CHANGE OF POLICY.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 10510, 14 February 1928, Page 5

CHANGE OF POLICY.

BREAKWATER. EXTENSION

STUFFED

CONCENTRATION ON INSIDE WORKS.

FUNDS TRANSFERRED TOi KAITI BASIN. "

The cessation of construction work on the breakwater extension, of which about 183 ft has been built, and the diversion, of money intended for this work towards the completion ot essential works in the Kaiti basin, was*decided upon at a special meeting of the Harbor. Board yesterday to decide the future policy in development of the harbor. This decision, was reached after a debate extending over two and a-Kalf hours, in which the advisability of closing the gap in the training wall was also discussed at length, and in which the engineer and harbormaster expressed opposite views. The board finally decided not to close the gap. The meeting was presided over by the chairman (Mr TV. G. Sherratt) and there were also present—Messrs A. H. Wallis, J. B. Broadhurst, L. H. Scott, A. Wade, J. Tombleson, T. Todd, C. H. Williams, G. Witters, A. C. Steele, and G. Smith. TREASURER’S REPORT. The statement of costs and estimates, made up to November 29th, 1927, is as follows: — WORK IN HAND. Diversion cut (walls), cost to date, £88,828, required to complete, £lB,750; diversion cut (dredging) £74,066, —; Cook quay, £5190, —; railway bridge and facilities £15,263, £6,300; dredging fairways and berthages £l9, 433, £20,500; "repairs and renewals to Kaiti wharf, £9961, —; slipfivay, £17,562, Kaiti Esplanade, £6817, £3300; strengthening Kaiti wharf, £2OBO, —; quarry, opening up, etc., £33,157, —; plant and blockyard, £151,484, —; diversion cut breakwater (No. 2), £BISB, £5800; water extension (No. 1) £15,705, £SO, 300; Waikanae Beach wall £2308, —; Island Beach scpul- protection, £6454, —; Signal Station, £55, —; reclamation'Read’s Quay, £504, —; dismantling wharf, Read’s Quay, £IOO6, —; workshops, £1736, —; trucks, skips, and fitting up scows, £5015, ; overhaul Korua and Pelican, etc. £9198, —; Kaiti basih (section 1), £5442, £47,750; Wilson's Suspense Account, £3238, —; materials on hand, £6391, —; concrete blocks in yard, £4633. —; preliminary expenses, £1570, —•; contingencies, £IOO6, —; establishment charges, £33,580 £8800; Kaiti basin (section 2) (amended —£44,000; training wall wharf, —, £6OOO. ' Totals £530,228, £212,600. SUMMARY. Required to complete, £212,600; less available—funds, £12*1,786; materials, £14,262 —approximate £136,009. Balance required £76,600. SUGGESTED DEFERMENTS. Dredging fairways and berthages to 12ft. in lieu of 18ft. £10,700; island Reach scour protection, £1100; diversion cut breakwater £5800; breakwater extension, 100 ft. lineal. £9OO0 — £26,600. Net balance £50,000. ENGINEER’S REPORT.

