NAPIER HARBOUR

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 215, 25 August 1927, Page 8

NAPIER HARBOUR

COMMISSION’S INQUIRIES ASPECT OF RECLAMATION TWO WITNESSES CALLED. The Napier Harbour Commission resumed its sittings yesterday afternoon, when Mr Guy Rochfort. licensed surveyor. Napier, concluded nis evidence on the reclamation aspect, and Mr George A. Latham, retired contractor, also gave his news on reclamation. After we went to press Mr Lusk continued his cross-examination of Mr Rochfort. Were •■our reports adopted bv the board?—That for the 28 acres and the Awatoto block were but regarding the rest I can on t sa.v. The 28 acres were to be reclaimed by raising thrqueh dredging from the river?—Yes.

The Richmond block is partly dewatering ?—Yes The Awatoto block is purely dewatering?—Yes. This dewatering is a system of drainage to pump the water into the harbour —Yes

The reclamation of the Awatoto and Richmond blocks have nothing to do with the Inner Harbour?-No. The only reclamation in yout re port affected bv the construction if the Inner Harbour is the two ponds? —Yes.

The same applies to the Break water?—Yes.

Do vou agree that it is essential that reclamation for the purposes ot the borough should be proceeded with at once?—Y'es. As far as the 28-acre block and part of the Richmond block are concerned a dredge would have to be used?—Yes. Do you know the position of the CD.K, at the present time?—Yes Would you describe it as a local wreck?—lt is out of action. The Awatoto block, which is to be handed over for borough purposes, is to be dewatered?—Yes.

By open drains?—There would be one open drain. Mr Grant: Mt Lusk, what do vou mean by handing over? Mr Lusk: 1 mean for borough administration, but not the endowments.

Don’t you thiqk that there would be a great objection to reclaiming a town area by dewatering?—No: 1 see no difficulty. Even if the land was raised it might be still affected by flood. The dewatering system is m practice in many parts of the world The sewerage would have to be pumped, so whv not pump the surface water as well?

Don't you think that, for borough purposes it would be better if the land were raised?—No; I can’t see

You know that the borough is anxious to have part of the. Richmond block to the south of Napier South reclaimed?—Y'es.

Don’t you think that it should re raised?—lt would be an extravagant way of doing it. There tvould also be practical objections to making lakelets through dredging causing expanses of stagnant waters.

TUTAEKURI SCHEME. , You said that a minor scheme was in operation for the diversion of the Tutaekuri —A modified scheme, estimated to cost £2U,(J(JO. It is problematical as to when the Tutaekuri will be diverted? —Yes. In your opinion, the absorption el the north and south ponds would be slow? —Yes. Have you attempted to value them?—Yes. with Mr Kennv. for rhe purpose of the bill of 1928 that was to be placed before the House. Was it for propa-anda to impress the House? —No; I did not appreciate tile values. Mr Grant: Your reclamation scheme did not affect lands to the west of Taradale road?—No What was Mr Campbell’s cost >ver all for reclamation? —£172. What was your cost?—£3B per acre. Would not the reclamation of the town portion of the Richmond block entail the immediate removal of the river?—Yes. Mr Lusk; Why? Mr Rochfort: some kind of diversion would have to be effected, or otherwise the block would be flooded. Mr Grant; You advise that the Awatoto block and the 28-acre block should be done first? —They would be the more practical to do first. Do you remember the subdivision of the areas fronting Battery road? —Yes: they were leased very readily. Ypu have also reported on the reclamation ot lands to the west of the Taradale road ?— Y’es; it concerned chiefly the drainage of Taradale and Greenmeadows What was your recommendation? —To form a drainage board and put in a scheme that would gravitate lhe drainage from the higher lands and deviate the lower areas. Mr Barton: Where did vou get your figures as to the dredging costs?—They were worked out on information that Mr Hav had with him. Mr Waters; Did vou work out a scheme for the disposal of the sewerage?—No YVhatever was done would be separate from any dewatering?—Yes. separate pumps wou’ • be required. What is the outfall for the Napier sewerage?—A receiving tank near the pier-heads. The system that vou describe might link up with that?-—We thought that it might. Is the drainage under a Drainage Board ?—No; it is a department of the borough. Do vou think that the levees would afford absolute practical protection against floods to both the Awatoto and 1 Richmond blocks?—Y’es: that could be made sufficiently high to eliminate anv heavy flood For what boron-’- purposes would the Awatoto block be handed over f®r?—For residential purposes: there would be seven acres for recreational reserves.

Mr McKenzie: YVhat would be the height of the bank above flood level? —About two feet To Mr McKenzie: In the Awatoto block the lowest portion was along the beach frontage near the sementime ' The dntumn we work to is 20 mean sea. The value of high‘water is 23 and that of low water is 4 feet fl inches less The gradient of the drains was laid out in a general scheme of twn feet ner mile. Mr Grant: What would an eighth of.an acre section-within three-quar-ters of a mile of Hastings cost?— Just the section—about £7O. Mr Barton: I would like to congratulate. Mr Rochfort. on his reportg and returns. We have found them vary helpML

WOULD BE A DEMAND. George Ashton Latham, retired contractor, said he was a member of the syndicate that undertook the reclamation of Napier South. He was concerned in the practical side of the work, and when completed undertook the disposal of the allotments. He was of the opinion that once the ponds were reclaimed there would be a demand for residential purposes. He would be willing to purchase it at between £l2OO and £l3OO per acre. “Mr Lusk would be willing to share it with me.” he said Mr Lusk: No. I wouldn’t, not at that price; but I would vour Napier South property. Coiitinuing. witness instanced a sale in, 1924, when a purchaser bought just above the upset nrice. Without improving it. the owner had sold it recently with a goodwill of £lOO That section (21 perches) was near the High School and was being built upon. Some of the sections were not disposed of at the sale, but were all taken up shortly afterwards, although the Harbour Board had put ten per cent on the upset price. He was of the opinion that there would be a demand almost immediately for sections just beyond the High School. The board could base its rentals upon £lOOO per acre once it was subdivided. There would also be a demand for sections in the 28-acre blocks. Recently he refused £325 for an eight-acre closeiv adjoining this block He knew of the results of reclamation in Holland. where it took seven years to work the salt out. The land there would average about thirteen feet below sea level. The areas at the port when reclaimed and ready for occupation would be worth about £2OOO per acre.

Mr Lusk: Who do you suggest would occupy it?—YY’e had a house to let there, and we were besieged with applicants. Would you live there? —Y’es. 1 would be quite willing to. But I notice that vou always oet on the hill tops. There is a great demand for sections in Napier?—Yes.

The rents that have to be oaid show that?—Yes. Do vou agree that the Richmond block should be available for borough purposes?—! think there would be a good demand. lor it. The tendency is to that wav rather than towards the High School. The Commission then adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning