SAID BEACON WAS REMOVED

Taranaki Daily News, 15 July 1929, Page 3

SAID BEACON WAS REMOVED

THE STATEMENT WITHDRAWN.

PROTECTION - OF BEACH COTTAGES.

Having noticed that he had been accused of a “criminal action” in moving the beacons placed by the harbourmaster for the guidance of vessels crossing the bar, Captain M. Jensen wrote to the Waitara Harbour Board at its monthly meeting that he was at a loss to understand how any member could be so misguided as to use his name in such a way. The statement was absolutely false and had no foundation whatever. He hoped the board would, see that the accusation was withdrawn

Captain Jensen was referring to a statement made by Mr. Dugdalc at the previous meeting of the board. As the harbourmaster and now Captain Jensen had given an emphatic denial to tho accusation, the chairman considered Mr. Dugdale should unreservedly withdraw his remark.

Saying that he had made tho statement in good faith, Mr. Dugdale explained that he had been told that Captain Jensen had assisted Captain Wood to remove the beacon.

There was no doubt a wrong had been done, said the chairman. Mr. Dugdale should act as a gentleman and express ’ regret. If he did not do so, he had a motion to meet the case.

Eventually Mr. Dugdale agreed to withdraw his statement, and a record of his action was placed on the minutes. Present at the meeting were: Messrs J. Hine (chairman), Dugdale, Laing, Spurdie, Nosworthy and Vickery. An apology for absence was made for Mr. W. R. Johns.

A request That something should bo done by the board to check erosion on the Jbeaeh was made by a deputation comprising Messrs Prichard (Chamber of Commerce), Ewens (Borough Council), Hughson (Seaside Society), Stead and Frank (property owners). The chairman recalled that the board had very reluctantly given permission to build on the foreshore. He could well remember asking Mr. Stead whether it was wise to build houses on sand, but the reply had been that he was prepared to take the risk. 1 At a later stage of the meeting Mr. Dugdalc moved and Mr. Laing seconded that the board build a rubble wall at right angles to the line of the beach from high-water mark at the furthest out point about 200 yards on the south side of the bathing shed, for the purpose of stopping beach erosion. Mr. Spurdie thought that before the board spent any money on such work it should have expert advice. Mr, Nosworthy said he had visited the beach that afternoon and he could see the sand making up again. So long as he had known the beach that had been the history of it. It occasionally was subjected to an attack of spring tides and. gales acting together, and then came accumulation again. The seaside property was protected by the south wall, and the board would be justified in spending money only when it was seen that the sea was making in so much that it was creating a danger to the stability of the south wall. The chairman said the question about q, rubble wall was, even if big stone were used, whether it ivould stay. Ihe work asked for was meant to make the cottages sale, and the owners of those cottages went there in spite of the warnings given. Indeed, the board anticipated trouble, but did not think that any permanent residences would be erected. . It had, in. fact, been suggested that a clause should be placed in the leases that the houses must be kept vacant at least for four months during the year. The locality had been made a residential area and the result was that marram grass and othei growth had been worn off, thus making the sand free. ..He believed the board should get advice on the erosion question, and moved as an amendment that Mr. Dowsett, the board’s engineer, be instructed to make a report. This was carried on the casting vote of the chairman after Mr. Nosworthy had said he would oppose it, as he did not believe any expenditure by the board was justified, except, perhaps, a small sum to subsidise the Seaside Society in placing big logs in front of the cottages to help in breaking the ->eas