Different Opinions

Hutt News, Volume 11, Issue 12, 18 August 1937, Page 5

Different Opinions

BOROUGH COUNCIL V. RIVER BOARD. SAFETY OR SECTIONS. An issue which, from the River Board's point of view, vitally concerns the safety of the Hutt Valley, was debated at last Wednesday's meeting of the Hutt River Board. At a previous meeting of the Board it was decided not to agree with the application of the Borough Council to remove 10 chains of the stop bank at a point approximately at the rear of the convent property in order to facilitate the carrying out of a town development scheme and to form a civic centre, in connection with the new Post Office. A perusal of the plan shows that the Council will lose by the sale c-f a reduced area in about five of the sections unless the stop bank is put about 80 feet closer to the river. At Wednesday's meeting the following letter was received from the Town Clerk, Mr. B. S. Knox: — 11th August. "I have to acknowledge your letter cf 10th inst. conveying your Board's decision in the matter of my Council's suggestion regarding the proposed relocation of the stop bank to facilitate its town planning layout. I am to say that the decision was a' great disappointment to my Council, especially in view of the fact that during the preliminary discussions with your engineer, Mr. Sladdcn, Council's officers were given to understand that he was in complete agreement with the proposals. He appeared to bo not concerned so much with the berm area as he was with the channel of the river.

"As a result of Mr. Sladden's attitude at the interviews referred to above, our scheme was re-arranged and developed in the belief that my Council's request as convoyed to you in my letter of 9th inst. would be the subject to a favourable report by your engineer. I am, therefore, to ask in view of the above facts that the matter be re-cpened by your Board and further considered, more from the point of view of the benefit to lie derived from the carrying out of my borough's proposals as against the disadvantages of reducing the berm area of the river, which were were assured was a matter of small moment at tliis particular point." Engineer's Report. The report of the River Board's engineer, Mr. H. Sladden, regarding the Council's application for consent to an alteration in the location of the stop bank, stated that the Council, in connection with the town-planning lay-out of the Council's High (Street property and contiguous lands, desired to alter the alignment of about 10 chains of the flood embankment. What was desired was to set the bank nearer to the river by an amount varying from nil to SO feet.

The location was some 15 chains upstream from the old bridge. At the old bridge there was the minimum crosssectional area of the flood discharge waterway where there was but little berm width between the river bed and the embankments. The embankments upstream discharged gradually but irregularly, and in the reach concerned in the application there was a total berm width of five chains. Between the Hutt and Moiling bridges the river conditions had :been much improved in recent years and were quite good. The flood capacity between the embankments provided a safe margin for a flood volume equivalent to the maximum flood that had occurred since the inception of the Board's works some 3(> years ago. An important principle in river control was the provision of an adequate berm between embankments in order that the flood height might not be unduly lifted, continued Mr. Sladden. In this particular case, however, the controlling factor in this respect was the cross-sectional capacity at the bridge and the suggested alteration to the embankment would 1 have a practically negligible effect on the flood height. Chance of Variation. The other major point to consider was the possibility at a future date of a. variation to the alignment of the channel as designed in the original control scheme. Such variation would embody an increased radius in this reach with the object of still further reducing the natural tendency for a shingle spit, to develop on the convex left bank, and of developing and maintaining the channel in a shape and condition more nearly approaching, the ideal. This might be an important factor from the River Board's point of view, more particularly when ultimately the Mclling diversion cut was constructed, but the suggested alteration to the embankment would seriously limit- the "possibilities. Viewing the proposal solely from the River 'Board's point of view, he was unable to recommend tnat it be accepted. The matter of the Borough Council's scheme, involving as it did the development of a civic centre, was, however, of considerable importance, and he concurred in the suggestion that before' the Board made its decision there should be a confercncc between representatives of the Council and of the Board.

The chairman, Mr. J. Mitchell, said lie wished to reopen the question with a view to granting the request., Mr. i\ J. Jones: "I don't think any fresh matter is disclosed, and therefore I don't see why wc should tffiopeii.-the question. We gave it full consideration last time ..." 'Mr. J. Bras ell: "I agree with yen." . Mr. P. J. Jones: "And' I move that the question : bc not Te-opcued." The chairman moved as an .amendment "that the former proposal be rescinded." Mr. J. Brasell: "I object to 'that; you must give seven-days' notice."

The amendment was withdrawn ami tlio chairman put the motion, which was lost. Dr. B. J. Dudley said he had prefaced his remarks tii the sub.jivt at the last meeting with the statement that he was an interested party, but he now withdrew this statement, as he had found that whatever was done would make no difference to his property. To use his own phaseology, "though there was a definite disease there was more than one way of cure." AVas it necessary to put a direct negative l in the way (,*t ! the development of a future city? lie failed to see that the encroachment of SO feet could be of tiny serious importance. He gave the Board's engineer, Mr. yiadden, and Sir. i\ J. Jones credit for ability to devise some means of overcoming a small ditlK-ulty and of acceding to the Council's request without. danger. There had been no discussion of a means of remedying a hypothetical danger. He had been at Lower Hutt IS years and the berni —an escapement area —had not. been interfered with despite severe floods.

Mr. Sladden hadi stated that it might be necessary at some future time 'to lengthen the bridge, said Mr. Jones. The more the Beard tied itself up now the bigger the expense and the problem would be then. "If there is the risk stated, why allow the stop bank to sC'.y a day longer like it is."' asked Dr. Dudley. Mr. .Tones said that to ignore Mr. Sladden's advice'would 1 be to add to the risk. The secretary, Mr. A. J. Gearing, stated that the Mayor had told him that the Council was prepared to leave the old bank in existen.-e for a period of years and if any danger threatened to remove the proposed new bank and revert to the old one. Mr. F. J. Jones: "We have very long terms to consider in cases like this. We may have ten years without a flood'. The point is we want as much berm as possible, and because it is bad in one place that is no reason for making it bad here too." Mr. J. Mitchell: "I have been here 30 years, and what you suggest is never likely to happen." Mr. V. J. Jones: "Take the case of Oanurru, where the people are calling on the Government to give protection. I was concerned with that 35 years ago, and it was then considered absolutely safe. We should remember what has happened in the cases of the .Mississippi and the Ohio, where whole towns have been washed away." After further discussion the chairman's 'motion was carried ami it was decided to hold a special meeting on 25tli inst. to deal with the chairman's motion.