The engineer (Mr R. Campbell,tabled the report as follows : “That the gap in the training wall l-(e closed forthwith and that I be authorised to proceed with the work, using all expedition. “It is ' essential that the Board review the following considerations before making its decision: — “1. Closure of the gap will exclude all shipping, excepting lighters, from Read’s Quay berthage. With the additional water in the channel of late, Read’s Quay has been constantly used so- that the" loss of this berthage will be keenly felt. “2. The berthage available at present is as under: (a) 1000 feet abreast G.F.S. Works, Ivaiti; (b) 300 feet northwards of above; (c) 1000 feet Read’s Quay. Total available, 2300 feel- “ 3. With the loss of Read s Quay, the total berthage will be reduced to 1300 feet and that berthage abreast the G.S.F. Works cannot be regarded as satisfactory, in that in addition to the discomfort arising from range, with a vessel berthed there the navigable channel is materially reduced.” Discussing the second and third paragraphs, the report proceeded: — “As shipping using the berthages upstream* in the basin increases, the danger attendant upon berthing vessels abreast the G.F.S. Works will also increase, and the danger is not only to the shipping, but also to the training wall. This can only he* maintained by abandoning most of the berthage (2a) above. The berthage then available will only he (2b) 300 feet plus, say, 300 feet of (2a) with what may be., completed of the new work. , , “With regard to the new worknow in liana —it is anticipated that 300 feet will he available by the time shipping is excluded from Read s Quay and that the further 350 feet of the work now in hand should he available about the end of July. Adopting the same notation as before, the position will then be:—(a) 300 feet abreast G.S.F. Works, Kaiti; (b) 300 feet north of above; (c) nil, Read’s Quay; (d) 650 feet Kaisi basin. Total available, 1250 feet. “This total is only a little more than half that in use at present, and the position is not rendered any easier by the necessity to provide berths or mooring for the Board’s own floating plant. “The important question of the provision of additional berthages now arises and is placed before the Board for consideration and its decision. “I recommned that the next section of berthage to he constructed lie the second half of the eastern wall and the southern wall of the Kaiti basin —omitting for the present the Vee portion, but retaining the 300 feet of old wharf as existing. This will provide 520 feet additional berthage. “I would also recommend the construction of a wharf along the training wall from, the flood gate southward, to provide a further 400 feet, making a total berthage of 2170 feet, which, although less than that in use at present, might be regarded as a reasonable equivalent in view of the fact that lighters could still use Read’s Quay. With regard to the suggested 400 feet of berthage along the training wall, the question of access is under consideration.

“In order to carry out the additional work above mentioned, the Board will have to provide a further £50,000; but with this additional money the Board can be assured. of an inner harbor, which, it is anticipated, will meet the present, requirements of the district.

“I desire to emphasise the fact that as soon as it is decided to close the gap and divert the river, immediate action must be taken. to ensure the additional construction, without which and until it has been provided, all shipping using the port will suffer by delays. , , , “It is only fair to state that the harbourmaster claims that the gap should not Le closed until the breakwater has been further advanced and the additional berthages discussed above have been provided. But in this respect ,1 cannot suippprt him. I fear that the shoaling at the entrance, resulting from the extension of the breakwater —advanced as it will be by winter and river floods may produce' such a condition as to exclude

all shipping, other than lighters, and even them at low water j from rising the port: '' With' such a situation as this -and -with .no adequate meafis of dealing with it, the harbor would be in a worse condition than ever before. “Assuming the Board adopts tlie policy suggested—that when the turnover is effected there will be very little berthage available, is only too true; but this will tie improving Weekly and there will be accommodation for a few vessels at all times, irrespective of the condition of the fiver. Read’s Quay will still he available for lighters via the gateway in the training wall, and the conditions whilst unsatisfactory, will be less unsatisfactory than would be the case should the, gapi not he closed before the flood season. “The closing of the gap in the training wall—whenever done—is not without danger, the risk arising from the possibility of. a flood .when tlie gap is partly closed, when the force of the current would be divided between the old and new channel. Such an occurrence would cause considerable silting in the old channel, force , of. the current would be divided between the old and the new. channels. Such an occurrence would cause considerable silting in the old channel, which the reduced tidal flow would not remove and it would have to be dealt with by dredging. This is a contingency which has always been foreseen hut cannot tie obviated other than by closing the gap at the most favorable time of the- year; which is the proposal now made.

“When further berthage becomes necessary, Cook Quay will have to be constructed and as this berthage will not he tenable in all weather without main breakwater protection, a portion at least of this breakwater would have to be built and as tho berthages develop seawards additional breakwater protection will have to be provided.

