HARBOUR INQUIRY

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 213, 23 August 1927, Page 5

HARBOUR INQUIRY

THE BOARD'S POLICY QUESTION OF ACCOMMODATION. COMMISSION’S STATEMENT. The commission inquiring into the affairs of the Napier harbour, port charges and reclamation continueu its sittings at Napier this morning. Air. J. S. Barton. 8.M., ol uauganui, presided, and associated with him were Mr. A. C. McKenzie, harbour engineer, of Melbourne, and Mr. J. B. Waters, merchant, of DunedinMr. A. C. Gray, K.C., of Wellington, with Mr. M. K. Grant, appeared for the Napier Harbour board while Mr. H. B. Lusk represented the Marine Department During the hearing oi evidence by Mr. R- W. Holmes, consulting engineer, when the question of accommodation was raised, some doubt appeared to arise as to what was tue boards’ policy. This morning the chairman of the Commission submitted the following statement soliciting definite information :-r An estimate of the cost of the Inner Harbour scheme as proposed by the Harbour Board. To provide berths for four oceangoing steamers. (1) Indicating under each head the unit of cost. It will be helpful if the units are as far as possible identical with those adopted by Cuhen and Keele in their estimates on page 5 of their 1925 scheme. The reason is that in point of date and in point of constructional and engineering details, this bears the nearest resemblance to the present day scheme. (2) Indicating cost of dredges and other large items of plant separately instead of. as at present, including them in the cost of their respective works. (3) Comparative statement adjusting these figures to other estimates and schemes, and reconciling differences due to variations in capacity and.construction will be expected and welcomed. Mr. Barton stated that he and Mr McKensie had been working out estimates for a two-berth harbour. He would not say that the view given by Mr. Holmes was unreasonable, but it did not give the information that they desired. They could not in any way seem to be able to make the various estimates given reconcile. Mr. Gray said that it might bo helpful if the Commission heard Mr Jull’s explanation of how the engineers came to place such estimates before them. Mr Barton : We should be glad to hear Mr. Jull. ' Mr. JULL EXPLAINS. Mr. Jull explained that the new board in June, 1926, rescinded the previous board’s resolutions for the adoption of Cullen and Keele’s proposal for a two-berth harbour, nnd reaffirmed the adoption of the Inner Harbour scheme as outlined by Messrs Cullen and Keele. The board did so without any definition as to the number of wharves. When the board appointed its consulting engineers in August last they were in structed to make investigations regarding stone supply suitable for harbour construction. In November they were asked to take soundings of the harbour. Later they were asked to prepare engineering evidence thought necessary to be placed before the Commission. So far as reporting on the engineering side of the ques tion it was left to the engineers discretion as to how they would submit such evidence. Mr. Jull then quoted from a return of berthages which showed that the total berthages for the last two rears averaged 242 days per annum. He considered that no business man would undertake to build something years in advance of what was required. especially as it could easily ae enlarged ns wanted. The board could not think of building a harbour having a capacity three times as great as what was required. Mr. Barton: I am still not clear is to what is your board’s policy. Mr. Jull: It is on the basis of two berths at each place. There is not a port in the world that does not have to wait for berths occasionally, Mr. Barton: This is the first time that I knew that the hoard’s policy wag for a two-berth scheme. Facilities for expansion. Mr. Barton: Is the board’s present policy a scheme for constructing an Inner Harbour with berths for four ocean going 'liners or for two such boats? Mr. Jull: The proposal is for berths for two ocean going liners with facilities for expansion as needed. Mr. Barton: Has that policy ever been placed before the public, and, if so. when? Mr. Jull: We have not announced a policy for two, four, or any number of berths. Mr. Barton: This is then the first public announcement for a proposed two berths Inner Harbour? Mr. Jull: I don’t remember any previous announcement of a twoberth harbour. Our announcement of the adoption of an outline of Cullen A Keele proposed Inner Harbour did not commit the board to any number of berths. Mr. Barton: If Mr. J. D. Holmes has assured the Commission that the estimates be has put forward do not relate to any scheme of construction that he was asked to advise upon, but were made for the purpose ot comparison, is that correct? Mr. Jull: That is correct, as we only asked them to report upon the best means of expending the moneys available. Mr. Barton: Does that mean that you have never communicated to your consulting engineers the policy of a two-berth harbour? Mr. Jull: We have not advised them that a two-berth hatfcour was the board's policy, nor would any advice be given until the board had received their report as to the best means of spending available money. Mr Barton: elf Mr. Holmes says that his figures were based for comparison and not for construction, is that correct? Mr. Jull: Yes. but they have estimated at a constructional cost. The engineers were instructed to prepare these figures for the purpose of providing the Commission with the engineering evidence from the board's standpoint. Mr. Barton: Has the board ever considered the estimates laid before

