LYTTELTON HARBOR BOARD.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2016, 10 August 1880, Page 4

LYTTELTON HARBOR BOARD.

A special meeting of this Board was held at the offices, Hereford street, yesterday afternoon. Present—Mr Harman (acting chairman), and Messrs Cunningham, Craig, Allan, Murray-Aynsley, O.W. Turner. The Chairman stated that the meeting had been called to consider proposed by-laws in reference to the reduction of pilotage and extension of the dock. The report of the harbor committee bore on one of these subjects, and he thought it would be better to take that report at once into consideration. After consideration as to the “ order of business ” involved in the suggestion, Mr Craig moved—“ That the harbor improvement committee be allowed to bring up their report." Seconded by Mr Murray-Aynsley, and carried. The report was then read as follows : Eeport No. 12—Order o£ Reference —“ That the harbor improvement committee he authorised to take such action as may be necessary to bring the negotiations with Messrs Ware and Jones, as to the dock extension, to an issue, but subject to final approval by the Board ” He extension of Graving Hock —1. Acting the above resolution of the Board, your committee requested Messrs Ware and Jones to meet them on Thursday last the day on which Mr Ball returned from Wellington, Mr W. ingly met the committee, and fully explained the basis upon which the offer of his firm was made up; also, his reasons for not being able to reduce it, and after hearing our engineer e final opinion upon the question, which he has Binre put in writing, your committee came to the unanimous conclusion that Messrs Ware and Jones’ offer, dated the 10th Jn’y, 1880, was a fair and reasonable one, and they, therefore, recommend the Board to accept it, subject to its embodiment in a contract between themselves and Messrs Ware and Jones, in the manner advised by counsel under date of 31st July, 1880, and they further recommend that such contract be prepared and executed forthwith, and that the seal of the Board be affixed to it. The above recommendation is based on the assumption that the plans for the proposed 50ft. ■extension to the graving dock will he approved by the Governor, but that io the event of their not being so approved, it shall not be incumbent tipon the Board to give effect to the above recommendation. In reference to the above, a memo, from the engineer was read to this effect:—“ I have o -nsidered the reasons put forward by the contractors for the period of six months’ time, which they ask to complete the extension of the dock ; also, their reasons for asking to be paid for maintenance of coffer dam during the same time. I think that their requests are reasonable and moderate, and I would recommend the Board to accede to them. (Signed) C. Napibb Bell " On the same subject also, a telegram was received from Mr Richardson, M.H.8., chairman of the Board, as follows:—“Have received following from Secretary Marine, dated to day (August 7th) :—‘ Mr Blackett has approved of plan for extending Lyttelton dock, and the Minister has approved of its being laid before the Governor for his approval, which will be done on Tuesday next. B. Johnson.’ There can be no doubt its being formally approved.” Mr Allan asked whether the harbor improvement committee had thoroughly considered the advisability of dividing the dock. He thought the arguments in favor of that plan were very strong indeed, as, for instance, It would give additional accommodation. The Chairman replied that the committee had not specially considered the subject, but it had been thought of by the engineer, who had written Home for further information on the subject. In reply to Mr Harman, The engineer said he had never seen a dock divided in the way mentioned, and he had written to England to get plans, lut the work could bo done at any time if found to be desirable. Mr Allan thought they might bo able to dispense with the slip if they had the dock divided, and he suggested that some arrangement might be made now to facilitate future alteration in that direction. Mr Bell said it would not be necessary. The first cost was the principal expense, and the dock once made, they could do anything with it. Mr Craig agreed that it would be a pity to do anything in connection with dividing the dock till Mr Bell was prepared with plans. After some further discussion, Mr Allan moved—“ That the harbor improvement committee’s report re extension of the graving dock be adopted,” Mr Murray-Aynsley objected to the motion on the ground that a deed of agreement between the two parties hod not been obtained, *nd future disputes might arise. The Chairman said that what would be done would be to cancel the old contract and enter on the new one simultaneously. Mr Allan pointed out that a clause of the report provided for the objection raised by Mr Aynsley. After further discussion on the point raised, , The Board agreed to make an addition to Mr Allan’s motion to the effect that “ all rights under the present contract should be reserved until a new contract has been aigned.” The motion as amended was then carried. The next question before the meeting was the reduction of pilotage rates, in reference to which Mr Cunningham had given notice of motion at last meeting. It was resolved to consider the question in committee. On resuming, the Chairman reported the following resolution as having been adopted by the committee—“ That wharfage on ships’ ballast, consisting of sand, shingle, stone, or clay, delivered into or from hulks or on a wharf, be charged 6d per ton ; if into lighters overside, free.” The question of reduction of pilotage was postponed till a full meeting of the Board.