Lyttelton puts case for crane delay

Press, 27 August 1977, Page 1

Lyttelton puts case for crane delay

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

The Minister of Transport (Mr McLachlan) will hear submissions from the Otago Harbour Board before he makes a final decision on a second container crane for Port Chalmers.

He gave this assurance to the chairman of the Lyttelton Harbour Board (Mr J. Brant) who led a deputation to Mr McLachlan yesterday.

The crux of the argument is that Port Chalmers and Lyttelton were each given authority for a container crane. Port Chalmers. being some months ahead of Lyttelton in container traffic, asked the Ports Authority for a second container crane, and received permission to go ahead and buy one. The deputation which waited' on Mr McLachlan maintained that not enough time had passed for a third crane to be allocated. It requested that a decision be deferred for 12 months, by which time both South

Island ports would have been using containers long enough for a fair decision to be made. The members of the deputation were Mr Brant, the general manager of the Lyttelton Harbour Board (Mr J. A. McPhail), the Mayor of Christchurch (Mr H. G. Hay), the Mayor of Lyttelton (Mr J. B. Collett), the president of the Canterbury Manufacturer’s Association (Mr D. Sanders), a past president of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce (Mr A. C. Dunn), and the chairman of the Canterbury branch of the Bureau of Importers and Exporters (Mr M. L. Rooney). The deputation was introduced to the Minister by Miss Colleen Dewe (Nat., Lyttelton).

The meeting was in the form of an appeal against the decision of the Ports Authority to vary the national ports plan to allow an extra crane and equipment at Port Chalmers.

Appeals had been lodged by seven local organisations in support of the Lyttelton Harbour Board. Mr McLachlan is the final appeal authority. Mr Brant told Mr McLachlan that the recent decision of the Ports Authority was contrary to and undermined its previous

decision of December 4, 1974, which stated, “That the question of further South Island container terminal development should be deferred for later determination when the pattern of overseas trade, the future of the meat leaders, and experience with container handling at both ports will provide a sounder basis for decisionmaking.” At the date of the authority’s 1977 decision, experience with container handling had not com-

menced at Lyttelton and was limited to four or five months at Port Chalmers. Mr Brant said the authority’s requirement of “experience with container handling at both ports” had not been met.

The decision on South Island container ports was made by the then Minister

of Transport (Sir Basil Arthur) on April 21, 1975, after he had considered appeals by the Southland, Otago, timaru and Lyttelton harbour boards against a previous decision by the authority. Lyttelton was the first port named in the South Island. The decision was that container facilities be confined initially to one berth and one crane, at each of two ports, one being Lyttelton.

“While the board has gone ahead and expended amounts in excess of $lO

million in the provision of the necessary terminal facilities, some shipping lines have not honoured the spirit of the agreement entered into between the Minister and the board,” the Lyttelton Harbour Board submission says. “Certain container cargoes to or from the hinterland normally served by Lyttelton, despite the extra steaming time involved, continue to be channelled through the other container' ports.”

Mr McLachlan was told that after eight years of planning, decision-making and construction, the Lyttelton container-port came into being with the arrival of the container ship ACT 2 on June 18 this year. Between then and now four container vessels had used the Lyttelton facilities, the others being Jervis Bay, Lindfield and Flinders Bay. Mr Brant submitted that In granting Port Chalmers a second crane the Ports Authority had ignored the Minister’s direction, and

would seem to have given undue consideration to estimates prepared by the container committee of the European Container Lines. The Maj’or of Christchurch (Mr Hay) said that the appeal against the pons authority decision was lodged in the national interest. “The Christchurch City Council considers that it has a duty to express an opinion on any matter likely to have a serious in» fluence on the economic stability and employment levels within the area of which it is the centre.” The council’s submission mentioned the extra rail traffic on the ChristchurchDunedin rail link, on which there were limitations; the serious loss of employment in Lyttelton because of the withdrawal of the Rangatira; the extra steaming times involved to Port Chalmers: and the difficulty already in Lyttelton in meeting the present loan charges of $885,000.