LYTTELTON HARBOR BOARD.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1941, 14 May 1880, Page 2

LYTTELTON HARBOR BOARD.

The Harbor Board met yesterday afternoon at Lyttelton, when there were present the Hon. £. Bichardson (chairman) and Messrs. Harman, Allan, Turner, Allwright, Sawtell, Craig, and Cunningham. The Chairman said—The following sums have been paid in to the Board's credit since our last meeting -.—Wharfage, £492 ; pilotage, port charges, &c, £lO2l 17s 9d; towage, warp°, and rent, £221 10s 6d ; total, £1735 7s 3d. The dredging return for the month of April is on the table. It shows that 146 barge loads have been removed, amounting to 36,500 tons or 26,280 cubic yards. The dredgs is still working near the Gladstone Wharf, and will finish there in about a week's time, when she will take up her position at the entrance between the moles and deepen the channel where tho reoent soundings show it to be necessary. The engineer has completed the plans of the proposed timber breastwork between the screw-pile jetty and the Gladstone pier, and the plans will require your approval before they are sent up to Wellington. The question of providing for shed accommodation in connection with this breastwork should be considered. The Harbors Act directs that such sites shall be let by public auction or by public tender, and that two months' notioe must be given of the Board's intention to lease them. The Act further provides fiat the leases may be for any term not exceeding fifty years. I am of opinion that provision should be made in the proposed timber breastwork for carrying the weight of any shed which it might be found necessary to build over it hereinafter. The harbor master baa, after consultation with Mr Bra 'ley, recommended the placing of an additional lamp about, the centre of the screwpile jetty, and I will ask you to authorise the necessary expenditure to give effect to this recommendation. As the architect, Mr Strouts, did not recommend the acceptance of any of the tenders for cementing the time ball building, fresh tenders have been called for. A further report from him will be read, in reference to the effect of carrying out the cementi' g work as proposed. A cablegram, a copy of which is on the table, has been received from Mesßrs Bell and Miller, of Glasgow, in reply to the one sent relative to the proposed caisson for the graving dock. The barque Annabella, bound from Sydney to London with a cargo of copra, Ac, put into Port Lyttelton in distress, to refit, and application having been made as to allowing her Bn exemption from payment of harbor dues, I found the Harbors' Act met the special circumstances of the case so far as to warrant her being exempted from wharfage dues. It being the intention of her agents to discharge a portion, at all events, of her cargo to enable the necessary survey and repairs to be carried out and to re-stow, it has been arranged that no storage is to be charged if she does this within a reasonable time. Of course, if her cargo is disposed of in any other manner, full wharfage rates will have to be charged. In the matter of the suspension of Wm. Jones, deck hand on the steam barge Heathcote, a full enquiry was made into the case by Mr Allwright and myself, ard the evidence adduced fully bore out the charge of neglect of duty, and it was only at the request of Mr Turpin that the committee took a lenient view of the case, and imposed a fine of half a month's salary upon the accused. Another caße of neelect of duty, against Coffey, deckhand on board the Sumner, will come before you to-day, and I will ask the Board to deal summarily with it. The Harbor Improvement Committee have had an interview to-day with a depu'ation from the Lyttelton Borough Council on the subject of the proposed application for extension of their limits of jurisdiction, and without committing the Borough Council, they would recommend it to support the Board's proposal. In order to meet the casb of the Government not granting access to the proposed town jetty, near the present boat landing, I think the Board should be prepared with an alternative plan; and I would suggest that the engineer bo directed to prepare a plan for the timber breastwork from Peacock's wharf to the Tunnel-mouth jetty, a"d alsi for a short distance to the westward of Peacock's wharf, so as to provide for the berthing of small coasters when the present breastwork, now us;d by them, is taken away. Accounts amounting to £139 Os lOd were passed for payment. A plan showing the intention of the Board with reference to the reclaimed frontage, just obtained by the completion of the breastwork between the basa of the Gladstone pier and the Serewpile jetty, was exhibited. The reclamation gave the Board a depth of 55ft. of frontage along the breastwork, which might be, under the Act, let on lease for tho erestion ot warehouses or sheds. It appearing that the sites for such sheds must depend upon tao situation of the proposed wharves to bo put out from the breastwori, it was resolved—-

