35732
}
was not referring to actual
land, but to water area, wh.,
certain circes. is no
of value to the colony,
}
wh, in
}
doubs potentially
im
A. l.
cates
where the water frontage is occupied by mayi me los holders
magnolas haldeans who are
willing to make
reclamations in front of
their
property &
to pay the Gool, in return for permission to make such reclamns,
a
premium & Crown rent in respect of the reclaimed
The foreshore & sea bed devoted
area.
to the Naval yd. extn. & to the reclamn. in front of the War Dep! property ed. not have been permitted to be reclaimed by & leased to
any private individuals therefore had no potential value to the
unless & until either of the
bol.
Your
Imperial Depts agreed to reclaim the
water,
on
boy was
ilcowed by thebol. fou
made,
referred to in the
The water area 2nd par of this desk was not actually
Naval lands
39
in front of Ading baby tapparity, but it lay between property belonging to the
& the property known as the
occupied by the Adet
Rang,
Briquette factory wh has since been purchased by the Admy (see 1678/02-87
was not
previous correspondence) & simmediately in front of any
front of any masine lot
I therefore had no lettable value to the bol Govt
B-0
that the same
practically argument applies. as also to the case of the pier referred to in par 4, whhh part of the same work
&
viz
such reclamns, being
Sconsides only reasonable
that the Adiny.
& War Dept shd hold
sent
An
the
free of as those on wh. they held
the reclaimed area. same termo
the land in front of wh the reclamn.
was made,
it can
that in this.
way
a contribution of
over
hardly be argued the bol fort made
Hi omo to the
Impl, foot seeing that the water area
wh, is being reclaimed at the expense of the Imp. Sool., had no
letting value to the Colony.
the proposed extension to the Kowloon Naval Yaard.
Draffs for cumin
[The above.
The above is the best ar
is the best argument adduce in favour of
against the bol govt.
matter was
6062/9
&
I can
our views
Ara
The whole.
on
discussed in minutes