NAPIER HARBOUR

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 208, 17 August 1927, Page 5

NAPIER HARBOUR

COMMISSION'S INQUIRIES MR. HOLMES CROSS-EXAMINED. RECLAMATION’S RELATION TO HARBOUR CONSTRUCTION. When the Napier Harbour Commisaion resumed this morning, Mr. Dudley Holmes, harbour engineer, who had given lengthy evidence, went into the witness box, being asked various questions by the chairman. Mr Barton■. You will agree that the basis upon which you formed yout estimates bear relation to the way the board will present them? I agree that it is a good principle that the basis of engineering estimates be the samp as the board's. The results of works undertaken depend upon what the primary basis for estimates were. Do you agree that it is an acquisi tion of a harbour on the basis that it should be paid for by the user? I don’t agree that the acquisition is to be paid for by those who benefit by it They had not been asked to compare the reclaimed lands, but to Compare the harbours and the cost of construction. As luck has it reclamation can be done during the Construction of the harbour, the value of which reclamation should be credited to the harbour cost. This we have done. I mean not the cost value, but the selling value of the lands In the meantime, what in your Opinion is a safe deduction? In my opinion at the present time, while we are unable to know the selling value, the estimates we have given is a safe basis. Are you aware that it is a recognised basic principle that an asset to be Rcqdired to be disposed of should he taken into account at cost price pending sale? I recognise that it is a basic principle in accountancy and business methods that when an asset is ScS hired in any way for the purpose cf einc disposed of at a profit it should pending sale, bk taken into account at not more than cost price. If the areas to he reclaimed were not thete. the costs would have to be taken in the same way as shown in my estimates. it is fortunate that there kfe areas to be reclaimed. You see that eventually these tervices will result in the collection Of revenues from users of wharves and tenants of lands? Yes. In my estimates I have de ducted a sum of approximately £250 000 which represents the even tual market value of leasehold reclaimed land It included the expected profits on such sales. No statement is shown as to what the cost of auch work would be? Intelligent ratepayers, with any figures before them, will be able to See that the figures of £250.000 are based on an expected profit, and gather an idea of the cost of reclamation which is included in debit cost of the harbours. How will you meet the argument" Of producers that the reclamation costs are included m the harbour Costs?

The rents for the leasehold sections Would be fixed at market costs nhd the users of the harbour would get the full benefit of the profits from the land. Mr Uray Does not your question. Mr, suggest that local bodies should not make a profit. Mr. Barton: That has been tacitly agreed oti in previous cases. Mr. Gray: Other local bodies make ■ profit in such sales. Mr. Barton: That i s so. Witness, to Mr. Barton, said that I he did not khow that the 1926 bill illocates certain loan mohevs to the North and South Bonds atid other area*. He could see that if auch was so. it would be necessary thin the cost of sueh reclamation should be kept by separate account. Have you heard tnat the Railway Department may acquire land and have the right to take it at eost? .Yes; it necessitates the board Should be able to state the cost. As we are just comparing the harbours, I just balanced the area acquired for ftilwav purposes against the other. DB you know that the Railway Department acquired land at Dunedin and the priee was based at the cost per cubic yard for filling in?—No. Supposing you were going on with the Breakwater and reclaiming with material ifrom the Bluff, the basic eost would be labour and equipment? If we were working on the Break water and reclaiming the nonds the basis of the Cost wou’d be labour and equipment I would nut the cost of the equipment on to the store. What was your labour basis? We took average costs per yard How long have you been in making these estimates?—l could not say the whole work in making up the whole case only took a fortnight. Do you consider that reliable estimates for such work could be done in a fortnight?—Approximately We had the advantage of using records of previous works. Was the board working on estimates before you started? Yes. those are shown in various exhibits. What is your basis per cubic yard fOr winning rubble? I took the cost of removing debris to the first pond at 2/. a yard. A charge of explosives put in would bring down stone and debris together. One hundred tons would give 20 tons of stone and 80 tons of spoil. Can you supply a basis upon fvhich the cost could be apportioned upon fh» stone and the rubble? It depends what you are after. 1 did not take into account the cost of winning the stone from the rubble. If your employers in this matter wished to keep the cost of a harbour separate from the cost of reclamation, do you know of any basis upon which you could apportion the costs? Tes. The cost of reclamation would be the cost of railing the -spoil. I am not prepared to state a definite basis now. I would like time and may wish to consult an accountant As I hate charged nothing against reclamation for this, it is obvious that if a cost is to apportionc-’ “ '-mild send up the cost of reclm—■> ’ To what did von char sjioil per yard for railing, in •>< estimates? I debited this all to fbc ■/ the Breakwater Harbour. 1 v int nut that against this I he ted the whole value of the lai ted to bo gained to the Brea'

Do you know that figure from ; 1924-27, shown in exhibit SR. were telative to the cost of tipping debris ihto a lagoon from two quarries in which half an acre was reclaimed nt a cost of £675? No; but that is a high cost because it wus being done ifi a small way. My Kueme of reclamation necessitates

the laying of a new railway, which has been included in the cost if the harbour- There would be a dead period between the time when the interest on the land started and when returns from the land came in.

