TURUA BERTHAGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 4958, 31 March 1926, Page 3

TURUA BERTHAGE.

HARBOUR BOARD’S ACTION 1 .

“HASTY AND UNWISE.” Something of .the indignation that prevails in and around Turua at the action of the Thames 1 Harbour Board in having six piles driven at the entrance of the metal punt berthage, thus effectively blocking it, was shown at Monday night’s meeting of the Thames Harbour Board. Metal has been landed at Turua for many years, but last December, as. some damage —which could probably be repaired for £5 —was, caused by shipping, the blame was attributed to the firm working the metal punts. The firm denied liability and offered to prove cause of. the damage, but the Thames Harboui- Board, with what is considered by the people of Turua to have been undue haste, authorised the blockage of the betrhage—which mupt have cost} £30 —to prevent further damage. During the time the thousands, of yards of metal have been landed the damage caused by mishaps has been very slight, and wais amply covered by the wharfage .and harbour improvement rate levied on the metal. Now, when the roadwork is almost completed and very lit'tel more metal was to arrive, the berthage has been.- blocked for all time. ,

The matter - was brought before the board by the following letter from the clerk of the Turua, Town Board, whose future road work will be increased in cost, and also on behalf of the settlers, who will not in future be able to get punts of metal or timber to the most convenient berthagf : “I have been instructed by this board to write your board strongly protesting against its action in causing six piles to be driven into, the mud adjacent to the Turua wharf to prevent the landing of road metal on the foreshore at this point from flat-bot-tomed punts. 1 /

“This board understands that this) was done as a result of a dispute between your board and the N.Z. Roads Ltd., 'roading contractors, who aye carrying out road works for thisi board and the Hauraki. Plaints 1 County Council, and who for some time have been landing metal over the foreshore from punts, and over the. Turua wharf.

* “Whatever 1 may be the merits of •your board’s ca.se against these contractors, this board contends that you have taken a very arbitrary stand, and one which seriously affects the interests, of the settlers of thiis 1 district in' blocking out access to the riverbank for tjie purpose of landing road metal or shingle from punts, which in 'certain circumstances must inevitably prove a, hardship'to Ratepayers of this district. “For the information of your board I have been asked to point out the following facts: . • ■ ■ ■

■ “Road metal .and shingle have been landed at this spot which you have blocked out for the past 14' yearsr . “When this board contemplated carrying out bitumen road works ajid letting same by contract it .was found, that it would be absolutely necessary to get 1000 yards of suitable broken metal landed at Turua a.s .a stock before, any contractor could be induced to tender. As a resuit, this board 1 sfot out to obtain this metal, and made •necessary arrangements .0 commence landing it, and was politely informed by the Tha,mes Harbour Board that road metal would not be allowed to be landed over the Turua wharf.

“As 'a consequence this board made arrangements to erect landing gear and ■ facilities (for landing the metal over the riverbank at a cost to this board of £67. These landing facilities were subsequently handed over to the contractors. . ; .

“This board further contends that your board must have had a legal remedy by way of injunction against the contractors if your case against them was, good, and that it was the duty of your board to have exercised such legal remedy, and that you have not the legal right to close a portion of the ''foreshore off in the way you have done to the detriment of the public, or local bodies, who may desire to reasiona.bly use same’ for public works, especially in view of the intimation that, road metal would not be allowed to be landed over the Turua wharf. / “In these circumstances this board now respectfully .asks your board to remove these piles.

“If it was .thp desire of your board in putting in those piles to protect its property, this could have been done much more effectively if they had been, driven in a line running up and down the river northwards and southMlards and still have left the foreshore open for ,the berthing of metal punts. .

,• “It seems to this board that the settiers of this district are to be made to suffer for vindictiveness between your board and the roading contractors!, and the fact that settlers will remain here for .all time and the contractors are here to-day and gone tomorrows' seemts to have been entirely lost sight of. • “Incidentally, I have also been asked by this board to point out that the first 1000 ya,rds of metal landed by this board over the foreshore was nearly all obtained from Messrs Trethpweji’s Kauaeranga quarry. This metal was considered to be one of the most (suitable ‘classes of stone for bitumen roading, but same was only procurable in punts on account df the bridges and shallow water, and could only be landed over the foreshore. The contractors aljso procured upwards of 2000 yards of the same stone from the same source, and both they and this board have to this extent supported a Thames industry, and were only too glad to do so, as, it proved to be the best quality of metal at the cheapest price; but by the action df your board this source of supply has been entirely cut off, thup causing loss and inconvenienceon this side and injury and loss of trade to a local industry, on your side,, as upwards of a further 1000 yards were required. “In conclusion, I have also a.sked to say that this board has still about one and .a-quarter miles of

bitumen road to complete, outside what hats- been contracted for, and it may be that the board will have to do thisi work, in which case it would like the use of the foreshore for landing punts and is prepared to give any reasonable written undertaking to your board to be fully responsible for and to repair any damage which may occur to your board’s property in the, landing of metal.

