Harbour Board’s Problem In “Shanty Town Removal

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28252, 13 April 1957, Page 4

Harbour Board’s Problem In “Shanty Town Removal

[By a Waterfront Correspondent of "The Press")

Whether the policy that the sundry building on and near the wharves be removed will ever be carried into effect by the Lyttelton Harbour Board is doubted by most persons closely connected with the working of the port. One hundred and six buildings and wharves comprise “shanty town” or “tin shed alley,” as the agglomeration has been described by board members. The buildings are of all shapes and sizes and conditions. Most are at the end of the wharves and clustered by railway lines and turns-off to the wharves.

The resolution at the last meeting of the board adopting the principle and to notify owners and tenants of buildings is considered in Lyttelton to be impracticable. Radical modification and clarification of the policy declaration appears necessary, as the board has bound itself to remove its own buildings and to require the removal of buildings essential for the ports working, not only on its land but on land leased by the Railways Department over which it has no jurisdiction. The instructions of the board were being given effect to, said the secretary-manager (Mr A. L. Burk), when he was questioned, and ship-owners and other interested parties were being notified accordingly. Mr Burk declined to give the names of the individual companies notified.

The biggest company building affected is the offices of the Union Steam Ship Co. Ltd. It is on the line of the proposed route of the elevated roadway from Norwich quay to the base of the steamer express wharf. The building is a substantial one.

The company lad received a notification on removal from the board, said the Christchurch manager (Mr S. G. Edwards). He was unable to comment, as the company had not had time to study the suggestion, he said. Board’s Buildings

A survey shows'that a number of buildings near the steamer express wharf and other wharves are owned by the Harbour Board. They include the cafeteria for waterside workers to the east of No. 5 shed, a workshops at the end of the Gladstone pier for the works staff carrying out alterations, a gear store for the docks at the dock wharf and the building on the Diamond Harbour jetty. All the other buildings on or near the wharves are for business directly connected with shipping and the view is held that the port operations will be seriously interferred with if the policy is not reconsidered. For efficiency, the workers who have their headquarters in “shanty town” must necessarily be close to the wharves. Their numbers, as well as the numbers of the buildings, have grown in the 80 years’ history of the port.

The board in the past has H»| cussed, vaguely, the possibility of the erection of a maritime building at Lyttelton to house all the companies and other interests now in the wharf sheds and but is was only last week that it formally resolved that it was contemplating such a building.

There is nothing concrete in the idea. It is nebulous. Some invest, gation has been made of a likely site and the only one available close to the wharves is in Norwich quay. It would not have an area big enough for a building to house all the maritime interests. Customs Work In criticising the looseness of the board's policy declaration, waterfront workers point to the custom’s office, next to that of the Union company and contend that the customs officers would be unable to carry out their duties if the office was removed from the waterfront. Further, many of the buildings are erected on railway land, outside the control of the board, and their removal, obviously, must be the subject of negotiation between the board, the Railways Department and the occupiers.

If the .board’s resolution, as it now stands, is carried to its logical conclusion, the wool stores at Lyttelton will have to be shifted. They are on land occupied under long-term leases. Only recently, the New Zealand Shipping Company was given a renewal of the lease of the land near the boat harbour and a new access is being made.

All the offices, buildings containing pumping plants and the tanks of oil companies are held in Lyttelton to be “in the vicinity of the wharves.” So is the watersiders’ headquarters, the Centennial Hall, which was built by the Harbour Board itself as a cost of more than £lOO,OOO and opened only three yean? ago. Recent I/eases Only recently, the Shaw, Savill and Albion Company took over the lease of land on the wharf side of the entrance to the Lyttelton tunnel formerly occupied by the engineering firm of Andersons Ltd. as the site for a new wool store, to replace the store on Gladstone pier which will have to be removed to clear the entrance to the eastern extensioD of the harbour development The new site is on the seaward side of the main railway line and is on the reclaimed area. At the same meeting at which, the board adopted the recommendation of the newly-formed' works committee that the policy' be the transfer of sundry building on and in the vicinity of the wharves to alternative sites, the board granted an application by J. Miller Ltd. to take over a fore-j shore licence from the Yacht Club for a slipway and' boathouse —a decision which Lyt-i telton interests suggest was in** consistent. " 1