Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE FORESHORE QUESTION.

PROTEST DECIDED UPON. A special meeting of the Borough Council was held yesterday afternoon to consider the action taken by the Harbor Board in leasing to Messrs Common, Shelton and Co, that portion of the foreshore above ths Taruheru bridge. There were present: The Mayor (Mr Townley), aud Ors Whinray, Dunlop, Lucas, Hording, Coleman, Hepburn, Lewie, Taylor, and McLernon. The Mayor again related the circumstances in connection with the matter. The piece of land in question abutted on the Borough’s reserve, and was also near the bridge, and he thought it was the Council’s place to decide whether they should take action or not. He (himself) had so far tmmcoetsf u:ly opposed the lease. The lease had been prepared, but he did not know whether it had yet been sent to the Matins Department, The meeting had been called in response to a request from several Councillors, and it was now for the Council to decide whether action of any kind should be taken in the matter. The Harbor Board's decision was then read. Cr. Dunlop said "when the matter was previously before the Council the members were] unanimous in the opinion that the leasing of the site would not be to the advantage of the residents in the Borough. They had now the Board’s answer stating that that body did not consider the objections strong enough tojwithdraw from the position already taken up in the matter. He did not see how they well could have withdrawn, and now it was for the Council to take action of itself. He did not question the right of the Board to lease tbe foreshore, but there wao a proper way and a proper time to do it. Some plan should have been prepared showing the portions proposed to be leased and also as to the width, so that at a future time when the whole of the foreshore was leased there would be a continuous line ot buildings. He understood ths portion now proposed to be leased was for the full width without any stipulation whatever as to how much of that portion was to ba used for a building. It had always been the aim of Boards controlling rivers to have ai straight a course as possible—to have a uniform width. In time the channel of the river would probably be too narrow for the traffic. But the main objection they had to deal with at present was that of the cost of opening ths bridges and the inconvenience caused by the interruption of traffic. It bad been estimated that in return tor an annual expenditure of £lOO there would be £2B in rent, and the interests of the Borough and County were closely allied to each other. There would be no adequate quid pro quo for the expense —besides having to suffer the inconvenience they would have to put their hands into their pockets and pay for that inconvenience. It the amount of rental wore greater and certain regulations made, probably there might not have been any great objection to that portion ot the foreshore being leased. Tbey had also to consider whether the navigation of the river would net be seriously interfered with by the vends lying alongtidq

the wharf that would ba erected ; and tbe erection of the buiMiuq cnold probably cause an accumu'stion of rubbish, resulting in ths channel being diverted towards the opposite bank, and milking altera'.ions to the swing of the bridge neo«-<-nr>’. This would lead to great expense, and if such a contingency did arise he did not think th * expense should be birne by the Council. Ha was loth to do anything that would iuterfere with local enterprise, but he objected to one person bring benefited to the detriment of the community, and it seemed to him that it wou'd be so in thia case. It they did not take the opportunity of protesting now they would have no right to complain in the future. An argument had been used at the Harbor Board meeting that the public bad beau given sufficient time to consider tbe matter. He did not think sufficient time to consider the matter had been taken by the Harbor Board. The question was introduced just at a time when members seemed panic stricken at finding they had come to the end of their funds sooner than they had expected, and were like a drowning man catching at straws : and those interested bad taken the opportunity to secure the lease. He then gave an instance of bow the Yarra river had been affected through uo restrictions being placed upon the buildings to be erected, among which were boiling down establishments, which caused a most disagreeable state of things. When he (Gr Dunlop) last went tn Melbourne these buildings had been abolished (probably with the aid of compensation) and the river was being stra'ghtened out at an expense of some millions of pounds. Cr Whinray considered Cr Dunlop had reviewed the principal objections. In hie travels he had never seen a building taking ‘he whole area from high to low water mark. He believed it would result in altering the channel, and therefore the swing of the bridge. He also pointed out the great inconvenience to the rising Gisborne North suburbs. He said if he had been allowed the same privilege as was offered in this case, he would be dubious in erecting a buillding to low water mark, because they would always have to shift their bouts in case any other vessel wanted to come up. Or Lewis thought the mndbanks should be reserved up as far as Grey Street for public wharf purposes, because as traffic increased this would be required, and in time there would be a good revenue to be derived wharfage purposes. There was no Isnf the southern pile that could be reclaimed building purposes. It was absurd for them put £2O in one pocket and take £lOO out ot another. He pointed out the absurdity ot supposing that there was any distinction between the ratepayers. So far as the firm was concerned be considered it acted perfectly fair and it was smart business tact ou ths part of Mr Shelton. Ha would have dons the same thing himself it he wanted the section end had a big body like the Harbor Board to d-al with. It was tbe weakness of tbe Board in letting the section for so small a sum that be principally objected to. Cr Coleman did not agree that the foreshore should not be leased to private parties, but he would like to have it on some proper system, giving a continuous line down the river. Provided they went the right way about it, he thought there could be no objection. The question of expense of opening the bridges was the one that most concerned them now. He had seen Mr Shelton, and the probability was his firm would use a punt for conveying goods from the steamer and was not likely to engage lighters to bring goods just from the steamers. The present cost was an average of eight shilings a week for two vessels, and he did not think it would be any more. He thought the Board was acting rightly in doing anything that would give increased facilities to country people to get their goods away at a cheaper rate. The building was to be erected on piles and therefore would not interfere with the course of the river, and any such point would be attended to by the Marine Department. If there were any real grounds for them to offer opposition he would be in favor of it being done, but as there were no such reasons he did not think they should dictate to the Harbor Board. Cr McLernon, who also said he had conferred wi h Mr Shelton, thought Cr Coleman looked at the matter in areasonableand proper light. ■SiThe Marine Department would decide as to the question of the river, end as to the sum derived that was a matter purely for the Harbor Board, He would like to see a piece of foreshore selected nearer the wharf, but it seemed to him there was a principle involved, and it they set their f ines against it they must consistently set thrir faces against improvements up the river in future. Would it be wise for them, say for instance a flourmill was to be erected in the upper part of the town, to say they would object to it oecause the traffic occasioned would out up the roads ’—that was aiparallei case. No one had thought of offering objection to the freezing works. He pointed out that the building did not go to the low water mark, and therefore would not interfere with the traffic. Tbs lease was only for a limited period. He eaw no ground tor interfering in the matter.

