RECLAMATION

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIX, Issue 283, 14 November 1929, Page 8

RECLAMATION

HARBOUR BOARD AND COUNCIL DEPUTATION GIVES its VIEWS. CONFERENCE TO BE HELD. Much more was heard yesterday in regard to the reclamation of the 92acre block, when a deputation from the Napier Borough Council waited upon the Napier Harbour Board to voice their opposition to the proposal by the board to remove the dredge Apiti to the Inner Harbour to reclaim the South Pond. A letter was received from the council suggesting that an agreement honourably entered into by both bodies in regard to the 92-acre block shoun. be carried out.

The outcome of a very lengthy discussion was the decision to hold a further conference between the two bodies, which will be held almost immediately, so that no undue delay will be occasioned. The council’s deputation consisted of Messrs R. W. Goodger (Deputy-Mayor), C. D. Cox, It. Dockery, A. H. D. Mayne, A. E. Bedford, S. G. Ellison, F. Rice, and G. F. Clapcott (borough engineer). The Deputy-Mayor (Cr. Goodger) who led the deputation, called upon Cr. Mayne to read the following notes which had been prepared in support of the council’s claims:— OBJECT OF DEPUTATION. “The deputation from the Borough Council is for the purpose of urging the Harbour Board to proceed with the raising of the 92-acre block in accordance with the arrangement agreed upon by representatives of the Harbour Board and the borough at a conference held on July 2 last, the recommendation of the joint committee of representatives of the board and the borough being as follows: — “ ‘The joint committee recommends that the Harbour Board agree to carry out the filling of the 92-acre block to the 25.5 datum at a sum not greater than £30,000. “ ‘The joint committee further recommends that the work be commenced as soon as the dredge completes the reclamation of the 28-acre block and that it be carried out as expeditiously as possible.’ “The broad terms of the arrangement are:—

“The borough to raise a loan of a sum not exceeding £30,000 for‘the purpose of reclaiming to datum level of 25.5 an area of approximately 92 acres. No interest to be payable by the board to the borough on moneys advanced under the agreement for 2) years from the time the money was advanced; after that simple interest to be payable at the rate at which the borough raises its loan. The rentals received by the board from the area to be divided between the board and the borough in the proportion of the respective capital expenditure of each body. The payments to the corporation of portion of the rentals to continue until the corporation has received payment of its total capital outlay and simple interest as provided.

“As sufficient areas are reclaimed the board to carry out the subdivision and roading, sewering, etc., of the block and put some ou the market. Provision is made in the agreement that no rates excepting Hospital and River Board rates, are to be payable to the borough until areas are made suitable for settlement, and if any special rates shoula be made thereon the borough shall indemnify the board from having to pay same.

“It should be observed that the board bears no responsibility for the reclamation of the area except any small excess (if any) over file £30,000. Regarding the cost of subdivision, roading, etc., this is only to be done in areas so that the whole block would not be thrown on the market at once, consequently expenditure, so far as the board is concerned, would only be incurred over a considerable period, as the demand for land was apparent. PAYMENT IN THE BOROUGH. “We have to stress the fact that no responsibility for payment to the borough is cast on the board except as revenue is derived from the reclaimed area itself, and that the borough is not to be reimbursed to the extent of 2j years’ interest on the loan money. “At the last conference the board was represented by the chairman, Mr A. E. Jull, and Messrs Jones and Ericksen also its engineers, Messrs Hay and Rochfort, and the acting secretary, Mr G. H. Brown. The borough was represented by Crs. Bryant, Higgins and Mayne, the borough solicitor, Mr J. Moiling, the borough engineer, and the town clerk “The council, realising in the interests of the borough the necessity for making available some of the extensive low-lying lands on its boundary held by the Harbour Board considered that it was advisable for the borough to take over the responsibility of the reclamation. For one body to undertake the responsibility of the expenditure required for reclaiming the land* of another local body is most unusual and required statutory powei’ to do so, and it was because the council realised the great need for these lands for urban purposes,

that it has thought fit that its ratepayers should have the opportunity of shouldering the immediate burden.

EARLY CARRYING OUT OF WORK URGED.

“As the board is aware, a number of conferences have been held and a great deal of thought and time has been given to formulate an arrangement satisfactory to both bodies and it will be a matter for great regret if now that the matter has been finalised that the carrying out of the works, as agreed upon, should be deferred to some distant date and the council desire the board to appreciate the council’s standpoint as to me need tor reclamation and entertain strong belief that this work carried out in the immediate future will be in the mutual interests of the borough and the Harbour Board.

"Hi the earlier agreement as drafted by the board’s solicitors the body to carry out the work was not finally determined, but at later conferences it was agreed that the board was the suitable body to do so, and it will be remembered that the board’s representatives, while agreeing •to tins course thought that an opportunity should be given of testing the capacity of the dredge. This was conceded by the boiough representatives. When it was finally decided that the board should undertake the work, the board’s solicitors redrafted the agreement, the provisions of which were much simpler than previously and which overcame certain difficulties in the agreement as originally drawn.’’

QUESTION OF AGREEMENT. Mr. Jull: Would you make it clear —you said that an agreement had been entered into? Mr. Mayne: The agreement had been drawn up and agreed to by representatives of both bodies. Mr. Jull: Do you know if a draft agreement ever appeared before a meeting of the joint commttees? Mr. Mayne: We understand that was in the hands of the solicitors of the Harbour Board, and it was merely a question of the execution of it.

Mr. Jull: Execution or agreeing to terms ?

Mr. Mayne: in July last it was finally agreed to, and all that was required was to reduce it to writing. Mr. Mayne, in outlining the history of the 92 acres, stated that in 1927 the Council met the Minister of Marine with a view to securing an area of about 500 acres for the purpose of reclamation. The Minister was of the opinion that the two bodies concerned should act jointly, and he believed that the suggestion of the 92 acres was the outcome of that interview. Between July, 1928, and last July the question of proceeding with the reclamation of this area was stood in abeyance. In July last the conditions were agreed to by both the Harbour Board and the Borough Council It was not until last month that the Council had any knowledge that the board had no intention of carrying out the agreement.

Mr. .lull: The letter sent hy the hoard did not say that the hoard had no intention of not finishing the work.

•‘VERY SORE AT ANNOUNCEMENT.”

Mr Mayne: Thinking that the work was to be carried out immediately we were very sore at the announcement. You stated when we met you just recently that you thought the board would be able to secure another dredge for work at the port. Nothing whatever was said on July 2 that the agreement was to be conditional. Finance was another point that vou gave for not going ahead with the work immediately. You stated that the specifications for roading would make the sections prohibitive. The same requirements for the 92-acre block as for the 28-acre block would not be insisted on because the latter would be carrying heavy through Jraffic. Mr. Jull: The Council imposes the same conditions, no matter where the locality. Mr. Mayne, continuing, stated that there had been an average of 62 houses erected annually, and on that basis the 28-acre block would lie absorbed in three years. One-third of Napier’s population was residing in Napier South, which was evidence of the demand for land in that locality. Mr. Mayne concluded by stating that it was understood that the agreement was practically finalised, and the council regretted that the board had intentions of not proceeding with the work. COST OF ROADING. Mr. Lyon: How do you account for the great discrepancy in the cost of roading of the 28-acre block and of the 92-acre block. Mr. Mayne: In the 28-acre block the roading was to carry much heavier traffic. Mr. Clapcott explained that it was anticipated that the Taradale road through the block would carry much the heavier traffic, and consequently the foundations were much heavier. Mr. Jull: What about the side street ? Mr. Clapcott: That would be much lighter. Mr. Jull there is no variation in the roads at all. All the specifications are drawn to one plan, and the carrying capacity is equal. Mr. Clapcott: With a lighter construction on the 92-acre block the work could lie done for £B5 a chain. Mr. Goodger. to Mr Mayne: Would the council be prepared to allow the board to put the lighter construction

on the side roads, and also meet the board in regard to the heavier construction.

Mr. Mayne stated that he could not answer that, which was a question concerning the roading of the 28acre block.