“As to you account for £26 12s 6d, this board questions the right of your board to levy a. harbour improvement rate on road. metal lapded over the riverbank, which is not a wharf or a harbour. Of the amount of £26 12s| 6d, £7 5s 3d is for wharfage and £l9 7s 3d is for harbour improvement rate. The latter the board cannot see its way to pay, in view of the £67 it had to spend for facilities to land over the riverbank and the, intimation at the beginning of operations that road metal would not be allowed to be Landed over the wharf. It is admitted that the wharf was subsequently re-decked, and that metal wa.s then allowed* to be landed over tne wharf, but this, after tjhisl board had committed itself to the expenditure of £67 mentioned above. I enclose a cheque for £7 5s 3d in payment of the wharfage. The board has a copy of the correspondence that has passed between .the N.Z. Roads, Ltd., and your board.” The Secretary: Mr Green repre'sented the Roads. Committee in Tuma.

Mr Laughlin asked who- had authorised the piles.

The secretary said that the engineer had reported on the necessity of the piles long before the trouble with the N.Z. Roads. Co. There wais therefore no ground for the statement of vindictiveness.

The engineer said that the piles ha ; d been driven to protect the board’s interests. Someone had cau'sted,-dam-age, and he had, recommended the piles to prevent a repetition. Mr Laughlin asked if the piles could not have been driven elsewhere to have the same; effect.

The engineer replied' that .this was possible, but it would have required, a long row of d'dubly braced piles. The chairman said jthat the board had to protect its The Ro'ads Co. was deteririined to do as it liked, and had defied the board. It would have preferred the board to take legal action instead 1 of a practical remedy. The board, had to do something quickly, a,s ,the company thought it could do as.it liked, and before the legal remedy could have been .applied all the metal would h.ave been landed. The bqard had not injured anyone, though it was true that at one time it had. prohibited the. landing of metal over the wharf. He would point out ' that the Town Board’t? work and expenditure had been done without tjhe' authority of the Harbour Board. He felt sure the board had done the right thing, and should demand payment df the account. If the Turua people had known all the circumstances they would not have criticised the Harbour Board. The person who wrote the letter was employed by the Roads Co. Mr D. G. McMillan said that he could not agree'with the* chairman s remarks,. He had investigated the facts and had perused the correspondence between the board and the company, and in addition ha,d tsecured the opinions of the people of Turua. He was of opinion that an undue hardship had been imposed on the district, as the board had absolutely prevented punts from being used and! had taken 'away a right that ha ; d been exercised If or many years. • The Town Board had gone to considerable, expense to improve the berthage and provide landing gear owing to the prohibition .of the landing of metal over the wharf. Metal, was now costing 2s a yard more, because punts could not he used and other sources) had to be reverted to. Thus, he contended, the Harbour Board was penalising the district’and inflicting a hardship. He thought the. board had acted with undue haste, and inadvisedly. The piles could have been put in a position to protect the wharf without blocking the berthage. He understood evidence could be produced proving that the punts had not caused the damage complained of. The matter had not been diplomatically handled, and as a result there was a very ’sjtrong feeling against the board in the district. The criticism was very strong, and was unanimous. He was not satisfied with the explanation, and still thought the board’s action was ha'sjty and ill-considered.

Trie chairman said that the” correspondence did not explaih the whole position. There .had been much telephoning, and he was of opinion that Mr (M'cMillan would have acted in the same way had he been chairman. .Diplomacy was all right until the other party took of its, gloves. The company had defied .the board, which wa,s therefore compelled to take drastic action.' The bo.ard was, a reasonable 1 , body of men, but th® nonipany had! defied it. , Mr McMillan: How defied? x : The chairman siatid that threats were made, and the police were called': by the board as [violence was expected. The secretary said .that Mr Green and Mr Gibson had been instructed him to inform the company that work was to cease. The Auckland office of the company had advised the foreman to continue in defiance of the board’s request. He ha,d therefore called the police.

Mr McMillan observed that this had made the board a laughing stock, and the action was, much criticised. Mr Laughlin .asked' if the position could not now be remedied. Mr Adams said that if the Town Board had applied for permission to construct a berthage he would have -advised that it be not granted. Other landing places' could have been used, but from the Town. Board’s standpoint they were not so suitable. The Wharf had not been constructed for 'metal landing, though lately i,t had been decked for the purpose. Elevat--ors could be us<ed flor unloading the punts.

Mr McMillan said that such an elevator would cos it £.‘200, and, besides, there was no other place; so suitable as the concrete road for dumping metal. To ha,ve.- uistjd any other site

would have increased the cost of the road work. • Mr Adams said that if there was sufficient warrant a crane could be erected on the wharf. The chairman said that there was not sufficient business, to warrant a crane. Mr E. N. Miller suggested that the chairman, engineer, and secretary meet Mr McMillan and Mr Green at Turua and go into the matter. Mr H. Lowe suggested meeting the whole of the Town Board. Mr Miller opposed .this; contending that if the whole board was present no progress would be made.. He. suggested the chairmap .alone, Mr McMillan : And Mr Green. Mr Coulter said that he would agree to Mr' Green being present as the Town Board’s clerk, but he would not meet him as a representative of the Town Board. It was agreed that the chairman, engineer, and secretary confer with the chairman of the Turua Town Board- on a date to be arranged.