NAPIER HARBOUR

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 209, 18 August 1927, Page 8

NAPIER HARBOUR

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY MR J, D, HOLMES IN WITNESSBOX. LENGTHY CROSS-EXAMINATION. The Napier Harbour Commission resumed Zs sittings yesterday, when Mr J. P. Holmes, of the firm of R. W. Holmes and Sons, consulting engineers to the board, was in the wit-ness-box all day, being under crossexamination for the whole of that time. He was also further crossexamined this morning Mr. Lusk: The beach, you said, had been e" -«ded through being sheltered by the Breakwater. Have you examined it further along? — Have been along it. Where is thc greatest shoaling at the Breakwater!—Under the lee of the Breakwater. Is there any accumulation in the navigations area.' —n the channel yes, four feet. Isn’t that under the lee, and a protection for the Breakwater? —Some of it. How much would have to be removed' —We have left 166 ft out from thc Breakwater for protection. Do you think that when the Break water is completed that it would do away with dredging —No, that amount 17,000 yards, would have to be dredged every year as much of it conies over or through the Break water.

We will see all about that latei. Would the sand drift still come round the lee of the Breakwater if it was completed?—Some of it would. What do you say has caused the cavity in the channel that you speak of —Scouring; and the same thing has occurred at Nelson. 'What has caused the scour from the Whakariri dredge patch?—The current from tile Inner Harbour. How long has the scouring Been going on? —1 should say that since the results of thc Breakwater had been felt. CULLEN AND KEELE S SCHEMES Are you satisfied that the design of Cullen and Keele for an Inner Harbour was a designed by competent engineers? —Yes. About their scheme for the Breakwater?—l prefer their scheme of 1912. Do you agree that their 1925 scheme is a good one? —Yes provided the Breakwater was raised. What do they say about it in their 1925 report? —They were delightfully silent on the subject. Don’t you think that coining hack 13 years later and finding I hat it had •<tool well in its unfinished condition may have justified their reason! for not doing so?—That did not get over the argument they originally put up. They should have contradicted it in iheir 1925 report. Mr Lusk (after reading from Cullen and Keele's 1925 report): How do you' reconcile that with your statement that they were silent on the matter?—l say that they do not speei fically refer to thc question of raising it nor do they say that it should not be raised.

Continuing alter lunch Mr. Holmes was further cross-examined. Mr. Lusk: Do you suggest that what Cullen and Keele proposed :s that only the remaining part should be raised?—They don’t say anything about it.

Don’t you think, as a professional man, that it should be left as it is? —Not in the face of their 1912 re. port. I’m sure if Mr. Cullen was asked now he would say that it should be raised. You would not infer that they had changed their minds and that six feet would do sufficiently?—Certainly not. Before you came to the conclusion that it should be raised did you mark what it had done during the last 25 years?—Yes, to a certain extent. NOT SUCCESSFUL. That it has been a success even m its unfinished state?—lt has not been successful. Why not?—Because vessels have had to leave and put out to sea. Has it been a safe harbour for large vessels?—Not during stormy weather, because they have had to go to sea. If it had been raised then?—A lee mole would also have to be constructed. If it is true that they have worked there during stormy weather would it alter your opinion?—No. There have been many storms since 1910?—Yes. blocks were washed over the Breakwater only last year. You said that the range was caused by the seas that came over? — To some extent it was, and it was also caused by seas coining around the end.

Would you take the harbourmaster’s opinion about it?—No, I would want to see it for myself. Have you watched the actions of the range?—Yes. Do you think that as it has been found necessary to raise breakwaters m other parts of the world, the one here should be raised? —Yes, under similar conditions.

Y'ou said that the Breakwater gave protection to the Inner Harbour and could be considered part of the Inner Harbour scheme?—That is so. It would have to be maintained?— A mole* would be necessary to trap the shingle.

Would you just keep it as a groin?—Yes. It would never pay to keep two harboprs. The object is to provide safe shelter to ships except in exceptional storms?—Yes, but for all weathers.