Or Harding agreed wi'h Ors Coleman and McLernon. He had himself gone to Mr Shelton and asked him as to the expense ot opening the bridges, and after going into ths matter ho found that it would only lake from £7 to £lO a year. He now found that the section did not encroach on the Borough reserve, and be did not think there was any reason why they should interfere in the matter. Cr Coleman said as Mr Johnston had objected to the lease as being a * soft' thing, the Board could easily settle the matter by advertising tbe foreshore for lesse and then, according to that view, they would get good value for it. Cr Dunlop remarked on the fact that Cr» Coleman and Harding had seen Mr Shelton, and that gentleman was going to do this and that—that there was nothing of the kind in the lease, and if those privileges were not required they could easily fix that up in the lease. They might just as wall have made Messrs Common, Shelton and Co. a gift of the property. As to the statement that no objection had been made to the freezing works he pointed out was an industry of benefit to the in any case the works were out of Borough, and they had no voice in the matter. If they sent the. protest to the Marine Department there would be an investigation, and though the lease might be got, it would only be got under different conditions to those in the present lease. Cr Whinray said they had tne comforting assurance that the Marine Department would attend to the matter, but if that Department show ed no better skill than it had in regard to the breakwater it would be a very nice thing to rely on. After some discussion as to whether there would be any obstruction in the channel, Or Coleman said it they wore going to make any objeolioris they should not give their unprofessional opinions, but get those of some man competent to deal with the matter. Cr Lucas said that was ths business of the Marins Department, on receiving the protest, to go into the matter and decide upon ‘.he professional points. The Mayor said their protest would cell tbe attention of tbe Murine Department to it. If they stood idly by, end this proved objection, able, Councillors would ba blamed for it. Jkt to Or McLernon’s argument about a flour mill, of course they would permit it, but not on the road. He further pointed out that there Were no other sections up ths river that could be leased, because it all adjoined private property. Or. Whiray said one thing to consider wee tbs’, if they wanted to enlarge the bridge there was no provision for it, and there was also much vexation at the probable interference of traffic through the opening ot the bridges. Cr. Harding said well tbey ought not to have had them there. Cr. Lucas moved, That the Council object to the leasing by tbe Harbor Board of that portion of the foreshore lying between Peel and Bright streets, upon tfie grounds that the buildings proposed to be erected in the position about to be leased will interfere with navigation by J diverting the course of the channel, and be detrimental to the public health of the Borough, and that the Marine Department bo requested to approve of some qualified person to report on the matter before its consent is given to the lease. Cr Hepburn seconded. The motion was then carried. For: Mayor, and Oto. Lucas, Hopburn, Whinray; Lewie, Dunlop, and Taylor. Against t On. Coleman) Harding, and McLernon.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GSCCG18900617.2.8

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 468, 17 June 1890, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
2,106

THE FORESHORE QUESTION. Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 468, 17 June 1890, Page 2

THE FORESHORE QUESTION. Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 468, 17 June 1890, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert