OCEAN BEACH DOMAIN BOARD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11191, 13 August 1898, Page 6

OCEAN BEACH DOMAIN BOARD.

A meeting oi the Ocean Beach Domain Board was held at the City Council Chambers last evening, and attended by the Mayor (Mr E. B. Cargill), who occupied the chair, Messrs H. Gourley, C. Fisher, J. H. Hancock, and F. Anderson.. The Clerk reported that, as instructed, lie had referred back to Messrs Leslie Reynolds F. W. Petre, ancl W. H. Hutcheson thoir schemes for the protection of the Ocean Beach, in ordei that they might have an opportunity of amending them in the light of the altered conditions at St. Clair. Mr Hutcheson submitted the following supplementary report: — Judging from what has appeared in the pubiic press, a vast amount of misconception appears to exist as to the present state of the Ocean Beach,, the damage now done, arid what may be expected. A notion appears common lhat the beach is irretrievably ruined, and the Flat. in extreme danger of immediate inundation When 1 wrote my first report, it was on tho basis that the beach proper had uot been affected, except slightly at St. Claii, and that damage, had been entirely confined.to the Sandhills. I have since been astonished to find Uow widespread it the contrary impression, and I consequently set to work to investigate the subject, and made inquiries amongst those who have been familiar with the beach for the past 20 or 30 years, and whose judgment could be relied upon. 1 am glad to say that, a-s a result ol inquiries, I ahall be able to satisfy the board that the damage is not so great, or the state of affairs nearly so serious as has been assumed by the man in the street. Amongst those who speak to this effect, i may mention Mr Rutherford (of Caversham), Messrs M. and T. Begg (of Anderson's Bay), and Mr W. Livingston (of Dunedin), all well-known citizens. They are unanimously of opinion that, excepting a slight lowering of the Beach at St.. Clair- (to" be explained later on), the lowwater line—general slope and appearance of the beach (excepting, of course, temporary changes caused by weather! —have not altered appreciably within the last 25 to 30 years, and that the done has been exclusively confined to the Sandhills. Damage has been done at two places—opposite the St. Kilda tram terminus and at St, Clair. It will be convenient to treat each separately. Opposite the St. Kilda tram terminus there is oa the beach a large lagoon. To.those rot intimately acquainted with the beach' in bygone years, this has a very alarming appearance. The sea appears to have broken in. But for tho past 30 years there has been a lagoon here after heavy weather. There-was, in oid days, as now, a broad ridge of sand Rising from the ocean, then the lagoon, and then the sandhills. The western end of this lagoon wound in and out amongst the sandhills, gradually becoming narrower, as far as the battery, much rescmbing a miniature fiord with sandhills tormountains. ; Iv early days the lagoon vyas fully as long and wide, and I think deeper'than at present. The ridge of sandhills, between it and the .Flat was harrow, but intact and continuous, and well covered with the tussocky natural grass which grows on these hills. In tine seasons, and sometime? for one or two years, the la-goon disappeared; the basin, indeed, was permanent,. but the water evaporated and soaked away, and, in the absence of heavy seas, it remained empty. As building •on the Flat increased, much—l may say all —of the sand forming the narrow belt of sandhills wa-s carted away. ' The battery was constructed, the natural grass impaired by traffic, and in time the protecting ridge oi sandhills disappeared. What has caused the alarm is this: Heavy seas on a high tide fill tho lagoon up to the top of the ridge already alluded to. When the sandhills stood, the lagoon acted as a basin, the water simply rose higher, ancl ran back to the ocean between the waves. Nov/, in the absence of the sandhills, this watei pours in part on. to the Flat. This is the .whole affair. . It will be seen-, therefore, that no expensive, works to protect the beach are required. The beach remains, as of old to receive the shock of the surf, but the sandhills must bo replaced, and this can be easily and cheaply done by the means recommended in my first report. St. Clair.—lt will be well to consider the original coastline at St. Clair to determine what encroachment, if any, has taken place. The land constituting St. Clair was one of the early grants when land was sub-divided first on paper in rectangular sections without any regard to natural features. The boundary of . this particular section, now St. Clair, was high-water mark. When the township was laid off, full 'advantage was taken of this, and the original or firit wall was erected at tho seaward foot of the sandhill slope, and the sandhills 'levelled.'' The' -Sandhills originally extended back to Victoria street. The front of the allotments fronting the Esplanade ; are, in fact;-about-"half-way up," what, was the original face of the Sandhills.; The first wall was destroyed,'.and the. second; wall, ; built by the unemployed, was erected fully. 