HARBOUR POLICY

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 20065, 23 March 1935, Page 4

HARBOUR POLICY

CAPTAIN WHITE’S j 1 SCHEME ' !i COMMITTEE SET UP || \ The requisite notice having been l given, Mr R. S. Goodman moved as i follows at yesterday’s meeting of the i Timaru Harbour Board:— < “That the resolution carried at the < meeting of the Board on February 8, ( 1935, ‘That this Board defers taking , action in regard to Captain White’s j harbour improvement suggestions,’ be , rescinded; that a special committee be | ( appointed consisting of Messrs W. T. i \ Ritchie (convener), G. T. Dawson, F. | , R. Flatman, W. H. Orbell, I. J. Brad - : . ley and R. S. Goodman, to further i j examine Captain White’s suggestions for harbour improvements and to as- , certain: il) The best method of construction of the mole in rubble or other suitable materials and cost of same; (2) the method of removing of portion of North Mole and class of modern plant required, and cost; the ' committee to have power to engage Mr F. W. Clarke and other experts to advise cn technical matters; the committee to report to Board as soon as possible.” In moving the motion, Mr Goodman said that he was sorry he had not been [ able to be present at the last meeting j of the Board, and he had been dis- | appointed to see that the Board had turned Captain H. C. White’s improvement suggestions down, although he had expected that this would happen. The motion was seconded by Mr W. T. Ritchie. The chairman (Mr G. T. Dawson) said that the motion was a direct counter to the motion carried by the Board at its last meeting. The position was simply passing a resolution j at one meeting of the Board and turn- I ing it down at the next. They should j have some valid reason before they j agreed to the present motion. Mr T. B. Garrick: This can go on and | oil for ever. Mr Goodman said that Captain j White's proposals hacl been deferred j indefinitely, and that was his reason j for bringing the motion forward. They I knew the seriousness of the matter, and he felt that something definite should be done. Mr Lee. who had reported on the scheme, had appr. vca it. but considered that something in ye comprehensive was needed. He was looking 100 years ahead, but they should do something now. The chairman: Mr Lee did not say that in his report. Mr Goodman said that he knew t j was difficult to know just what to do, ! but what Captain White had suggestj ed should have been done 25 years ago. Mr William Evans had been very keen I on similar having been cari ried out. They all knew that the. dredging policy during the last 20 I years had been faulty, and the outcome | was that vessels had been passing the i port, there having been two in the last ! few months. He was glad that the i Board had agreed that dredging should be proceeded with when the dredge returned from Qamaru. If the proposals were carried out, one feature i would be the shortening of the chanI nel by 1000 feet. This would mean a [ tremendous saving in dredging, and | that saved energy could be used to exI tend the channel, the other way. Big Harbour Complex ! Mr Goodman went on to say that the | reports of the Royal Commissions provided interesting reading. When the I 1926 Commission sat, the same ques- ; tion came up for consideration, and at ! that time Captain McDougall had ap- | proved it, and had thought the scheme an excellent one. It was very similar to the one Captain White had brought forward, and Mr F. W. Clarke, the then engineer had also approved it, and had gone so far as to draw up an estimate. The chairman: The Board asked him to do so. Mr Goodman said that the reason it was turned down was because everyone at that time had a big harbour complex. The Commission had thought there should be a bigger harbour, and that was what had been n Mr Lee’s mind. In giving his report, Mr Lee had said that he had had something in mind, but he (Mr Goodman) did not think they wanted any more schemes. The strong-room was full of them now. Mr Baines had brought forward a scheme 20 years ago, and that also was in the lumber room. He had maintained that any extension should be seawards, and on this point he thought all members were agreed. Mr Goodman went on to refer to figures quoted by Mr Lee, stating that he had put down the cost of lifting 500 or 600 feet of the North Mole at £32,000. rrom a layman’s point of vew, this cost seemed very high. In the commission of which Mr Lee had been a member, they had estimated the cost of lifting 1000 feet of the link mole, in a scheme on which the chairman had been so keen, at £10,500. The chairman: I was not keen on any scheme. Mr Goodman: You were at that time, and that is why I cannot understand your attitude now. Another point was that the No. 1 scheme was to cost £195,000; that was the scheme the chairman was keen on. The chairman: Excuse me. l am not going to allow you to put words into my mouth Mr Goodman: “If you will allow me to finish.” He went on to say that o far as he could see, the No. 1 scheme would have cost nearer £240,000 than £195,000. Captain White did not re- ! quire any scheme. His suggestions were merely alterations, and these were all the Board could afford. It was a very important matter, and their policy should be one of action. Mr A. F. Campbell asked if the mover and seconder of the motion would agree to the deletion of the first portion of the motion referring to rescinding the previous resolution. After the Committee had reported. they could consider the question of rescinding. Difference in Cost Mr W. Lindsay asked what information the Board had in regard to costs. The chairman said that Mr Clarke, who designed the No. 1 scheme, placed the amount for lifting 950 feet of the mole and bringing it back to a point where it would leave room for two wharves at £28.750. Mr Goodman: Why is it costing £32,000 now to lift 500 feet? The chairman: There is a difference all right. Mr Garrick: Did Mr Lee agree with Mr Clarke’s figures? Mr Orbell: No. The chairman: “There was only a difference of £4OOO in their figures for the whole scheme.” He went on to say that two Royal Commissions approved the scheme. The first comprised three engineers, who had taken the Board’s engineer’s figures as being correct. The second Commission had comprised two engineers, and Mr Waters, of Dunedin, and they had approved of the scheme excepting the cost. Mr W. T. Ritchie said that he understood that Mr Goodman was agreeable to the first portion of the resolution being cut out. When they came to look at it, that part was really not necessary. He thought it was necessary, however, for the Board to appoint a committee to go into the I figures. On what they had heard

