LOSS OF BEACHES

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 208, 22 November 1927, Page 11

LOSS OF BEACHES

CITY COUNCIL’S FAULT ASSERTION BY HARBOUR CHAIRMAN BATHS INQUIRY CONCLUDED 'T'HE statement of the Parks Committee of the City Council that the Harbour Board had deprived the city of beaches was absolutely contradicted at the Dixieland Baths Inquiry this morning. On the contrary Mr. H. R. Mackenzie, chairman of the Harbour Board, said the City Council had allowed the depredations, and encouraged them. The inquiry before Mr. G. C. Godfrey and Mr. C. B. Campbell continued this morning. Professor J. A. Bartram, biologist, detailed research work he had done on coastal formations. He said the beach was not north and south, and the north-west wind came in almost at right angles. There was strong evidence that the sand and shell came from the south-west. The sand increased on the northern end. His belief was that the present small quantity of sand on the beach would be added to If the baths were built. “PARKS COMMITTEE INCORRECT” Mr. Hugh Mackenzie, chairman of the Auckland Harbour Board, said the Parks Committee of the City Council had accused the Harbour Board as well as the Railway Department of depriving the city of beaches. This was untrue. At Judge’s Bay, for instance, provision had been made by the board for the retention of a salt water lake fed from the sea. The council did not insist on. this, though he drew its attention to the fact that the conditions were not being complied with, and finally the City Council started to build its own road and completed the ruination of Judge’s Bay. At this stage Mr. Stanton said the City Council did not in any way hold the Harbour Board responsible for the destruction of beaches. Mr. Mackenzie said the board had stipulated what was required to preserve the amenities and the City Council departed from them. Witness said the Harbour Board would not be against the baths, but they favoured the first position. If the city would not allow this site, Having a space between the bath and the cliff, then the board was reasonable enough to say that the new site should be used. He did not expect the beach to be detrimentally affected. The contrary had always proved the case. Over 80 private sites had been given to private owners by the Harbour Board and no protest had ever been made. Each case was dealt with on its merits. A licence fee of £ 1 a year was charged, and licences were capable of cancellation within three months. It was mentioned that a rental of 10s a week was proposed for the new baths. FIRST SITE BETTER Witness, cross-examined, said even if Mr. Holderness reported against baths in this site, the opinion of the harbourmaster had to be considered, and this question was one in his department. The board considered the first site the better, but if the City Council in a spirit of arbitrary unreasonableness refused one site the other should be granted. The board had not discussed the second site. The board held itself responsible for the protection of public rights, and did its duty often. The board preferred the first site. Mr. Northcroft: So do we. This closed the evidence from Dixieland, Ltd., and counsel addressed the inquiry. COUNSEL’S SUMMARIES Mr. Northcroft said he was entitled to say the moral objection had not been sustained, and the objection that private use was creating an undesirable precedent was put out by the evidence of Mr. Mackenzie. Eighty other grants had passed without objection, and in any case it was a question for Cabinet as against unsubstantial critics in Auckland. The engineering objections were given by Mr. Bush, who claimed no knowledge of sea-front engineering, and Mr. Holderness’s evidence was nebulus. The evidence of Professor Bartrum disposed of it very substantially. \n important point that had been overlooked, and which caused the engineering evidence of the other side to suffer, was that the beach was not north and south, and the north-west wind at right angles could have little effect on buildiqg it up. The prospect appeared to be that the baths would prevent loss of sand round the point, and keep the beach. Even if the baths were not built the erection of groynes appeared to be highly desirable. The proposed bath offered inestjmab y better conditions, and a considerable measure of safety. _.. Mr J Stanton, on behalf of the City Council, said he presumed tlmt the Inauiry bad considered the two main questions of the cabaret in conjunction with the baths, and the granting of a licence to private enterprise. The peopie who supported the objection had not perhaps been definite under crossexamination, but they did not come to the inquiry to fill in time. It was a question for grave consideration before their objections were overruled and the Government, if it granted the licence, must accept the responsibility for anything that resulted The engineering case of Dixieland, Ltd., had

not been convincing:. The engineers had agreed that it was difficult to foretel results in marine constructions. The engineers disagreed for instance as to the reason for there being no sand on the rocky area at the point. Mr. Norther oft: They don’t disagree. All the reasons given might apply. Mr. Stanton said the balance .was just in favour of building up, and any interference might turn the balance the other way. The risk was serious. The beach was an assured attraction, and would continue to be without the baths. They had only to wait and the council would build baths in the better site round the point. He denied any suggestion of the city objection being dishonest because there was no move on their part to build baths. This could not be maintained. They had done a great deal for swimming, and in view of heavy expenditure at Point Chevalier had only acted reasonably. The inquiry adjourned. A report will be made to the Minister for Marine in Wellington.