30ft in advance of the old one_ thus encroaching on the beach in front of tho Sandhills. The sea, therefore, has done nothing more than restored the original condition of things. At the Sandr hills, wliich'riow constitute Pacific Park,; the water in' high- tides always came up to the foot, and frequently left a steep face several feet high. A few feet more than usual have been cut down. That is all. Sir. Rutherford, ..of CaVershaniy, who is well acquainted with the.1 original beach;' is my authority for these statements. There are also.many others; It is admitted, however, that the beach in front of St. Clair is now subject tp heavier seas'tha'n- formorly,and that the beach is somewhat lower than it used to be. I am inclined to think that Mr" M'lndoe's suggestion that the removal of rocks at the baths^has something"to do' with this, is correct. ( Mr Rutherford is also, of this opinion, and mentions a huge rock since removed, which, with others, was a great.protection to .'this part of the beach, and it is easy to understand how large boulders would protect this corner at high water, at which time damage occurs. This is, of course, very possible, and combined with the unusual proportion of south-west winds in 1397 and ISSS would fully'account for the removal of sand at this spot. " However, it is more than likely that fine weather will bring back the sand as much' as ever. From Te Wae Wae Bay, all up the coast, every beach is of sand, every river mouth and inlet is becoming, more and more choked np with it. There is uo prospect of tho supply decreasing. I have seen .St.. Clair beach several times bare of sand, covered, with boulders, and again, in a short time, the sand had returned, and not a stone to be seen. I think I have shown that had tho Sandhills at St. Clair been left in their original -, condition, and not been sold, .they, would not have received noticeable damage, and no one would- have taken any thought about the matter. The sea, in fact, has been encroached upon, and has returned merely to its original marks; any talk about the Flat being flooded from St. Clair is therefore absurd. It muse bo borne in mind that a beach such as the Ocean Beach is subject to fluctuations. Bad weather flattens it, and -attacks the Handbills. ' When fine weather returns, the beach becomes steeper, and the sandhills gradually recover what tliey have lost. Wlien, as in tho present case, the sandhills have been sold as building allotments, it simply becomes a question as to whether their value is equal to _ the cost of protective works. On the assumption that it i? desirable to protect St. Clair, I suggested a. wall in my first report, but omitted to show, on the sketch that the base was, sunk to ?.,t least low water level.. I.propose io ersot the - wall about 'the line of the present face, whichwill bo about the middle of the-old sandhill seaward slope. Considering the length of time the second wall stood—badly built; and with next to no foundation,—there is no reason .to. doubt that a good, well-designed wall in .'the ! portion mentioned will stand easily enoagh. i Though I have represented tbat there is r.o I immediate danger of.a serious overflow of ihe i sea, this condition will not continue. Unless i protected, the sandhills will disappear in time.; the, natural grasi will not stand traffic, :ind the-bare loose sand becomes exposed. After the gaps nave^been filled up by parallel scrub fences in the manner recommended in my first report, they and all the' Sandhills must be protected. Marram grass and trees will do p.Il that is required, as they have done elsewhere;. \ 1 am informed .that near San Francisco this plan has been adopted, and the trees J havorecommended (Pinus pinaster or cluster pine) are growing luxuriantly, Trees are preferable to gras, ,as a permanent protection for two reasons; first; they bind, the sand better, and ir. the second place for beauty. -A vbelt of pines along tho Sandhills would not only protect tho hills, but be a place of recreation and an ornament to the city. Mr Leslie lieynolds wrote, as follows: — 1 have just received back' from your board my report upon the protection ol the Ocean i Beach, with a'view to further consideration, in ' consequence of the changes, which have taken j place on the boach within the last few days, i Your letter states that1 the board will be glad j if I will kindly review the position and favour 'it with any amendment on my former opinions, i which the changed circumstances may lead me ■ to consider desirable. ■ ' i I beg to return th 4 report herewith, and would i only remark that it was designed to meet such - contingencies. as have arisen, and 1 have no further recommendation to make, unless the ' board prefer, to eliminate the idea of an esplan- . ade along the beach; and, in the meantime/ ocnfi ie the work to stopping sea encroachment by '■means'of the groynes explained in my last report, and shown on the plan which accompanied ■ it. The.wall in this case need not.be formed ■ for other purposes than to constitute an cm- ; bankment at much, less cost for conveying material to tip into tho groynes;' but the groynes will require to be constructed to a higher level and extend -further seaward than if the wall were also constructed. Their length should be from 100 ft to 150 ft, and their top should be carried out,-commencing 3ft above high-water level, and finishing about the level of low water. There can be no question that the system ot ' groynes, as explained, will protect some 30 chains of beach,-and arrest encroachment and caut-e the bench to extend seaward. The estimated cost for this is: — Groynes and approach • £3000 Road to boulder beach, plant, etc. . . 3320 j £4320 I 1 should prefer the 50 chains protected^ and it j would require 10 groynes to accomplish it. j Ethel R. Bekjamin, barrister and solicitor, ; Albert Buildings, Princes street, Dunedin (opI posite C.P.0.), has trust moneys to lend on ! apprqvod security,—Advt.

