WATERSIDERS’ HUTMENT

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17608, 26 October 1931, Page 6

WATERSIDERS’ HUTMENT

HAITI WHARF PROVISION ENGINEER AND WORKS .COMMITTEE A subject on which a considerable amount of discussion has taken place at previous meetings of the Gisborne Harbor Board received another airing today, when the board discussed a report from the engineer on the sites available for the provision of a- building for waterside workers’ use in their off hours, and the recommendation of the works committee in respect of the engineer’s suggestions. The two reports revealed a well-defined difference of opinion between the engineer and the committee as to the course best suited to the circumstances, the engineer favoring the selection of a site adjacent to Wainui road, and the worms committee recommending the remodelling of the No. 4 cargo shed, which the engineer regarded as offering only a temporary solution of the board’s problem. In a special report on the subject, the engineer stated :

“The sketch before you shows how portion of No. 4 cargo shed can be subdivided to provide tile very minimum of requirements. The accommodation is very cramped and the site itself not very convenient and in addition there is the difficulty of providing efficient sewerage. The building as shown * would cost approximately £750 and would even then be only of a temporary nature. The fact must not be lost sight of that in a comparatively short time No. 4 wharf will iijave to he rebuilt, involving the building of a new shed and the removal of the watersiders’ accommodation to some other site. Therefore, it is obvious that, if for the expenditure of a comparatively small extra sum, a building can be erected on a more permanent site, it would be fully justified. Tlie next site to be considered was alongside the Kopuawhakapata creek, but owing to.the prospective value of this site for other purposes, I consider that every other avenue should be fully explored before even a portion of this ground is taken for the purpose of watersiders’ accommodation.

“The problem therefore amounts to this: Where is there on the board’sproperty on the Kaiti side an area large enough to provide these facilities anil yet at the same time not be of very great value for otlie.r developments? I think I have found the solution in the second sketch. The board’s property atthe corner of Wainui road and Ivaiti esplanade is of very awkward shape to develop to the best advantage, and as I have shown, a portion can easily be cut off the esplanade frontage and still leave a valuable building site for administrative offices in the future, on Waijjui road and the corner. Though tho area available is not very great, the building shown has been' planned to take full advantage of the site. Better accommodation haj been provided than in the first proposal, but that is only reasonable. as the building would be new and permanent. This site has every advantage of accessibility and in addition, while handy to all the wharves and landing jetty, is not actually on the wharf with the various complications that that would entail.

“A building such as I have sketched, built to last, would cost approximately £I2OO, but apart from ordinary maintenance, that would be the last cost, which would not be the case with the No. 4 cargo shed scheme. I should certainly recommend the hoard to adopt this proposal, dn the event of a building being required on the Kaiti side.” The view taken by the Works com- ! nlittee was expressed in the following paragraph of the report submitted by that committee:— “Accommodation at Kaiti for waterside workers.—-The engineer submitted to the committee a report accompanied by sketches of alternative proposals regarding provision of accommodation at Kaiti for the waterside workers. The committee inspected the sites proposed and agreed to recommend the board to adopt- the No. 4 cargo shed site.’’ la conaeetion with tho engineer’s recommendation, Mr. T. Todd suggested that the sketch plan submitted therewith should be referred back to the works committee for discussion in detail. Mr. T. Corson moved that the board adopt the vorris committee’s proposal to remodel the No. 4 shed for the purposes of the waterside workers. He pointed out that the position was central, and that the hoard had sufficient cargo space available without calling on the No. 4 shed again. Moreover, the No. 4 shed was at a narrow part of the ship’s channel, -where it was unlikely that ships, would bo worked in the future. Mr. Corson agreed with Mr. Todd that the proposals submitted by the engineer were too ambitious, and would involve too great an expenditure. Dr. J. C. Collins favored the engineer’s proposal, but stated that he ' would move for a conference between the works committee and the engineer on details. Mr. C. H. Williams seconded the motion, also expressing support for the engineer’s views. Mr., T. Quirk suggested, as an alternative course, an .inspection of tho respective sites by tho whole board. This course commended itself to the meeting, and was adopted.