SITUATION IS FIRST FACTOR

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 16, Issue 35, 20 December 1950, Page 5

SITUATION IS FIRST FACTOR

HARBOUR PROPOSALS COMPARED

(Special to The Beacon) Wellington, Dec. 15

“The first matter for consideration in comparing Tauranga with Whakatane is that of situation. Supporters of each port contended that their town was the geographical centre of the Bay of Plenty. The weight of evidence, however, with which we are in agreement, favoured the view that Tauranga is the natural centre of the district and the more convenient focal point for transport both to and from the Bay of Plenty district,” states the Bay of Plenty Port Inquiry Committee.

“The factor of situation is of particular importance in its relation to the forests from which the principal trade of the port will in the first instance be derived. In this respect Whakatane enjoys an advantage over Tauranga by reason of its greater proximity to Murupara, but Tauranga has a similar though less obvious advantage over Whakatane in relation to the Putaruru and Rotorua areas. The evidence satisfied us,' however, that while Tauranga could handle the output of Murupara subject to the disadvantage of an additional 36 miles of haulage, the extra distance involved in haulage by rail to Whakatane would probably prevent that port from handling any of the timber output from the Putaruru area. The representatives of New Zealand Forest Products Ltd., and of other owners of forests in the vicinity of Putaruru, expressed a preference for Tauranga over Auckland as a port of export for their products, but indicated that Whakatane was too far from Putaruru by fail for a port there to be of value to them. “The case for Whakatane depends substantially upon the projected development of the Murupara project and on the smaller but not inconsiderable trade of Whakatane Board Mills Ltd. The principal advantage of a port at Whakatane would be the saving which would be effected in rail freights upon the output fropi these sources in comparison with freights which would be incurred if their output were railed to Mount Maunganui. This saving, calculated upon the maximum estimated output for export of these projects, was estimated by the Whakatane Harbour Board at £127,000 and by Mr Simpson, taking into account the possible saving on the haulage of coal imported by sea, at £160,000. The Whakatane Harbour Board claimed that these savings would more than offset the difference between the capital charges on the costly Whakatane harbour and those on the much less expensive works proposed in the meantime at Tauranga. “On a detailed examination, the logic of this proposition is far from convincing. It first requires the ‘ unjustifiable assumption that maximum production for export would be achieved at Murupara at or about the same time as the Whakatane port was completed. If this were possible, it is true that the saving in rail freight to the promoters of the Murupara project and to the Whakatane Board Mills would be greater than the increased annual charges for Whakatane as compared with Tauranga, and the difference would be substantially

offset by the extra rail freight and port charges which other users would have to pay owing to the port being at Whakatane instead of Tauranga. An apparent saving in freight may be offset, moreover by considerations of a more general character. As an example of such considerations, we find that the N.Z. Forest Service is of opinion that a port at Tauranga would have advantages in relation to back-loading and to the securing of favourable charter rates which would make it preferable to Whakatane as the port of export for the Murupara project. “Another factor of importance is the time required for the development of the port. As already indicated the proposed harbour at Whakatane would not be available for from five to seven years. The development of Tauranga would be undertaken by stages capable of completion in time to meet the requirements of trade from time to time.

“The question of cost is, of course, a vital factor for consideration. The initial cost of a port at Whakatane is estimated with but a limited degree of certainty at £2,400,000, and this sum would be unproductive during a lengthy period of construction. The port of Tauranga could be developed so as to provide 700 feet of berthage at . Mount Maunganui in addition to 470 feet of berthage at Tauranga for a total sum calculated with greater confidence of £291,000. The Tauranga scheme is sufficiently flexible to enable the port’s capacity to be in-

creased as rapidly or slowly as may be required and further expenditure need not be incurred unless justified by the expansion of trade. The initial proposals should be within the financial capabilities of the Tauranga Harbour Board and the prospects of its having to resort to rating should be small. The Whakatane scheme on the other hand involves capital expenditure beyond the resources of the Whakatane Harbour Board, which is prepared to proceed with its proposals only on condition that the State provides the capital required or guarantees the annual charges thereon. “It was urged in favour ,of the Whakatane scheme that it would provide in the first instance a deep water harbour capable of handling ships up to 30 feet draught. This, however, is of doubtful advantage in view of the improbability that such large vessels will desire to visit the Bay of Plenty in the near future, and does not in any case justify the greater capital expenditure which would be required in comparison with the cost of providing similar facilities at Tauranga.”