"Dog In Manger”

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 499, 31 October 1928, Page 1

"Dog In Manger”

CITY AND DIXIELAND BATHS DECISION TO BE CONTESTED “We fee! it well -worth while to follow the advice of our solicitor to seek an Order-in-Council, * enabling us to put the baths on the site a chain from the shore opposite the council property in spite of the dog-in-the-manger attitude adopted by the committee to-day,” states Dr. F. J. Rayner on behalf of Dixieland, Ltd., referring to yesterday’s decision of the City Council Parks Committee. The committee decided not to ii£t the injunction restraining , Dixieland, Ltd., from building baths near the cliffs at the north end of Point Chevalier Beach. “We are going to contest the committe’s decision, and ask the Government to transfer the permit granted us to enable the erection of baths at the point off the City Council property, but standing off one chain,” said Dr. Rayner. Dr. Rayner is advised that the City Council’s riparian rights extend only to mean high-water mark, and that the area outside that limit is controlled by the Marine Department. Dr. Rayner made it clear the company had been granted a licence to construct the baths in front of the cabaret, but the issue of the licence had been held up, pending the decision of the Parks Committee of the council yesterday. Dr. Rayner claimed the evidence at the recent commission on the matter had shown the site under the cliff was the proper one for the baths, as the area was -rocky, there was no sand, and that part of the foreshore was not used. “The company has as great a vested interest there as the City Council,” said Dr. Rayner, “and we felt we would prefer to build on the site opposite the council property, where we would be hurting no one. The committee has decided otherwise, but we claim that in that decision it is not reflecting the views of the mass of the people, who have said distinctly that they prefer the company and not the council to give the service. The council’s first attitude was that it did not want the beach interfered with, and did not want the baths built on the sandy portion of the beach. To-day the chairman of the committee, Mr. Knight, and Mr. Paterson and Mr. Donald said they did not care what was done about the beach. They were interested only in the council’s riparian rights. Their whole attitude has been most inconsistent. It is only out of public consideration the company had endeavoured to build on the site by the cliffs,” said Dr. Rayner. “It was far more convenient to erect the baths in front of the cabaret.”