BIRCH STREET WHARF

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22022, 3 August 1933, Page 7

BIRCH STREET WHARF

QUESTION OF RECONSTRUCTION DISCUSSED BY HARBOUR BOARD DECISION DEFERRED TILL NEXI YEAR At the monthly meeting of the Otago Harbour Board last mouth it was stated that the board had, at a special meeting held a week previously, decided to undertake the work of reconstruction of portion of the Birch street wharf at a cost of £16,000. It was further stated that the Unemployment Board had agreed to pay a subsidy of 80s per man per week for married men engaged on the Mole works conditional on the board undertaking other urgent work, on which a subsidy would also be paid. It was decided that the reconstruction of the Birch street wharf would be suitable “ other urgent work.” After a lengthy discussion Mr Loudon gave hotice to move that the work be not gone on with, and the meeting yesterday considered the motion he tabled. There were present Messrs H. C. Campbell (chairman), J. M'C. Dickson, F. Jones, M.P., J. B. Waters, D. F. H. Sharpe, T. Scollay, A. Campbell, J. W. Munro, M.P., J. Loudon, F. E. Tyson, R. S. Thompson, and W. Begg. The chairman said that this was a special meeting of the board to deal with a motion of which Mr Loudon had given notice. The motion read as follows: “ That so much of the resolutions of the board meeting of July 13 as deals with the expenditure on Birch street wharf be and hereby is rescinded.”

The chairman said that/before they considered the motion he would like to read correspondence which had taken place between the board and the Commissioner of Unemployment (Mr Godfrey). It might tend to ease the position.

The letter from the board read as follows:—“ I am directed to thank you for your letters of July 13 and July 18 advising of, the granting of a subsidy in respect of the Mole works and the rebuilding of the Birch street wharf. The question of the Birch street wharf is again under discussion by the board, and a special meeting is being held on Wednesday next to decide finally whether or not this work is to be undertaken at the present time. “In the event of the board deciding not, to proceed further with this wharf in the meantime, what will be the position in regard to the subsidy on the Mole?” • The reply from the commissioner of the Unemployment Board read as follows; —“ In reply to your request as to what will be the position in the event of your board deciding not .to proceed with the wharf in the meantime, I have to advise that such a decision will not affect the present arrangement in regard to the Mole works,” Mr Jones asked if it was meant that the Unemployment Board would pay a subsidy on the Mole works, whether they proceeded with the reconstruction of the Birch street wharf-or not.