“To he able to deal with the question of the sale of the plant, the Board must decide, when; if at all, Cook Quay may be required and. speaking generally, if the Board d«» cides that Cook Quay berthages will not be necessary for the next ten years then.the plant enumerated may be sold; hut should Cook Quay he required within ten years, then most of the plant should he held, unless very good offers are received for any of it.” . . The chairman explained that in December last, Mr T. Quirk had asked the engineer what plant was required and what could be' sold as a result of the delimiting the extent of the works. In presenting a list of plant which would not be required, to the last meeting, the engineer had explained that he could not definitely determine what should he sold until the Board fixed its future policy for the development of the harbor, arid it was this issue that the Board had to settle that day. Personally, lie thought it was well recognised that the Board would not he poimr on with the construction of the Cook Quay or the outer breakwater tor at least ten years, and as the plant would therefore not lfe required before then, he thought that it should he disposed of. He considered tha* the inner harbor, when completed, would suffice to serve the district for at least ten years and, therefore, _ho considered it" advisable that portion of the plant not reaudred should V sold and the proceeds used in • the completion of the inner harbor. Therefore. lie proposed that the plant as enumerated he sold as the Board win not likely to he proceeding with the construction of Cook Quay or the extension of the breakwater for the next ten years.

Answering questions, the chairman explained that he did not mean the Board would not be constructing the extension of the existing breakwater for the next ten years, hut lie referred to the island breakwater. Mr G. Smith suggested that the future policy of the Board in development of the harbor should he first settled before the question of the plan! to he sold was discussed. He pointed out that the Board had already spent £SOOO in manufacturing piles and pieces for Cook Quay, which would be wasted if this project was abandoned.

The engineer (Mr Campbell) emphasised that the whole of the materials intended for Cook .Quay could be used in the proposed wharf work in the Kaiti basin.

“That puts a different complexion on the matter,” remarked Mr Smith. At this stage, Mr J. Tombleson pleaded for the consideration of the Board’s future policy before othei matters were determined, and then the discussion proceeded on these lines.

Mr T. Todd was of opinion that the Board was not in a position to determine the best policy to adopt, and he suggested that the change over should be proceeded with and the problem would automatically solve itself. After the change over events would show whether Cook Quay c-ou-ld he dispensed with and when deeper water was available the Board would find out what additional berthage was required. It was impossible to ascertain now what the berthage requirements would he in the future, and therefore lie urged that the proposed 2170 feet should be constructed and then in 18 months to two years’ time the Board would know definitely whether or not the plant could be sold. It would not he nearly such a serious loss.to hold the plant for two years as to sell it now when there was a chance of its being required at the expiration of that period. The chairman: But we wouldn’t ro quire the 'whole of the plant for the construction of Cook Quay if it had to he built in two years. Mr Todd: Perhaps not, hut portion of it would he necessary.

Mr G. Smith pointed out that if the Board adopted the engineer’s recommendation a further £50,000 would have to he raised to complete the works. The question was whether or not the Board was prepared to apply to the ratepayers to sanction this further sum, which he did not think would he authorised and to which he was opposed-. He realised of course, that the outer harbor scheme had been abandoned, and although an advocate of this project, he did not want to stand, in the way of completing an inner harbor that would accommodate a good ferry service which he thought would he m the interests of the district. However, he would support the construction of the inner harbor on condition that it was completed with the money already raised.

> Mr 0. H. Williams inquired 'the value of the plant from a selling point of view. The Engineer replied that if. the Board was able to realise upon it at a reasonably good price, it might bring £20,000. Mr G. Smith: But when it comes to selling it you won’t, get that price and in the' end will have to hold on to it.

Replying to Mr Tombleson, the engineer stated that the same plant had cost £40,000. Mr A. Wade maintained that the Board should agree to prosecuting only essential works before disposing of the plant. Personally lie did not feel disposed to ask. the. ratepayers to sanction a further loan of £50,000, which he was satisfied they would not get, to complete the works in hand. The Board should concentrate the expenditure of the balance of the. funds to secure the best results. The future berthage requirements could not be ascertained, although if the Kaiti basin harbor was a success, he was sure that e:-tra berthage would be neecssary and this would ,naturally entail the building of Cook Quay. Once the berthage

requirements were known, then the Board could deal with the disposal of the plant, which he did uot think would realise £20,000, and which in the cud lie thought the Board would have to hold until a favorable opportunity.

