NEW QUEEN-STREET WHARF.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 32, 7 February 1905, Page 2

NEW QUEEN-STREET WHARF.

MARINE DEPARTMENT OBJECTIONS ' REPLIED TO. ln acknowledging receipt from the Auckland Harbour Board of the plau: and specification of the proposed Queenstreet Wharf re-construction for the approval of the Governor-in-Council, the Secretary of the Marine Department, Mr Geo. AU.port, stated that the marine engineer reported that it was proposed that the cart road on the wharf was to bo two feet lower in the centre and three feet at the sides than the QueenStreet level, which would necessitate a somewhat inconvenient connection being made between the roadway of the street and of the wharf- He also pointed out that the drawings showed that were to be two lines of railway laid along the outside of each of the quays, and that the terms of the specification implied that these were to be connected with the Government railways, but there was no indication of the manner in which the connections were to be made. He therefore asked for an explanation, and information ou these points. He forwarded a copy of the resolutions passed at a public meeting of Devonport residents regarding the proposal to have only one ferry jetty. The Harbour Board's engineer (Mr Hamer), reporting on the letter, says that the-statement that the wharf will be lower than the Queen-street roadway is quite incorrect. The centre of the cart road was shown to be at the same level as Queen and Quay stirecfts, and the cart road cambered in the same way as the adjoining cart roads, arid iti precisely the same way as already approved by the Governor-in-Council for the Railway Wharf. As to the point that there was no indication of the manner in which the proposed railways were to connect -with the Gx>vernrnenfc ; raji,yrays, the -whole of the information was with the Marine Department in the general plan submitted on October 14, 190-L The matter was discussed at~ the

meeting of the Harbour Board to-day. The chairman 'stated that he had while in Wellington unofficially drew the attention of Mr Allport to the fact that the previous report in smaller terms was incorrect, stating that it wisthe floor shed which had been raised and that the wharf level was the same. This had been pointed out to the marine engineer, and yet he had sent the same report in.

Hon. E. Mitchelson: It shows what galoots they are.

Mr. Philson said that it seeiue'd that the work of the Board was being delayed by the incompetency of the Marine Department, who were unable to understand the plans. He moved that the correspondence be referred to the Board's solicitor, witli the object of ascertaining whether the objection taken was a valid one. He could not sec what the Marine Department had to do with the roads and railways.

Mr. Walker moved as an amendment, "That the reply of the engineer be sent to the Marine Department."

The Hon. E. Mitchelson said that it was absurd that the Marine Department should not have taken the trouble to ascertain the facts of the case.

The chairman pointed out that it was the duty of the Marine Department to see that there was no obstruction to navigation, and that the Railway Department had already agreed to their portion of the work.

Mr. Walker's motion was agreed to. Mr. R. Hay, civil engineer, Dunedin, wrote that he would be pleased to act conjointly with Mr. Ferguson, secretary and engineer to the Wellington Harbour Board, in reporting on the Board's harbour works scheme. Mr. Ferguson telegraphed that the chairman of the Board was consulting members on the point.

The telegrams were received