WANGANUI WATER SUPPLY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 83, Issue 288, 6 December 1939, Page 8

WANGANUI WATER SUPPLY

STOCK ON WATERSHED LESSEE OF PROPERTY STATES HIS CASE LETTER TO THE MINISTER Because the Wanganui City Council has decided to refer the matter of the Okehu water supply and the grazing of stock on the watershed to the Minister of Health, or his deputy, for such action as he thinks fit, the lessee of the property, Mr. J. F. Knight, Palmerston North, has placed his side of the matter before the Minister, also. Mr. Knight’s reaction to the decision of the council to go to the Minister was set forth in a letter from his solicitors, Messrs. McBeth. Withers and Young, read to a meeting of the City Council last night. “With reference to this matter we see by the newspaper that the council has resolved to place the matter before the Minister of Health. Hon. P. Fraser, for his consideration,” the letter read. ‘‘The object of the course is not clear from the published report, but if the object is to deprive our client of his rights under his lease without fair and reasonable compensation, then, on our client’s behalf, we strongly object to such a course being taken.

Lessee Was Approached by the Council ‘‘The position is that our client did not seek the lease in the first instance, but the council approached him and requested that he take over the property under lease and clear it of fern, second growth and noxious weeds. The property was then in a very bad state and was a serious menace to the surrounding property because of the danger of fire. Our client was not anxious to take the property and only agreed to do so at the pressing request of the council. By the terms of the lease our client bound himself to erect fencing, with no right to call on the council for contributions therefor, and also to clear the land of fern, manuka scrub, second growth, and noxious weeds. Ho also covenanted that he would keep the land stocked to its fullest capacity. These conditions were imposed by the council when the lease was negotiated. In pursuance of his covenants, our client has spent a large sum in fencing, clearing and grassing the land, and, after seven years’ work, has got the property into a productive state. Pollution Was Considered “We understand the question of pollution was considered by the council at the time the lease was arranged, so that the council was fully aware of the possible effect of farm stock being put on the land. No suggestion that pollution was actually occurring arose, however, until within the last 12 months when a medical officer suggested that pollution might be occurring. Immediately this suggestion came fo our client's knowledge, and without any request, from the council, he removed the cattle on the property to prevent pollution from this source. The council subsequently requested our client to keep the cattle off the land during negotiations about the lease. “The council asked our client Io meet it to discuss the question of removal of thhe stock and our client willingly did so. It was understood that the negotiations should be entirely without prejudice and it was on this basis that they were entered into. Our client was requested to consider the amount which would represent fair compensation to him if he surrendered his lease. He went into this mptter and subsequently, again without prejudice, met the council and indicated his idea of the value of the lease to him. We understand that before this the council had itself had a valuation made by a competent valuer of the lessee’s interest in the property. The estimate of the council’s valuer has not been disclosed to our client.

“At the second discussion with the council on the matter we were asked whether the estimate of our client as to value was final, or whether he was prepared to negotiate on a reduced basis. We indicated that the figure was merely an estimate and our client was prepared to consider counter proposals. No such proposals have been made. On the contrary, according to newspaper reports, the Mayor has stated that he will not be one to pay our client the sum he is asking, or the sum recommended by the council’s valuer. Following the second meeting with the council, we were advised by your letter of August 22 that the council had decided that no further steps should be taken in the matter of negotiating with our client for the determination of his lease. So far as our client is concerned the matter ended there. We now find, however, as stated above, that the council is taking a step which can only mean that it desires to dispossess our client without reasonable compensation. If the council desires to resu - io the property it has ample Statutory powers to do so on payment of compensation assessed by agreement or by an Assessment Court. Obligations Performed “In view of the circumstances surrounding the granting of the lease and the faithful manner in which our client has performed his obligations, we think it is extraordinary that the council should seek to deprive our client of his right to fair and reasonable compensation. “The negotiations with the council were distinctly understood to be without prejudice and it will be distinctly improper for the council to disclose any figures discussed in these negotiations. “A copy of this letter is being forwarded to the Minister.”