The motion.proposed by the chairman lapsed, lacking a seconder. MV.’J,'. B. Broadhurst said that the fact the Board would hay© to appeal to the ratepayers for a further loan and the funds in hand were nearing exhaustion and the harbor still a long way from completion, had actuated him in proposing the following motion:—

“In view of the necessity of completing, as far as possible, the most essential works with the balance of the- loan moneys still available, construction work on the extension of the breakwater be stopped in the meantime and that the money so divided Bo expended upon (1) the further dredging out of the Kaiti basin, (2) such other work as. may be deemed necessary towards the completion of the second section of

the inner basin.” Ho considered the Board should concentrate upon the completion of essential works. The extension of •the breakwater would take two years to complete and would cost about £63,000, he said. The original itk.a of the extension of the breakwater was primarily to complete entrance in conjunction with the main breakwater, thus making the entrance vo the outer harbor. u\bw that the construction of the island breakwater was not going on, the question’was: Could they do with less, than 700 ft. of breakwater extension ? Even marine engineers could only guess at tlie actual length of breakwater inquired to eliminate range he maintained, and assuming the elimination of the range was essential, he pointed out that Mr Furkert, Engincer-in-Chief, had informed the Board that even when the breakwater was depleted to the full 700 feet, until wave expansion basin dredged, the eflect of the range could not be detciinined. The Engineer-in-Chief had considered that the expansion of the breakwater to the full 700 feet was unnecessary, and the speaker agreed with him, particularly in view of the state of the finances of the Board. The expansion of the breakwater to the present point, 180 feet, had cost £20,000 to date, so that if work stopped now, it would leave £43,001: for completion of the work on the inner I'asin, provided that the money Jj lß diverted to the Kaiti basin work. The second section of the dredging - e ’ nner basin would cost about £12,500 and the question then arose what would be done with the balance of the money diverted from the breakwater work i He contended that the Cook Quay would be useless without the construction of an outer breakwater.

Mr. C. H. Williams, in seconding the motion, expressed the opinion that the extension of the breakwater would be of little use with the construction of Cook Quay and this berthage would he useless without the building of the island breakwater. He pointed out that the berthage opposite the O.S.F.M. works would he of very little use through the narrowness of the water channel in that locality and though he had understood this 1000 ft. would be available when the inner basin was completed, he had apparent! v been under a misapprehension. He aas not present to sanction the expenditure of more than the £750.000 raised, excluding of course, the sum raised from the disposal of the plant which he had been under the impression would realise more than £20.000. The extra expenditure suggested by the engineer would not be of any more ‘benefit until mow berthage was required. The question he was considering, however, was whetheror not the money that could be diverted from the breakwater extension work, if stopped, would be sufficient to complete the inner harbor to serve the port for 10 to 12 years. Personally he understood that the money v, ould be suflicient. At this stage, the views of the harbormaster (Captain Carson), and the engineer (Mr K. Campbell) as to the effect of the closing of the gap in thq training wall were given to the board by these officers But in accordance with their requests the discussions were heard in committee.

Captain Carson was opposed to the closing of the gap in the training wall at the present time as lie contended that the berthage on the Kaiti side would lie totally inadequate and would he reduced to a fourth of the available wharfage at the present time. He desired that the gap> should be left open so that the ebb and flow of the tide would maintain the depth of water at the entrance and would allow light craft to use tlie town wharf and would eliminate to some extent the range that would occur.

Mr. AYade suggested that if the eastern wall of the diversion cut were continued to the originally designed length the groyne could have been removed and thus left wave expansion

Air Campbell pointed out that Captain Carson was definite that the groyne could not he removed under any circumstances and he agreed with this view. He was of opinion that unless the gap was closed immediately that floods would silt- up the entrance and thus render tiltport unworkable.

