NGAMOTU BEACH CONTROL

Taranaki Daily News, 1 September 1933, Page 9

NGAMOTU BEACH CONTROL

LEASE TO BOROUGH COUNCIL AGREEMENT BY HARBOUR BOARD. VALIDATING MEASURE REQUIRED. Consent to legislation which is to be brought before Parliament to enable the New Plymouth Harbour Board to grant to the New Plymouth Borough Council the lease of the Ngamotu beach palladium and seven cottages at present under the control of Ngamotu Resorts Ltd. was given by the board at a special meeting held yesterday. The lease is to extend ovei- a period of five years. The license to be granted did not permit holders to erect new buildings, but only to maintain existing ones, said Mr. Bellringer. The board would have the power to make its own terms with regard to any license. The council did not guarantee to put'in a drainage system at Ngamotu beach. By the legislation the control of the beach would pass from Ngamotu Resorts Ltd. to a committee appointed by the council. He understood Ngamotu Resorts Ltd. wished to wind up its affairs. There would be some advantage in having a responsible local body to deal with rather than a private company. The council would be able to exert stricter control over the beach.

When the licenses for the cottages were granted the idea was that they were not intended for permanent residence. The cottages did good in that they served as a valuable advertising medium for the port in attracting visitors. A number of people who had never seen the port said it would never be a success, even after big ships had been berthed at New Plymouth. During Alehouse shortage after the war, permanent residence of the cottages crept in, a state Mr. Bellringer thought still continued. Mr. Bellringer moved that the board consent to the legislation as submitted by the council and amended by the board’s solicitor. POSITION OF OTHER COTTAGES. • In reply to Mr. D.- J. Malone’s request for an explanation of the position regarding the other cottages on the foreshore, Mr. Bellringer said the conditions of the licenses for these were that the tenants paid an annual fee and had to vacate within .14 days. The license had to be renewed every year. The position at present was that there, were two bodies controlling the beach. The motion was seconded formally by Mr. E. Maxwell. He agreed with the chairman that the cottages had served a useful' purpose. The board could resume control at a future date. He was opposed to permanency of tenure. He thought, however, that there was a suggestion in the legislation that it was intended to establish a seaside resort. He could not see how this could be so if the port was to progress, as it seemed to him it must. It was questionable whether the step was worth while in view of the fact that nine-tenths of the cottages would still remain under the. same conditions. There had been some misconception among the general public concerning their rights on the foreshort, he thought. There were some who were not fully aware of the conditions of the licenses. His only objection to the move was that it seemed to indicate a state of affairs which would not result. The progress of the port was the first consideration and even the seaside resort could not be allowed to interfere with this. Mr. C. H. Burgess said the question was whether the board would be any worse off with the control in the hands of the council than in the present instance when control was under a committee. If there had been any mistake it had been made in the beginning when the cottages were allowed to be erected. He would like to see the board forbid any further erection of buildings on the beach. He could not see that there would be any misconception on the part of the public. The board was merely transferring the buildings to a public body.

In Mr. Maxwell's opinion the whole point was whether the board was justified in supporting a'means of allowing permanent tenure. There would be a real gain if all the cottages were handed over. SEASIDE RESORT. The question of drainage would arise in the future, said Mr. Malone, if it had not already arisen. He thought the whole of the cottages should be included in the transfer, the council thus controlling the beach. If he thought the council intended to create a seaside resort to the detriment of the development of the port, he would vote against the measure. Though the board had regulations regarding sanitation, it had no way of seeing those conditions fulfilled, Mr. Bellringer said. He was concerned with placing the foreshore under effective control. Tire council would see that the drainage and sanitary systems were improved. Mr. J. H. H. Holm opposed the motion. The board was going “cap in hand” to the Government and asking It to revoke the land rights given to the board, he said. It seemed to him that at the end of five years conditions would be altered. He could not see the use of the council taking over control of seven cottages, while it was manifestly impossible for it to buy the whole. Mr. H. C. Taylor offered no opposition to the measure, provided the board’s rights were protected and conditions improved. He could not see any suggestion of permanency of tenure, said the chairman. The conditions laid down a definite period of tenure and there was no right of renewal. There would come a time when the land would be needed, but at the end of five years the position would be much the same as to-day. With regard to Mr. Holm’s statement that the board was asking the Government to revoke previous legislation. Mr. Bellringer said conditions were changed and new legislation was necessary. The motion was carried on a division. The chairman was empowered to fix the seal of the board to the bill.