OCEAN BEACH DOMAIN HOARD.

Evening Star, Issue 10701, 13 August 1898, Page 3 (Supplement)

OCEAN BEACH DOMAIN HOARD.

ANOTHER ADJOURNMENT. THE CHAIRMAN LEAVES THE CHAIR. The adjourned meeting of the Ocean Beach Domain Board was held last evening, and attended by Messrs E. B. Cargill (chairman), H. Gourley, C. Fisher, F. Anderson, and J. H. Hancock. The Chairman explained that Mr Begg was out of town, aud Mr M'Gregor was not allowed out at night. The Clerk reported that, as he had refeired back to Messrs Leslie Reyaolds, F. W. Petre, and W. H Hutcheson their Fchemes for tho protection of the Ocean Beach, in order that thfy might have an opporlunity of amending them in the light of the altered cinditions at St. Clair. °Mr Hutcheson submitted the following supplementary repoit : Judging from what has appeared in the public press, a vast amount of miscouception appears to exist as to the present state of the Ocean Beach, the damage now done, and what may be expected. . A notion appears common that the beach is irretrievably ruined, and the Flat in extreme danger of immediate inundation. When I wrote my first report it was on the basi3 that the beach proper had not been affected, except slightly at St. Clair, and that damage had been entirely confined to the Sandhills. I have since been astonished to find how widespread is the contrary impression, and I consequently set to work to investieate the subiect, and made inquiries amongst those who have been familiar with the beach for the past twenty or thirty years, and whose judgment could be relied upon. I am glad to say that, as a result of inquiries', I shall he able to satisfy the Board that the damage is not eo great, or the state of affairs nearly so serious as has been assumed by the man in tho street. Amongst tho e who speak to this elt'ect I may mention Mr Rutherford (of Civcrsham), Messis M. and T. Begs (of Anderson B:iy), and Mr W. Livingston (of I)unedin)-all well-known citizens. They are unanimously of opinion that, excepting a slight lowering of the beach at St. Clair (to be explained later on), tho low water line-general sloue and appearance of tho beach (excepting, of course, temporary changes caused by weather)— havo not altered appreciably within the list twenty-five to thirty years, and that the damage clone has been exclusively confined to the SandDamage has been done at two places—opposite the St. Kilda tram terminus and at St. Clair. It will be c mvenient to treat each separately. Opposite the St. Kilda tram terminus there is on the beach a large lagoon. To those not intimately acquainted with the beach in bygone years this has a very alarming appearance. The sea appears to have broken in. Bu'. for the past thirty years there has been a lagoon here after heavy weather, was in old days, as now, a broad ridgo of sand rising from the ocean, then the lagoon, and then the sandhills. , , . , The western end of this lagoon wound in and out amongst the sandhills, gradually becoming narrower, as far as the battery, much resembling a miniature fiord with sandhills for mountains. In the early days the lagoon was fully as long and wide and I think deeper than at present. The ridge of sandhills between Hand the Hat was narrow, but intact and continuous, and well covered with tu*socky natural grass which grows on these hj lis. In tine seasons, and sometimes tor one or two years, the lagoon disappeared; the basin, indeed, was permanent, but the water evaporated and soaked away, and, In the absance of heavy seas, it remained empty.

As building on tho Flat increased, much-I may say all—of the sand forming the narrow belt of sandhills was carted away. The battery was constructed, the natural grass impaired by traffic, and in time the protecting ridgo of sandhills disappeared. . ~ , _. What has caused tho alarm Is this: Heavy seas on a hlih tide fill the lagoon up to the top of the ridge alluded to. When the sandhills stood the lagoon actod as a basin, the water simply rose higher, and ran back to the ocean between the waves. Now, in the absence of the Bandhlllß, this water pours in part on to the Flat. This is the whole affair. . , It will be seen, therefore, that no expensive works to protect the bacb are required. Tho beach remains as of old to receive the shock of the surf, but the Sindb.tlls>ußt be replaced, and this can be easily and cheaply done by the means recommended in my nrat report.

St. Clair.-It will be well to consider the original coast line at St. Clair to determine what encroachment, if any, has taken rlace. The land constituting St. Clair was one of the early grants when land was subdivided first on paper in rectangular sections without any regard to natural features. The boundary of this particular section, now St. Clair, was high-water mark. When the township was laid off full advantage was taken of this, and the original or Hrst wall was erected at the seaward foot of the sandhill slope, and the Sandhills levelled. The Sandhills originally extended back to Victoria street. Tho front of the allotments fronting tho Esplanade are, in fact, about halfway up what was the original face of the Sandhills. the first wall was destroyed, and the second wall, built by the unemployed, was erected fully 30ft iu advance of the old one, thus oncroaching on the beach in front of the Sandhills. The sea, therefore, has done nothing more than restored the original condition of things. At the Sandhills, which now constitute Pacinc Park, the water in high tides always came up to the foot, and frequently left a steep face several feet high. A few feet more than usual have been Cut down. That is nil. Mr Rutherford, of Caversham, who is well acquiinted with the original beach, is my authority for these statements. There are also many others. It is admitted, however, that the beach in front of St. Clair is now subject to heavier sea* than formerly, and that the beach is somewhat lower than it used to be. lam inclined to think that Mr M'lndoe's suggestion, tin t the removal of rocks at the baths has something to do with this, is correct. Mr Rutherford is also of this opinion, and mentions a huge vock since removed, which, with others, was a great protection to this part of the beach, and vt IS easy to understand how large boulders would protect tins corner at high water, at which time damage occurs. This is, of course, very possible, and, combined with the unusual proportion of southwest winds in 1897 and 18U8, would fully account for tho removal of sand at this spot. However, it is more than likely that fine weather will firing hack the sand as much as ever. From Tae Wao Wae Bay, all up the coast, every beach is of sand, every river mouth and inlet is becoming more and more choked up with it. There is no prospect of the supply decreasiug. 1 have seen St. Clair beach several times bare of sand, covered with boulders, and again in a short time the sand had returned, and not a stone to be seen. I think I have shown that had the Sandhills at St. Clair been left in their original condition, and not been sold, they would not have received noticeable damage, and no one would have taken' any thought about the matter. The sea, in fact, has been encroached upon, and has returned merely to its original marks; any talk about tho Flat being flooded from St. Clair is therefore absurd. It must be borne in mind that a beach such as the Ocean Beach is subject to fluctuations. Bad weather flattens it and attacks tho Sandhills. When tine weather returns the beach becomes steeper, and the Sandhills gradually recover what they have lost. When, as in the present e iso, the Sandhills have been sold as building allotments, it Bimply becomes a question as to whether their value is equal to the cost of protective works. On the assumption that it is desirable to protect St. Clair, I suggested a wall in my first report, but omitted to show on the sketch that the base was sunk to at least low water level. I propose to erect the wall about the line of the present face, which will be about the middle of the old sandhill seaward slope. Considering the length of time the second wall stood badly built, and with next to no foundation—there is no reason to doubt that a good, wed-designed wall in the portion mentioned will stand easily enough. Though I have represented that there is no immediate danger of a serious overflow of the sea, this condition will not continue. Unless protected the Sandhills will disappear in time; the natural grass will not stand traffic, and the bare loose sand becomes exposed. After the gaps have been tilled up by parallel scrub fences in the manner recommended in my first report, they and all the Sandhills must bo protected. Marram grass and trees will do all that is required, as they have done elsewhere. I am informed that near San Francisco this plau has been adopted, and the trees I have recommended (I'inun pinarter or cluster pine) are growing luxuriantly. Trees are preferable to grass as a permanent protection for two reasons—first, they bind the sand better, and in the second place for beauty. A belt of pines along the Sandhills would not only protect the hills, but be a place of recreation and an ornament to the City. Mi- Leslie Reynolds wrote as follows : I have just received back from your Board my report upon the protection of the Ocean Beach, with a view to further consideration in consequence of the changes which have taken place on the beach within the last few days. Your letter states that the Board will be glad if I will kindly review the position and favor it with any amendment on my former opinions which the changed circumstance!-, may load me to consider desirable. 1 beg to return the report herewith, and would only remark that it was designed to meet such contingencies as have arisen, and I have no further recommendation to make, unless the Board prefer to eliminate the idea of an esplanade along the beach, and in the meantime confine the work to stopping sea encroachment by moans of the groynes explained in my last report and shown on the plan which accompanied it. The wall in this ease need not be formed for other purposes than to constitute an embankment at much less cost for conveying material to tip into the groynes, but the gioynes will require to bo constructed to a higher level and extend further seaward than if the wall wero also constructed. Their length should be from 100 ft to 150 ft, and their top should be carried out, commencing .Ift above high-water level and finishing about the level of low water. There can be no question that the system of groyne?, as explained, will protect some thirty chains of beach, and arrest encroachment and cause the beach to extend seaward. Tho estimated cost for this is:— Groynes and approach ... ... ... £3,000 Road to boulder beach, plant, etc. ... 11,320 £'4,320 I should prefer the fifty chains protected, and it would require ten groynes to accomplish it. My report was handed in to a member of the Domain Board in fulfilment of a promise made weeks before any question of competitive schemes, or schemes at all, was mooted, ami my letter accompanying my report distinctly states that it was not for competition. I can snly regret that the matter has been handled in a way that might point to the question of future commission, and I wish it to be distinctly understood that is handing in the report I had absolutely no idea of commission. If you refer to my letter accompanying it, I think you will see that it implies this. In common with other citizens, I wish to see the beach protected, and, if I may be allowed, I will quote from my report: —" lam satisfied that the method of construction suggested—i.e., heavy rubble groynes and rubble protection—is the most suitable, and that the physical conditions are such as to demand a work of some magnitude, and that solid walls or cheap schemes will prove a mistake," and I think there has been ample evidence of thh recently. Your Board appear to have overlooked this expression of my opinion in handing my report buck to me for revision, as had it been recognised, it would have been apparent that I had designed a structure to meet contingencies. Mr Petre wrote : j