Both agreed it would be unwise to suspend activities on the extension oi th« breakwater.

Air. 0. Witters announced his oppi o.tiou to any proposal to apply to the ratepayers for sanction to additional funds. He urged the suspension of operations in constructing the breakwater extension, suggesting that the money intended for this work should bo applied towards the completion of tho Kaiti basin scheme. A lot had been made of the probable lack of berthage if the change over was now effected, hut he reminded members the possibility was first as great of a flood in the river spoiling all the Kaiti berthage. Ho argued that in fine weather lighterage craft might be able to use the town berthage after the gap in the training way was closed by passing through the gateway in the wall. The harbor master claimed that the gateway in the wall would be silted up by the first flood. Air. C. 11. "Williams inquired, v. by the present p< Vt was chosen for the gap in the training wall and was informed by the engineer that if bad been Air. Fui'kert’s idea. ; Air. Williams commenced that b appeared that a substantial gap in the wall could be left open in fho training wall, through whVT lighterage vessels could pass to berth at the town wharf.

The harbor-master replied that all the weight of the water on the river would be concentrated at that point and, .probably in rough weather the (Jepth of water in a gap at this point Would bo 20ft.

Mr.. G. 11. Williams inquired, how ninch it would cost to construct a gr‘oynp from the end of the eastern diversion' wall towards the breakwater'extension., '

.The engineer said he estimated the cost of the groyne at £40,000. This \va : s outlined in the combined modified plan'for £500.000 he had submitted iii 1924 which tbe Engjneer-in-ChieG had-fa voted, but the board had adopted the outer harbor scheme. ; Mr C. E, Wjlliams observed that the outer- harbor scheme was now dead and would probably remain so for' thirty'years, and there'was no hope of raising money for the construction of an outer breakwater' apart from 1 be dial riel-’s unfurl unal n

lack of stone. Ho, therefore, sugr gesteu as an alternative ttiao tue groyne might no eunstructcu, and tiius eliminate tuc range. #• iUr a. wailo cousiuered that the construction or a groyne Irom trie end or tne eastern uiversion wall to aai ds tne oreaKwater as exiendeu tii us lar would be tiie solution ol tne wnoie promein of eliminating the range,' Widen would apparent.y ue exceedingly trollo.esome m tne inner narnor. me budding ot tne grome, however, would in iug opinion u.iunnate noth range and would prevent sand Unit at tne entrance, ue did not tmnit tuat the cimnge over oiiouid bo made uniil me board saw that mere was ampie sale bertliago on tlie Main side, out at the same Lime ire was opposed to tne breakwater extens.ou work proceeding, bis opinion being that the further tlie areas;water was extended the greater would be the shoanng. In ins opinion the engineer shoinu have extended tne eastern diversion wall, which would Have prevented shoaling at the entrance.

Mr 1C 11. Scott considered the board should nut spend another penny on the extension of the breakwater, tlie money intended for tlie construct.on ol winch should he diverped towards the eoiup.etion ol works in the inner basin. Mr J. bo in Meson considered that extension oi the breakwater any further would only increase the chances or shoaling im.r.ing a dam across tne mouth. tie considered also that the change over snou.d nut ue made until tne fullest wharfage lacinties were available on the j.yuili stue. lie suggested that il the uoard could adopt the idea ot eon--.tinoting a groyne from the end ot cue eastern diversion wall to the end of tne breakwater extension it would be of great beneut m mat u would eiim.nate range and sand drift.

