SLIPWAY AT NAPIER

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 102, 11 April 1933, Page 4

SLIPWAY AT NAPIER

CONSTRUCTION NEAR BREAKWATER. RECOMMENDATION TO BOARD. The question of providing slipway facilities at Napier was before the Napier Harbour Board yesterday, when it was decided to refer a report on the proposed construction at the Breakwater and the question of utilising the present slipway to a committee to report later to the board. In connection with the proposed slipway at the Breakwater, the engineer, Mr G. B. W. Lowson, in a report stated that as the wharves in the proposed harbour development scheme would be placed close inshore under the lee of the Breakwater, it necessitated the slipway being located along the foreshore to the westward. The site was by no means an ideal one, being, until the Breakwater was extended, less sheltered than might be desired. Owing to the roadway running along the waterfront the slipway would have to be constructed wholly seaward, the extra work involved adding to the eost of construction. Concerning the design of the slipway, investigation indicated that a structure of cheap rubble concrete was the best to meet the conditions obtaining at the site. An estimate of £6987 was given as the approximate cost of the construction of a slipway capable of hauling up vessels of 250 tons dead weight. The chairman (Mr T. M. Geddis) stated that the question of a slipway was an important matter, and suggested that the engineer's report be referred to the committee to consider also the question of further utilising tho present slipway. Mr Geddis then moved a resolution on the lines of his remarks. In seconding the motion, Mr R. McLean stated that at the present time the board eoold not afford £7OOO, and would have to make do with the pro sent slipway. Mr A. E. Jull, M.P., considered i all that was necessary was to* put th , present slipway in order at a cost •< , about £l5O. He was of the opinion ■ that it was up to the board to do something as the people interested in > the present slipway had spent £2OOO on it of late. He understood that even i small trawlers could not utilise it at i present. Mr P. F Higgins suggested that the i- ii i st d shipping companies should

be approached to ascertain what support they were prepared to give the matter. In reply to Mr Higgins Mr Jul! stated that no dock in New Zealand was paying its way, but they were looked upon as being necessary equipment for a port. The motion moved by the chairman was then agreed to.