Mr. Jull: No, they have been laid before the Commission as the first announcement of them. RATEPAYERS THOUGHT IT ALL RIGHT. Mr. Barton: We are therefore em barking on an enquiry into a policy that has not been decided upon by the board? Mr Jull: No, the Commission is not being required to formulate a policy. Mr. Barton: Are we then being asked to report upon a policy that was made public for the first time to-day? Mr. Jull: That could have been answered the first day the Commission sat if asked for. The policy of the board was confirmed by resolution of the board on June 8, 1926. Quoting from an exhibit Mr. Bar. ton said that it was proposed to construct 3,000 feet of quay. Mr. Barton: How many deep sea berths were included in that 3,000 feet of quay? Mr. Jull: 1 don’t know. The ratepayers thought it was all right, carrying a poll by nearly 5 to L NEVER SOUGHT THE COMMISSION. Mr. Gray: You say that the board has never adopted a scheme for two ocean going vessels at the Inner Harbour ? Mr. Jud: That is so, or any other number. Do you say that the scheme as outlined in Cullen & Keele's report does not commit the board to any number of wharves? Mr. Jull: That is so. In the judgment of the majority of the board the engineers were compiling necessary information as the best means of spending the available money. Mr. Gray: You said that the majority of the board was desirous of proceeding with the Inner Harbour with the money in hand? Mr. Jull; That is so. Mr. Gray: It is desired that the Commission should report on the feasibility of an Inner Harbour Scheme whir' provides for two berths ? Mr. Jull: We have not sought for the Commission to adjudicate on it, but would be glad for them to do so. We never sought for the Commission at all. We are capable of making up our own mindsMr Gray (to the chairman): It is still the Inner Harbour scheme with modifications, in a cutting down from four berths to two. Mr Barton : If we are now assured that the policy of the board is for a two-berth harbour, we shall be glad to report upon it Mr Gray: The view is that one additional wharf at the outer harbour with the present accommodation would not be equal to that at the Inner Harbour with an additional two-berth wharf and the existing accommodation. Mr Barton: What is the length of West Quay wharf that you are now reconstructing? . Mr Jull: About 1000 feet. Cullen and Keele’s plans, showing four berths, allows 4000 feet over all?—That is so. Cullen and Keele allow 2600 feet for four overseas berths?—Yes Mr Jull here stated that the decision to proceed with 3000 feet of ouav was an announcement that the board did not intend providing for four ocean-going liners. Mr Barton: What length would you reouire for four liners? —2500 feet. Well, that would leave vou 500 feet and the accommodation in the Iron Pot?—Yes. Mr Lusk: The question of a twoberth harbour has never been put before the board for confimation —No. M Lusk: Is this the position: That when you discovered from the engineers what work could be done '.he board’s policy would be decided?—No the board’s policy is the adoption of an Inner Harbour scheme as outlined by Cullen and Keele.

It might be that when put before the board the board might not adorA the policy of a two-berth scheme ?— They might make it one or even three. What is the harbour that the Jommission is to report upon?—A comparison between the two harbours Do you suggest that in 1920 when you went to the ratepayers that there was any suggestion other than the scheme Cullen and Keele designed ?— Certainly I do.

A SCHEME CM DOWN. Had you any other scheme than Cullen and Keele’s 1912 scheme?— Yes. a scheme cut down. In every wav it was less Was it not proposed that the West Quay should be 34 feet in depth?— No. What about this lithographed nlan sent out in 1920?—1t provided for 3000 feet of reinforced concrete with provision for two overseas vessms. Didn’t you sav that the board’s policy for a two-berth harbour was given publicity for the first time today?—This board’s policy. The board in 1920 was not the same board If you were chairman it would ire the same board? —You flatter me.

Doesn’t this plan of 1914 provide for four berths?—No. one would not suggest building four berths until they were required. Do vou suggest that in 1914. when you went to raise £300,000. that you didn’t intend puttin" in four berths? —We couldn’t do for £300,000 what would cost £393,000

Y'ou promulgated this bill?—Who did? Undoubtedlv vou.

Mt Lusk: This one in 1926?— There were four bills promulgated in 1926.

Mr Lusk (after reading from a hill promulgated regarding reclamation): Doesn’t that suggest that the reclamation of that area was really to provide for four berths?—No. But the wharf was to be nut there? —lt might be anlv a rubble wall to retain the dredgings As required it will be extended on the line To Mr Gray: It was not practicable when the hoard went before the elector* in 1920 to construct the berths suggested hv Cullen and Keele in 1912 for £393,000.

