ATTACK MADE ON CRITICS

Taranaki Daily News, 21 July 1933, Page 9

ATTACK MADE ON CRITICS

DEFENCE OF HARBOUR BOARD ■—■III lllliw— » SITE OF NEW OIL 80-'.Z ON BEACH NO COTTAGE OWNER HAS A LEASE CHAIRMAN EXPLAINS CONDITIONS. A vigorous reply to criticism of the New Plymouth Harbour Board by public Then at New Plymouth and Stratford in connection with the site for an oil bore on the foreshore at Ngamotu was made by the chairman of the board (Mr. C. E. Bellringer) at yesterday’s meeting. He said incorrect statements had been made by those in opposition to the board, who themselves,- '.Mr. Bellringer said, were lacking in vision rather than the board. A motion approving of the present site of the bore was carried. A great- many statements made about the board were altogether wide of the mark, Mr, Bellringer said. - One man had made a statement that "he thought the board was altogether indifferent to the fact that it was in a position of trust. But the object of the board was the construction of a harbour. Partly as a result of the attainment of that object there was a very sheltered beach at Ngamotu and the board had always felt that the public should have the use of the beach so long as there was no interference with the harbour. Some people wished to live on the beach through the summer and the board therefore had allowed them to erect cottages, but at the time when it did this the board recognised there was always the danger that the owners of these cottages might think they had a permanent right to stay there. For that very reason conditions were drawn up and printed, one of which was that cottage-owners had license for one year only. It was also made perfectly clear that the board by giving 14 days’ notice could require the buildings to be removed. I “NO-ONE HAS LEASE.” The deputation to Mr. C. N. Taylor, director of the oil company, made comments on the action of the board, which, they condemned. Later the Mayor of Stratford said he thought . the board should have given some consideration to the people who had invested a good sum in building summer residences there on leases from the board.' “No-one has a lease of that property,” Mr. Bellringer said. “They have the use of the property only under the conditions I have mentioned. Whoever goes there goes under these conditions. That has always been the case. The board made these conditions forthe particular, reason that it thought at the time that there would be people who would in time come to consider a privilege to be a right.” Extracts were also quoted by Mr. Bellringer from speeches and statements made by a resident of the town alleging, lack of vision on the part of the board. “One was rather surprised to find a leading business man in New Plymouth talking like this,” he said. “I think the board has yision. I think the man might have been a bit purblind himself. He did not see that it is the duty of the board to construct a harbour and that the beach must be, sacrificed to the necessities of, the harbour. In other places beaches have had to be sacrified for the good of the harbour. Anyone who has vision must see that at some time the 'beach has to go. It was also said that , the board had not been true to the trust imposed on "it? I 'say the board has -been true to the trust by providing a harbour for the people of Taranaki. If in the future we ha-.. to utilise the beach for the harbour we will only be. doing what .we are here to do.” Mr. Bellringer also referred to remarks made by Mr. P. E. Stainton, chairman of the electric light and tramways committee of the New Plymouth Borough Council, who expressed alarm at the possible ‘ detrimental effect of the oil bore on the tramway revenue. The board could not study the interests of the tramways if they conflicted with the interests of the port. In any base Mr. Bellringer did not think the interests did conflict. The trade of the port had been a considerable factor in increasing the tramway revenue. If the port grew and developed the trams were going to derive considerable benefit.

'# ■ . not CONSCIOUS- of lack. “The board is not conscious of having failed in its trust, nor is it conscious of lack of vision,” Mr. Bellringer continued. “I think it has conscientiously followed out its object, which is to make a harbour. The port cannot be placed in a secondary position. The board is glad people are able to use the . beach, but it must first and foremost study the interests of the port I feel it has striven to do that. It is quite uncalled for that men in /public positions should impute other motives to the board. It is evident that, the tiling was not taken so seriously by the public, for though there was a lot of talk at first nothing has since been' heard about it” ,r ' Mr. Bellringer added in conclusion that if there were reasonable prospects of oil being obtained by putting down a number of bores it would be the board’s duty to.assist .as much as possible. A motion moved by Mr. Bellringer that the board approve of the oil bore site on the beach as indicated in. the plan shown was seconded by Mr. E. Maxwell. Mr. D. J. Malone expressed the opinion that most of the complaints originated from people who were interested in the beach cottages. They seemed to be under the impression that they had a lease from the board, He was in accord with the opinions expressed by the chairman throughout. The duty of the board was to carry out the board’s objects, and the beautifying : of the beach did not come into question. “If oil is to be got I would put down" a hundred bores, because that would be something that would make the port rate-free, and that is more important than the fact that a number, of people want to have cottages on the beach,” he added. “Indeed, we all hope the port will grow to such an extent in the. future that we will have to make use of all that part of the beach for the harbour.”