OTAGO HARBOUR BOARD

Otago Witness, Issue 3772, 29 June 1926, Page 57

OTAGO HARBOUR BOARD

The monthly meeting of the ptago Harbour Board was held on Friday, and was attended by Messrs J. M‘C. Dickson. M.l*. (chairman), H. M. Driver, H. E. Moller, D. F. H. Sharpe, T. Anderson, J. E. MaeManus, A. Cable, W. Wilkinson, J. Loudon. W. Gow, K. S. Ramsay, H. C. Campbell, and Captain Coll M'Donald. It was decided to grant £3 3s to the Workers’ Educational Association. The Commercial Travellers’ Association wrote appealing for assistance for their Big Day appeal, and it was decided to grant as in past years two half-tous of coal. The honorarium of the chairman was fixed at the same figure as in past years. With reference to the application from the Peninsula Ferry Company for a refund of part of the license paid for the year 1926, the secretary reported that he had written to the Auditor-general aßking if such a remission could be given, and stating that the board was favourably disposed towards making the refund. The Auditor-general replied that an annual license could not be proportioned in the way suggested. Such a charge could not be varied or remitted, and he therefore could not pass the proposed refund. It was decided to reply to the Ferry Company in terms of this letter. AN UNPLEASANT DISCOVERY. A letter was received from the Marine Department stating that the position in regard to authority to carry out reclamation work at Mussel Bay was now satisfactory. and that an Order-in-Council would be issued at the next meeting of the executive The Chairman said the board had understood that the responsibility regarding the effect of the reclamation on the harbour and of other matters should not rest on the board. He did not understand how the proviso regarding placing certain responsibility on the board had been inserted into the later conditions. Mr Anderson said he did not think they should spend £3400 on the construction of a wall at the bay, when a wall of less strength would meet the case. He thought some of this qioney could be spent on a wall in the vicinity of the channel, which would assist in presenting silting. The Chairman said the board would take all the necessary responsibility. The letter was received. Dr Crawshaw. medical officer of health, wrote stating that the board would have to take steps to drain the reclaimed area. He suggested a method by which the sc age could be removed from the area, and said if his proposal were adopted the system could be linked up with a Port Chalmers drainage system, which system at present left a lot to be desired. The writer stated that sewage was being thrown into the harbour at Carey’s Bay. The Acting Engineer (Mr A. Robertson) submitted a report on Dr Crawshaw’s suggestions. Air Loudon said he did not know that the board had anything to do with the matter." He thought it was a matter for the Port Chalmers Council. What was the board to gain by the great expense required? Mr Gow said they had authority to prohibit the discharging of sewage into the harbour. Why did they not stop the discharge ? Mr Cable said that fiTO acres of the reclaimed area were to be givep to the Port Chalmers Council. There would be 26 acres in the area altogether. Mr Moller said it was a pity that the board had not known beforehand that it had to carry out the drainage at the Mussel Bay area. It looked as if they would have to stop their work, because a sewer at Port Chalmers had been blocked up. The Secretary (Mr Bardsley) said that so far as any official decision of the board regarding drainage was concerned, it applied only to the carrying away of water from the railway line. Mr MacManus said the board would be directly responsible, and if any damage were to result to the Borough of Port Chalmers the board would have to pay. He suggested that the board should stop the work until it knew where it was. Mr Moller agreed with Mr MacManus's suggestion. The Chairman said the work had already been started, and that the machinery was here. Mr Moller said he was opposed to the board being placed in the position of having to bear the cost of the sewers through the area. Mr Loudon said the board should not be saddled with the whole cost of the sewage and drainage. It was decided that a committee consisting of Messrs Campbell, MacManus, and Gow should wait on the Port Chalmers Council and try to clear up the matter. In answer to a question, the Chairmnn said the Order-in-Council might already he gazetted and the board committed. It was decided that the committee should have power to act, and that it could hold up the work if no satisfactory arrangement could be come to with the Port Chalmers Council. LOSS OX THE DOCK Mr Moller said he thought it was understood that the £SOO payable by the Port Chalmers Borough Council towards the loss on the big dock should be remitted year after year. He would move that the amount should again be remitted. This was the laßt year of the charge. Mr MacManus said he was going to oppose the remission of the charge. A compact had been entered into with the Port Council, and it was only reasonable that it should pay, instead of leaving the whole loss to the board. Mr Gow said he would move as an amendment that the matter stand over to the next meeting of the Standing Committee. The amendment was carried. When the recommendation from the Standing Committee came up in open board, Mr Moller moved, as cn amendment to the motion, for the adoption of tho business done in committee that the acount for £SOO standing against Port Chalmers be wiped out. After some delay Mr Cable seconded the amendment. Mr Moller said the dock had been constructed in the whole interests of Otago. The Chairman asked why the Port Chalmers Council should be squeezed for this money when the City Council paid nothing. Only three voted for the amendment, which was lost. “Leave it over to next meeting,” said several members. The

matter will therefore come up again at the next meeting of the Standing Committee. Mr Campbell referred to the heavy annua! loss on the docks and to the fewer number of vessels now coming to the port for docking. More and more work was going to Wellington The Chairman asked what was tho remedy. Mr Moller said the board might find out if the docking charges were cheaper in the north than in Dunedin. They* could then endeavour to put their house in order. The Chairman said that the Union Corn* pany simply docked their vessels wherever it was most convenient, and unfortunately most of the vessels were up north. Mr Cable said that the dock charges were lower in Port Chalmers than in any other part of the Dominion.—(“Hear, hear.”) The discussion then ended. THE TUG DUNEDIN. An inquiry was received from London regarding the sale of the tng Dunedin. Mr Moller said that their tug was a very fine vessel. He would move that she was not for sale. The motion was carried. , COMPILATION OF RETURNS. Mr MacMasus moved, in accordance with notice —“That a return be compiled, for the use of members of the board, and to l open for inspection by the general public, of all the lands leased by the board, the dates of expiration, and also what land is available for lease.” Mr Anderson seconded the motion. The Chairman said that any bona fide member of the public could get all the information he desired by applying to the secretary. It had not been thought desirable in the past to give the information apart from this method. The motion was lost on the voices.