WAIMANA CONTROVERSY

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 6, Issue 51, 26 February 1943, Page 4

WAIMANA CONTROVERSY

Sir, —Considerable publicity lias been given in the Beacon to the explanation from the County Solicitor regarding the cause of the deilay in taking certain areas of land. Perhaps you will allow me space, to point out that in this long explanation the one item—which is the crux of the whole matter —has been omitted. From that explanation—■ that is the County Solicitor's instructions from the Council regarding the taking of these two areas of land. On the 30th January, 4J, X was * advised b.v letter from the County * Clerk that an area of land was. to be - . taken under the Public Works Act for the protection of Kirkbride's „ ' bridge. The owner of the land received the same •notification and i without doubt a similar notice was i forwarded to the County Solicitor. | Notwithstanding this notification the County Solicitor failed to notify the Minister of Public Works that the land Avas required for the protection of. the bridge, and again when the Minister definitely stated | by letter that the Proclamation for taking the land would, be issued without further delay if the request was that the land was: required for . protection purposes. In spite of this definite notification from the Minister, the County Solicitor still insisted in advising the Minister that the land was re- ■ _.. quired for a plantation. It was left for me to represent the position correct'y to the Minister, when his reply came at once. "In view of your representations my Department has decided to accept the memorial as to the area required for road." Although it is now over two years since the Council decided to take this land the Proclamation for the bridge protection has not yet been issued.; The. need for a full inquiry into matters connected with this road becomes more apparent after read- - ing correspondence . in the County: minutes book which has not been • published. Letters from the manager of thtf\». State Advances Corporation plainly indicate that he had been-supplied „. with inaccurate information from the. occupier of the land and. also a letter from the County Solicitor stating that in his opinion a local authority has no legal right to treat as a road land which is in , process of being taken for a road—his client having asked his; (the County Solicitor) advice in this matter. This meant that if the Council concurv' y. red in this view my access would have been closed until this long de- . layed process of taking land under the Public Works Act. was finalised. I have, the evidence in letters from Ministers of the Crown that , some person in this County has supplied wrong information to Government Departments in regard to* these matters and B consider it is the duty of the Council as the controlling authority to -discover the source, of this Avrong information. Yours etc., G. KIRKBRIDE. 4