THE H.B. TRIBUNE MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1925. INNER OR OUTER HARBOUR?

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVI, Issue 8, 21 December 1925, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1925. INNER OR OUTER HARBOUR?

Early last week the Napier Harbour Board received from .Messrs Cullen and Keele, its Australian consulting engineers, their further report, upon the subject of the rival Inner and Outer Harbour schemes. This forenoon the Board met in committee not. as we understand, to discuss this report in detail, but merely to give it a formal reception and fix a date for its more serious consideration. In the meantime we are enabled to-day to furnish our readers with a reprint of the report, which should be read with care by all those who have the future welfare and progress of the district at heart It is not, of course competent for us, with the short time at command since the report was made available to us, to go into any particular analysis of it, but it may be worth while, by way of assistance to those perusing it, to touch upon some of its more salient features. Tn tu ( > fjrqt Tilace. then, broadly speaking, Ihe Australian engineers find no reason whatever for altering to any material extent the opinions they previous!}’ expressed as to the construction of either harbour being an entirely practicable engineering and navigating proposition. As we have always expected, they give but little weight to possible difficulties raised in connection with the Inner Harbour by the Government’s Chief Engineer of Public Works, who. it has always to be remembered. can be in no way regarded as a specialist in harbour construction. His lengthy report, founded partly on a hasty personal inspection, and otherwise largely on almost casual hearsay, they have cut about so badly as to leave It with but scant ■-abie. On the other hand, placing implicit reliance upon the reports of the borings recently taken at the Breakwater, they find to be removed some of the possible difficulties they had feared there from information previously given them as to the geological formations of the proposed harbour bed. Having thus cleared the way, Messrs Cullen and Keele, in accordance with the bare questions submitted to them, proceed to a con•dderation of the comparative cost of providing, alternatively, at each of the respective sites a. harbour capable of accommodating a specified and very limited number of ocean liners in addition to such other shipping as at the p rt 'sent day freouents the port. Upon this narrow reference, beyond which thev are careful not to go. they furnish estimates which indicate that to provide the specified accommodation at the Inner Harbour ! would involve an initial expenditure | of something over £llO.OOO more ; than to give the Breakwater the same, berthage capacity. Beyond this thev consider that, on completion of the work, a second-hand sale of disused construction plant would m the ease of the Breakwater

realise £32,500 as against about £19,000 in the case of the Inner Harbour. Roughly, then, apart from the question of reclamation, to be mentioned later, the net cost of merely providing the strictly limited accommodation mentioned would' be somewhere about £125,000 less at the Outer Harbour than at the Inner. Beyond this again there is the annual cost of maintenance, which is* put down at £13,500 for the Inner Harbour as against only £3,710 for the Outer. These figures dispose pretty well of the whole O the specific estimator *io\v given by the Australian engineers, and it is made quite clear in their final recommendation that it is on these, and on these alone, that they pronounce for Mio Outer Harbour. To quote their own words, they say: “Briefly, our recommendation is based on thp smaller initial capital outlay required for the Outer Harbour, whilst the difference in the estimated annual maintenance for the. two schemes would represent, if capitalised, a further large differonoo'.”

From the. foregoing it will be easily gathered that Messrs Cullen and Keele have, as they were virTuallv asked confined themselves rigidly to a consideration of the engineering aspects of the matter, and have concerned themselves not at all with any economic considerations beyond the actual money cost of ccpstruction and maintenance. With regard tn the influences of other economic factors they have studiously left them for decision by the intelligence of the Beard itself. Here, of course, we come up against the very vital element of the relative values of the land reclamations that may be effected in connection with the two schemes. On this they do point out that, a,3 a mere incident to the construction of Ihe Inner fl arbour, the reclamation of areas totalling, according to their previous report, somewhere about 350 acres, would be effected in close proximity to the harbour. The value of this land as a net asset would most assuredly much more than offset the difference in the construction costs of the two harbours. As against this the incidental reclamation possible at the Breakwater seems to be restricted to an area that is almost negligible as an offset against harbour construction cost. Then, of course, we have the all-important question of the eventual reclamation round the Inner Harbour of the Board’s great estate of over 3000 acres, an asset of almost inestimable value.

When all these factors in The case are taken into consideration it can scarcely be that any body of intelligent men will fail to see that,-in the end. nnj at no distant date, the Inner Harbour will be infinitely the cheaper project of the two. Finally, and as important as anything from the point of view of Hawke’s Bay’s future destiny, we may emphasise this passage in the earlier part of Messrs Cullen and Keele’s present report: “The Outer Harbour, if now constructed to accommodate a certain number of vessels cannot be enlarged hereafter except at the cost of the removal and reconstruction of the Mole” (now to cost £50.000 for construction alone) “in the position required.*’ Tn then’ earlier report thev say: “The execution of the Inner Harbour works described would provide a completely sheltered harbour capable of accommodating not only all the shipping, both coastal and foreign-going, that now visits Napier, but a considerable increase thereof. Room is also provided fnr larne extensions in the future which will doubtless be required later.” Should there, then, be any doubt, having in mind all the considerations here mentioned, to which others may easily be added, as to where a broad farseeing policy rbWnio (Un rlinJnp <houl(l lie between the two schemes?