Harbour Question

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XV, Issue 126, 4 May 1925, Page 5

Harbour Question

Engineers and the Board SCOPE OF THE REPORT. A FURTHER CONFERENCE. A special meeting of the Napier Harbour Board was held at the Board’s office this morning to meet Messrs, j Cullen and Keele and discuss dredges ! and dre ging. There were present l Messrs. C. D. Ellison (chairman;, A E. dull, J. Vigor Brown. J. J. Langridge, G. W. Venables. I’. Higgin*-’. Ij. C. Bryant W. W. Smart. A l‘ Turney A illiams and G. C. Lowe. I Mr. Ellison Mid t! . w. 8 called or thii of the engineers leaving :> r Anstra; ;■ on 'Aednesdav m< imng. The meeting was called to discuss matters with Messrs. Cullen and Keele and clear up any obstructions standing in the way of their making a definite recommendation. NEW MEMBERS WELCOMED. Mr. Ellison, in extending a welcome to the new members, hoped that they would take matters quietly. One and all were honestly desirous of getting a good harbour and carrying on the work at the jiort in a fair and square manner. Whatever mistakes had been made by the Board had been made in good faith. Mr. Venables, in returning thanks on behalf of the new members, said ♦ hat they had come to the Board t do what they could in the interests of Hawke’s Bay and to co-operate in bringing about the common good. A POINT OF ORDER. Mr. Jull said that before Mr. Brown was asked to speak on his motion he did not want to raise any objections, hut he pointed out that his motion wa« out of order. Had Mr. Brown nt, tended the last meeting or read the minutes concerning its business, ho would not have brought it forward. He congratulated the new members upon their election and Imped that it was not going to be a matter of Inner Harbour versus the Breakwater. In reference to dredging Mr. Jull read a letter which he had written to Messrs. Cullen and Keele asking them if they would make any comments upon various questions he had set out regarding local dredging. THE ENGINEERS’ INSTRUCTIONS. Mr. J. Vigor Brown then moved: (1) That the Board clearly define what is meant in the letter of instructions to Messrs. Cullen and Keele dated November 14, 1924. (2) Tliat when reporting, Messrs. Cullen and Keele be asked to give a definite decision as to which harbour they recommend, bearing in mind the economic aspect, which should embrace navigation and maintenance charges. (3) That Messrs. Cullen and Keeks be asked to define points at whiclf they desire further borings carried out.” Mr. Brown, speaking to his motion, said that ho liked to do everything through the chairman, and he did not approve of Mr. /lull’s action in writing to Messis. Cullen and Keele privately. He brought his motion forward because lie did not consider that the instruction given to the engineers were definite enough. The Board ought to tell the engineers what they wanted and not leave too much for them to gather thefnselves. The term “ocean iiners” was indefinite on account oi he varying sizes of vessels visiting the port. He had always supported the Breakwater because he thought it was in the best interests of Hawke’s Bay. The question of niaintonance was an economic question and the instruc lions were not specific enough. Mr. Langridge: That’s what they are here for. Mr. Brown said that Mr. Langridge was the first man who had understood tho instructions. He expected that < lie engineers would say that they di not understand them. He himself was often dense find he did not give anx views on engineering matters like some members liked to. Ho hoped that th< ■oard would define what the engineei would commit the Board to. He -bought it proper to bring the mattei up while the engineers were here. Mr. Venables seconded the motion no forma. Mr. Turner-Williams asked that t! instructions should be read so that th< members wou.d know what thex u talking about. Mr. Chambers said that Mr. Bro-, was, as usual, beating the air. and he wanted to do some amateur engineering. It was the engineers only wh •ould decide the cost of maintenance ■ lore was not the slightest need f he motion, as the engineers had bee: asked for a comprehensive report. Ihtime had come when the wraiiglint i ween the rival schemes should be abandoned, and he considered that whatever scheme was leeommended they should call tenders for the work and know what it would cost before placing it belore the ratepayers. The sum of £295.000 was asked lor the Breakwater, hut £525,000 had boon spent on it and they had nothing to show for it. He appealed to the Board to leave it to the engineers. Thex would have to go carefully or else thex would find that the country people would not let them have a harbour ai all. Mr. Ellison said that engineers had told him that all future works should be let by contract. He asked then if they could provide one sale whan at the Breakwater to cope with the shipping. Tins they assumed him they could do. Mr. Ellison asked them not to make any estimates on supposition and it would he better probably to wait a while until all the data were collected. Mr Ellison said that the engineers had the fullest information that they could get. They wanted the most economical harbour for tbo district and one that the ratepayers would accord their support to. AN AMENDMENT. Mr. Jull said that Mr. Brown had given a notice of motion stating that the instructions given to Messrs Cullen and Keele were indefinite and yet he had not suggested any amendment of the instructions given. Mr. Brown’s motion just loit them where they were. He outlined the wharfage accommodation at the Breakwater, and said that they wanted a harbour that would accommodate the trading vessels that came to tlie port. He contended that the instructions were quite clear as they specified that the respective harbours must be able to accommodate all the trade of the bay. He moved as an amendment that the engineers be asked to report upon a better scheme to provide lor four ocean liners and other shipping that came to the port. Air. Chambers seconded the amendment, Ho said that one wharf would only he patching the job. At times four or five vessels were out in tho hay and they should bo accommodated. He hoped that no attempt would be made to influence tho engineers to provide a harbour too small for the .equircments. Mr. Langridge strongly opposed any restrictions lieing placed on the engineers in giving their report. If they were not careful they would find that tho port would bo closed 1) overseas vessels and would just bo used to feed Wellington. Ho felt that if Mr. Brown had taken the trouble to read the minutes of the last meeting ho would not have brought his motion forward. Mr. Turner-Williams a.’Teed that the instructions given to the engineers cqjild not be too definite. It would be fatal to build a port to meet presentday requirements. It was necessary for the Board to use vision and provide a