J My report was handed in to a member cf the | | Domain Board in fulfilment of a promise made j ' week.1, before any question of competitive schemes, or schemes at all, was mooted, ancl '■ my letter accompanying my report distinctly states that it was not for competition. 1 can , only regret that the matter has been Handled , i in a way lhat might, point to "the question cf j future commission, and 1 wish it to be dis- , | tinctly understood that in handing in the re- .' ; poet 1 had absolutely no idea of commission, lf ; • you refer to my letter accompanying it, 1 think you will see that it implies this. . . , In common with other citizens, 1 wish to see • ' the boach protected, aiid, if I may be allowed, 1 ; wiil quote from my report:—"l am satisfied i thit the method of construction suggested—i.e., j heavy rubble groynes and rubble protection is ! the most suitable, and that tbe physical conditions are such as to demand a work of somo magnitude, and that solid walls or cheap schemes will prove a mistake," and I think . ■ there has been ample evidence of this recently. ' i Your board appear to have overlooked this expression of my opinion in handing my report | back to me for revision, as had it been recog- ; ! nised, it would have been apparent that 1 baa ' designed a structure to meet contingencies. , j Mi Petre wrote: — ■ I In reolv to'communication of August 3, re- i i ceived 'from your acting-secretary, instruct- j I in" me to make any addendum to my report cl : I J-.uie 14 which 1 may consider necessary, ow--: ing to altered conditions at tbe St. Clair end ; ' ol the beach, I have the honour to state that | tho alteration mainly consists of the elimination of all items in my former estimate, pro- , viding for earthwork distribution, and a little ! additional concrete required in raising the ; height of the wall., • ~,,,,' In my former estimate I had provided tu-- : sum of £37 10s 3d for cutting away earth ami , sand and filling it behind the retaining wall | j for making up slope to the esplanade, bince , June 14, however, the heavy seas washed away | , all (and very much more) of the material pro-- : posed to form this filling, so tbat for the wall i alone mv estimate should be amenaed by ttie |, deduction of £V lGs Sd. and the. aodition of I the cost of 25 cubic yards of concrete at 24s per yard, or £30; but then it- will be necessary to cpnsidor tho much larger question of tilling behind the wall,-ns it should uot be left wit.icut the suoport to be derived from tnis work. I have to suggest, seeing that nearly A chains, containing 7000 cubic yards, bas been swept away and must be replaced, also a large portion of private property, which amounts j to nearly another 4000 cubic yards, part o. ; : whicli need only bo replaced, that m my ; - opinion the most feasible way of surmounoing : the difficulty would be to arrange with the : private property-owners to cut down the levels.j of their sections to that of tho'esplanade, con,- j < siderab'y above which they now stana, and use > . the material for repairing frontages of the sections and filling in tbe esplanade. The cost . , of this work would add £366- 13a 4d to my i former estimate, bringing the total cost up ■ ! to £1058 5s lld. , ~.,,- : I would 'liko to point out to. you tnat tins . estimate is guaranteed by ; one oi _our . leading ,- ; contractors, who is prepared -to do the' work ( at the abovo figure. , . , ; Should it be deemed, advisable to carry ths > work further along the face of tho Sandhills i past Mr Mitchell's property, in, the direction | oE Lawyer's Head, it could be done at the rale < of £70 per chain. . . ...... -...-! ! I have noticed in the various criticisms of . jmy proposal a do'iot expressed •as to the ■ sufficiency of strength of thej walk The greatest force which this wall will be called upon ; to resist will be similar to lhat displayed at ■ St. Clair within the last few days, when I ob- ; served that at the time .the tide, was highest and wave heaviest, the' broken water struck ; and passed over the remnant.of Smith s wall . on to the roadway without doing it any mjury This wali stands between Beach streetand the bathing, place, and is only a ary , rubble wall pointed with cement mortar, llie wall which I propose -. to build—ono -mucli ! stronger—would have to sustain on alike cc- ! casion no greater shock from the sea tnan was . 