The chairman: Yes. Mr Tyson said that a totally different complexion had now been put on the matter. They had been told that they would not be able to get the unemployment subsidy on the work at the mole unless they went on with some other urgent work, and their engineer had then recommended the reconstruction of the Birch street -wharf. The chairman said that that was what Mr Hamilton, Minister of Employment, and Mr Bromley, a member of the Unemployment Board had told him. Mr Godfrey had altered his attitude. Mr Munro said that the chairman had correctly stated the position. That was why the Birch street wharf proposal had been hurriedly introduced, in order to get the subsidy for it os well ag for the mole work. , Mr Sharpe said that the position had clearly changed. He hoped that they would now go ahead with the mole and leave the Birch street wharf alone. 'He would now go ahead with the Mole and received no report from the harbour master that the Birch street wharf was in such a bad state that he could not work at it. He had suggested, however, that some mooring piles plight be erected at the wharf. Mr Waters seconded the motion. He thought that before committing themselves to the reconstruction of the Birch street wharf they should be fully advised as to the cost of completing the work at the Mole. He considered this work was the most important of those which the board had in view at the present time. They had £IO.OOO of loan money earmarked for the Leith canal and £SOOO earmarked for railway connection to the Victoria wharf, and that left some £35,000 available for the Mole and other works. He thought the time had arrived when they should ask their engineer to give them as nearly as possible the cost of completing the Mole. . In answer to a question, the chairman said that the new proposal would not enable them to employ more men on tue Mole work. ~ , . ~ , Mr Scollay said it would be suicidal to keep on borrowing money for other than urgent work. The Birch street wharf was not an urgent work. me Government engineers inspected the whart every six months or so; and they certified it as fit to carry locomotives and trucks of cargo. The hoards real trouble was that it had to maintain two harbours on the revenue of one harbour. That aspect was reaching an acute stage, and the sooner it was seriously considered the sooner the board’s affairs were likely to be placed on a sounder basis. Were borrowing continued the interest bill would prevent any reduction of dues. , Mr Loudon said when he gave notice ot motion it was with the object of considering the Birch street wharf work without consideration to the further resolution. It would be as well to pass that portion of the motion. The motion by Mr Loudon was read by the chairman to the effect that any proposal to perform work on the Birch street wharf in the way of rebuilding the wharf be rescinded. Mr Loudon said ho hoped this motion would be carried, and they could then decide what to do with the Birch street wharf or the Victoria wharf. Mr A. Campbell seconded Mr Loudon s motion. Mr Tyson: I take it that the motion means that the reconstruction of the Birch street wharf will be pushed into the background altogether. Mr Loudon: Not exactly. Mr Tyson said he would like the assurance of the engineer that the Birch street wharf did not require reconstruction. He thought the railway engineer had condemned it, their own engineer had condemned it, and if an accident— possibly a serious accident —took place the board might be landed in damages much greater than the cost of building a wharf. Vv ould the engineer assure him that the whart did not require recrc struction? The engineer, with the consent of the chairman, replied to the question. He said he considered the Birch street wharf should be constructed for economical reasons more than from any fear of accident. He did not think there was any fear of accident; it was examined regularly, He thought, however, the time had about arrived when the railway authorities would demand a new wharf, or thev would not put their trucks over it. With the expenditure of the average amount for repairs they could keep the wharf going for a limited number of years. ~ , The chairman said that, from the harbour master’s point of view, if two or three bollards were erected ashore, vessels might be berthed there. The engineer added that at present the wharf was not lit to tie a big ship to. but with two or three bollards that could ho done. . Mr Thompson said, after hearing Mr Wilkie’s explanation, he was of opinion the board should take advantage of the subsidy from the Unemployment Board and go ahead with the reconstruction _ ot the Birch street wharf, notwithstanding that it would need a fairly large sum. The wharf was the best one at present for railway communication. v Mr London said what he desired was to get the merits of the case gone into without restriction. He did not want to block the work of the hoard. If they were going to embark on the Birch street wharf reconstruction the work would run into an expenditure of £OO,OOO or £70.000, whereas they could get railway connection with Victoria wharf for £4OOO or £SOOO. They must have railway connection somewhere or other. He admitted that the

renovation of the Birch street wharf was overdue, but he did not consider it would be advisable to do the work at present. They might not be able to raise the money for it. He was convinced that the best thing to do would be to make rail connection with the Victoria wharf and, at the earliest possible moment when the funds of the board permitted, they could take up the Birch street work. The chairman said that Victoria wharf was for oversea Vessels, and Birch street wharf was for the coastal vessels. Mr Loudon said he was pleased to hear the engineer’s statement. They had bad the bogey of the Birch street wharf before them for 10 or 12 years, and the engineer now assured them that, with an expenditure of £3OO or £4OO a year, the wharf might last for five or seven years, and provide all the facilities required for coastal traffic. He again urged rail connection with Victoria wharf. The Railways Department’s charge was high, he admitted, but that was a matter for the Chamber of Commerce, importers, exporters, and others, who, he was sure, would see to it that they were supplied with proper facilities. Mr Dickson said he would support the motion. Mr Thompson: What is the average amount spent on the Birch street wharf for repairs? The chairman: The average is £2OO a year over the last 10 years, and in the next two or three years the average would be about the same.

The motion was carried by seven votes to four. Mr Sharpe’s motion was then read as follows:—“That consequent on the assurance of the Unemployment Commissioner that the fact of the board not proceeding with the Birch street wharf in the meantime will not prejudice the subsidy on the Mole works, the board leave the question of the renewal of 500 feet of Birch street wharf in abeyance, in the meantime.” Voices: There is no need for the motion now.

