Harbour Commission

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 203, 11 August 1927, Page 8

Harbour Commission

YESTERDAY’S SITTINGS. MR HIGGINS CONCLUDES HIS EVIDENCE. THE TUTAEKURI DIVERSION. The Napier Harbour Commission continued its sittings in Napier- yesterday afternoon, when further evidence was given by Mr P, I l ’. Higgins, a member of the Harbour Board Witness said there was little demand at the present time for business and industrial sites at he Port. It should be pointed out that any considerable increase in the provision for' wool storage would in the near future be inconsiderable. Although the area was not as popular for residential sites as Napier South, there was a demand for sites for modest homes. The high values for a few acres of the board’s property quoted by Mr Jull were on sites outstandingly situated. Referring to Cullen and Keele’s 1912 report, witness quoted reference to the diversion of the Tutaekuri river, which the engineers considered was a vital matter in the construction of the Inner Harbour. pointing out that the (increased deposits of silt were decreasing the tidal sluicing effect in the channel. Witness said that the work had not been done, aqd he could not sav when it would be done. Witness again quoted from the report to he effect that the engineeik; considered that the river should be cmpleUdy diverted. The Rivers Board had adopted a diversion scheme, but there was a rival Hood prevention scheme which at present was supported by a majority of the members of the board. In the meantime the works, to assure the complete diversion. were not beino actively pursued,, To do this a large sum of money, something like £90.000. would be 'involved, and the Rivers Board did not at present intend to borrow such a sum. In the meantime lar-- quantities of silt were being deposited into the Ahuriri lagoon. Witness quoted from a report bv Mr C D. Kennedy, whom he described as a man of the highest authority on flood prevention. • hich stated that if dredgin- was not done the mouth would become blocked and mud-flats formed in the lagoon. RECLAMATION BILL. The 1.926 Reclamation Bill, said witness, sought authority to spend two sums —£25,000 and £50,000. I’he former was in connection with the reclamation of the Whare-o-Marenui swamp, known ns the Awatoto block, and the 28-acre block, and the £50,000 was for the reclamation of the two ponds. There was no opposition to the former project, but the £50.000 project was opposed, on die grounds that it was not a straightout reclamation scheme, but rather a means of obtaining another £50,000 for Inner Harbour development without a poll. It was said bv the chairman of the board that opposition to the £50,000 scheme might jeopardise the other proposal, and that was what reallv happened. Mr Grey here pointed out that the bill only provided for reclamation. Witness said that tlje 16-Ocre block was part of the West Quav reclamation. which, was part- of the new proposed deep sea wharf. It ,vas presumed that a retaining wall would be necessary to carry out reclamation. IV itness strongly favoured reclamation at the port, but only when it was founded on a sound and economic scheme. WHARE-O-MARAENUI BLOCK. In regard to the reclamation of the Whare-o-Maraenui block, he was of the opinion that none of these lands should be offered as residential sites. The estimates given bv Hav and Rochfort for the Awatoto and the 28acre blocks might need reviewing. The time allowed by them for the filling in by the C.D.K. had been exceeded. and as the dredge was now out of commission it might be necessary for the estimates to be reconsidered. Mr Gray: With regard to your statement that the interest on the Inner Harbour loans was £12,000. I would like to know how you arrived at your figures ?—lt was supplied oy the board some time ago. Do you know how much is not expended of the Inner Harbour loan?—

In regard to the additional pier at the Breakwater, do you that a protecting mole would not be necessary?—That is an engineering matter, and not for a layman to decide. QUITE FAIR Do you consider that the old berthage rates were fair when small chalt paid 7d per ton per trip when large vessels paid only lid per ton for several days’ stay?—Yes: 1 consider them quite fair when the tonnage was taken into consideration. Are you aware that the Wellington Harbour Board charges 1/- a ton as a harbour improvement rate?— That is so. Is it not a fact that Timaru charges ships 6d per ton harbour improvement rate? —No; 1 was not aware of it I understand that such a rate was operating in Napier, but as it was put on to the goods bv the ship it was later abolished. Witness mentioned that the Union Company had vessels working both harbours, and there had been no protest from them in regard to the berthage rates at the Breakwater unless it was made to the Department. Mr Godfrey: Only a vigorous verbal one. Witness, continuing., stated that the Union Company sent vessels inside when they could work at the Breakwater, although the board provided labour at the latter. This showed the battle that was going on to prevent trade from being developed at the Breakwater. Mr Gray: Do you consider the discharging of 450 tons from a number of hatches on a large vessel a fair comparison with work that can i e done at the two harbours?—lt may be so. 1 don’t know. I would not express an opinion bn it.

