CONCRETE POLE FACTORY

Timaru Herald, Volume CL, Issue 22124, 19 November 1941, Page 4

CONCRETE POLE FACTORY

To Be Established At Washdyke Power Board’s Decision Site At Waimataitai Not Favoured Although the comparative annual cost was estimated to be £l6 higher, the South Canterbury Power Board decided yesterday to establish a concrete pole factory on a freehold site at Washdyke in preference to a site at Waimataitai offered by the Timaru Borough Council. Tlie decision was made in the face of strong opposition from the Borough Council members, Messrs J. R. Hart and M. H. Richards, and a former councillor, Mr H. J. Mathers, who failed to secure approval for an amendment that a further investigation be made to find a suitable site in Timaru. “ Social Crime ” One of the reasons advanced by the executive against building a factory at Waimataitai was that it would be a “social crime” on the part of the Borough Council to allow a factory to be built in so attractive an area. The report stated: “In the opinion of your executive it is highly improbable that the Timaru Borough Council would make so grave a mistake as to permit the erection of a manufactory in the midst of an area already beautiful from the adjacent park, and the splendid residential area surrounding it. There remains little to be done to this area to complete its entire occupation by park and residences for which the town planning scheme of the Timaru Borough Council has ordained it. In our opinion, it would be a social crime on the part of.the municipality to sanction onr occupancy of any portion of this area. Further, the monetary gain to the Timaru Borough Council in the occupancy of this area by us as against the adjacent area at Washdyke is so infinitesimally small as to have little weight.” Investigations Made

Detailing the investigations leading to the selection of a site, the executive reported that at the August meeting a decision was held over pending further information. Since then the Railways Department had advised that shunting to the foreshore was not practicable. “A few days after the August board meeting, Councillor W. H. Hall requested that the borough electrical engineer (Mr R. D. Veitch) and our engineer (Mr A. F. Lee-Smith) should confer and report on a new site in Timaru borough,” continued the report. “The site finally selected for comparison was one at Waimataitai, and the joint report of these two engineers has now been received and analysed. That report dealt exclusively with a comparison of the cost of manufacture of concrete poles at the proposed Waimataitai site and at the initially proposed site at Washdyke, leased from the Railways Department. “Based on certain assumptions the report shows that to make 1750 poles a year at Washdyke leasehold site would cost £5569, while to make the same number of poles at Waimataitai would cost £lO2 less per annum. “We now make a comparison between the Waimataitai site and a freehold site at Washdyke. This freehold Washdyke site is adjacent to two existing industrial works, is easily accessible by road, close to the railway station, and may be bought at less than half the cost per acre of the Waimataitai site. No detailed figures have been taken out for the Orari (Main Highway) site as it is felt that on account of its distance from the centre of activity of the board’s area, with the consequent extra cartage on the finished poles, extra cost of supervision, and extra cost of labour, and on account of the fact that while there is plentiful supply of gravel it would have to be screened to size, and suitable gritty sand would have to be carted from Seadown or some other beach, this site was not a practicable proposition.” The report proceeded to compare the cost comparison made in the engineers’ report between a Leasehold at Washdyke and a freehold at Waimataitai with an analysis of costs between two freehold properties, and after making adjustments reduced the yearly balance in favour of Waimataitai from £lO2/11/2 to £l6/1/10. The principal adjustments were the elimination of the higher cost of labour at Washdyke, estimated by the engineers at £72/18/4, and the annual leasehold rent of £9, while the extra cost of rent and rates at Waimataitai was placed at £lO/4/0. . Tests Made “From actual tests made, natural graded beach gravel (from, say, Smithfield) gives almost as good results as crushed gravel (from Timaru Borough Council) and is cheaper,” the report continued. “As regards having the site adjacent to a railway siding, it is now learnt that there will be a minimum charge for this of £25 per annum. It is not thought that the siding is worth this amount per annum. Indeed, it may be argued that from recent tendencies, with the works alongside a siding, future transport policy may insist that the finished product be carted by rail to places where it may be more economical to do so by road.” “Having earnestly considered all aspects of the ma'tter, we are of opinion that the Washdyke freehold site, offering fewer uncertainties and fewer undesirabilities, is the more desirable location despite any possible small monetary saving, and we commend this site to the board,” the report concluded.

Stating that for the successful manufacture of concrete poles only firstclass materials should be used, Mr Mathers claimed that the shingle obtainable at Smithfield was not at all suitable, and did not compare with the crushed beach shingle at Timaru. The poles had to be constructed to a strict formula, and if the sand was too soft, as it was at Smithfield, there was a danger of moisture penetrating and corroding the metal, a defect which might not become apparent before 10 years. Referring to the comment on the propriety of the Borough Council allowing a factory to be built at Waimataitai. Mr Mathers said that was a question which should be left to the Borough Council to decide. If the Power Board did not consider Waimataitai suitable, other sites might be available with superior materials accessible.

Tlie Borough Council, said Mr J. R. Hart, had fully discussed the establishment of a factory at Waimataitai, and concluded that using that site would make no difference to Timaru. The land was very low, only a few inches above water level, and while it was not suitable for residential sites, it would serve the purpose of a factory. If objection were made to the appearance of the factory buildings they could be easily hidden by trees. Gravel at present’could be obtained at Smithfield, but it had to be borne in mind that in tlie future the taking of shingle from

the beach north of Timaru might be prohibited. The gravel was being corroded by the sea. and through the action of the breakwater it was not being replaced. "I say definitely that the Waimataitai site should be the best,” he concluded. "We have got the opinion of two experts giving the advantage to Waimataitai, and I think it a wrong thing to go beyond their opinion.” Land For Nothing Mr Richards asked what report tlie board was to accept, the report of the expert engineers or that of the executive condemning it? The Timaru Harbour Board had any amount of sites, and were getting an acre a year for nothing, yet they stood by and saw Timaru waiting for secondary industries. Secondary industries had only to be started and they would carry on. He hoped that the board would accept the report of the engineers, and It would be one of the finest things ever done in Timaru. The chairman (Mr G. Dash) said that every effort had been made to secure a site in Timaru for the factory, but when it came to a decision they had to make a choice between sites at Waimataitai and Washdyke. The site at Waimataitai had been indicated by Cr. W. H. Hall. The comparison made by the engineers in their report was between a freehold at Waimataitai and a leasehold at Washdyke, while the figures submitted by the executive referred to freehold sites in both places. The statement had been made that the crushed gravel at Timaru was better than that obtainable at Washdyke, but according to the opinion of experts the natural gravel was almost as good and cheaper. The executive had done its best to have the factory established in the borough, but was not going to do so to the detriment of the borough itself. Mr S. I. Fitch moved that the report of the executive be adopted. Mr Mathers moved an amendment that tlie matter be further investigated with a view to obtaining an option on another site in Timaru. He said he was concerned mainly with the quality of the poles, and did not agree that beach shingle was as good as crushed shingle from Timaru. Tlie amendment was defeated and the motion carried, with Messrs Mathers, Richards and Hart dissenting.