1 sustained by this much weaker wall. . I In conclusion, I must reiterate a word ot . I caution given in my first report—that is to . I say leavo the beach alone below, high-water i | mark, and in order to avert disaster let Nature ( j have will. I The Chairman observed that the board stood • i I'm the midst or an arrested discussion of the i j schemes as they came up from the committee i i of tbo wholo. , j Mr Fisher remarked that effect had been 'given to the board's resolution to.; erect, a ( fenco eastward and westward of the Central j : Battery in continuation of that erected by the ' ; Defence department. . i | Tho Chairman, said respecting that part^ of ' - i Mr Petre's report, tbat liad reference to filling ; | tbo portion of the -beach, inside, tbo wall ap- i ' pearing as the boundary: wall oh. the. plan :.i seemed to be 'beyond the board's, boundary, j ancl anything that was to be done-there appeared to call for. tho co-operation of the Caversham Borough. There was,' the; chair-• ' man .went ,on to say, rather a small meeting ;— , he was sorry to find that Mr Begg was out of : town and that Mr M'Gregor was not able to come down, and.ho hardly saw, how the board ■ ; could come to any decision of the various schemes- without, a full meeting.. : . .; : I ' Mr Gourley said. if a if till • board was ex- j ! pected tho meetings would have to be held in. ', the day tims, for Mr M'Gregor could not . j come at night. -, ' . , ! I Mr Fisher said tbat as far as b'e;could judge' ' ithe patience of the public:,.was-' about. ;gx'-,:| j hausted, ancl be thought tbe board i.slioukt. i now put some scheme before them, and see lif thoy would, grant the money for.it or not. :He saw no reason,to alter the opinion ho bad ' previously expressed, andjbo wouldmove that . Mr Reynolds's scheme be adopted and placsci ! : before the ratepayers. Of-tlie schemes beforo ' j the board, ono advocated a concrete wall at ■ 1 St. Clair, but ho was opposed to that, as from 1 j experience hero, and elseiwhere bo did not j J think a solid wall would stand the force of the . j sea as it lashed in its fury at St. Clair. '■ j A second scheme -advocated parallel fences ; ! and plantations, and ho bad no doiibt that' a ! ' lot of sand would thus bo accumulated, but ] tho sea woulcl come in and; undermine' the '. sand and plantations and sweep them out with !. ; it. He did not'know, cither, if Pinna pinaster ; | trees^ would bo suitable on tlie Ocean j Bene'!, but even if everything was i " according to Hoyle." be asked where i would thoy plant - them? Tbo same . gentloman advocated a wall of solid masonry. ' but the speaker did not think that it would : stand. Tho third scheme, which provided for ■ a roush rouble wall be approved of as. being moro in accordance 'with the .designs of the p-reat Architect of tho universe. The effect of . tho groynes as proposed would be to form beaohes, so that instead-of one boach at St. Clair there would be a number of nice little beaches. Ho had no doubt that the rato- \ payors would grant the money to do -thu ! wrirk. Ho moved—"That Mi- Reynolds's) .scheme be adopted." , . • " j Mr Anderson seconded the motion, for the > adoption of Mr Reynolds's amended scheme at a cost of £4-320. Such a scheme ran on : lines recommended by authorities such ac 1 Smeaton, one of tlie greatest ot engineers, ! and Telford, and the speaker hacl seeii it j adopted successfully in the, case of the,break- i water at Plymouth - Sound, at Aberdeen j (where extensions were made on three dif- : •'forent occasions), at Peterhead, and at Fraser- \ . burgh. Ho also 'supported Mr Hutcheson'c ! scheme so far as' the erection of fences and ■ planting wero concerned. He had, however, : no confidence whatever in a solid wall unless it was "going-to be a much" stronger and j more expensive wall than bad been proposed, j and he thought Mr Petre's proposal to ered I. a wall on part of the old foundation wall was ! fallacious wjion. it .was considered that if the i j latter'wall hacl been deeper it would have; j been standing now. j - _Mr Hancock supported tho motion, bull i -thought Mr HutcTieson's sebeme might have : been loft to ,bo dealt witb in a separate