NGAMOTU BEACH CONTROL

Taranaki Daily News, 18 August 1933, Page 6

NGAMOTU BEACH CONTROL

borough council request CERTAIN TENURE RIGHTS SOUGHT. QUESTION TO BE RECONSIDERED. POSITION OF THE HARBOUR BOARD. Ngamotu beach and the policy of the New Plymouth Harbour Board in connection with its control of the beach were the subject of a prolonged discussion by the board yesterday when considering whether to re-open the question of giving the New Plymouth Borough Council certain rights of tenure over portion of the foreshore. The board finally decided to again consider the question and referred the draft local Bill submitted by the council. Moving in order to re-open the matter that the.previous resolution of the board be rescinded, the chairman (Mr. C. E. Bellringer) said that since the resolution was made a deputation from the council waited on the board and placed before it its reasons for asking for some permissive legislation which would give the council effective control of the beach and enable it to deal more effectively with sanitation and the conduct of the beach generally. The legislation would be purely permissive and simply gave the board the power to make any conditions it desired to in any license it granted. The motion was seconded formally by Mr. C. H. Burgess. Mr. E. Maxwell said he was fully in opposition to the proposal when it came before the board. The deputation said that the legislation was purely permissive, but the experience of the past was that Parliament saw fit to pass legislation prohibiting alienation of foreshore rights in thi future. The circumstances at New Plymouth were such that the board had to be particularly careful. The board’s proposal was that there should be a special Act to get round the legislation of the past, which he thought was improper. The particular circumstances at New Plymouth were that the board’s area was so limited that no extension of the port could be made without some of the land being required. That should be a guide to the board in deciding that it should not alienate any of the areas on the foreshore. “TOO NEAR SHIPPING." It had been said that the powers to be given under the proposed Bill were only permissive; but if the board supported legislation of the sort it must be an indication to future boards that it favoured it to some extent and to the public generally that it would make the beach available as a resort. In his opinion the beach'was too near the shipping to become a highly developed pleasure resort. It was not the duty of the board to provide beaches but it was its duty to look after the interests of the port as trustees of the public, to keep absolute control of the beach and do nothing more than the present legislation permitted. The object of the Bill was to give the fixity of tenure, which was the very thing the board should not do and which Parliament thought it should not do. In reply to Mr. D. J. Malone, who stressed the need for adequate sanitary measures, Mr. Bellringer said the council required a fixed tenure in order to be able to spend the money it proposed to spend. There was provision for the board to terminate the tenure. The question of the resumption of the land by the board-.was raised by Mr.- J. R. Cruickshank, who said the onus was on the board to prove the land was required for harbour purposes, though there might be other reasons for revoking the license. If the Bill were agreed to new buildings could be built, said Mr. Burgess, but he did’not want to see anyone secure permanent rights. Probably a mistake was made in the first place in allowing any cottages to be built. The council thought they were a menace to health but could do nothing without a title. There was no need to grant a tenure for longer than five years. Mr. Malone opposed giving the right to erect buildings, though he felt disposed to grant th> council some rights. New buildings might make it difficult for the board to resume the land. He was certain some better system of drainage should be in operation. The primary reason for the Bill, Mr. J. H. H. Holm understood, was to enable the. council to take over the beach company, for which it could not pay unless it had some tenure. The drainage question was absolutely subsidiary.

DRAINAGE QUESTION. Mr. Burgess thought drainage was the whole point, but the chairman explained that the other question came into it. Mr. Holm thought the borough could probably secure powers to carry out the drainage without the board giving it a tenure. Such legislation must mean permanency of tenure, Mr. Maxwell said. The essence of the thing was to make possible the payment of money for the cotr tages. There was no guarantee about drainage. If a new palladium and other buildings were erected the board would have little prospect of resumption unless the land was wanted for a wharf. He contended that because of its proximity to the ships the beach was not in a sanitary position now and all hoped to see the harbour extended before long. The board could make any conditions it thought fit, said the chairman. There was not the slightest idea of giving anyone any permanency of tenure except for a period decided upon by the board. It would be a long time before the land on which the cottages stood would be required for harbour extension. He could not see any great harm in giving the council the powers it wanted. Sooner or later the land would be required for railway purposes. Provided the concession was limited to five or seven years he did not think that there was any likelihood of the board desiring possession. It would be more satisfactory to deal with a responsible local body, the council would be given a more direct interest in the beach and, even if it was not linked with the sewerage system, some more satisfactory drainage scheme than the present one might be enforced, as something must be done. If it gave a permanent tenure the board would be breaking its agreement with the Railway Department. The license would be drafted to give the board ample powers to resume when it wanted to. He thought that, many of the dangers mentioned by other speakers were imaginary. The board alone would have to decide whether its requirements were reasonable. Mr. H. C. Taylor said the board must reserve the absolute right to take the land for any purpose it thought fit. It was pointed out that the carrying of the motion merely re-opened the matter. Messrs. Maxwell and Holm were the only members to oppose the motion. The board’s solicitor, Mr. J. H. Quilliam, was present and answered a number of questions.