port that would meet the growing I trade of the port. Mr. Bryant said that it seemed to him that the members were I mating about the bush. If the question of the wharves was cleared up they would be able to proceed with the business. Mr. Bryant referred to accommodation at both harbours, when Mr, '1 urner-VViliiams rose to a point of order, and said that it wa« getting away from the motion and was only bringing up a controversy between the two schemes. At this point several interjections were made and the chairman appealed tor order. MOTION AND AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN. After further discussion .both the motion and amendment wipre withdrawn. Mr. Chamber! th ’ t was |idi~ culous to provide f r only one whari. Ho did not auree with any har’*our that would n'»t meet with the trade of tho pon. He turther want d ♦- ha •• i harbour that would artornniodate • th* I trade of the port during a storm. THE ENGINEERS’ VIEWS. Alter further discussion Messrs Cullen and Keele attended the meeting. Mr. Ellison said that there had been a feeling among the members that the instructions given to Messrs Cullen and Keele were not definite enough in rei gard to wharfage accommodation at the Port. Mr. Ellison then outlined to them tho discussion that had taken place. Mr. Cullen said what the chairman had said was correct. They were not clear ng to the accommodation required at the Breakwater. They had asked for further borings to be taken at the Inner Harbour, so that they could complete their estimates for the Inner Harbour. They wer e strongly of the opinion that work of such a magnitude should be done by contract and carried out by a large and wealthy firm of contractors, as it was not possible for the Board to secure such a skilled organisation. He stated that almost all the harbour construction works in America and Great Britain were carried out by contract. They did not favour contracts being done piecemeal. Mr. Keele that they had had n good look round and in regard to obtaining stone for the Breakwater tbey had examined all the deposits. The sites at Omahu and Petane were well worth investigating. At Waipunga and Kaiwaka there were also deposit!. bu| on account of the height of the country it would be an expensive matter. At the Breakwater they had a good look round and also round the Board's works and had a good grasp of what was required. In regard to the Inner Harbour, the crux of the whole thing was the dredging of the channel between the moles. There wouid be noth- t ing in the dredging of the channel uut ' to sea. There would be no difficulty- in carrying out the works here. They had collected all tho data and when they received tho complete results ot the borings they could go ahead with their reports. In reply to a question by Mr Jull re* garding the accommodation at tho Breakwater, Mr Keele said that in their first report they provided for an increase in trade and they were reporting on the cost of the Breakwater harbour as outlined by Mr Furkcrt as they thougght that it had been adopted by the Board. At this there was a. general laughter from members. • The chairman explained that the Board had not accepted Mr Furkcrt ’1 report. Mr Chambers also strongly emphasised this point. Mr Jull said he hoped they would report upon their own harbour schemcH. Mr Keele said in reply to Mr Higgins that they would report on the engineering work and the extra cost of maintenance, and it would be for the Board to determine tho economic aspect. INVITATION TO MR FURKERT. Mr Ellison said that in regard to tho Board’s desire that Messrs Cullen and Keele should meet Mr Furk.ert, they had wired to him at Invercargill and he hud replied stating that he expected to arrive in Wellington on Sunday evening, and asked when he could meet them. Messrs Cullen and Keele had replied stating that they would be leaving Napier for Auckland on Wednesday to join the boat for Sydney and that they would be pleased to meet Mr Furkert if he could cume to Napier in the meanwhile. Mr Elhson said that was all he could say about the matter, and it rested with Mr Furkert as to whether he met them or not. Air Lungrige asked the chaiimac if ihe Board had any means of checking the results of the borings su as to ascertain if they were correct. The chairman: No. Air Keele said that he thought it would have been more satisfactory to all if the Board had had representative present while the borings wore taken. After according a vote of thanks to Alessrs Cullen and Keele the meeting closed.