The Foreshore Question.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 666, 1 October 1891, Page 3

The Foreshore Question.

At the meeting of the Borough Council on Tueedey evening, Or Whinray renewed the eubjeot of the foreshore, urging that a oom. tnittee be appointed to go into it again. Hi thought that neither the Council nor the Board had comprehended the seriousness of the matter, but as the question for granting a site for a slip had not been finally decided there was still hope—if the Council did not take action in the matter it would be a grave reflection on them. He pointed out that the Board’s right was only from high water mark—were the Board to get a revenue for allowing a slip to go in the mud, and the Council to get nothing lot it, portion of land above high water mark? There were a couple of houses on the Council’s property, from which they got no revenue. The Board was straining at a gnat and ignoring the interests of the township. He moved that the Mayor, and Cre Dunlop, Scmervell, and the mover be a ooratnittaa to report on the whole question of forerhore and the contingent interest, bf the Borough, The Mayor said ths Board were quite h«are that they could only let land up to high water mark, and would not let what they had no title to. The Council could not let the public road, but they could at any time order encroachments to be removed. The old brewery encroached on the road, and also a portion of Common, Shelton and Co’s etore, but these matters had long since been gone into, With reference to the former it was considered peedlesa to put anyone to the expense of removal, but in case the building was destroyed to make the road the proper width, and in regard to the second they had been glad to get the matter eettled on account of complications concerning the lower etore. The revenue they received was In the shape of rates. Or Whinray said It was an anomaly that a private individual could derive a revenue from a shed that was partly on Borough (property, and partly on the foreshore—if there was a revenue to be got the Council »hwM get It.

Cr Joyce said the remedy was to order them off. The road was at present quite wide enough for all purposes and he did not see why they should prevent anyone using it until the Council required it. Cr Whinray did not think <£lo w'ould be given for the foreshore site unless with the expectation of being allowed to use the Council’s property. Cr Lewis seconded the motion, agreeing with the Mayor that if it did no good no harm could come of it. Cr Dunlop said if they objected to the use of the Borough property they should at least let Mr Burns know—the foreshore would be no use, except with the right to build on the roadway. Cr Joyce said the slip would not encroach on the road. Every man had a right to the use of a public road —[The Mayor : Not to buiid on. |—no, but for traffic. It would be time enough to have enquiries made when there was likely to be encroachment—the road would still be there when Councillors were all dead. The appointment of a Committee was agreed to without dissent.