In reply to communication of August 3, received from your acting-secretary, instructing me to make any addendum to my report of June 14 which I may consider necessary owing to altered conditions at the St Clair end of the bench, I have the honor to state that the alteration mainly cod?ists of the elimination of all items in mylformer estimate providing for earthwork distribution, and a little additional concrete required in raising the height of the wall. In my former estimate I had provided the sum of £37 ltis 3d for cutting away earth and sand and lilling it behind the retaining wall for making up slope to the Esplanade. Since June 14, however, the heavy seas washed away all (and very much more) of the material proposed to form this filling, so that for the wall alone my estimate should be amended by the deduction of £37 IBs 3d, and the addition of the cost of 25 cubic yards of concrete at 24s per yard, or £3O; but then it will be necessary to consider the much larger question of filling bahind the wall as it should not be left without the support to be derived from this work. I have to suggest, seeing that nearly three chain*, containing 7,000 cubic yards, has been swept away and must be replaced, also a large portion of private property, which amounts to* nearly another 4,000 cubic yards, part of which need only be replaced, that in my opinion the most feasible way of surmounting the difficulty would be to arrange with the private property-owners to cut down the levels of th.'ir sections to that ot the Esplanade, considerably above which they now stand, and use the material for repairing frontages of the sections and filling in the Esplanade. The cost of this work would add £3H(i 13s 4d to my former estimate, bringing the total cost up to £1,058 1 would like to point out to you that this estimate is guaranteed by one of our leading contractors, who is prepared to do the work at the above figure. ~ , ... Should it be deemed advisable to carry this work further along the face of the Sandhills past Mr Mitchell's property, in the direction of Lawyer Head, it could be done at the rate of £7O per chain. , , I have noticed iu the various criticisms of my proposal a doubt expressed as to the sufficiency of strength of the wall. The greatest force which this wall will be called upon to resist will be similar to that displayed at St. Clair within the last few days, when I observed that at the time the tide was highest and wave heaviest the broken water struck and passed over the remnant of Smith's wall on to the roadway without doing it any injury. This wall stands between Beach street and the bathing place, and is only a dry rubble wall pointed with cement mortar, ine wall which I propose to build-one much stronger —would have to sustain on a like occasion no greater shock from the sea than was sustained by this much weaker wall. . In conclusion, I must reiterate a word ot caution given in my first report—that is to say, leave the beach alone below high-water mark, and, in order to avert disaster, let Nature naye will. After the Chairman bad explained the

position the Board wa« in regarding the discussion Mr Fisher moved that Mr Rey. nolds'a scheme be adopted and plaoed before the ratepayers. Mr Anderson seconded thtf motion upon the understand if g that it rferred to Mr Reynolds's amended soheme, wuich was estimated at £4,320. Mr Hancock supported the motion. The Uoairman could not at all agree with the motion, and was inclined to move as an amendment—" That the Board reooinmend that the plan suggested by Mr Petre for restoring the retaining wall at St. Clair above high-water mark ha adopted." Ho did not think it right that the matter should bo pressed to a conolus'on that night in a thin Board, and he would much prefer an adjournment. If th»t was the rniad of the Board he would give notioe of his motion, and move the adjournment of the discussion to a full meeting of the Board. Mr Gourley seconded the motion for the adjournment. Oa the former occasion, he said, tho meeting adjourned to give Mr M'Geg>rai opportunity of attending, fin deference to the wishes of the minority the mayor gave permission for that adjournment by not voting, and he (Mr Gourley) thought it would be but right that the meeting should now adjourn with the view of allowing other members to be present. The motion for adjournment was lost by three votes to two, the votiog beiDg: For—the Chairman and Mr Gourley j against— Messrs, Fisher, Hancock, and Anderson. The Chairman : I do not intend to go on with the business in the present state of the Board. I prefer to leave the chair and let tho Board go on as t.hey think fit. I decline to go on in a thin I do not think it is in the interests of tho public or a right thing to do. I must insist that this ba done in a full meeting of tho Board, but if the Board insist on going on I must leavo the chair and let the Board appoint another chairman. (After a pause :) Well, gentlemen, I'll now leave the chair. The mayor then vacated the chair and j left the room.

Mr Hasco'ck moved that Mr Gourley take the chair. He did so because he felt it was no use hanging the matter up any longer. The Board had had adjournments for two months, und for the chairnnu to force the position iu the way he had done was too bad. Mr Anderson seconded the motion.

Mr Gourley declined to take the chair, and thought the Board had better adjourn till the following Wednesday. Mr Fisher regretted very much the course taken by the phairman. Mr Gourley took up his hat to leave. Mr Hancock : If Mr Gjurlcy iu going to breik up the meeting Mr Gourley : I am not going to take the chair, and I am not going to stop if you take the chair. I think the nnyor deserved more consideration, seeiug that he gave way on a former occasion on the earnest solicitations of Mr Anderson and you. Mr Hancock : No, sir.

Mr Fisher said that the mayor, to do him credit, acted as Mr Gourley had Baid, and he admired him for it. He moved that Mr Hancock take tho chair.

As it was recognised that if Mr Hancock took the chair Mr Gourley would leave the room and thu3 leave the Board without a quorum, it was agreed by the members to adjourn until the following Monday forenoon.