that day as to how prices had changed ] in a few years, it was necessary to 1 make some investigation. The big cost in the scheme was the lifting of 500 | feet of the mole. Mr Lindsay said that he was pre- j pared to move that the resolution he | amended by deleting the first portion, j There was a big difference of opinion j as to cost, and the Board would have | to make sure that it was not wasting money. Mr Whatman said that lie would welcome information at any time. He thought they all recognised the benefits of Captain White’s scheme, but it had been turned down because it was considered that the cost was in excess of the benefits to be derived. If it could be shown that the costs were wrong, it might prove a big factor in influencing them to adopt the scheme. He would have liked to have seen Mr Goodman include in his resolution that the harbour improvement rate, which was done away with some years ago, should be reinstated. It had only be done away with on the understanding that no extensive improvements would be gone on with. Mr Guild said that he had no intention of being influenced to go on with the scheme. He did not think, however, that any sane man would object to information being secured. A good deal hinged on the cost of lifting the North Mole, and he did not think the engineers themselves knew. “Is That a Threat?” I Mr Bradley said that they could not get too much information for people | nowadays. They might as well try to ! brush back a river with a broom as try to stop the people of South Canterbury from having a good harbour. Somp members had said that they were in favour of something being done so long as the money was well and profitably spent, but the difficulty was how long they would have to wait to see this. If they did not do it, the people would put somebody on the i Board who would, j The chairman: Is that a threat? i Mr Bradley: It is general. 1 Mr Campbell said that the farming j community were right up against it, and they would be opposed to the | spending of a big sum of money at j the present time. The personnel of j the committee had also struck him as J being rather funny. I Mr Goodman: There is a reason for that. Mr Campbell: “They are all members who are in favour of something being done.” He could not understand why the chairman had been included. The chairman: A matter of courtesy. Mr Campbell said that the scheme had only been deferred temporarily, and he hoped that when times improved that it would be revived. Mr Garrick: Does this committee want power to spend any amount of money? Mr Goodman: We want more information. and we will require Mr Clarke’s assistance. The chairman: It might cost £125. Mr Goodman: It won’t cost anywhere near that. Personnel of Committee Mr Garrick: The personnel or me committee requires some explanation. Mr Goodman said that he had not thought only of those who had voted against the motion at the last meeting. Mr Garrick: The chairman has not got a chance amongst the crowd of you. Mr Goodman: There is nothing behind it at all. It would be very difficult for country members to get in to a number of meetings. Mr Orbell: It is practically the standing committee. Mr Garrick: Do you fellows think you know more about the harbour than we do, just because we voted against you? Mr Goodman: No. We put Mr Dawson on because he will keep us in order. Mr Garrick: You can’t put those yarns across me. They are too thin. Mr Ritchie (laughing): You suspicious old devil. The chairman; As regards my having no hope on the committee, Mr Garrick, I am not altogether hopeless. (Laughter.) Mr Garrick: You will have no hope. The chairman: “What about my auxiliaries, the Royal Commission, House of Representatives, Local Bills Committee, Legislative Assembly, Local Loans Board and the ratepayers? The Board is the first hurdle, and it is having a big enough struggle as it is.” The chairman replied to points raised in the debate, stating that the harbour to-day could handle any ship which could get over the bed of the ocean. If they could cross the bar, the harbour could take them. The chairman here read a letter from Mr Lee, which had been sent to him privately, but in which Mr Lee i said he did not object to it being read to the Board. The letter was not made available to the newspapers, the chairman stating that he did not have Mr Lee’s authority for making it public. The chairman said that Mr ; Lee came to Timaru. his hands had , been tied, and as a result they had lost the benefit of his experience and his i advice. , Mr Goodman did not reply to the debate, but made reference to Mr Campbell’s remarks relating to the position of the farmers. He said he ' noticed that the Mackenzie County ’ had collected every penny of its rates, 1 but had made no reference to the 1 paltry £630 harbour rate. He also emphasised the point that the com- ; mittee should go into the question of financing Captain White s scheme. The latter point was added to the amended resolution, which was car- ; ried without dissent. , “