WORK ON NO. 7 WHARF

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28270, 7 May 1957, Page 20

WORK ON NO. 7 WHARF

Questions By Shipowners

No. 7 wharf at Lyttelton was again discussed by Mr 3. L. Reid, chairman of the Port Employers’ Association, and chairman of the Christchurch branch of the Overseas Shipowners’ Comfnittee, yesterday, in reply to the Lyttelton Harbour.Board's statement' matte after Mr Reid had replied to remarks made at a recent board meeting. Four questions were put to the board by Mr Reid yesterday. He asked:— “Did the shipowners not apply to the board at the time the old wharf was condemned and request permission to see plans o$ the new lay-out before anything was made final? “Is it not a fact that we made repeated applications to the board seen the plans? “Is it not a fact that on February 15, 1955, when we become aware that the Railways Department was actually placing rails on the wharf, that we again reminded the board that we had not seen the plans. “Is it not a fact that the board wrote to the Railways Department in August, 1954, to the effect that the board and the shipping companies had approved the proposed lay-out, when we had, in effect, not seer the plans?” The board had said that the secretary of the Port Employers’ Association discussed the matter with a senior officer of the board in February, 1955, Mr Reid said. That was correct, but the inference was wrong. The discussion was held on February 21, three days after the Railways Department had shown the shipownseen the plans? Of the board’s statement that as late as March of last year there was a meeting between members of the board's staff and company representatives to discuss the layout of rail tracks, Mr Reid said there was still no mention ’of the work now being done. Use of Traverse Would the board advise who attended the meeting? Mr Reid asked. The work now being done at the shipowners’ request would not have been requested or necessary if the board had insisted on having l. traverse installed on the wharf as shown in the plans, he said. It was only when the shipowners discovered that the traverse was not being installed that they applied for cross-overs. Shipowners had asked to see the plans because they wished to have the wharf as up-to-date as possible, Mr Reid said. The fact that the department made certain alterations surely showed that they were worthwhile. When the plans -were first seen they were practically identical with the layout of the old wharf, whereas the result of discussions with the Railway Department was that there was a much improved layout.

Mr Reid said that if the chairman or any members of th? board called on him he would produce hir committee’s file- for examination. When Mr Reid’s statement was referred to Mr A. L. Burk, secretary of the Harbour Board, he said that he was reluctant to carry on the controversy, but felt that one question raised by Mr Reid should be answered. “At the meeting held in Lyttelton in March, 1956, the following shipping companies were represented:—Shaw Savill and Albion, New Zealand Shipping, Kinsey and Company, Blue Star, Canterbury Steam, Holm and Company, and Union Steam Ship Company,” he said. “The requests followed the unanimous decisions of all present, but no request was made concerning the particular work now being carried out, although this work could then have been done without the removal of decking,” Mr Burk said.