The chairman said that there was a difference in the motion presented by Mr Sharpe. Mr Sharpe said that the Birch street wharf work should be cut out completely, with the exception that mooring posts should be erected. The chairman explained that Mr Loudon’s motion cancelled the board’s previous resolution, irrespective of whether they were going to have the subsidy or not. • The motion that Mr Sharpe presented definitely stated that the work was not to proceed, because they were now to get the subsidy for the Mole work, irrespective of whether they went on with the wharf or not. They might have lost the subsidy on the Mole work altogether. Mr Loudon said that he thought the railway connection with Victoria wharf should be made as soon as possible The chairman said that this was a different business altogether. Mr Sharpe said he would not agree to coupling up the Birch street wharf with railway connection to Victoria wharf. Mr Tyson said the position was that they were going to get financial assistance from the Unemployment Board n they went on with the Birch street wharf. He deprecated the loose statements made by Mr Loudon that it would cost £60,000 or £70,000 to reconstruct the wharf and that a large amount of dredging would be required. These statements did not carry any weight with those who knew the position. Their engineer had not told them that this would be that expenditure. He thought Mr Loudon’s statements were simply side-tracking. The reconstruction of the wharf was urgently required. Mr A. Campbell said he noticed that £12,000 would .be required for material for the reconstruction and £4OOO for labour.' The subsidy from the Unemployment Board would be £1350. If the position was that £12,000 was to be given in labour it would be a different matter. In answer to a question the engineer (Mr Wilkie) said be did not anticipate having to build shed accommodation at the Birch street wharf. Roughly speaking there was the same depth of water at the Birch street wharf as at the other wharves —22 feet. Mr Scollay said that they could illafford to spend £16,000 for the sake of getting a subsidy of £1350. The chairman ruled against Mr Louden, who wanted to know if the question ot railway connection with Victoria wharf could be discussed. Mr Dickson said he was surprised at the altered opinions of members of the board. Ten years a"0 they had been told by their engineer that the Birch street wharf* was in a dangerous state. Money had been obtained for the work, but it had been hung up, some of the money being taken for other work. If the board had come to a decision 10 years ago that the Birch street wharf required reconstruction, why had they now come to the conclusion that it did not? His opinion was that the only railway connection they would get with the wharf for many years was by way of Birch street. He saw no reason to hang up the work. Mr Jones urged the construction of the Birch street wharf. It would cost legs to erect a new wharf than to repair and look after the present wharf. It was the most profitable wharf the board had, and they ought to see it was kept in good order. A large proportion of the sum of £12,000 would be expended in wages to men to produce the material required. This, he considered, was a splendid opportunity to take advantage of the Unemployment Board’s subsidy to get the work done cheaply. The board had been considering for 10 years the question of doing the work, and no better opportunity had presented itself than that open to them to-day. They ought to go on with, at any rate, the first half as proposed in the original motion. Mr Waters expressed the view that the board’s operations were largely governed by its financial position. The Birch street wharf, the Leith canal works, the Mole, and other undertakings had to he carried on out ot loan money. If 500 feet of the Birch street wharf was to be reconstructed it would absorb £15,000, which would leave a balance of £20,000 for the Mole works. Before he voted for the motion, would the engineer that £20,000 would bo sufficient to complete the Mole works? The board would be in a difficult position if it found it impossible to complete the Mole works and committed itself to a contract in regard to renovating the Birch street wharf. The whole situation, he repeated, was governed by the finances of the board, and it seemed to him it would be wise to defer further action in connection with the Birch street wharf for at least 12 mouths.

