"AGAINST ADVICE"

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 32, 7 February 1930, Page 14

"AGAINST ADVICE"

NAPIER HARBOUR DISPUTE

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —In your issue of tlic 3rd February appears an article headed "Against Advice," which deals with the much-disputed harbour question at ~apicr. Some statements therein are such that I cannot allo-w them to go unchallenged, one of which is as follows: "Without hesitation wo assert . . . the estimated values of the proposed reclamation made by ... Mr. B. D. Holmes are extravagant and unreliable." ~ Our firm, Messrs. B. W. Holmes and Son, partners being Messrs. E. W. and J. D. Holmes, were instructed by the board to preparo an estimate of the probable value of the land formed by depositing dredgings from the- inner harbour basin in the Lagoons, etc., and to place our estimate before- the Boyal Commission. Wo formed our estimate by obtaining the advico of persons familiar with the land values in Napier, and studying the returns being obtained 'from lands previously reclaimed, etc., etc. We made what wo and our advisers consider a conservative estimate,.arid; the only way to prove the matter is to: reclaim the land and watcH;developments, which I consider would bja-apid, if everybody put their shoulder to Napier's wheel of progress instead "of ' being dissipated as at present.'..; ; ,: :'■. We draw attention to another of the statements as follows: "Is all expert advice to be ignored and highly technical problems to be decided by the popular vote.'' Also as follows: "We strongly object to the board's present policy as being opposed to the overwhelming expert -evidence and to the Royal Commission's recommendation." The best way to answer these statements 5" to briefly outline some of the evidence given before the Commission, and let the readers judge for them"selves as to the state of things and the value of the evidence given, and also the value of the Boyal Commission's report. Both Mr. B. W. Holmes and Mr. J. D. Holmes gave evidence boforo the Commission, and stated that in tho estimates they had prepared the unit cost of large masses of similar concrete at the inner harbour was £2 10s and at the outer harbour for the breakwater was £2 15s per cubic yard, the increased: cost being due to having to lift the 30-ton concrete blocks several times, etc. I stated that to our estinr > for the outer harbour a contractor would have to add a sum to cover risk from damage due to storms and wave action.

Mr. F. W. Furkert, marine engineer, gave evidence that the cost of concrete in the blocks required for the outer harbour would be 27s 6d per cubic yard and the cost of transporting the 30-ton blocks about- 4000 ft along a breakwater exposed to the open ocean and placing them, in position would bo only 2s 6d per cubic yard, making a total of 30s per cubic yard. Tho cost of the inner .harbour mass concrete as placed by, Mm before the Commission had been estimated at £2 10s per cubic yard. • That is, according to his estimates concrete placed in sheltered waters in'tue inner harbour would cost £,2 10s per cubic yard, while similar concrete east into blocks, then lifted, transported, and placed into works exposed to all the fury of ocean storms would cost only £1 10s per cubic yard. ,

Any person who can reason must realise the absurdity of such estimates. Realising the effect of such statements on the Commission' as constituted, I, with the board's pormission, requested Mr. Charles Pulley to give ovidence, which he did. Mr. Pulley, as far as I know, as had the greatest experience

of anybody as a contractor and constructor of mai'ino works in New Zealand. • carried out tho construction of wharves; in Wellington, concrete moles at Patea, training walls at Wairoa, and the greatest and most successful work .of all, the construction of tho huge. concrete reclamation wall hero at Thorndon. He has backed his knowledge and opinions with his money, and he has mado a success of his work and made money. Ho stated that he would not undertake tho work of building the breakwater at the outer harbour for less than he received for the work at Thomdon, and that was £2 18s per-cubic yard. Two other contractors gavo estimates at £2 17s lid and £2 12s lid.

■ It will be seen that our estimate of £2 15s is about a mean of that given by the various contractors, but when the amount for risk was added to our price it would- be proportionately higher. But what of tho marine engineer's estimate of £1 10s for tho same work. Tho marine engineer's estimate for the outer- harbour works was approximately £_400,000-JJ. W. Holmes and: Son's estimate was approximately £.1,000,000; whilo the niarino engineer's estimates fo rthe various works at the inner harbour were with one or two exceptions the same as Messrs. B. W. Holmes and Son's estimates.

Tho evidence as to the estimated cost,of rock is just as illuminating as that for .concrete, also much of tho other evidence. The Boyal Commission adopted the cost of mass concrete for the inner harbour £2 10s and outer harbour £1 12s 6d, and these figures show clearly the value; of that Coirynission 's report to.this country, and inl*-particu-lar to the Napier Harbour district as a whole.

In my opinion, that Commission's report is against the welfare of the district, and as the Commission's report was very damaging' to my father and myself, mo in particular, I consider a complete examination and inquiry should be. made . into the evidence placed before the Commission and into the Boyal Commission's report, etc. Surely father and myself are entitled to similar or equal protection to that being claimed by the- authors of the letter that you have published. , Mr. B. W. Holmes gavo most emphatic ovidenco in favour of tho inner harbour, and as there is no engineer who has had as long and as varied an experience on harbour and kindred works in New Zealand, -1 1 can justly claim to be the leading engineer versed in such matters in this country.

Evidently tho majority of tno people who voted were satisfied, as they returned nine inner aud three outer harbour '■andidates.

Mr. F. W. Furkert, marine engineer, reported ia favour of the outer harbour in 1924. In 1927 lie gave- evidence beforo tho Koyal Commission in favour of tho outer harbour. Ho is a member of the Local .bodies Loans Board which is now dealing with tho matter, and it, as stated in the article under discussion, has refused to sanction the expenditure of loan moneys available on inner harbour works. In the above I am in no way championing either side, but people must not go round making and publishing statements that are not in accordance with fact, or that belittle father or myself, particularly in our professional capacities. —I am, .etc., J. D. HOLMES, D.5.0., M.lnst. C.E.

sth I'ebruary