HARBOUR INQUIRY

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 214, 24 August 1927, Page 5

HARBOUR INQUIRY

TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS MR. R W. HOLMES AGAIN IN THE BOX COMMISSION’S QUESTIONS The Commission inquiring into the affairs of the Napier harbour, port charges and reclamation continued its sittings at Napier this morning, Mr. J. 8. Barton, S.M., of Wanganui, presided, and associated with him were Mr. A. C. McKenzie, harbour engineer, of Melbourne, and Mr. J. B. Waters, merchant, of Dunedin. Mr. A. C Gray, K.C., of Wellington, with Mr. M. R. Grant, appeared for the Napier Harbour Board, while Mr. H. B. Lusk represented the Marine Department. Mr. R. W. Holmes, consulting engineer to the Napier Harbour Board, resumed his evidence. Mr. Barton (chairman) asked Mr. Holmes if his instructions to prepare evidence for the Commission was given personally or in writing. Mr. Holmes: Principally personally. Who gave the instructions?—The chairman. To whom were they given?—To my son and myself. I was not acquainted with the full details. Have you ever seen anv written instructions?—l wouldn’t like to say without referring to our file. What were you r instructions? —To prepare evidence for the Commission, it being left to our discretion as to the character of that information, the chairman being aware that we had had considerable similar experience in the past. I heard the chair man's evidence yesterday, and his statement that we were asked to report upon the best means of expending the moneys available, was the mam heading. What amount did he name as the monev available?—About £120,000. Were you guided by any statement of the board’s idea of the amount of berthage required?—l am not aware of any direct statement on the part of the Harbour Board as to the exact berthage to be estimated upon, but we worked upon what we considered would be the minimum that the board would first undertake. Would not a statement of the board's decision as to the amount if berthage required for the board? trade be the basis of an engineer's costs ?—Certainly. An absence from such statements leave the estimates elastic and in definite P—The board would then leave the matter to the discretion of the engineers. Your son. in his evidence, said that to bring the two schemes on to a basis on which it would be fair to compare the two schemes it would be necessary to raise the Breakwater by 10 feet?—That is right, but we did not include the cost of raising in our first total. Were your instructions elastic enough to include that figure, £223.000, without reference to the board's intentions as to the raising of the Breakwater?—Yes. Have you since your first appointment, been acquainted with the board’s policy as to the number if ocean-going berths required?—No Have yofi carefully studied Cullen and Keele’s 1925 report?—Yes. You saw the opening paragraph of that report?—Yes. On page 4 under the heading "Inner Harbour’’ they referred «’ the 2600 lineal feet as being accommodation for ocean finers?—l also noted that. You also saw the recommendation •bout the four berths ?—Yes. Was it clear to you that the requirements being then put forward were for four berths at each harbour?—We could hardly say that they were requirements. The number of berths put forward was merely as a basis for estimates. Four berths at the present time would be too many for trade at the port, and the board would not be justified in spending large sums of money on works that might not be required for many years. CULLEN AND KEELE’S ESTI- < MATES. Mr Holmes, continuing referred to Cullen and Keele’s estimates in their 1925 report of £487.000 for the outer harbour, stating that it required some modification. In the item for the extension of the Breakwater the rate quoted per foot was only £132, whereas the present-day value of the completed Breakwater was £196 and as the work in the extension was heavier than the average of the complcled port the unit rate had to be increased considerably above £196 and in view of large stone not being available the rate would have to be still further increased to allow for the more extensive use of concrete. Their estimate of £209,00(1 now required to be increased to £387,000. The item for the mole of £49.690 was at the unit rate of £l3 per unit, which was so inadequate that witness was convinced that a sertbus mistake had been made as he estimated the cost ox carrying out the work at £330,0Uu. Che per was also quoted at about one-half of the present-day value. They had also left out the cost of facing the proposed reclamation with stone, and no provision had been made for permament road and rail communication. In 1912 Cullen and Keele, although recommending the raising’ of the Breakwater did not include the cost. Not having done this they did not mention it in their 1925 report. Mr- Holmes estimated the cost of this work at £223,000. In the concluding part of their 1925 report, laid witness, they recommended the adoption of the outer harbour on account of the initial capital outlay being less. A recasting of the estimate showed that the cost of the outer harbour would be much in excess of the cost of the Inner Harbour and Mr Holmes felt confident that should the position be again reported on by Mr Cullen that he would revert to his former opinion that the Inner Harbour proposal should be adopted. NO CREDIT TO RECLAMATION. In neither of Cullen and Keele’s re ports did they give any credit to the value of reclamation which was a big product of both schemes. In 1912 while Cullen and Keele were in Napier, witness met them in order to discuss the route of the railway, the construction of which r-.cross the lagoon was about to be undertaken, as it was not desired that the location of the railway should interfere with tho devel«”'"" * T —>»r Harbour.

Mr Holmes also attended a meeting of the Harbour Boad in company with Cullen and Keele, when the position was further .discussed, when he gathered that they were decidedly in favour of the construction of an Inner Harbour. Acting upon this belief and upon the request of the board witness recommended that the longer route across the lagoon be adopted ,and arrangements were subsequently entered into by the local bodies concerned. SUBMISSION OF PLANS. Mr. Holmes said that it was stated, he believed, that plans of the Inner Harbour had not been submitted to the Marine Department fox- approval. The plan submitted by the Harbour Board was taken at the time by the officers of the Marine Department and by the officers of the Public Works Department as being quite sufficient to comply with the standing orders governing parliamentary procedure when a local authority was seeking the passing of a local Act. Witness knew of no provision in the Harbour Act requiring the plans of any scheme of harbour construction to be submitted to the Marine Department until such time as it was decided to proceed with the construction and then only pieee-meal as the board proceeded with the work, It was always looked upon as a principle that a plan should be held up unless it was at variance with section 169 where it stated that His Excellency might approve if a work was not liable to lead to interference with navigation. It was usual for the Marine Engineer to give a tip to the effect that navigation would not be interfered with if the work was carried out- In Maxwell Williams and Mason’s report Mr. Holmes said he omitted a point in which they stated that the harbour could not be used until the works were practically completed, and that the Breakwater could be used in 12 months, after work was started, by large ocean liners. Mr. Holmes said it was apparent that they had misjudged the position because the inner Harbour could be used in a temporary manner onoe it would be safe for navigation, whereas the outer harbour would not be safe in all weathers until the Breakwater and mole were completed. Such work could not be completed within 12 months. At this stage, Mr. Holmes, being unwell, was unable to continue and some time lapsed before another witness could be procured. MR EUSTACE LANE OFFERS TO FILL THE BREACH. Mr Eustace Lane offered to fill the breach by giving his evidence, but Mr Barton intimated that the Commission was not ready at this stage to hear his evidence. Mr Lane stated that he wished to get back to his work, some 84 miles away. He had no idea the proceedings would have gone on so long, but he was quite teady to wait. Mr Guy Rochfort, surveyor, of Napier. was the next witness. Mr Rochfort stated that he was associated with Mr Hay in working out a scheme of reclamation for the Napier Harbour Board. He stated that it was a scheme for the reclamation of the Wharae-o-Maraenui. He did not think that there was much to stress that was not mentioned in the report, but he would like to note three reasons for adopting dewatering instead of elevating land, being—first, cost; secondly, time taken' to do the work; and thirdly, because its present level would suit the level of the area surrounding it. Taking the cost of Mr Campbell’s scheme per acre ner annum at 6J per cent, would be £ll to lower the water level - Bv pumping. the yearly cost would be 6 ner cent., the actual pumping cost. Witn regard to the period of time that would be taken up in elevating the land as against dewatering it would be admitted that the latter could lie clone much quicker. In regard to it being the more suitable for the surrounding area, there was about 4000 acres between the board’s reserves and the southern line of protection that had to be established to protect it from flood. The greater portion drained through the board’s reserves, where a portion eould be dained bv gravitation. The whole of the 6000 acres could be included in the scheme for the purpose of reclamation of the,2B Block No. 2, Awatoto Block No. 3. Richmond Block No, 4, and McDonald No. 5. This division had been made to divide the work into convenient stages It was proposed to elevate the No 2 block to 6 feet above mean sea. No, 3 block was purely the watering, as would be the case with No. 4 block, except with the raising of a small area. No. 5 block was to be dewatered while the low part would be slightly raised bv the -noil gathered from an extensive system of drainage. The 28-acre block was now with the Napier borough and was to be subdivided into town areas. In the Awatoto block. 35 acres adjacent to the High School had been treated as a town area this being also divided into 110 allotments. The areas within the ewernty had been suvdivided into rural lots of from J-acre to 4 acres and from 5 acres to 50 acres for farm lots. AWATOTO BLOCK. In regard to the dewatering of ’he Awatoto black, it was proposed to put a pump on the beach and ouuip into the sea. leading the water to ♦he pump by a system of drainage If this block was to be reclaimed before the main diversion of the Tutaekuri was completed, an independent system of banks would be necessary to isolate it from the Tutaekuri. The levees would be a standardl bank 4 feet wide at the top. The amount allowed for flood protection for the Awatoto black was £1095, there being already a part of the work done. The Rivers Board, said witness, had started with the work of diverting the river on the lines of a scheme proposed by Mr. Hay, from Powdrell’s bend to the Waitangi. When the river was diverted it would be banked out from Napier, once the full scheme, costing £70,000, was carried out. At the present time tbe works done provided for the diversion of the flood waters. RICHMOND BLOCK. With regard to the Richmond block Mr. Rochfort said that the scheme provided, if necessary, to divert the Tutaekuri into a new channel and later bank it off from the Richmond block. In the main the scheme for the Richmond block was to be dewatering, the pump being located adjacent to the TaradaleNapier road, the water being discharged into the present river channel. Work on the 20-acre block had been started, but on account of the C’.D.K. sinking tho work had been held up. The McDonald block was proposed to be dewatered, hut not until the river was diverted. The

lower portion was about one foot above mean sea level, water lying there throughout the winter. When the work was done the areas outside those of the town in most eases would become profitable to the board other than those affected by salt. A considerable portion of the Richmond block and the whole of the McDonald block were affected by salt. Small portions of Awatoto block could also be included. The sewerage of the town areas would have to be dealt with by pumps and septic tanks. With regard to the possible values to the board of the lots within the town areas, Mr. Rochfort said that the possible increase in the population of Napier had been gone into very thoroughly. Personally, ho thought it was desirable to carry out the' reclamation as soon as possible provided it could be done, as he thought it could be, at the cost set out in their report. The land would not be all required for borough purposes, hut would be developed and improved by farming. The borough allotments shown in the 28-acre Awatoto and Richmond blocks totalled 1479 allotments. He did not think that it would be profitable to throw all those on the market within the next five years, The number of houses built per annum for the last five years was 79. The increase in the calculated population divided by 4.5, as an average number of persons in each house, required 132 new houses per annum. LED TO CONGESTION. Mr. Barton: The deduction from that is the inability to get land had led to congestion. Witness: That is so. Continuing, .Mr. Rochfort stated that the areas affected by salt couid be developed by agriculture. Regarding the rents on the Richmond block witness considered that the board should derive revenue off the farm land based on the value of £5B per acre. The rents received from the Maraenui township, which was better land, was about £6 per acre Dealing with the 28-acre block, which was wholly within the borough, their scheme showed 119 allotments of one. sixth of an acre. The estimated cost of these, including reading and water supply, was £64 10/-. the interest cost per annum being £3 17/- per annum. In the other two blocks the initial cost per lot was less in the Awatoto block but more in the Rich mond block. NORTH AND SOUTH PONDS. Mr. Rochfort stated that they re ported upon tbe reclamation of the North and South ponds, the method recommended being the raising of th land, being done by. firstly, pumping silt from the Inner Harbour and, secondly, by filling with spoil from various quarries. The cost per acre of reclaiming was estimated to be (1) by quarrying the North pond £l6OO. taking the average value of stone per cubic yard at 4/-i and estimating it at twenty per ceqt. of the total quarrying the cost per acre would be £1210; (2) by pumping. £BOO per acre, which amount included the cost of a suitable dredge. The respective figures for the South pond were £lOOO per acre. £725 per acre and £450 per acre. The Question of the disposal of the areas after being reclaimed depended on the settlement question, and ho did not think that these particular areas would be absorbed very quickly. Pumping would be the quicker method of reclaiming these areas. WOULD BE PROFITABLE. When the Commission resumed this afternoon Mr. Rochfort continued his evidence regarding reclamation, stating that he had no doubt that reclamation of the two ponds would be profitable. He considered that reclamation by pumping from the Inner Harbour would be much cheaper. As a ratepayer Mr. Rochfort considered that the board should hold on to its assets as there was a prospective value to the endowment by which they should benefit adjoining sections to the south. Land on the seaward side for residential purposes was being leased at the valuation of £1740 to £lBOO per acre. The selling price in the same locality had gone up to £2400. The value of £1740 was for a renewal. The scheme of subdivision was not done according to the Town Planning Act. The limit for residential area was 20 perches, being the same as that observed in Hastings. Mr. Barton: Is there a limit as to when the Town Planning Act shall come into force.

Mr. Furkert: Yes; within three years every town has to prepare its town planning schemes.

Mr. Barton; Twenty perches seems to be rather a low limit. Mr. Lusk: There are no areas for larger sections.

Mr. Lusk: Where you get these values from?—£l74o was my own valuation.

These sections are on the road where the trams run?—Yes, there is one road.

How lar away arc these lands?— About four chains back.

Isn’t it a fact that there is a great congestion and a need for reclamation ?—Yes.

And the prices obtained foi; freehold are largely due to that congestion ?—Yes.

Do you think that if there was any reclamation to the south of Napier South that there would be a demand for residential sections where the lands are?—That is a hard question to answer.

(The report of yesterday afternoon ’s proceedings will be found on page 7.)