Will you assiire the public' that they can assume that the cost of reclaiming the north and south ponds from the Bluff would be less than the value of the area reclaimed?

I could not sky just now. You will agree that it is important that the public w’ho are expected to back the scheme should be told not only what they could expect from reclamation but also what the cost would be?—Y’es.

To Mr. Waters, witness stated that in giving his estimates in apportioning the tonnage of cargoes that had to be raised, he did not have any statistical data, but made purely an arbitrary estimates. Time did not permit him making a detailed analysis, and he suggested that » Commission should get mere detailed information than he had been able to give. Mr Waters: Do you suggest thai we should get more accurate informa tion regarding cartage?—No. in reply to a further question, witness said that he based his calculations on the abandonment of the Inner Harbour, and the working oi everything through the Outer Hnr hnur. as he did not think that it would nay to keep up two harbours. Mr Waters: Is the pontoon of thr dredge Waikaka serviceable? I am suggesting that it should 6reconditioned and fitted with some of the machinery from thp u.D.K making a suction dredge of her. nn-l one capable of several years' useful Service. COUNSEL’S CROSS-QUESTIONING Mr. Lusk: When was your firm appointed consulting engineers to tile board?—About a year ago. For khat were you engaged?—As consulting etigiiierirs arid cohstructing engineers. lour duties were fu carry out a scheme tor an Inner Harbour?—No" po you suggest that you Were x petted to carry out the Inner Ha bour?—j eah say "No," because i the time the board advertised for a resident engineer we were told o advise on certain works, and to maw investigations 6f stone supplies. Do you say that the board had in view the going on with the Breri < water? The majority on the hoard was two in favour of Inner Harbour.

What classes ot stone were you to iui estigate ?—Rock.

What was it for?—The Eastern Pier and 1 hope to use it on Hardingi toad. Have you not considered the poss' bilities of the Breakwater? No; all We were given were Mess,. Cullen and Keele's plans You are not prepared to say whether the Breakwater can be mads a safe harbour?

It can be if you spend enough money. We don't want to spend more oh <t than what the engineers say? Well you would have to. Would you not say that the Breakwater as suggested by Messrs Cullen and Keele be a safe liafbourr There would be times in the year when vessels would not lie alongside. Although they would be able to mo‘»r What about the dangers of the Inner Harbour entrance? They would be the same as at the Break water.

You mean to oay that if a veoevi could not enter rhe Inner Harbour it could not enter the Breakwater?— Yea.

You have considered al) the factors of the Inner Harbour?—Yes. and have compared them with the Breakwater.

Yon said at the outset that vou were not acting tor any ~t me hoard ?—That is so.

Cab voti see ariv point in favour of the Breakwater’—Not at the cost Assuming then that the cost Were equal?—l would sooner have the Inner Harbour been rise shins nvuld lie more at safety. esneriMlv if the Breakwater wa s not raised At this stage Mr. -Gray objected to the manner in which Mr. Lusk was questioning witness, in remarking chat he was evading answers. The chairman suggested that Mr. Lusk should not use the word evade. Mr. Barton: Can you see any points of commendation in favour of fhe Breakwater?—Well, it is a harbour and boats could be sheltered there.

The work vou fife doing now is in the Intier Harbour?—Some of it is. other work being done is the Hardinee road protection. Have you had anv instruction regard the continuing of the Inner Harbour scheme —No. only the West Quay and the friers and reporting on the dredge Kaione. Was not the purchase of the Kaione for the puipose of going on with the Inner Harbour?—We were asked to advise on a suitable dredge, and we stated that it was capable of doing the dredging at the Breakwater.

Have you ever seen any detailed plans of Cullen and Keele’s scheme? —Only a skeleton plan Hate you ever prepared any plans for an Inner Harbour?—No. No such plans have been supplied to the Marine Department?—They du not have to be.

Were those works you have reported part of the Inner Harbour scheme? —They were incorporated in the scheme.

You are putting in place of an old structure a new one?—Yes, in deeper ■rater, but quite a different type and on a different line.

You said that the shingle at the Breakwater was not suitable for concrete?—l said that in itself it was not suitable and that it would be accessary to go to Awatoto for larger, and for finer materialDid you make enquiries that the material from about the Breakwater was being used for concrete ?—Yes ara using it along with gravel obtained from the Inner Harbour channel that was dredged by the BrnWning Crane. Did you know that shipments of shingle were being sent away for harbour works?—Yes, and said is being used with it and they nre complaining about its fineness. Who is complaining?—The Gisborne Harbour Board.

The cost you placed on the Breakwater largely depends on the cost of obtaining shingle for concrete?— It is an element, cement being if.a hie one.

Do yon think that the Break vi-tef had stepped the drift of sand?—No.

Do vtni suggest that portion of the s-nd-laden sens are not f-rrioil on 6 —The greater nbffion would be deposited at the Breakwater.