THE WESTERN WHARF.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 305, 24 December 1924, Page 4

THE WESTERN WHARF.

The terms of the commission given to Mr. E. F. Moore and Mr. G. T. Niccol, "to report on the best means of removing and reinstating the Western wharf," gave them wide scope, and consequently they may be held to be entitled to present such a comprehensive interim report as came before the Harbour Board yesterday. This report, however, is such that in our opinion further advice should be taken before it is acted upon. The two engineers who reported on the collapse of the Western wharf, Messrs. Williams and Furkert, expressed the opinion that the portion that still stands was "disintegrating under the same influences which caused the collapse of the portion gone," and that the stress and strain could only be removed by removing filling, wall, and rubble. It was recommended, also, that the submerged part be blasted away. Messrs. Moore and Niccol are of opinion that 580 ft of the standing wharf is perfectly safe for immediate use, and they recommend other measures for dealing with the ground behind it and the collapsed portion. The Board yesterday adopted this report to the extent I Qfjjeciding to put the first 580 ft of the W? rf to immediate use. A factor in this decision was the chairman's statement that to remove the filling would mean handling 34,000 yards of stuff at about a pound a yard, an estimate which will give some idea of what this Western wharf mishap may cost the port. It seems to us that the Board is making a mistake. The report of Messrs. WilUama and Furkert, both of whom are engineers, has been adopted. It is possible that, the recommendations of Messrs. Moore and Niccol, only one of whom is an engineer, will be endorsed by the Commissioners. At any rate, the Commissioners should be asked for their opinion on this report before anything is done. To accept the findings of a Commission, and then to begin to put into operation the recommendations of two other men who carry less weight, recommendations which conflict with the Commission's report, is a curious way to handle a serious matter.