WORK ON EASTERN EXTENSION

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVII, Issue 23111, 27 January 1945, Page 4

WORK ON EASTERN EXTENSION

Misleading Statement Alleged Newspaper Article Criticised

Relative to the work on the eastern extension a recent article in a Christchurch newspaper stated that the foreshore continued to make up so rapidly as to present the Harbour Board with problems of considerable potentialities. The article went on to state that northerly winds created white-crested rollers which broke over the end of the rubble, demonstrating that further protection was necessary so as to keep the shingle out of the harbour. It had been a most unfortunate statement, said the chairman (Mr R. S. Goodman) at a meeting of the Timaru Harbour Board yesterday. It was a well-known fact that northerly winds did not worry the Board’s officers and, furthermore, that shingle had accumulated for the last 45 years on the northern side of the eastern extension. The accumulation had been fairly rapid in the early days, but latterly it had not been so fast. A certain amount of material did percolate through to the lee side and this was to be desired, as it tended to strengthen the structure against the southerly seas. It might be at least another 10 years or more before the Board would be faced with any shingle difficulty. “It is wonderful to look back over the years that the eastern extension has acted as the bulwark of the Timaru Harbour when it is known that the designer, Mr J. P. Maxwell, contemplated that by the end of 1925 the Board would be faced with further extensions so as to cope with the shingle difficulty,” said the chairman. "No doubt he was conservative in his estimate, and he realised the fact that the make-up would be in much deeper water and the high water contour would advance more slowerly. Nature has provided a further 20 years’ grace, and let us hope that we will have at least another 20 years before we are faced with any trouble.

Harbour Well Protected

“The engineer (Mr Maxwell) was not optimistic especially when he had such a tremendous undertaking in hand,” continued the chairman, “it its original design, it was never intended that the rubble should be much more than six feet above high water mark, but the Board in its wisdom, and with the advice of its engineers, has from time to time built the extension up as the southern beach advances. When it is necessary for the Board to continue the building up of the rubble at the far end, it has the plant and the necessary stone at hand, as there are thousands of tons of stone in the root of the present structure which can be used for this purpose, and some of the best stone procurable lies in this position. As for shingle coming into the harbour, there is no fear of that. Ample protection is being given by the eastern extension mole against such possibilities for a number of years to come.” Continuing, the chairman said that good progress was being made with the removal of the timber structure from the outer end of the eastern extension, and as the work proceeded it could be seen how necessary it was for this work to be done. The article had emphasised that strong beams were being prepared on the foreshore and conveyed out to the extension for strengthening purposes preparatory to the building up of the rubble wall to the full height. That was wrong, as the whole purpose was demolition, and the timber was being stacked on the foreshore. The Board had no intention in the meantime of heightening the stone work at this particular point. “It is unfortunate that the facts that appeared in the newspaper were incorrect because, had the writer approached the Board’s officers in the first instance, the facts and the reason for undertaking the work of removing the superstructure would have been readily given. I feel sorry that I have to make this correction, but it does seem wrong that statements should be made which might be damaging to the Timaru Harbour and to the Board in its activities, because everything possible is being done for the progress of the Harbour and the district," the chairman concluded.

Criticism Welcomed

If it had been an honest attempt to describe the position, the criticism should be welcomed, as it indicated that someone was interested in the work of .the Board, said Mr P. Kidd. If the article had been misleading then it gave the Board an opportuniay to explain the position. They welcomed criticism; it was necessary, said the chairman, but writers should be sure of their facts before going into print. “The point the chairman has made is that the officers of the Board are only too pleased to give the necessary information relative to such criticisms,” said Mr W. H. Hall.