Best said the County Council was desirous of improving the roads in the Tasman district and asked that the resolution in regard to the royalty of sixpence per yard< ibe.-rescinded. .Anything that could-be1 done to lighten the cost of metalling, should be done in the interests of the district. The County Council had trusted the Board in the matter of roads at Port Motueka, and he thought it only a fair thing for the , Board to meet the County Council in < regard to the royalty on metal. j Cr. Hewetson said that both bodies' had the same object in view—the welfare of the ratepayers. The royalty of sixpence a ; yard v.as prohibitive. The, rateable value of the property in the locality mentioned was £48,297, producing a rate of £201 4s 9d, which, af for deducting hospital and charitable! aid rates, etc., left them with a sum of £56 12s lOd to metal eight and a- ; half miles of road—less than two shillings per chain. Even if they doubled the rates it would only give them 4s per chain—the royalty on eight yards of metal. ' •

Mr. Whiteside said that 25 per cent, of the royalty was beiner given to the caretaker. The Nelson Harbour Board had never charged the .County Council for metal. He questioned the legality of the Board's action, contending that there was nothing in the Harbours Act empowering the Board to charge ior metal.

Cr. . Hewetson said that tho mct>u was required for the roads, and tbo settlers should not be penalised. Or. Best said that the Council nod agreed to spend £60 on the roads if the settlers , interested would contribute £30. .■■■'■;

Correspondence had , been previously read- .from harbour boards, stating, in the majority of ' cases'j that a charge-' was made for the removal of. gravel from the foreshore. The Nelson Harbou,r Board had replied stating that fourpence i>er yard was charged to lo.al bodies, and sixpence per yard to private individuals.

Messrs. Izard and Weston, solicitors to tho Harbours Association, advised that any person removing gravel from the foreshore without the Board's permission was liable to an action for trespass, the damages awarded in ■which case would be the value of the gravel, plus something for committing an illegal action. The graver was the Board's property, and no one had a right to interfere with it. except hy agreement with the Board. A board had the same right to protect itself against trespass as a private individual.

After some sparring by the chairman (Mr. H. Everett) and the deputation and the' exchange of a few pleasantries regarding the question of separate riding accounts and the propriety of the Board jeolou.sly guarding its''own interests. Air. Guy gave notice to move that the matter of royalty upon the sale or removal of gravel and sand from tiie foreshore he reconsidered at the next meting of the Board.