Isn't it a fact that, if the entrance to a harbour is at times dangerous, it is not safe?—Not necessarily. Wellington harbour cannot always be worked and that is the best commercial harbour in New Zealand. It a harbour could not be worked in a moderate sea, what then?—lt would be a medium harbour. If the entrance was unsafe despite the safe berthing inside, what then? —lt would be a moderate harbour. “1 CAN’T CONCEIVE LT ” If we can prove that large vessels have used it, and will continue to use it, and the maintenance will be small, can you see any reason why, when the Breakwater is completed, there should be a need for another harbour? The conditions are not possible. 1 can’t conceive it. You can’t conceive anything beyond the Inner Harbour ?—1 can con-

ceive the large vessels still lying out in the roadstead, the superintendents not considering it safe for them to go in. Would you be surprised to know that on account of wind the Ngakura could not leave the West Quay for three days?—Well, I got a vessel away from Tauranga all right under similar conditions. You know that the services of Mr. Pengelly were obtained through the Government ?—Yes, You questioned his reports?—Because of his attitude. Would you not have done the same thing if you had been taking borings lor three months?—l would have welcomed it. JJiere was too much at stake to let personal feeling enter into the matter. For what reasons would you want to check him?—Because 1 wouldn’t have confidence in him. When we were taking soundings we welcomed members of the board coming out and checking our work. Do you think that he objected for some sinistei reasons?—No, only that he was silly. Have you any doubt that there are large boulders in the channel?— There may be some up to 3cwt. In regard to the samples of the borings, how do you account for the sample of bore 39 being missing?—! can’t. I haven’t got custody of them. You said that Mr- Pengelly could not moor his boring punt because he only had a 3cwt. anchor. Would you be surprised to know that he had five such anchors and could not hold the punt?—That may be so, as the whole weight might have been on one anchor. Didn’t you say that the tide deflector would increase the velocity?— That is so. concentrating the current would tend to increase the velocity, while the deepening would tend to reduce it. Are you aware that the plans of the Glasgow wharf were approved of by the Marine Department?—No, not the design, ALLOWANCE FOR BOATS. Why did you only allow for two boats at the Inner Harbour?—Because we only allowed for two at the Breakwater. What would the extra cost be for accommodating two more boats?—l could not say offhand. You have Coated up the Breakwater with £1,170,000 to complete it in accordance with some definite scheme? —Only to a certain extent, containing the Glasgow wharf and one new wharf, the basin to be dredged to 30ft. and the berths to 34ft.

Do your figures for the Inner Harbour represent a 'completed harbour according to some scheme!—Yes, practically according to Cullen & Keele’s scheme, limited in area, and omitting the two southernmost overseas wharves.

Docs this estimate relate to any scheme of construction or notional only for comparative purposes?—l say it is for a scheme that might be adopted by the Board. Were not your figures based on thc comparisons?—No, on the actual costs.

In -reply to Mr. Lusk witness said that he could not show instructions to prepare plans for a projected harbour to accommodate two vessels until instructed to do so by the Commission.

Do you consider Cullen & Keele’s estimate for the Inner Harbour too high ! Mr. Gray: That is for four berths. Witness: I haven’t analysed the figures. There is no doubt that you consider their figure for the Breakwater was ridiculously low?—It was brought to my notice. It is quite possible that reclamation might not be successful?—ln what way? I don’t want you to cross-examine me. There may not be a demand for it.—But there is a demand. It might be that your valuation is extremely high, and it might be extremely low. “WHO’S WE?’’ You will get £275,000, and we get £40,000? —Who’s we? When I say we, I mean the Breakwater harbour. Mr. Gray: Now you have declared yourself. Mr. Lusk: I have as far as the case is concerned. Witness: What will the Department get out of it? 1 Mr. Lusk: A good harbour, I hope. Mr: Lusk: You said that the figures you gave for the Breakwater are immeasurably higher than those given of either Cullen & Keele or Mr. Furkert? —I never said so, but they are.

I was just a little premature, but can you tell me what it is going to cost per lineal foot?—I haven’t worked it out.