Mr Munro said he would vote against the motion. He did not wish the board to do anything that might be considered dishonest. They bad put up a proposition to the representative of the Unemployment Boird, and, having got what they asked for, they were now proposing to retract the decision to go op with the work. He wanted to see more men employed; at the same time, he would not squander the board’s money. Ten years ago the engineer reported that the Birch street wharf 'ought to be rebuilt, and the work was provided for in the £350,000 loan. He considered it was not fair to ask the engineer how long the Birch street wharf would last, with the expenditure of a few hundreds a year to keep it in order. If the engineer’s reply stated the position correctly the board was running the ship very close to the rocks. He could not see the board getting rail connection with Victoria wharf for a number of years. . Mr Loudon: We could get it to-morrow. It is a question for ourselves to make the connection. Mr Munro said it was rather a question of the Railwavs Department lifting the cargo from the wharf. The Birch street wharf must be renewed within two years. Mr Loudon: The engineer did not say Mr Munro: He: said he would not guarantee it for two years at the outside. In two years’ time what position will the Harbour Board be in? Proceeding, Mr Munro said that they borrowed money 10 years ago to put the, work in the schedule of proposed undertakings; then, by Act of Parliament, they had used the money for other works, and the question came to this; Were they going to allow the Birch street wharf to fall down? He did not .think they would get rail connection with the Victoria wharf, as they wanted it, for the next five years. Would the Birch street wharf stand up for that time? As for the Mole, he was doubtful if £50,000 would finish it. . , . Mr A. Campbell expressed himself as opposed to any attempt to borrow money. He agreed with Mr Munro about the cost to complete the Mole, but whether the work was an essential one for the board to do he would not say. Probably he held a view that most of the members would not agree with. As he wag opposed to the borrowing of more money, he would oppose the motion. Mr Thompson said that overseas vessels required rail connection with the wharf, and the cheapest way to give that connection was by way of the B | TC ]l.^ ree J uharf. The board had spent £4OOO on the Victoria wharf in anticipation of railway communication, and that money had been eating its head off for .several years, as the hoard was deriving no benefit from the outlay. This, ha considered, was an opportune tl ™®.Jj° "5 the work. They could get material and labour cheap, and, in view of the engineer’s opinion that the wharf must ie reconstructed, it would be economical to proceed with the work at once. Ra 1 connection with the Victoria wharf with an impost of 2s 6d a ton would not be taken advantage of by anyone. Mr Sharpe said it wag correct that 10 years ago they obtained authority, to borrow money to reconstruct the Birch street wharf, but he claimed there was now a total change of conditions. Ten vears a<m they were prosperous, to-day the?V" far from it. .ad i‘”J"SS sary to curtail expenditure. He admitted that the wharf required reconstruction, and it had been urged that this was an opportune time to get the work camed o t at a low cost. But when they took into account the cost of their loan m 7. might be that the work would be a costly one. He believed that if railway communication' with Victoria wharf were completed, it would solve many of the difficulties of the Birch street wharf. At present, quite a number of the coastal ships went to the Victoria wharf for the use of the cranes. . , , Mr Waters asked the engineer what sum would be required to complete the The engineer said it was estimated in January that it would require a years work. Before he said anything more ne would like to go into the matter again, as there had since been some heavy seas at the Heads. ~ Mr Waters: Do you consider the completion of the Mole more necessary than the Birch street wharf? , The engineer: Yes. ■ The chairman read a memorandum from the engineer regarding work at the Mole. It was pointed out that it was impossible to take cross-sections unless the weather was calm, and under the conditions that had existed recently he could not give an estimate of the amount that might be necessary to finish the The motion moved by Mr Sharpe was put to the meeting and lost by six votes to five. For the motion (5): Messrs Loudon, Scollay, A. Campbell, Sharpe, and Waters. Against the motion (0): Messrs Begg, Tyson, Munro, Dickson, Jones, and Thompson. . Mr Dickson: What position does that now leave us? Mr Sharpe: Spending money that we have not got. Mr Dickson: We have rescinded a resolution that has been adopted by the board. Mr Sharpe’s motion ha s been lost, and I would like to know where the ship is? .... The chairman said he thought someone should move the restoration of a portion of the resolution carried previously. The chairman said in answer to Mr A. Campbell that the engineer would go into the question of whether the Mole should be extended 100 feet, 200 feet or 300 feet further. He said in connection with the purchase of two 20-ton trucks for the mole work that they had found the prices very high and the purchase had been held over in the meantime. Mr Munro moved —“ That the board commences to carry out immediately the reconstruction of 500 ft of the inner portion of the Birch street wharf, subject to the board securing the subsidy.” Mr Tyson seconded the motion. Mr Begg said that in view of the financial position of the board, before they went on with the work they should seriously consider the position. No great harm would be done by deferring the matter for another four or five months. In the meantime they could make another attempt to get railway connection with Victoria wharf and endeavour to get the Railways Department to waive the ridiculous charge of 2s 6d a ton for haulage to the wharf. Mr Begg then moved as an amendment that,, the consideration of the reconstruction of Birch street wharf be held over till January of 1934.

Mr Sharpe seconded the amendment. He said he thought it was on the right lines, and that it was the only attitude the board should take up. It was really astonishing to him that the question of the Birch street wharf had ever cropped up. He was quite satisfied it never would have done so for the next two, three, or four years if it had not been for the subsidy offer. Mr Waters said that every £IOOO of loan money they spent was going to cost them something like £SO per annum in interest and sinking fund. If they spent £15,000 or £16,000 on the Birch street wharf it was going to increase their interest expenditure by £750 or £BOO per annum, and going to delay still further the possibility of making a reduction in their dues. He thought that they should not commit themselves in the meantime to the expenditure. The engineer said that the cost of constructing four bollards at the Birch street wharf would be about £2OO.

After further discussion Mr Begg’s amendment was put and carried, only Messrs Jones, Munro, and Tyson voting against it.