LYTTELTON HARBOUR BOARD

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5757, 29 December 1896, Page 3

LYTTELTON HARBOUR BOARD

ORDINARY MEETING. An ordinary meeting of^the Lyttelton Harbour Board was held this afternoon ; present— Messrs E. G. Wright (chairm„n), D. M'Millan, W. Dunlop, Hay, I. Gibbs, J. Joyce, R. Pitcaithly, F. Graham, F. Waymouth, the Hon J. T. Peacock, Captains Parsons- and M'Clatchie, and the Mayor of Lytteltbn. chairman's report. The Chairman's report stated that since last meeting the following sums had been paid to the Board's account: — Wharfage, .£l_l3 os ; pilotage and port charges, _J539 5s 2d; towage, storage, &c, .£286 10s; total, .£2039 Os 2d. The bank book showed the current account to be in credit J&1673 13s lid. Accounts amounting to .£906 7s lid would be presented for payment. The Harbour-master's reports on the following subjects would be read: — 1. Fenders for use of vessels in cases of emergency in bad weather. 2. Slight accident to the schooner Huia, when being brought in to the breastwork. 3. Night signals to bo used by vessels requiring the tug's services. Correspondence would be read from some of the licensed porters at Lyttelton, asking to be allowed to withdraw their letter of Nov. 30, 189(5. From Messrs Pitcaithly, Wallace and Co., in reference to their ' application for a towing license for tho s.s. John Anderson, to tow vessels up to 300 tons. It would be necessary that the Board should meet on Monday, Jan. 18, 1897, tho day fixed by law for the annual meeting, and then adjourn till Thursday, Feb. 4, by which date the annual accounts should have been returned from Wellington, duly audited. The date fixed ; by law for the Harbour Board's biennial elections fell on Monday, Feb. 8, 1897, and the returning-officer and the county councils had been duly advised to hold the elections on that day. HARBOUR-MASTER'S RePORT. The harbour-master reported with reference to the complaints of the captains of two vessels that they had been refused the use of fenders for their vessels* stating that he did not consider that under the circumstances the fenders were required. Mr Pitcaithly said that Captain Stack, of the Landseer, had told him that the har-bour-master had spoken to him in a very insulting manner when he applied for the fenders. Tho Chairman read a letter from Captain Stack, to the effect that he had heard it rumoured that the harbour-master had spoken to him in an insulting manner, but that he wished to deny it. Mr Pitcaithly said that Captain Stack had certainly come to him and said that the harbour-master had spoken to Mm like a dog. Mr Dunlop thought that the difficulty would be overcome in future by making a charge for the fenders. He moved—" That the matter be referred to the Harbour Improvement Committee." Mr Joyce seconded the motion. The Chairman said that he agreed with the proposal to make a charge for fenders, but thought there was no necessity to refer the matter to the Harbour Improvement Committee. Mr Graham pointed out that if a charge were made for fenders it would be necessary to obtain a large stock of them, as the present stock would not be sufficient to provide fenders for all who would apply for them, and yet leave some iv reserve for cases of emergency. Mr Pitcaithly said that there were some dangerous berths at the wharves, and it was the duty of the Board to protect them there. -Captain M'Clatchie said that he could not follow Mr Pitcaithly. There were no unsafe berths, except one at the Gladstone Pier. After some further discussion Mr Dunlop altered his motion so as to provide that the charge to vessels for fenders should be 10s each during the vessel's stay in Lyttelton. The motion, as amended, was carried unanimously. The report giving particulars of the slight accident to the Huia was received. The Harbour-master's rej>ort as to night signals for vessels requiring a pilot was to the effect that he did not think that three vertical lights, as proposed by the Marine Department, were, the best plan. He favoured a " flare-up " light. It was decided to send a copy of the report to the Marine Department. THE SUMNER BATHS. Mr R. M. Morten waited on the Board with reference to the Sumner baths, and stated that, owing to his having been busy shearing, he had not received the Board's letter of Dec. 7, requiring him to remove the fences and buildings, till a fortnight afterwards. He had found difficulty in getting men to do the work, as men were not, as a rule, willing to work just between the tides. Many applications had been made to him to get permission for the buildings to remain, as several people used them, and also used the bathing dresses, &c, belonging to him, free. He thought he was entitled to a little, consideration, as he stood to lose J21600 by the baths. He had, when taking over the baths from Mr Bell, not understood, after every inquiry had been made by his solicitor and himself, that the baths stood on the ground on which it appeared they did. The Chairman said that Mr Morten had assented to all the Board had proposed, and yet nothing had been done up to the present. One thing in particular, was the removal of about 80ft of breastwork so as to permit free ingress and egress to the tide. , , , , Mr Morten said that 60ft of that had been removed. He wished the Board to allow ,the dwelling-houso to remain for a few months, and would remove the otliei buildings. , „ „ After Mr Morten had withdrawn, the Board decided, on the motion oi the JU.on J.-'T. Peacock to inform Mr Morten that the Board would be prepared to consider his application for permission foi ttie dweUing-houie to remain for six montns, when he has removed the 80ft of palisading as previously agreed to. , drains at LyTTEi/rox. A deputation from, the Won Borough Council interviewed the Board with reference to the s <s th g )Ug l e t^ reclaimed land. Councillor S. R. Webb said that these drains which had^ been constructed of wood by the Harbour Board, 1 had now collapsed, and were a menace to that portion of the borough.

The Council held that the Board was responsible for the construction of proper drains to cany off the storm-water from that part of the district. They considered that the Board should construct proper culverts in continuation of the Council's drains, which were practically natural water-courses, and not to make culverts through the reclaimed land would be to obstruct them. As the Board had put in the temporary culverts it was its duty to renew them now they had fallen into disrepair. The course' suggested by the Council was really all in., tireinterests of the Board. He would point out that the borough had a claim for- consideration, as it had lost its foreshore. The Provincial Government had! made provision for permanent drains^. The Council would be pleased to accept responsibility for the maintenance of permanent drains if the Harbour Board would construct them. The Council had a legal opinion, which supported its position. Councillor Radcliffe said that this work should have been done years ago, but as that had not been done the Council wished the Board to do what was best for tho interests of the Port. The foreshore now belonged to the Harbour Board, and he thought it was only fair that the Board should complete the work of drainage which it had begun. The present state of things was an eyesore, and tended to become a' nuisance. The Chairman said that the matters mentioned by the deputation would, he thought, have been better put in a written statement. Whatever might have been done by the Provincial Council in former days, the Board was now acting under Acts of the General Assembly, under which, according to the opinion of the Board's solicitor, the responsibility for these drains rested with the Borough Council. He would suggest that the Council reduce its statement of its wishes to writing. [Left sitting.]