THE PORT.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 July 1921, Page 8

THE PORT.

DREDGING PROGRAMME DISCUSSED PROPOSAL FOR NEW PIER, A further line of action in regard to the harbor development scheme was discussed by the New Plymouth Harbor Board yesterday, as the outcome of a report received from the resident engineer (Mr. G. W. Baxter Lowgoii), suggesting certain proposals in regard to the future dredging programme. His report also mentioned the advisability of putting out a pier from the Ngamotu beach parallel to the present wharf at a distance of 300 feet away. At the same time works in connection with the reclamation of a portion of Ngamotu were, also suggested. Mr. Lowson stated:— The Paritutu will be again in commission before the next meeting of the board in August, and it seems not inopportune to now consider the dredging programme for the coming year 1921-. 1922. The board has for many years past confined its dredging activities to maintenance '-and the dee x ming of the swinging basin. THE BERTHAGE QUESTION. The former work will continue '’to prove somewhat heavy until after the completion of the Moturoa wall, but it seems that it would now be advisable to cease paying too much attention to the swinging basin, and concentrate more closely on effecting the extension of our present berthage, accommodation. The problem of increasing the available berthage is not one merely of finance, but of engineering difficulties. Either the Board must wait until after the completion of a considerable part at least of the Moturoa wall before being able to utilise the breakwater for berthing purposes, or as the foreshore from which would spring the piers running in an easterly direction, or else it must run out a pier almost parallel to and lying eastwards of the present wharf as suggested by Mr. Mason in 1018. I would. strongly advocate the latter course, and" as by doing so we should interfere with the lay-out of the wharves, as shown in the adopted scheme of harbor improvement works, I venture to place before you a plan showing the proposed ‘new location of the piers in the vicinity of the breakwater. It will b' 1 noticed from this plan that care has been taken to take advantage of the existing deep water as much as possible, while the alignment of each pier is. such as to minimise the difficulties attending the berthage of large boats in any kind of weather.

THE RECOMMENDATION. The piers shown, moreover, afford facilities for both road and rail transport, and Occupy very comfortably the area available for berthage in the vicinity. It would, therefore, be expedient. 1.0 proceed with the dredging of a channel about 50 feet in width, and to a depth of from 30ft to 33ft at low water along the eastern side of the proposed new pier. The board would then be in a position, when funds permit, to procowl with the construction of the western portion of this wharf, making it of sufficient width to carry the western xailwaj- tracks ami storage sheds and also the centre roadway for its full width. The eastern side could be constructed later on when the harbor dredging progressed enough to afford access to this berth. As regards the proposed depth of 30ft to 33ft alongside the western berth, the Board no doubt will regret that in this respect we cannot conform , to the Panama, standard of 40ft. but no cfversea boat has yet visited New Plymouth drawing more than 25ft, and so ihe bert h in question will no doubt meet the nseds of the port more or loss satisfactorily until further extension of the berthage’ -is Contemplated, by which time the board should be in possession of a more suitable dredging plant. RECLAMATION AT NGAMOTU. As the'Paritutu quarry is expected to be in operation before the next meeting of the board in August, I would respectfully request permission to run out a rubble retaining wall along the proposed new foreshore eastwards from the present wharf, for the purpose of reclaiming a portion of the Ngamotu beach. It will be readily understood that with the new quarry turning out say 600 tons of stone per day, any interruption in the disposal of this output will be a very serious and costly matter to the board, and as such interruptions are bound to occur through heavy seas rendering temporarily impracticable any work on the breakwater extension, the necessity of ibeing able to divert both labor and .material to work either inshore, or in Sheltered waters is most apparent. No [work could at present be found more .suitable for the purpose than that men[tioned above, and as the land thus reI claimed ,is of son e considerable value,and will afford ready access to the present wharf and the proposed new pier, the board will no doubt authorise its i formation as a means of permitting; the economical extension of the break- I water. COSTLY WORK. In the course of discussion on the report. Mr. C. E. Bellringer remarked that ihe upkeep of the present dredge was becoming very costly, and it seemed as jf the x Paritutu had to do work which i was rather a strain. The present overhaul which was now being completed would cost about £-1500, and. together with the work which was carried out by the board s own staff, would represent ft cost to the board of between five and Isix thousand pounds. He believed they [should go into the question of using ex-/i | plotdvcs more freely, and a scheme in 1 this connection had been placed before the board some time ago, but had not [been adopted because of finances. He I believed, however, that they should do [something towards easing the work of I the dredge. Air. .1. S. Connett moved that the engineer he asked to give an estimate of the cost of the pier, and advocated that this work should have preference over the Moturoa wall, which he had always Giought should wait for the next loah. With .tn estimate in hand ihe board would then be in a position to define u fine <■ action. Mr. C. A. Wilkinson remarked that one of the board's troubles was that they were always considering fresh propositions; he dal not believe they fehchdd be chipping about too much and wanted to be sure before they made a Iclutnge that the plan of action was a •goud one. The engineer’s suggestion about the pier seemed a good one, bat the cost would govern tho whole question He A«ggesied that question of reclamation should bo included in the motion. Mr. Maxwell pointed out that the en gineer had only placed the report before the board so that their scheme of

dredging should not. be misdirected. The board ivould have to keep as close- as possible to what had beAi already authorised, and he urged that the engineer be given permission to go ahead with the reclamation wall on the eastern side of tiie wharf; this was"pant Of the original scheme, and the matter of tiie pier should be considered separately. Mr., Bellringer Hupported. Mr. Maxwell’s opinion on the. question of the reclamation work, and stfid there was no doubt the pier was beyond the bounds of possibility' at present. Mr. Connett: la it? Mr. Bellringer said that, looking at the situation from a financial aspect, there could be only one answer to the question. In the course of his reply to the other speakers, Mr. Connett said his idea was that they would be in a far better position to decide if they had -an - estimate. The chairman pointed out that any estimate taken to-day would be most misleading, as in two years’ time there would probably be a difference of thirty per cent. THE BOARD’S DECISION. Subsequently, on the motion of Messrs. Bellringer and Maxwell, it was decided that the engineer’s report on dredging be adopted, and Mr. Bellringer made the suggestion that the engineer should consider putting into effect his previous proposal of using a plant and electrical appliances for blasting stone in dredging work. His pr&ious resolution having lapsed by consent, Mr. Connett, moved that with a view to the board giving the engineer’s new wharf proposal further consideration he be asked to submit plans of the new structure together with an estimate of the cost thereof. Mr. Maxwell seconded and emphasised the necessity for berthage accommodation and he said he thought this ought to come practically before any other work. Mr| Wilkinson replied that the board’s first duty was to construct the breakwater, as shelter was the main thing. Even if they raised the whole of the money now available, he did not think the new wharf and breakwater could be carried out and he thought a new loan would be necessary for the wharf. The chairman said the board was ignoring the question of putting out, the Moturoa wall which would effect a big saving in maintenance dredging. He thought possibly something might be done in the direction of putting out a few hundred feet of the wall, and this was worth consideration. Members replied that this question was not under review and speakers said they still supported the Moturoa wall which was a big feature of the harbor scheme. The resolution asking for further information concerning the new pier was then carried. The engineer was given permission to proceed with the reclamation wall when necessary.