The Press WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1953 Delay and Decay At Lyttelton

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27224, 16 December 1953, Page 10

The Press WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1953 Delay and Decay At Lyttelton

Those who have been perturbed by p the Lyttelton Harbour Board’s marked reluctance to push ahead with the long-discussed proposal to ] enlarge and modernise the port will find in the news columns this morn-1 ? ing new justification for their ; concern. The engineers of thej Railways Department have con- ' eluded that No. 7 wharf and the ' breastworks from No. 3 wharf to No. 7 wharf are unsafe for railway ' traffic; and a considerable and important part of the port's berthage space for shipping will therefore be lost at the height of a busy season- As the president of the Port Employers’ Association (Mr R. L. , Reid) remarks, the board should not i be surprised. For although little ' has been said at open meetings of the board to suggest that any of the pert installations might be condemned as unsafe, it is clear that; the bean! has had the possibility in; ; mind, and for a long time. Over : two years ago it obtained Parliamentary sanction to raise a loan to| , rebuild this wharf and the breast- j ’ works. When moving the second | reading of the empowering bill in ' the House of Representatives in October, 1951, Mr J. K. McAlpine, a member of the board. ■ explained that most of No. 7 wharf was at least 40 years old and some of it older. “ When I inspected the “ area with officers of the board ; “ some few weeks ago ”, he said, “it was apparent that something “ drastic would have to be done to “that wharf in the near future”.

I do not want tc raise any alarm about the safety of the wharf Esaid Mr McAlpine]. It is perfectly safe, because additional piles have been put in from time to time, and it has been to keep it in a safe condition-, but the time has arrived when the board considers that it is imperative that the wharf should be replaced.

That was over two years ago; ; and nothing has been done to the wharf since. In February this year the board* had before it three; alternative schemes for the reconstruction and enlargement of the; wharf, with access for road transport as well as the railways, and with provision for goods sheds either | on the wharf itself or on adjacent land. Discussion was deferred so; that board members could, examine plans and visit the sitei It was notuntil August that the board decided to reconstruct No. 7 wharf in such a way as to make it suitable for road traffic. No mention was made in the report of the harbour | • improvement committee (in which, apparently, this important policy; question was decided) of the earlier schemes to enlarge the wharf and build goods sheds. It should be noted that the board' maintains, against the Railways: Department’s opinion, that the; wharf and breastworks are not unsafe; and the difference of opinion i will presumably be resolved by the' investigations that are now being made. But even if they are proved; ■ technically safe, these harbour

installations will still be overdue— ? and long years overdue—for re- j placement. Are the rest of the port installations in very much better case? The board would be wise to take the public fully into its confidence on this question, which bears strongly upon the whole subject of the future of Lyttelton. It has long been obvious that some members of the board have "gone “cold” on the policy, affirmed and reaffirmed by past boards, to enlarge and modernise the port and to open it to road transport through a tunnel road. They think, apparently, that the present port, patched and repaired, can be made to serve the needs of the growing community and larger ships with little fundamental change. Other board members, while not disavowing the “ ultimate development scheme ”,

have seemed content to relegate it to an uncertain future. The unfortunate occurrence this week will at least serve a useful purpose if it reminds the board and the public that the port decays while the board delays.