It will be seen from the above delineation that Captain Sewell’s scheme provides for a harbor in practically the same locality as does the scheme submitted by Mr. R. W. Holmes, Government Engineer-in-Chief. In a number of particulars, however there is a material difference between the two schemes. In the first place, it may be noted that Capt. Sewell’s proposal provides for a harbor containing about 140 acres as against 115 acres in the scheme designed by Mr. Holmes. In place of the straight sea wall as contained in Mr. Holmes’s plan, Capt. Sewell provides a mole, so curved, it is claimed, as to allow drifting sand to fill in at the back of the root. Another advantage claimed for the curved wall is that the curve will prevent the seas from running along it to the end, and ultimately eating away the land in the vicinity of the root. Both schemes, it will be seen, provide for a substantial addition to the breakwater so as to meet the difficulty which arises from the range in the river As to the existing groyne whilst it is retained in Mr. Holmes’ scheme, Capt. Sewell makes provision for its removal entirely. Another important difference between the two schemes is that, while in Mr. Holmes’ plan the end of the sea wall is parallel with the end of the breakwater, in Captain Sewell’s scheme his curved mole terminates at a point much nearer the shore than the end of the breakwater, a prevision for. which it is claimed that it will entirely obviate the possibilty of the heavy seas from the south-east from entering the mouth of the harbor. Next, it should be observed, that Captain Sewell’s scheme provides for a wharf along the frontage, connecting with the present wharf, and, in the future, for a dock site. Again, is provision for an oblique wall across the river, and for the diversion of the river into its old channel to run past the Cook Memorial and empty itself into the sea on the Kaiti beach. This will be accomplished by means of the wall, and it is claimed that by this means all danger of silting at the mouth of the harbor will be removed. The curved mole in Captain Sewell’s scheme is to be 120 feet wide, a similar width being proposed in regard to the wharves, which, under the scheme, will carry large sheds of 60 feet in width A depth of 24 feet is at present obtainable at the proposed entrance, and a uniform depth of 26 feet at low water and 31 feet at high water is aimed at. At present, at the centre of the proposed site, a depth of 18 foot of water exists at low water, spring tide While Mr. Holmes’ proposed extension of the breakwater is a separate structure, in Capt. Sewell’s scheme provision is made for a straight-out extension of the existing wall. Again, Captain Sewell’s plan shows an alternative exit or entrance is provided—by way of the present anchorage, in line with the leading lights, or round the foul ground, which course it iS proposed to mark with a series of buoys. Extensive reclamation work is proposed in Cant Sewell’s scheme, as also in Mr. Holmes’, with the important difference that in the case of the former it is proposed to divert the course of the Waikanae creek, and let it find its way into the sea at a point on the beach some distance above Grey Street At a rough estimate, the cost of Capt. Sewell’s scheme is set down at £500,000, and he maintains that the harbor provided in his scheme can be constructed in ten years’ time out of revenue alone.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3241, 10 June 1911, Page 7

It will be seen from the above delineation that Captain Sewell’s scheme provides for a harbor in practically the same locality as does the scheme submitted by Mr. R. W. Holmes, Government Engineer-in-Chief. In a number of particulars, however there is a material difference between the two schemes. In the first place, it may be noted that Capt. Sewell’s proposal provides for a harbor containing about 140 acres as against 115 acres in the scheme designed by Mr. Holmes. In place of the straight sea wall as contained in Mr. Holmes’s plan, Capt. Sewell provides a mole, so curved, it is claimed, as to allow drifting sand to fill in at the back of the root. Another advantage claimed for the curved wall is that the curve will prevent the seas from running along it to the end, and ultimately eating away the land in the vicinity of the root. Both schemes, it will be seen, provide for a substantial addition to the breakwater so as to meet the difficulty which arises from the range in the river As to the existing groyne whilst it is retained in Mr. Holmes’ scheme, Capt. Sewell makes provision for its removal entirely. Another important difference between the two schemes is that, while in Mr. Holmes’ plan the end of the sea wall is parallel with the end of the breakwater, in Captain Sewell’s scheme his curved mole terminates at a point much nearer the shore than the end of the breakwater, a prevision for. which it is claimed that it will entirely obviate the possibilty of the heavy seas from the south-east from entering the mouth of the harbor. Next, it should be observed, that Captain Sewell’s scheme provides for a wharf along the frontage, connecting with the present wharf, and, in the future, for a dock site. Again, is provision for an oblique wall across the river, and for the diversion of the river into its old channel to run past the Cook Memorial and empty itself into the sea on the Kaiti beach. This will be accomplished by means of the wall, and it is claimed that by this means all danger of silting at the mouth of the harbor will be removed. The curved mole in Captain Sewell’s scheme is to be 120 feet wide, a similar width being proposed in regard to the wharves, which, under the scheme, will carry large sheds of 60 feet in width A depth of 24 feet is at present obtainable at the proposed entrance, and a uniform depth of 26 feet at low water and 31 feet at high water is aimed at. At present, at the centre of the proposed site, a depth of 18 foot of water exists at low water, spring tide While Mr. Holmes’ proposed extension of the breakwater is a separate structure, in Capt. Sewell’s scheme provision is made for a straight-out extension of the existing wall. Again, Captain Sewell’s plan shows an alternative exit or entrance is provided—by way of the present anchorage, in line with the leading lights, or round the foul ground, which course it iS proposed to mark with a series of buoys. Extensive reclamation work is proposed in Cant Sewell’s sch eme, as also in Mr. Holmes’, with the important difference that in the case of the former it is proposed to divert the course of the Waikanae creek, and let it find its way into the sea at a point on the beach some distance above Grey Street At a rough estimate, the cost of Capt. Sewell’s scheme is set down at £500,000, and he maintains that the harbor provided in his scheme can be constructed in ten years’ time out of revenue alone.