CO129-431 - Governor Sir May - 1916 [1-2] — Page 346

J

1

344

reference was made to you concerning the lease of these portions of streets but I find that on the 14th. August, 1899, lär. Ormsby, at that time Director of Public Works, wrote to the Chief Manager of the Hongkong and Whampoa Dock Company, Limited, who had applied for the area to be dealt with as an extension of his Company's lots which were held on 999 years leases, informing him that the Government had decided that there were "no such special circums- -tances to urge as would justify a recommendation to the Secretary

should of State that the land be sold on other than the conditions now ruling, namely, a lease for 75 years with option of renewal for one further term of 75 years on an amended Crown Rent",

+

In view of the above considerations I would

recommend that new leases for Hunghom Inland Lot No. 256 and Hunghom Inland Lot No. 24 be issued for terms of 75 years renewable for one period of 75 years on the usual conditions, unless you are disposed to entertain the prayer of the petitioners.

4.

As regards Hunghom Marine Lot No. 3, this lot was sold by public auction in December, 1906, on a 99 years lease renewable for one further term of 99 years at a reassessed Crow Rent. Under the conditions of sale the purchaser was bound to reclaim the entire area of the lot, which extends into the sea,

and to expend thereon a sum of not less than $40,000 in rateable

improvements. The clause concerning the expenditure on these im-

-provemente was only inserted in case the lot should be purchased

by some party other than the Hongkong and Whampoa Dock Company,

Limited. The latter required the area for possible extension of

their premises and nothing was stipulated in the correspondence

with them prior to the sale regarding a building covenant. The

principle involved in the concession underlying this special arrangement formed the subject of Sir Frederick Lugard's Despatch No. 291 of 25th. November, 1907, and was approved by Lord Elgin's Despatch No. 10 of 8th. January, 1908, and I would now recommend that the condition for the reclamation of the lot might be allowed to remain in abeyance. The Company will doubtless proceed with it

14837/07

: