OCEAN BEACH DOMAIN BOARD.

Evening Star, Issue 10691, 2 August 1898, Page 2

OCEAN BEACH DOMAIN BOARD.

■» Tiie adjourned meeting of the Ocean Beach Domain Board, held in the Town Hall this morning, wa9 attended by His Worship the Mayor (Mr E. B. Cargill), Messrs A. C. Begg, H. Gourley, J. H. Hancock, P. M'Gregor, C. Fisher, and F. Anderson.

Before proceeding with the adjourned business the Clerk (Mr VV. B. Taylor) read the followiug paper, which had been submitted by Mr Henry Youngman : In the year 1862, when I first visited it, the Ocean Beach was in a state as left by Nature—all sand quite up to the corner where now stands, or stood, part of the Esplanade. A few yeare later the property was sold, subdivided, and" an esplanade formed. The stones from this retaining wall, together with others that have since been carted on to the beach, have, and are, causing i-ll the mischief, or inroad of the tide, from the simple fact (well known to many that study the action of the waves on any seashore) that stones and sand cannot live together where there is any wave action. I wish to illustrate what I say. A person walking on sand makes an impression thereon, which is soon relevelled or totally obliterated after a fewwaves have passed over it. Now, observe the difference. A stone is deposited on the sandy beach anywhere. Immediately the first wave action strikes the stone a ring is formed round the stone, and the sand immediately makes a movement. This contiuued indefinitely round every stone causes the sand to leave, and the stone or stones sink down to the bed rock, which means that the sft or lift of dilference in the level between high and low tide is filled now with water to that volume, instead of sand as heretofore. When the water simply flowed on the top of a bed of sand of that thickness this sft to (ift of water rolls iu to do further damage und cut away more of the foreshore. The sand is always making in this neighborhood of St. Clair, which I know personally, as evidenced by the fact that the bathkeeper has had to employ men from time to time to clean sand out of the bath thrown in by the tide. The remedy for this is simple and inexpensive namely, cart all loose stones out from the foreshore on to the roads, or get the stones crushed for the roads in the vicinity. Immediately this is done to the extent, say, of two chains by three or so, you will see the sand make as fast as Nature —that is, the tides —bring it in. Secondly, make it a penal offence against persons that deposit stones on the foreshore. The sand will again make a perfect bar to further encroachments. It matters nothing by what agency the sand is removed, whether by hand, cartage, or the action of the waves on boulders or stones, the effect is the same—namely, an inroad of the tide in all cases. The protection of the foreshore near the battery can be accomplished with inexpensive facades of scrub, each 20ft to 30ft apart, extending through and past the tram terminus on the east. I trust, gentlemen, you will try your memories to verify what I say, you that have travelled in different parts of the world—namely, there is no sea beach in the world where sand and stoues can live or exist together where there is tidal wave action. Consequently, remove the stones.

Several members expressed their approval of Mr YouDgman's theory that the stones on the beach had caused the sand to shift. * The Cleek remarked that it had been said that the Moeraki boulders had caused the whole of the Hampden Beach to be lowered.

Mr Youngman's paper was reeeived

The Board then proceeded to the consider, ation of the Committee's report on the schemes for the conservation of tbe Sandhills, which had been adjourned from last meeting. Mr bEGG moved—" That the first clause of the Committee's report—namely, 'thata bank, 10(t wide at top and 20ft wide at base,' as proposed by Mr Pctre, be constructed on the landward side of the Sandhills, eastward from the defence reserve—be confirmed." At the previous meeting he had farther moved that tenders be called for the work at per ohain, but there was now no necessity for haste in that direction, as the works already done by the Defence Department had neutralised immediate danger of the sea breaking in. If his motion was carried it would enable the scheme to be put before the ratepayers. Mr Gourley seconded the motion.

I Mr Fisher moved, as an amendment—- " That the Board in the meantime simply ! ereot a fence, in continuation of that erected by the Defence Department, on the eastward and westward of the Central Battery." He and Mr Hancock were out at the beach yesterday, and they saw several places where the tide had come to the top of the embankment and lapped over. They noticed a number of sleepers and other materials lying about, and in order to utilise these they instructed men to erect a fence in a line with the battery. There were several reasons why a clay bank Bhould not be built. The property along where it was to be put did not belong to the Board, but was the private property of the Ocean Beach Railway Company, and it would have to be acquired by the Board before they could put the wall on it. In the second place, clay did not resißt the attack* of the waves so well as sand- did. Iu the third place, the wall, to be built where intended, would have the effect ' of making sandhills in St. Kildu, for the sand would blow over it, and instead of having sandhills to the seaward they would have them ranged along the paddocks in St. Kilda. At Anderson Bay they had an illustration of that. He thought that the bank proposed by Mr Petre would be a waste of money, and, further, he did not think they had power to erect it on the railway property. Mr Gourley thought they all admitted that something Bhould be done quickly. From what he could see yesterday at St. Clair and along the Ocean Beach work at once waa imperative, and it would be an expensive job to do it properly. He thought •> clay bank should be oontinued from where the sandbanks at present were to Proudfoot road. It war not a long distance, t n 1 would

makeaiJoraplefcejobof it Captain Mor ■on yesterday told him that tbe t came over the battery feno*, and t bat for the sandbags St. Kilda WO have been flooded. If it came over the battery fence It would come over 1 heirs also, unless they had something behind it. That was a very simple matter. He did not think it was advisable to discuss tbe project of protecting tbe St. Glair end at all, for, until they got power to borrow money, they could do nothing with it. That work was of such magnitude that £20,000 would not look at it. If th< y got power to borrow money then they would have to do the best they good, and if the money was not scfticient they would have to appeal to the Government.

The Chairman said that there was no necessity for troubling about the railway line, as a good deal tf it was already an effective protection against the sea.

Mr Bego said the idea was to have tbe bank inside the railway line. Mr Hancock seconded Mr Fisher's amendment pro forma. Mr M'Geeoor said that he would like to propose an amendment to the effect that there was not sufficient inft rJiation before the Board, and that they proceed to make farther inquiries. For his own part he did not approve of any of the plans suggested, and could not support them as a whole. Mr GotJRiiEY said he would not object to acting upon Mr M'Gregor's suggestion bnt for the fact that it kept the business back. Mr Beog said that they had got to submit a scheme before they could get a poll of the ratepayers, and before they submitted a Bcheme they must adopt one. The Chairman said that Mr Petre's report was prepared at his (Mr Cargill's) reqiot. He aeked him to report as to tbe Itixtl txpentive und most effective means of preventing the water cf the sea coming into tho Flat as it had done on a previous occasion. He thought the clay bank wonld be an effective and inexpensive way of doing that. If it were on tbe outside, like the Battery fence, the water might wash the clay away if it came up before the sand had time to collect.

The Clerk called attention to the provisions of the Act, and said he thought that they Bhould get the opinion of their legal adviser before they proceeded to construct any works on lands which were not included in t le schedules. The Chairman: Our fuactions are cona fined to the limits of our own property, and we have no legal standing outside of that We have nothing to do with the protection of the Flat. That is not one of the fanetior b laid down for us at all.

Mr Becg pointed out that Mr Fisher's amendment was not really an amendment to his (Mr Begg's) motion. It did not affect the question of the Board deciding to erect a clay bank. The Chairman agreed with this, and ruled that Mr Fisher's motion was not an amendment, as it did not negative or controvert Mr Begg's. It could come on as a substantive motion afterwardß.

Mtßego's motion on being put was lost, only the mover and Mr Gourley supporting

Mr Fisher's motion, lint a fence be erected on either side of the battery, was then put and carried unanimously. Mr Hancock said that it would now be necessary to have a resolution in the direction of having the trtffic kept off the Sandhills, and protecting them in the future. The Chairman said that to open up that discussion at that stage would be to do bo in the absence of any safeguard in the way of information. They had agreed that a fence on i\w iijgiiie of the Sandhills was the most effective thing to do. That was a very important matter for the Domain Board to attend to. Since Mr Begg had moved hie resolution with reference to St. Clair the circumstances had changed. The fact wa» that the sea had taken away the whole of the Esplanade, and had even taken away private property. All the land that lay within the line of the old wall was in the Borough of Caversham and outside the Domain Board's jurisdiction. It was quite clear that if anything was to be done in the direction of protecting St. Clair something would have to be devised on a much more extensive scale than anything they at present had before them. He had seen some of the people down at St. Clair this morning, and he had taken the opportunity of disabusing their minds of the impression that they had to look to the Domain Board as their protectors. Their only protector* were the Borough Council of Caversham.

Mr Begg asked if he was to understand the chairman to Btate that the whole of the property of the Board on the Bea-Bide of St. Clair had been swept away ? The Chairman : Yes, that is so. All inside the old wall which is now lying down in the water belongs to the Borough of Caversham. Mr Begc; : Then I do not know what we are doing litre. Mr Hancock : Hear, hear.

Mr Gourley said that Mr Fish introduced tbe Ocean Beach Domain Act for the purpose of giving a board power to conserve and beautify the Sandhills. It was mentioned at the time i hat if the Esplanade were reinstated and ihe Sandhills and St. Clair beautified it would be an inducement to tourists to come here. Therefore, he thought they had no right to say what was private property and what was not. The whole of the land, out&ide the Sandhills, from St. Clair to Liwyer Head was private property, and he thought tbey had a right to ask the ratepayers to protect the Sandhills for the whole of that distance. He hoped some action would be taken to give them power to borrow mcney, and that there would ba no more talk about private property. If the water came through at St. Clair or at Forbury road it would do very Utile harm to St. Kilda, but Dunedin would suffer more than any other place. It was the duty of the Board to try and protect the property, irrespective of who was the owner. Mr Fisher said that Mr R*>vnolda'a scheme atoned on tie right lines. It was a bio too grand, but, if modified a little, he thought it would meet all the requirements. He advocated the adoption of this scheme without the carpeting and extras. Th«ra was plenty of material in the cliff for the rubble wall, which could be made at a cost of about £SO a chain. He would move—" That this Board approve of Mr Reynolds's scheme in a modified form, without the esplanade, carpeting, or extras."

The Chairman said that Mr Gouriey waa right in a good deal that he had said. The business of the Board was to make the most tbey could of the Sandhills property as a place of recreation. It was the Domain of Dunedin. The work of conserving that in the manner suggested by Mr Fisher would cost £30,000. Mr Hakcock : No. Tne Chairman said he was piepared to take the opinion of people who Knew some* thing about it, and he had made inquiries. They had no power to protect private pro* perty. He presumed, however, that then would be no great difficulty in carrying out a protective scheme up to the end of the Sandhills, and having it completed by the Borough Council of Caversham. A scheme might be devised at a very reasonable cost which would take something of the form of a retaining wall outside the reach of the sea, not in the sea at all. They were to preserve the Sandhills above highwater mark. Mr Reynolds's scheme might be a very good one, but it was to build a thing out on a shifting beach and down below high-water mark, and would just go into a heap of pie like that other wall which was built at St. Clair. Mr Gourley asked if he was to understand that they had nothing to do with protecting St. Clair at all. The Chairman- : Quite so. We have no legal power. Mr Gourley : Our domain extends from Forbury road seaward. Tne Chairman : No, it goes further, but only on the ether side of Smith's wall. The Clerk : Beiore you go to the rate* payers for the raistDg of a loan you will ba\e to take the opinion of your solicitors n order to tea that tbe purposes for which the loan is intended are within the provisions of the Act.

Mr Hancock said that if the Board built the wall the Caversham- Borough would fill in between.

The Chairman : This is the property of the Caversham Council. The Board's pio« perty lies to seaward of the wall. Mr Hancock ; We heard nothing about this matter until Mr Pet re's plan waa disposed of. The Chairman : One thing seems to me to be quite clear, that Mr Hancock is determined that Mr Petre's scheme shall not be given effect to at all. Mr Petre is a gentleman of high professional reputation, who has lived for over twenty years in that locality, and he is the most competent man to advise ns that,we can get. He is the safest man we can get, and to have Mr Petre's name continually pat on one side is not fair.

Mr Hancock said that if that was tb|

attitude the chairman was going to take op he would second Mr Fisher's motion on condition that it embodied Mr Reynolds's scheme in its entirety. He thought that Mr Reynolds had provided for all changes, and had pnt bis cost down at £IO,OOO. At first right, when the report same before tnem, it looked a large sum to expend, but it had been admitted by Mr Gourley that £IO,OOO would not look at it. He was aware that the Public Works Department believed it would require £20,000 to pioteot the foreshore there. They had a complete scheme put before them by Mr Reynolds, a gentleman who had qualified himself to give an opinion on work of this kind—a man who had graduated in the office of the greatest engineer of his age, Sir John Coode, and who had had to deal with such work for a number of years. Mr Fisher consented to meet Mr Hancock, and moved that Mr Reynolds's scheme in its entirety be placed before the ratepayers for their approval. In the course of the lengthy discussiou which ensued Mr Anderson supported the motion, whilst Mr Bkgo and the Chairman ■poke against it. On being put to the vote the motion was lost on the casting vote of the chairman, the voting being:—For: Messrs Hancock, Anderson, and Fisher; against: Messrs Begg, Gourley, and M'Gregor. Mr Hancock then moved that Mr Reynolds's scheme be referred back to him for the purpose of ascertaining whether in the altered conditions his plan would still be suitable.

This was seconded by Mr Fisher. Mr Gourley moved, as an amendment, and Mr M'Greoor seconded —" That the schemes of Mesirs Reynold?, Petre, and Hutcheson be referred back to the respective ongiucers, in order that they iniglii- have au opportunity of revising them in the light of the altered circumstances at the beach since the plans were first prepared ; the information to be in by next Friday week." Mr Gourley's amendment was carried by four votes to three, the voting being :—For the amendment: Messrs Gourley, M'Gregor, Begg, and the Chairman; and on the other side Messrs Fisher, Anderson, and Hancock. The baths keeper (Mr Chisholm) wrote stating that the high tides of Sunday and Monday had damaged the baths house and the bathing boxes, and that if tho matter was not attended to a few more high tides would wash the home away.—The matter was referred to Messrs Hiucock and Anderson, with power to act.