The chairman: It ought to be obvious that if the large steamers could work more hatches they ought to discharge more cargo than a small vessel. —That is so. Mr Gray: Are you aware that lie Department wrote to the board suggesting that the board’s bv-laws relating to berthage and labour charges should he reconsidered with a view to making them more equitable?—l am aware that consideration of these matters followed on a letter from the Department.

You have said that out of the 73 acres proposed to be reclaimed only 34 would be left for subdivision. Why do you suggest that 15 acres would be required for a railway station?— The one there now is rather cramped, I understand,

Rather a big area for a station for a place like that?—l don't know about that.

Isn’t ten acres rather large for a park?—l don’t think so.

Basin Reserve in Wellington is only about seven acres. Have you taken into account the other reclamation areas at Napier South when making your estimates and calculations regarding shortage of interest on the Inner Harbour loans?—No, I did not, as they were not included in Cullen and Keele’s report. CERTAINLY A GOOD ONE. Do you know that the P. and T. Department purchased just over half an acre in Waghorne street recently for £1695?—1 know that a good sale was made by the board. The site is certainly a good one. Are you aware that both Mr. Rochfort and Mr. Kennedy made a valuation of the 73 acres in 1926?—Yes. Their estimates totalled £95,000 — are you aware of it?—No. They estimated 11 acres at £3OOO per acre—rather higher than your estimate?—Yes it is. Do you know that it is now said no silt is deposited in the harbour basin?—That may be so. Have not your consulting engineers reported that the deposits in the harbour basin were slowly moving out to sea?—l haven’t seen that report. You don’t suggest that the board proposes to reclaim new areas in <fhe lagoon?—There had been proposals to do so. Siltation is going on. Was not the board's proposal in respect to the Awatoto blocks based upon the dewatering method recommended by Hay and Rochfort?—The block was on the datum level that was equal to that of Napier South. There was a low area and the only way suggested to reclaim it was of pumping the water into these. There wouid be no demand for residential sites there. Mr. Lusk asked if Mr. Jull’s statement denying that the board had decided to first reclaim the ponds, then the West Quay reclamation and then the Awatoto blocks was correct and if that was the board’s policy?— I understand that that was the board’s policy. The portion of the Awatoto block meant for residential sites was not included in the dewatering section?— No. What facilities have the board got for carrying out reclamation?—They haven't got anything that I know of. The Waikaka has been dismantled, while the C.D.K., I finderst.-nd, has broken her back. What about the Koroni that the board was talking about getting from Wanganui?—lt is an ocean-going dredger and was ineffective and too costly for .Vr.nganui. The chairman has not taken us much into his confidence about that. WHARFINGER’S EVIDENCE. Mr. H. D. Earney, wharfinger for the Napier Harbour Board, deposed that he had prepared various returns for the commission and produced one showing the imports of general cargo for the last two years.* A total of 35,000 tons of coal was imported, being unloaded principally at the Breakwater, it was shown that the general imports for the two yea/r were 195,861 tons, while the direct cargo was 67,585 tons. Returns were put in regarding various importations, costs of handling, and comparative statements, made by other Harbour Boards of dues, wharfage and labour charges on general cargo. A statement of charges was aIM put in of a vessel of 2331 tons discharging overseas cargo at various ports, staying three days at each. At Napier the vessel paid £llB 17/4, at Wellington £ll9 3/5, at Dunedin £139 7/5, at Timaru £132 14/11, and at New Plymouth £5l, which showed that Napier differed only by 6/1 from "Wellington, the nearest competing port. In connection with the tallying, witness said that on the Breakwater wharf at the ship’s side only special cargo was tallied, while the reason only tallying at Glasgow wharf was heavier than at E shed was that at the former it was rarely done and for special classes of cargo, whilst at the E shed a great volume of general cargo was tallied under existing wellestablished methods. Witness did not think a special wharf for oil and dangerous goods at the Breakwater would be necessary. Witness did not know how ships recouped themselves when they went to the Inner Harbour and had to pay; labour charges. Shippers could not avoid haulage charges when exporting from the Breakwater as the nearest receiving depot was E. shed. With all overseas cargo coming in at the Breakwater accommodation for sorting at E .shed would require to be doubled. This concluded Mr. Earney’s evidence and the commission adjourned until this morning.