" That the plan submitted be referred to the harbor improvement committee with a request that they will consider tke same, and -also make suggestions for the permanent utilization of the water frontage and the land reoently reclaimed." It was urged by several of the members of the Board that the Government might require the ground for railway purposes. Sheds built by private owners so immediate to the railway yard being objectionable perhaps A resolution was agreed to that an ad--ditional lamp be erected upon tho Bcrew-pile jetty, that wharf being so much used by the traffic to tho steamers. The alterationo to be madn to the time-ball tower were then considered, in connection ■with which Mr Cane had sent the following letter : Union Buildings, Cashel street, Chri*tchureh, April 26th, 1880. Lyttelton Time Ball Tower. To the Hon, Ifi. Richardson, Chairman Lyttelton Harbour Board. Dear Sir,—l notice that there is an advertisement in the newspaper calling tenders for cementing the above building. I wish to call to your attention that the building was erected from my plans and specifications, and under tho immediate superintendence of my then clerk of works on the spot, Mr W. H. ilspenett. The walls are constructed of the stone taken from the spot, qaarried by the prison l-.bor gang for economy. The :-tone is laid in cement (Portland and sand) and grouted, and the interior of walls is plastered in Portland cement and sand instead of the ordinary plastering mortar. I have every reason to believe that the work was as well executed as the materials would allow, as _Mr Espenett was constantly on the spot and is a very painstaking man. But 1 desire to Btate that the original vote for this work wos so Bmall that I was obliged in my ■pacification to omit some work that I considered essential. As it was, the cost more than doubled the amount so inadequately provided. In passing I mast state this building was never intended for a ence, but as a look out tower, with space for th» machinery and a email cooking place for the man in charge; it was never contemplated to hou e a family. The rooms as executed wore stated to me as required by tha then harbor master, Mr Gibson, on the part of the late Provincial Government. It was my wish in the carry ng out of the work to batten all internal walla, and lath and planter them in the usual way, but I was compelled to abandon this on the score of cost. Had this been done no complaint would have occurred of dampness. And lam fully convinced that this course is now the one that can possibly obviate tho evil complained of. I know by old experience in .England that in exposed coastal situations we cannot k<»ep out the damp by any solid wall, however thick, not even 3ft. 6in. thick. I can refor in such a case to a large collegiate building erected on the south coast, designed by the late Sir G. G. Scott. Ultimately, after trying all expedients externally, namely, boiled oil, wax, tallow, silicate, &c, it was determiner! to batten internally, and_ then the evil was remedied. My only motive in writing to you is to suggest a course that I know would be successful and to endeavour to arrest an_ expsnditnre which I am sure would end in failure.— I am, ycurs, etc., Thomas Cane. The Chairman read to the Baa; d the following letter : The Secretary Lyttelton Harbor Board re Mr Cane's Letter.—-'the only paragraphs to which I ■hall refer a>-e the three last. In the first of which Mr Cane says in. effect that " had the walls been battened no complaint of dampness would have occurred." With this I entirely disagree, for the obvious reaßon that the only way to keep a wall dry is to keep the wet out of it, and this ran only be done by treating it externally. It is easy to understand that water coming through a wall must go somewhere, and battening would lead it to the floors, and there it must make its appearance, as it also usually does by a damp stain showing the position of each batten ; but if the water is practically kept out of the wall, and what doss appear is ■imply faint indications of damp, then battening will make it perfectly dry, butto simply batten on inside when water comes in as it does in thiß case, would be useless. It is not an ordinary case of damp wall, to be stopped in an ordinary way. The water actually drives through the wall, and it is this which has to be prevent el. I would point oat that the practice of Sir G. G. Scott, quoted by Mr Cane, goes to prove that external treatment is absolutely necessary, or he would not have first had the building so treated, as with his varied and extensive practice it would be quite unreasonable to suppose that the case quoted was a solitary instance, and I venture to affirm that had the building spoken of not bpeu so treated, battening alone would not have sufficed. But in the present instance it i* not only the damp that appocrs on the inside which is detrimental to the walls, but the fact of water coming in and thraugh as it does must necessarily and effectnally kill the mortar, and therefore de=tioy the cohesion of the wall, and battening will not stop that. This fact mußt in all cases, where it is so bad as this, necessitate an external rem- dy to keep the water out, and my opinion on this matter has in no way changed. May I be allowed to take this opportunity of referring to Mr Allwright's remarks at the late meeting as to destroyia g the architectural features of the building. I have not in any way overlooked this point, as is evident from the fact that rather than put cement on the building, some two years ago I tried other means to stop the water coming through, viz., coating it with silicate, and now I do not propose to _" smear" it over with cement, but to cover it with roughcast cement work, so that the present inequalities of the rubble work may still remain, and not the ordinary smooth snrface of cemeut, the appearance of which I am free to admit would - detract from the character of the building. It is this consideration hastened me to recommend " rough casting." leaving the quoins as at present. The diflvrenco will scarce be perceptible from th* harbor or town. No one more than myself can object to covering honest brick or stone work with cement, which ordinarily I consider a " Vandalism," or what is worse and very commonly done, endeavor to make architectural features ia cement ; bat I cannot conceal from myself the fact that such a course is sometimes unavoidable, and this is a case in point. \ou must either do this or allow the water to come through, and in time destroy the walls. lam quite aware it will not add to the appearance of the bui.ding. What I propose to do is to keep a dry wall, and at same time minimise any detrimental effect the procesß may give to it Tou cannot keep exactly the same appearance and have a dry wall. I thank you for the opportunity of reply afforded me, and apologise for its length. (Signed) Feed. Strouts, M.B T. B.A , Architect.

Christchurch, May 3rd, 1880. The Chairman said tb/tt but one tender for the work had been received, and he supposed it had better be opened. Mr Allwright took exception to opening it. He considered it unfair, there being no others sent in. Ho still held the same opinion with regard to the disfigurement of the building, and as well as to the efficiency of battening on the inside.

The Chairman said ho was convinced that there need be no disfigurement of the tower ; indeed, it was only a matter of cost to make the building any color that might be thought desirable.

A ler.gthy d'senssion ensued, whioh was interrupted by Mr P Cunningham remarking that he considered it was trifling with the time of the Board to debate the matter. He was quite satisfied that the building would not be disfigured. As a compromise, the following resolution was then agreed to •" That the arohitect bo authorised to try the effect and appearance of a width of, aay, tan feet across the whole width of one side of the time ball tower, according to the plan proposed by himself."

Re the suspension of the employe W. Coffey, it was re3olvod to oonfirm it., dismissing him from the service of the Board. The Board adjourned, to meet in Christchurch that day fortnight.