Fate of Hobson Bay

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 89, 6 July 1927, Page 16

Fate of Hobson Bay

UNSUITABLE AS RESIDENTIAL AREA

Alternative Proposal Submitted

THE fate of Hobson Bay is still uncertain. Four engineers who reported on certain proposals have recommended that the board adhere to its existing agreement with the Railway Department, which will take 120 acres for marshalling yards.

r PHIS recommendation did not meet A with the wishes of Mr. T. Bloodworth or Mr. M. H. Wynyard at yesterday afternoon’s meeting of the Harbour Board. The report was received, and copies are to be sent to all interested parties. The first suggestion was that a recreation area and artificial lake should be made in Hobson Bay, but the engineers did not recommend this. One of their reasons was that with only a relatively small tidal flow the basin would become insanitary. During the discussion which followed the report, the chairman, Mr. H. R. Mackenzie intimated that in the future wharves would be built at Hobson Bay. The report of the four engineers— Messrs. W. E. Bush, City Council, H. IT. Watkins, Auckland and Suburban Drainage Board, R. H. Packwood, Auckland-Westfield Railway Works, and D. Holderness, Auckland Harbour Board, stated that the two following schemes had been submitted for consideration. 1. To retain the whole of the area inside the railway embankment at a level somewhat below high-water neap tide, by filling in underneath the present bridge openings to form weirs, and con-, structing a lock in conjunction with the weir near Point Resolution to allow ingress and egress for yachts and launches. 2. To construct a three-quarter tide wall, so as to form a lake of about 240 acres in area, leaving about 50 acres along the Parnell foreshore, with free access to the tide, in accordance with plan submitted to the City Council and forwarded to the Harbour Board. FINANCING THE SCHEME It has been suggested that the money deposited in the joint names of the chairman of the Drainage Board and the chairman of the Harbour Board for the purpose of constructing a retaining wall on the line of the main sewer in Hobson Bay should be diverted to provide the necessary funds for the works involved in the second scheme, stated the report. The whole area affected by the proposals is vested in the Auckland Harbour Board, and the use to which it will ultimately be put and the method of its development have an important bearing upon the desirability of carrying out either of the proposals. In this regard the engineer to the Harbour Board states that the Harbour Board would not be prepared to alienate in any way its rights to the area, which will be gradually reclaimed as space is required for the deposition of dredgings, and as the demand for flat land for industrial development close to the city and railway renders it desirable. COSTLY WORK Reclamation work is costly, and it is considered that the are could not be economically developed for residential or recreation purposes, but that its proximity to the city and to the railway, together with other natural ad- . vantages, render it particularly suitable for commercial development.

After a full discussion the board was unable to recommend the adoption of either schemes for the following reasons: No. 1. The amount of storm-water discharging into Hobson Bay, including three storm overflows from the main drainage system, and tlie relatively small quantity of tidal water which would flow into the basin at high tides would, in our opinion, render the basin insanitary and undesirable. The enclosed area would form a natural settling reservoir in which the deposition of silt would deleteriously affect the sea bottom and beaches. There would be restrictions in the shape of locking charges for craft desiring to use the area as a harbour; this, however, would largely be offset by the increased period during which vessels could enter and leave the basin. During the progress of reclamation works, even if these were confined to relatively small sections of the area, the overflow of silt-charged water into the basin would spread over the lake and maintain in it an unsightly condition and create further objectionable deposits upon the beaches. THE SECOND SCHEME No. 2. The tidal flow would be much greater, so that the risk of contamina- | tion from sewage would be considerably reduced. The three-quarter tide wall, however, would have a material ponding effect tending to keep the water in the lake more discoloured with silt. There would still be a deposition of silt on the sea bed and beaches and the effect of reclamation works would be only slightly better than under scheme 1. The City Council could not assume control of the lake or expend money on its maintenance without securing legislative authority to do so; and the city engineer considers that his council would not be prepared to accept any such responsibility or charge. WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY? The engineer to the Harbour Board is of the opinion that his board would accept no responsibility for the control or maintenance of the area, and would only grant its consent to the proposal on the understanding that some properly constituted and responsible authority such as the City Council would accept full responsibility for the care, control and upkeep of the area, and would indemnify the Harbour Board against claims for all accidents, damage, loss or curtailment of riparian rights or other claims. The Public Works Department would not be prepared to carry out the work, or to assume any responsibility for control. The existing agreement with the Railway Department provides free tidal flow in and out of the basin through two 160 ft. wide bridge openings. MR. BLOODWORTH’S OPPOSITION Mr. Bloodworth reminded the board of a large deputation which had waited on the board regarding the impounding of the water in Hobson Bay. and he thought promises previously given should be adhered to. He did not think that such a big scheme should be so summarily dismissed by the recommen-

dations from the engineers. No subject had been so widely discussed in Auckland as the future disposal of the land in Hobson Bay. Personally, he thought that the real reason for the engineers reporting as they did was that there was no co-ordination of the local body engineers in Auckland. I will do all I possibly can to prevent the development of Hobson Bay for commercial purposes,” said Mr. Bloodworth. “It would make the front door of the city another Freeman’s Bay reclamation.” Mr. Bloodworth considered that the engineers had given a reason which was not a reason at all. Mr. Wynyard felt the same way about the question as Mr. Bloodworth. He suggested that instead of disposing of the proposition as recommended by the engineers, the subject be deferred until replies had been heard from interested local bodies. Mr. Bloodworth moved, and Mr. E. W. Inder seconded, that the engineers' report be received and copies forwarded to the interested parties. This was carried.