UNTIDY WATERFRONT

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 3, Issue 269, 10 February 1941, Page 5

UNTIDY WATERFRONT

COMPLAINT OF BOROUGH COUNCIL APPEAL TO HARBOUR BOARD) The fact that people with premises bordering the right of way along the waterfront parallel with the Strand were depositing rubbish at the water's edge and on the space between the road and the water, was the subject of a complaint by the Borough Council to the Harbour Board on FridJay. The council requested the board to force the occupiers of the business premises to cease causing the nuisance by, if necessary, framing a by-law.

Mr G. G. Lucas, to the Board, reported that he had written to the occupiers pointing out thaiobjection was being taken' to the deposits of rubbish and asking them to refrain from using the space in such a manner. The secretary, stated that, although the Council had suggested that lli'i matter should not be dealt with in the form of a respectful request from the Board, but that the occupiers should be told "to hop to it," he had found by experience that il" a respectful request was made 90 per cent of the people would fulfil it, and then if others did not toe the line more strong incasures could be adojited.

The chairman, Mr J. W. Sumner, advised the meeting that the Board already had a by-law covering the deposit of rubbish and that, it" necessary, this could be enforced. However, he did not think such stringent measures would require to be adopted, agreeing with the secretary that the leasees of Board's property and others would no doubt co-operate in a friendly spirit. He considered that to adopt the attitude suggested by the Borough Council would disturb the. friendly feeling now existing between the Board- aad the

occupiers

The chairman continued that he considered the Board had the means at its own disposal to have the nuisance abated in that the duty of the health inspector was to see that no such offences occurred. However, the Borough wished the Board to take action, and thus it was the Board's duty to do so. There were, though, two ways of doing so and lie agreed with the method of thte secretary. Mr Ticknor asked whose duty it would be to take action if Occupiers did not respond to the request. The secretary replied that both bodies could take action, but preferably the Board. The chairman added that it was the Board's obligation to see that there was nothing offensive on the river banks'between the bridge and the Heads as, for instance, dead animals the expense of moving such being the liability of the Board.

The secretary suggested that the Borough Council could be notified that the Board had sent out notices regarding the rubbish and that if the Council coitftk--£upply evidence that the request was not being observed then the Board woudd take further action.

It was decided on the motion of Messrs W. R. Boon and R. PauldJjck that the Board agreed with the letter sent to occupiers by the secretary and that, if required, the Board would take further action to have the land kept clcan.