RATEPAYERS' PROTEST.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 58, 10 March 1927, Page 17

RATEPAYERS' PROTEST.

MILFORD BEACH SCHEME. CULVERT AND PROMENADE. AN INJUNCTION THREATENED. No fewer than three lawyers represented a deputation which waited on the Takapuna Borough Council last evening to object to the council's proposal to construct a storage culvert and 16ft promenade along Milford Beach. In outlining the ratepayers' objections to the scheme, Mr. H. Rogerson said that the primary objection was a legal one. Under the Municipal Corporations Act the council had power to lay out a sewerage scheme, but not to take any land. The council, however, adopting •n unusual course, had decided to proceed under the Public Works Act, but before the work could be carried out the council would have to prove that the 16ft strip of beach was required for drainage. If the council decided to proceed with the scheme, he would apply for an injunction to prevent the work. Messrs. A. M. Gould and G. H. Campbell also appeared for property holders at Milford. .

Mr. J. Dawson, a civil engineer, was called by Mr. Kogerson to give evidence against the proposal. He said that the taking of the proposed 16ft strip of beach was not necessary for drainage. In his oj>inion the construction of a promenade above the culvert would tend materially to weaken the latter structure. The action of the tide would probably alter the main features of the beach and might even leave an expanse of bare rock. In his opinion the construction of the culvert could be done yithout taking any land. A sewer, laid in the beach itself, would be safe from the effects of storms. Continuing, Mr. Dawson said that there would be a grave danger with the discharge of the sewerage at Black Rock. He believed that the sewerage would become a nuisance by coming into the Arbour and on to the North Shore beaches. He thought it likely that the advert would strain and crack and thus emit objectionable odours. In answer to the borough engineer j[Mr- A. Slinger) Mr. Dawson said that ne had never carried out float testa in the locality. Mr. A. H. Wilkie asked what was the difference between the city's outfall "ewer at Orakei and the proposed outfall at Black Rock. The city system, replied Mr. Dawson, worked by pumps, while the system would depend on gravitaWhen questioned by members of

the council Mr. Dawson admitted that he did not know the proposed depth of the outfall or how far out it was to go. Mr. F, E. Powell, a consulting engineer, gave similar evidence, expressing his opinion that the promenade scheme was not advisable. He did not, however, believe that the sewerage would be carried into the harbour. It was impossible to say whether the proposed promenade would withstand the force of heavy seas or in what way the structure would affect the formation of the beach. He did not like the idea of vertical walls for a structure such as was proposed. In answer to Mr. Wilkie, Mr. Powell said that a groin system might remedy all defects. If the culvert was formed on a rock surface the job would be as good as could be done. He believed that the council were adopt* ing a risk at a serious expense, if they proceeded with their proposal. A sewer in the sand would be perfectly safe.

Mr. A. M. Gould reminded the council that float tests made in 1922 by the council's own engineering staff had shown the outfall at Black Rock to be a risk. He was prepared to contest the right of the council to spend a. penny of the drainage loan on the construction of the proposed promenade above the culvert. The fact that the council proposed to take a portion of the beach for the purpose of constructing a drain was the point which the objectors to the scheme would fight, remarked Mr. Rogerson. Mr. Campbell called evidence to show that the construction of the promenade would seriously affect contractors who owned "sand" sections along the beach. Prior to the retirement of the deputation the Mayor (Mr. J. D. Morison) said the matter had given the council much concern. The point now in dispute was purely a legal one. It was agreed that the counsel for the objectors to the scheme should be notified as soon as the council deciled to carry out the proposal. During the evening a letter was received from the Takapuna Ratepavers' and Progressive Association, asking whether it was considered that the proposed culvert and promenade would be safe in the event of a severe storm from the north or north-east, and what would be the difference in cost in carrying the sewer along an inshore route. It was decided that the association be informed that in the opinion of the engineer the culvert would be perfectly safe and that the estimated costs of both the beach and inshore routes were the same.