The prospectus in 1920 says to provide accommodation for two ships at the Breakwater will cost double the money for less accommodation at the Inner Harbour by the words “less accommodation,’’ I meant the ratepayers to understand that the Inner Harbour would provide enough berthage for two vessels if not for three. It would depend upon their size.

Mr Bnrton: The harbourmaster said that four berths were necessary. Did you not think that that impression should be corrected ?—I certainly do.

To Mr. Barton, Mr. Jull said that he assumed that the harbourmaster wa s alluding to Cullen and Keele’s report for four berths at the Inner Harbour and of one pier jn the section

of their report on the Outer Harbour. The harbourmaster was not in a position to say what the board's policy was. Mr. Waters: I think that it is only fair to the harbourmaster to say that he gave those answers to me in reply to questions. Mr. Barton: Do you still think that that evidence given in answer to a member of the Commission does not call for a disclaimer from the chairman of the board?—No, I considered that it was just an expression of the harbourmaster’s opinion. Mr. Barton: Everything so far has been on the basis of a four-berth harbour, HARBOUR TO HANDLE THE TRADE. Mr, Waters: The board is unanimous that there should be a harbour capable of handling the trade of the port?—Yes, we are on that. You recognise that your trade is largely seasonal? —For wool it is. but not for meat. Do you recognise the necessity ot prompt loading?—l do. Do you think that two berths would meet the prompt loading of the port? —it would be more prompt than it is to-day. Would there be any delay with two berths?—There would be a little; even with four berths some delay would possibly occur. From an economic point of view it would not be politic for the board to expend money on works that would be idle tor part of the year. Do you consider that two berths would meet the ordinary trade of the port?—Yes. Do you recognise that the Nev Zealand producers are bearing heavy charges in the matter of freights P— Yes. Do you recognise that the delays in the loading at the many ports tend to increase the charges?—That is opening up the question of centralisation and I want to be very careful with it. Mr. Barton; Without giving any premature information, we are asked to report as to whether Napier needs a harbour. We can say yes. “CONSIDERABLE RELIEF TO MANY.” Mr. Jull; Thank yuu, that is a considerable relief to many. To Mr, Barton : With a two-berth harbour 1 think that we could save all lighterage. The little time involved in having to wait would e more than made up by rapid handling of cargo. Labour has also to be considered. Mr. Waters: Are you still of the opinion that two berths at the Inner Harbour would be adequate?—Yes it would do better than a two-bertu Breakwater harbour. It would be quite reasonable for the Commission to take two berths as a basis for the Inner Harbour for their cauculations ?—Yes. And at the Breakwater?—No. two berths would not be sufficient as the coastal trade would also have to be taken into consideration. If the Glasgow Wharf was dredged to 31 feet it might fall down. Mr Lusk: You are very pessimistic. Mr. Barton: Mr. Holmes iunr. has given us alternative estimates, one being for the berths at the Breakwater of 34 feet. Mr Gray: Mr. Holmes only made such provision for a new wharf, not. at the Glasgow. To Mr. McKenzie; 1 think the commission should have evidence on the condition of the Glasgow wharf. It could be used for a number of years provided the berths were not dredged too deep. The railway wharf leading to the Glasgow wharf is in need of attention, if not reconstruction. MARINE SUPERINTENDENT’S EVIDENCE. Captain Thomas H. Chudley, marine superintendent for the Shaw, Savill and Albion Shipping Company at Wellington, said he was at sea for 30 years. Since 1891 he was trading to New Zealand, visiting Napier very frequently. Dealing with the Inner Harbour, Captain Chudley said in the first place it was a lee shore with a strong current running between the moles and although there was deep water there was a risk of taking a vessel in except in fine weather. If it was necessary to anchor during a flood tide a ship would possibly swing round, going aground. Witness stated that they were the men who were responsible for the vessels going to ports and for their safe working. What agents had to say was of no account. A further difficulty would be the limitation of slack water and the necessity of turning a ship round to berth head out. Once inside there would be no difficulty in working the vessels.

Continuing his evidence this afternoon, Captain Chudley stated that the average weight of vessels loading at Napier varied from 7000 tons to 12,000 tons, with an average draught of 25ft. to 26ft, on departure. In taking a vessel into the Inner Harbour the basin would have to he reached at slack water in order to turn the ship without the effect of the current. With either a strong easterly or westerly he would not like to attempt to navigate the channel. A tug at either end of the vessel would overcome much of the difficulty It could only be worked at high water, and would not be safe to be worked nt night. During winter with a high tide at five in the morning it would be dark, which would mean that the whole day would be lost. A ship arriving in the roadstead would be obliged to wait for the tide. [Yesterday afternoon’s proceedings will be found on page B.]