HUTT COMMISSION

Dominion, Volume 38, Issue 3, 28 September 1944, Page 6

HUTT COMMISSION

Petone Borough’s View Of Harbour Scheme RIVER DIVERSION OPPOSED Connected by transport facilities to Wellington Harbour, the Petone Borough did not want a harbour established at or near the mouth of the Hutt River unless it were proved to be self-supporting,, said the mayor. Mr. H. Green, when giving evidence before the commission which is now sitting in Wellington under the chairmanship of Sir Francis Frazer to inquire into the Hutt Valley harbour aud industrial development scheme. The harbour should be located at or near Point Howard. not at the river mouth, and construeed so that there was no risk to the artesian water supply, be said. There should be no diversion of the Hutt River and every precaution should be taken with any reclamation works to prevent pollution of the foreshore reserve. River diversion would interfere with the sewage system, McEwan Park, and cause shoaling and increased deposits of debris along the foreshore. No railway should be laid along the Esplanade to the proposed new bridge, which should be constructed only for road traffic. The bridge should be in line with Wnione Street and over the present riyer. Reclamation of the area at the river month should proceed according to the P.W.D. plan, with any necessary modifications to allow a harbour at Point Howard if required in the future. Sewerage disposal plans should be tor the whole valley, including Wainui-o-mata. If the general development scheme advocated by the Government Town Planner were adopted, the Petone sewage coqld be pumped to Hutt and the combined disposal main taken through the hills to Wainui, picking up the sewage froih this new settlement. The most urgent requirement was the definite location of the new Hutt pipe bridge, said Mr. Green. This information was required so that Petone could undertake the planning of the block between Jackson and Waione Streets, and involving the extension of Adelaide Street. The possibilities of the development scheme making provision for a seaplane base should be examined, said Mr. Green. Growth of Industry. “The Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce and Industry neither supports nor opposes the construction of a harbour, said Mr. E. F. Rothwell. “It is representative of practically the whole of the heavy and light industrial firms and also the commercial firms of the Hutt Valley, and by reason of this constitution it has a knowledge of the growth of industry in the valley which is more specially phenomenal during the last 20 years or so. The statistics relating to this are not available from any other source because such records are merged with the Wellington metropolitan area and are not capable of dissection from the official records available. The task undertaken by the chamber is not to advocate a harbour or any particular harbour but merely to place before the commission the statistics and proved facts of which it is in possession and which are not otherwise available. The development of the Hutt Valley is not a local or parochial matter ;/it is a national matter. In the valley we have an area of land perhaps 10 miles long, with an average width of two miles. From a point of view of central position, access to labour, access to transport, and available flat land for factory building, the valley . occupies a unique position in the Dominion. It is a national asset and its development is for the national benefit. The Government recognises this point of view in appointing Mr. Mawson, a Government officer, to undertake the production of a development scheme. “The valley already houses the largest railway workshop in New Zealand engaged in locomotive and wagon manufacture (and this installation constitutes the largest single industry in New Zealand), three large car assembly plants, and also concerns manufacturing felt, carpets, slippers, woollen goods, tobacco products, meat products, soap, paint, hardware and numerous other articles. None of these concerns relies on the local market, but all manufacture for the Dominion market.

“The question of the practicability of the construction of a harbour is mainly economic, involving the possible elimination of the two-way transport cost at present involved. The question, however, is not wholly economic, as the difficulties of alternative transport expansion may be found to be such as would justify an expenditure on harbour construction which might not be undertaken if these factors were not given consideration. This is a matter on which we expect evidence will be provided by the Government departments concerned.”