SERVICE BY SEA

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 60, Issue 4333, 20 September 1950, Page 8

SERVICE BY SEA

COROMANDEL PROBLEM POSITION REVIEWED A DEPUTATION TO COUNCIL The need of a regular daily freight and passenger service by sea from Auckland to Coromandel was stressed when Mr A. S. Tonkin, president of the Coromandel Chamber of Commerce, headed a deputation consisting of Mjessrs H. V. Denize, A. Mclnerney, H. A. Rowse, R. G. Denize, H. B. Ball, J. Hansen, D. Longley, R. V. Hawley, W. H. Preece and A. T. Jane to the September meeting of the Coromandel County Council. Mr Tonkiir read a lengthy and com- ,• Iprehensive report in reference to the (Coromandel harbour and wharf facilities; The report stated that the proIviMon of a regular daily freight and passenger service to Cdromandel was a matter of the greatest importance. “It ia vital,” continued the report, “so far r as the future' progress, of the township, in particular, is, concerned. t Otherwise the great future for the *■ inteneive cultivation of the rich Coroanandel flats and the growing of vegetables, flpwers and l fruit for. the Auckland'market cannot be assured until . and unless means of transport suitable for these activities is provided.” “The question of sea versus road k 1 transport came into the picture and, although modem conditions tend to rose transport, the difference In distance in this instance canriot be ig* noted. , Coromandel is 40 miles from 4 Auckland by water, whereas it js 100 :by road arid it is always maintained 5 that sea transport is cheaper than by road.” The report went on to ata|e that the county council had • been : considering wharf proposals

since 1909, and in all cases the costs were only .estimated. Reports from many had been; obtained, but none' of their repernmendaiions had been followed. More recently it was proposed! to extehd the present mole dut a further 1500 feet. However when/ estimates were obtained it was found that the cost would be some £46,000 so that plan had to be aban doned. Next it was proposed that the mole be not extended but that ceriain improvements ■be effected to the •, buildings and’ structures and that a channel be dredged to deep waters. The council had in sight only £20,000 ‘ to cover the cost of the proposal. The question of dredging was always a problem owing to the uncertainties of the sea bed and estimates which were compulsorily confined to a fixed •limit of money were dangerous and • were invariably exceeded in execution. It was in the light of such a situation that the memorandum was presented to the council, said Mr Tonkin. The report stated that if the available money would only permit having a wharf that could only be worked acl'cording' to the tide then the expenditure of £20,1000 was unjustified. The continuation of only a tidal wharf cause trade to insist on the provision of daily road transiport and , Coromandel was not for much longer going to be content with transport of an irregular nature if any practical alternative was available. SsbwM Boat Harbour Furthermore a most important factor to be kept in mind was the provision of an all-tide small boat harbour. A dose study of the engineer’s .reports showed that opinions had changed according to the engineers. Some condemned dredging outright, other recommended it, but even those that recommend it were doubtful. Against the expert opinions local layman’s advice had prevailed and it

had been resolved (finance permitting) to proceed with the making of a dredged channel. Could Coromandel indulge in such a costly project when there was such a very great divergence of opinion as to i'ts success? If a 'large ihairbounr board, such as Auckland, made a mistake costing £20,000 the position could be retrieved. The error was not fatal. Bait a £20,000 mistake for Coroimanidel would ’be the end of all sea transport to Coromandel for all time. Was there any alternative? ..The deputation asked that before finally committing itself to any proposals■ that an inivestagation be made of 'the Preeces’ point project. > Messrs Mandeno, Lee aryl Brown had investigated the project in 1933 and strongly recommended the Preeces’ .point site for a wharf. The report gave a detailed' propek sition and the deputation asked the council to consider the proposals and have a further investigation made of the Preeces’ point project. Mr E. Deeble, county chairman, said, “You have placed before the council a most comprehensive report for a wharf in ’Coromandel. I can assure you that steps will be taken to consider your request.” The deputation then withdrew.

Or. S. Strongman spoke of the danger of the work of unloading in rough weather, and said as far as he could see Preeces’ point was out of the question for small boats and shipping.