Mr. Jull: In the face of our own engineers’ estimates for the 28 acres the board had to assume, because the council had been so adamant, that the same would apply to the 92-acre block, and it is only to-day that we hear for the first time that the council was prepared to allow of lighter formation for the 92-acre block. The question of the honourable carrying out of the agreement had been stressed by the Council.” said Mr. Jull, but there was a great distinction in having an agreement prepared and having it entered into. The board had to know what it was committing itself to. The board could not help but feel that with the great delays of the council in finalising agreements for the 28-acre block and other areas that there was no great pressing need for more land for the expansion of the town. The council had overlooked what the board had done in regard to the reclaiming of the Awatoto block, and he felt that there was no need for any alarm whatever in regard to the land available for settlement. NOT AT PROHIBITIVE COST. The board wanted to get its land settled but not at a prohibitive cost, continued Mr. Jull. The board did not propose to abandon the 92-acre block altogether, but considered that in the meantime there was ample land on the town side of the river to meet the needs of expansion. He was not at all disinclined to listen to any reasonable suggestion, but the board, at its last meeting, unanimously agreed to embark on what was considered to bo an important work. The board was entitled to its point of view, and regarded the council’s view with respect. The two bodies might be able to meet again and have the proposals recast to endeavour to meet the demands made. It was the board which ultimately had to pay, and it wanted to see that reclamation was not embarked upon in a riotous and extravagant manner. Further, the board was entitled to consider and recast its financial position before it entered into a contract.

Mr. Mayne, in reply, submitted that the reasons given by the chairman were known at the meeting in July last. Mr. Jull: No. The costs and specifications from the council were received only last month. Mr. Mayne considered that there was now some hope of doing something, and he asked how soon the dredge could be brought back to do the 92-acre block. He asked if it would be possible to have a further conference before the dredge was ultimately removed. It might be found, on going into the question further, that it would be wise to do the 92-acre block before moving it to .the Port.

Mr. Dockery asked if the members of the board were acquainted with the decision made, and whether due consideration was given to it.

CAME AS A BOMBSHELL. Mr. Higgins: I can answer that. It was never on the order paper, and when it was introduced it came as a bombshell to members. We had no estimates of the cost of the removal of the dredge; in fact, no information was given at all. Mr. G. McKay : 1 wish to rise to a point of order. Is Mr. Higgins taking the place of the chairman and speaking for the whole board? Mr. Dockery said that the population of Napier was very cramped, and if the dredge was once moved it might be five years before it returned to do anything with the 92acre block. Mr. It. W. Goodger expressed the hope that some finality would be reached that would be satisfactory to both bodies. He then expressed the council’s thanks for receiving the denutation, which then retired. Mr J. E. Jones expressed concern at* the cost of the allotments, and said that Mr Clancott gave evidence at the Commission that the cost per section would be under £lOO. When the board and council committees met the data Mr Clapcott put before them brought the cost of allotments up to £136, and now he heard from Mr Jull to-day that the cost per acre of the residential area of the 92-acre block will be £lOOO, which brings the cost per allotment to ove, £166. Anyone who has read the Commission's finding must realise that they were impressed with the need of keeping the cost of these areas down.

Mr Lyon opposed any suggestion oi a conference unless the whole board attended it. He was afraid that the reclamation committee had somewhat let the board down in discussing the question on general lines and not going into detail and discussing such important matters as loading. REMARKS REGRETTED. Mr Joll regretted the remarks made. There had been no mention of breaking an agreement, but simply postponement. The removal of the dredge was for the purpose of carrying out more important work at the Port. Mr B. B. Creagh was of opinion that the conference would be futile. If the board had an idea of going in for a dredge or hiring one. the conference might be of some good.. Wherever the harbour was to he, the board had to keep the Inner Harbour open and facilities had to be given

for vessels working there. There could not be any reasonable objections to extending such facilities.. There had been a cry for years for the ponds to be filled in, and he considered that the South Pond when reclaimed. would make ail idea residential area. He saw little use in holding a conference for the sake of being polite to the Borough Council.

After further discussion it was finally agreed that the whole of the members of the hoard should confer with the Borough Council, Messrs Anderson and Jones opposing it.