WEST QUAY

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVIII, Issue 203, 10 August 1928, Page 6

WEST QUAY

RECONSTRUCTION SCHEME NOT TO BE PROCEEDED WITH. BOARD RESCINDS DECISION. In order to make , further use of the facilities at the Inner Harbour improving the accommodation to enable such vessels as the Kahika carry ing southern produce to discharge at the Inner Harbour instead of at the Breakwater thereby effecting big savings in the charges both to the Board and to the consignees, the Napier Harbour Board at its July meeting decided upon a scheme for the reconstruction of 300 feet at the northern end of West Quay In view of later developments which were discussed by the Board yesterday, it was decided that the instructions for the preparation of the plans in respect to this work should not be proceeded with. The scheme is likely to be amended to have a similar type of work carried out at the cattle whaif giving the same accommodation while repairs to' the 300 feet of quay will have to be undertaken at an early date. RICHARDSON’S AND CO’S PROTEST. The developments which led to yesterday’s decision arose through a letter received from Richardson and Co. protesting against the proposal for constructing an addition to the West Quay 50 feet out from the present Quay frontage in front of the D shed. An alternative was suggested regarding shed accommodation, namely, that the Harbour Board purchase from Messrs Barry Bros. Ltd. their buildings on the corner of Railway and West Quays.

Mr Jull stated that on receiving the letters he met Mr McLeay and the master of several vessels, afterwards getting into touch with Mr Holmes, and instlucting him to not to go on with the plans and to come to Napier.

Mr Holmes, in his report, to the Board stated.-—■

“In accordance with your instructions we have not proceeded with the preparation of the plans of the proposed structures.

‘ • Owing to Messrs Richardson and Co. raising objections to the proposed new wharf and in accordance with your instructions we waited upon the manager and after describing the proposals to him and several of the company’s masters ascertained their objections and apprehensions in regard to the proposals. “Briefly these are that the proposed wharf would be detrimental to navigation into and out of the Iron Pot, and also the working of the lighters to and from the berths on the quay south of the proposed work particularly during westerly weather and strong tides. “We discussed with the harboutmaster and yourself after viewing the position of the proposed wharf the objections raised by Richardson nnd Company’s masters. “The harbourmaster expressed rhe (•pinion that large vessels such as the Pakura enter and leave the Iron Pot at slack water, so the erection of the proposed wharf would moke no difference to their navigation into the Iron Pot. while having the wharf 55ft further out would assist such vessels leaving as compared with the present condition.

“In regard to the handling of ves seis berthed south of the proposed ■wharf ho agreed the?, there would be an increased difficulty over that experienced at present, particularly during westerly weather on account of having to clear any vessels lying at the proposed whnrf. The present practice is to keep ns close to the quay as possible and to take n-lvnn.. age of the existing current conditions in the vicinity of the Iron Pot. HARBOURMASTER’S SUGGESTIONS. “The Harbourmaster expressed his opinion that by constructing the new wharf at the south end of West Quay any variation in the present navigational conditions would be obviated for the small vessels while the amount of dredging required would tie limited to a narrow channel to the berth as on leaving the vessel would adopt the same practice as at present that is they drop down until they reach the turning basin then turn and proceed to sea. “It appeared to us that the apprehension of the masters are largely duo to the new works introducing factors that may alter the present current conditions and to possible difficulties oi low powered vessels working the port during the periods of tidal flow. The facing of the eastern pier is sure to improve the current conditions in the vicinity of the Pot and this should neutralise to a certain extent possible alteration to the currents due to the erection of the proposed wharf while the use of higher powered vessels would .no . doubt overcome to a large extent the other troubles. “It appears to us that the exact position where the wharf is to go is a matter of policy and decision by the board.” MR JULL EXPLAINS. Mr Jull explained that the purpose of the erection of this wharf was to enable the board to handle cargo more economically, more particularly that arriving from the south, on which the board was losing considerable sums in handling charges. There was no desire whatever to embarass and there was no doubt that the suggestion made by the harbourmaster was better than the one originally proposed. The board had asked for plans and estimates for reconstructing the cattle wharf section of the Iron Pot. He had stated that there would be no difficulty in handling such vessels as the Kahika there. In view of that the board could consider the carrying out of additions to B shed to enable it to cope with that cargo.

Mr.Jull then proposed; “That the instructions for the preparation of plans in respect to West Quay he not proceeded with at present.” This was seconded by Mr H. Anderson.

Mr Higgins i marked that he was pleased that wiser counsels had prevailed. When Use issue was raised nt the previous meeting, he objected to it as no reports had lieen received in regard to the navigational aspect. He hoped some day that the chairman would realise that the Inner Harbour had disadvantages. Mr Jull: Now. then. Mr Higgins, if you wauj to raise a discussion on

the Inner Harbour and Breakwater we will set aside an afternoon for it.

Mr Higgins: Regarding the proposal to increase the accommodation at the B shed, I would, like to know something about it, Mr Jull: I will have something at the next meeting. Mr Higgins then emphasised at length the need of careful investigation before the board was committed to large expenditure. Mr J. S. McLeod: This sounds like a fatherly lecture. Mr Higgins; It’s just the opportunity tn give it. Mr Jull : I could reply to all you have said, but it doesn't matter.

Mr Higgins: Nn doubt you could make twenty replies. Mr .lull: I agree with you ;it affords a beautiful opportunity. Mr G. F. Roach then congratulated Mr Jull on the motion he had proposed. Mr Jull explained that the shipping companies had knowledge of the decision to prepare the sketch plans and estimates. Mr Jull’s motion was then carried unanimously.