Mr A. Wade commented that the .Reynolds’ plan showed a wall constructed like the proposed groyne, and lie suggested that had the eastern wall oi tlie diversion cut been extended in tins way it wotud have made a spiendul wave trap. llie engineer explained that the combined modified harbor puui was submitted by n.m in iv 24 with the idea that trie board might then drop cue idea of an outer harbor; btiL though this pian was approved by the Engineer-in-Chief it was opposed by the Minister of Marine. The plan provided for the construction oi 2doit more of breaku uter beyond the po.nt which it had now reached. Mr G. Smith pointed out that the concensus of opinion seemed to be that the board would not go beyond £750.001) to construct the harbor, it seemed to him, however, that' the board could not take the responsibility of stopping the work on the extension of the breakwater, but U this must be constructed how would the harbormaster get on for berthage of shipping entering the port f The chairman remarked that the engineer held that the breakwater extension was essential and the only way to obtain the necessary berthage was to realise on the plant which was not required. The only alternative was to apply to tlie ratepayers for a loan of £50,000.

Mr C. H. "Williams pointed out that when the 700 ft of breakwater was completed there would not be suific.eiiti berthage, but by building a groyne from the end of 'the eastern diversion wall to the end of the breakwater extension would make a considerable distance of berthage, that would otherwise be untenable on account of the range, available for use. He suggested that further advice should be sought from tbe engin-eer-in-Chief w hether or not the modified harbor plan could be reverted to.

The engineer pointed out that even if the board went ahead on the modified plan a further 203 ft of breakwater would still require to be constructed. .It would also mean that tlie question of an outer harbor would be eliminated.

Mr C. H. AVilliams stated that conditions lmd changed since J ©2-1, when the plan had been submitted, anti lie contended it would net be difficult to tii ai t a new plan to fat m With the present conditions. He explained that he did not suggest the completion of the breakwater extension, or as an alternative tlie building of a groyne .at present, stating that either work could be done later when found necessary. Mr A. H. AYallis contended that the board should endeavor to secure the best results with the balance of the money by spending it on the inner works.

Mr AVitters urged that the,, board should defer arriving at a decision on the policy question, pending the obtaining of further engineering" actvice.

Mr Wade declared he would not agree to spend another penny under the present administration. '.He deplored that the board had received sojiltle for the expenditure ot £750,630; the ratepayers had not received 5s in the £ value and it was time they changed paces. He was gratified that Captain Carson had revealed to the board the true position of the harbor affairs.

Mr T. Todd urged that the Government should be communicated with requesting the appointment ot a commission of inquiry, which might be able to give tlie board some advice

Tim Chairman: The Government might take over the harbor as they did at Westport. Air Witters urged that further engineering advice should be first obtained before the board reached a decision and asked the mover of the motion if he were prepared to defer its going to the vote. Air Broadlmrst declined to do so, and his seconder, Air Williams, stated he would have been prepared to agree if.it were possible to obtain the advice of the Engineer-in-Ohief before next meeting, but that was most unlikely. The chairman warned the board that if they voted for the motion they would be opposing the advice of their officers, and if the breakwater extension was not proceeded with they would have neither harbor nor berthage.

Air AY itters then moved to postpone further work until further engineering advice was obtained.

The chairman questioned what purpose could be served by a postponement. Tho board had already discussed the matter for two hours.and a-iialf and had done nothing. AAhis all the debate to he repeated at the next meeting ?

The engineer pointed out that if the breakwater extension was stopped and the gap in the training waff was closed, there would be considerable range inside the harbor, which could be minimised to some extent by leaving the gap open. The chairman suggested that the breakwater extens.on work should be stopped and that the gap in the training wall should -be also closed. By proceeding with the breakwater extension none of the inner works could be completed, but by suspending operations on the seawall the inner works'could be finished. Jf it were found that later the breakwater was required the board could then approach the ratepayers for additional funds.

The amendment proposed by Air AVitters lapsed for want of a seconder, and the motion was carried, Messrs Todd and Smith opposing it..

On the motion of Air Tombleson it was decided to suspend all work on the training wall, and that the gap be not e'osed, Messrs "Wallis,- Broadhurst and Scott voting 'against it. The hoard then agreed to defer ivuiside.i fi linn of the iliirpoual of MiC

plant until the next meeting, and also to communicate with tlie Minister of Marine asking him to expedite the appointment of the commission ot inquiry into the harbor works.