Mr. Barton: £257 per foot. Mr. Lusk: Colossal, isn’t it?—Yes. Your price for the completed Breakwater depends upon your prices. For instance, if it can be shown that the spoil can be dumped for less than what you said, it would reduce the cost of the stone? It would.

Did you know that there was 250 feet of foundation already for the blocks to be put on?—I took depths as shown in the soundings, and did’nt worry about it. You are aware that the Breakwater has been standing there for 30 years?—Some of it. Did you take any sample of rock from the completed portion?—No, the sample you were speaking of came from the foundation you were talking about.

You said that Cullen & Keele made a mistake in their estimate of £49,000 for the mole at the Breakwater.’—They did.

And your estimate is over £300,000 —a big difference?—Yes. You say that they made a mistake of 4/4 instead of 15/- for the rock?— Yes, and you can’t get the rock at the Bluff either.

It was got from there for the Breakwater?—Excuse me, it wasn’t. Mr. Lusk: Thc entrance to the Breakwater is at right angles to that of thc .Inner Harbour?— No, about 60 degrees..

A wind that would be detrimental to a ship entering the Inner Harbour would assist one entering the Breakwater?—lt would send them on. An easterly would assist a vessel into the Breakwater?—No.

The chairman pointed out that Captain Waller had said that a favourable entrance could b» made during an easterly because there would be plenty of sea and could enter in the face of the wind.

NO COMPARISON. Mr. Lusk: Would you be surprised to know that thc Dorset lay for 59 days at New Plymouth breakwater without steam, and another was there for six weeks?—l was there at the time. Y’ou can’t compare the two places. Captain Waller says that this harbour, if completed, would be more sheltered than the one at New Plymouth?—l don’t agree with him. You mentioned several engineers as having reported in favour of an outer harbour at Bizagapatam?— Yes.

Then one recommended an inner harbour which they are going on with?—Yes.

How do you know that it will be a success? It has been recommended by the most eminent men in the profession.

Mr. Gray: In the reclamation of the ponds you have not taken in the cost of the spoil ? —No. Y r ou have taken into account the capital value of the land, equal to the value of the land in the vicinity and treated it as an asset of the Board ?— Yes.

To Mr. Gray, witness explained that plans forwarded to the Marine Department of certain works might be incorporated in Cullen & Keele’s scheme.

Mr. Gray: You still say that the raising of thc Breakwater is most important?—l do.

And do you still think that, they have not withdrawn their original recommendation?—No, they haven’t. Is it not a fact that in Cullen & Keele’s figures nothing has been allowed for reclamation?—That is so.’ And your estimate included values for reclamation?—Yes. Mr. Barton: What is the difference then allowing for that deduction? Mr. Gray: Very little.

Mr. Gray: Cullen & Keele’s estimate of £608,000 provided for berths for four liners? My modified scheme for £544,000 provided for two berths for overseas vessels and other trade of thc port. If you were not building a breakwater and wanted to fill up the ponds, where would you get the material?— I would dredge from the Inner Harbour. Would it be cheaper than getting spoil from the Bluff?—About half, and it would consolidate much quicker. In building an inner harbour it would be cheaper to pump the spoil into the ponds than to take it outside?—Yes. ALL PROFIT. It would be all profit?—Practically. Mr. Barton: What was your (estimate for dredging from the channel? —l/3 per cubic yard. What would you do with the dredgings from the outer channel? —Most of it would be dumped at sea. What was your basic cost for spoil in the basin?—l/- per cubic yard. In pumping to the ponds you would have an extension of pipes, including a relay pump?—Yes. My cost of !/• included the cost of relaying by pumping or boosting. Do you agree that pumping would be a costly matter in relation to dredging?—lt would be as three to five in favour of dredging. Cullen & Keele say in their 1925 report that the dredge for the inner basin would require 700 8.H.P., while they state thc power acquired for force pumping would be 450 B.H.P. Do you agree with that?—lt all depends on the distance to be pumped. I proposed io put a little more power than that for the booster.

At this stage the Commission adjourned until ten o’clock this morning.