reso- i lution.' He understood that Mr Reynolds's I scheme only dealt with 30 chains, and thore j was a. great distance left betweon St. Clair j and'Tahuna Park, whilo there-was a very im- | poi'tant recommendation in Mr Hutcheson's I • ropoi:t respecting tbe Sandhills. Tho Chairman'could not at all agree with Hid motion, and was inclined to move as an I amendment—"That thp. board recommend that the'plan suggested'by Mr .Petre for ro- > . storing iho retaining wall at St. Clair.above : high wator mark be adopted." He thought tho danger had been unduly magnified be- • causo of some damage to private property, foi ; .which he was.very sorry, and the Caversham : Council was very-'largely to blame for not \ i gifrihg't.ho.; matter .earlier-attention-when ■ it \ 'could havo - besn,, stopped at a" veryl .! small - expenditure.1 The1' old. wall had; I fallen- dawn because . ils foundation!, j j we're not deep enough and it wai. ! not .'; of the right stuff and bow anyone J j could ar'guo from . that that no wall would ' stand there be, could not understand. It • I'seemed to him that another wall could be j 1 built in such a-wav as to avoid the faults that | bad caused the old wall to fall down. It j V would bo a-simple thing, costing a very lew ; hundred pounds,', .it could, bo done very ! quickly, anc 1 would solve'the whole difficulty. .He could see no call.foi a grand scheme to , cover un the beach '.with Something wonder- . 'ful. .The .beach .'should be let alono, as, Mi , Hutcheson suggested, so that nature might - repair (he damage. The' principal damage at St. Clair was duo to the. stupid interference iof thoso who did not know what lhey were '■ . 'about, and as for 'a wall, built put in the ; sand it would be a pieco'of childish folly. He■•_ ■ did notithink- it right that the matter shouid ; be pressed to a conclusion that nigbt iii a thm board, and ho would much prefer an adjournment. If that was the mind of the board lie 1 . would givo notice of his mot-ion, and move , the adjournment of the discussion to a fuL meeting'of the board. i Mr Gourley seconded the motion for the adjournment. Ou a former occasion, be said, 1 tho meeting adjourned to give Mr M Gregoi an opportunity of attending. In deference 1 to tho wishes of the minority the mayor gave • ' permission for that adjournment by not voting, and he '(Mr Gourley) thought it would'be but right that the meeting shoulc, . now adjourn with the viow of'allowing othei. members to bo present. -' A i Tho motion for adjournment was losi. on ' the voices.

Tho Chairman: Ido not intend'to go en with the business in the present state of the board. I prefer to leave the chair and let the board go on as they, thing fit. I_ decline to go on in a thin board. I do not think it is in the interests cf the public or a right thing to do: I-must insist that this be done in a .ull meeting of the board, but if the board insist on going on I must leave the chair and let the board appoint another chairman. .^After a pause:) Well, gentlemen, I'll now leave the The Mayor then vacated, the chair and left the room. "".,_-, , . i Jlr Hancock moved that Mr Gourley take the chair. He did so because- ho felt it was no use hanging the matter -up any longer. The board had had adjournments for two months, ancl for the chairman to force the position in the way he had done was too bad. Mr Anderson seconded the motion. Mr Gourley declined lo take the chair, and thought the board had better adjourn till the following Wednesday. Mr Fisher regretted very much the course taken by the chairman. Mr Gourley took up his hat to leave. Mr Hancock: If Mr Gourley ie going to break up tbe meeting . - • ' Mr Gourley: 1 am not going to take the chair, and 1 am not going to stop if you take the chair. 1 think the mayor deserved more consideration, seeing that he gavo way on a former occasion on the earliest-solicitations of Mr Anderson and you. Mr Hancock: No, sir." Mr Fisher said that the mayor, lo do him credit, acted as Mr Gourley had said, ancl be admired him for it. He moved that Mr Hancock take the cbaii. As it was recognised that if Mr Hancock took tlie chair Mr Gourley would leave the room and thus leave he board without a quorum, it was. agreed by tho members to adjourn until the following Monday forenoon.