Council, board at odds over wharf limits

Press, 11 April 1978, Page 6

Council, board at odds over wharf limits

i Feelings are running high between the Lyttelton 1 Borough Council and the ’■ Lyttelton Harbour Board: ( about redefined wharf limits which will cost the borough almost $7OOO a year in lost ’ I rates. i The dispute arose in Feb- ■ I ruary when the Harbour ,1 Board applied to have the ' ! container-terminal admini- ■ . stration building declared ..officially within wharf limits I 'and therefore outside thep borough’s rating area. i The borough released the] text of a letter yesterday] from the Minister of Trans-]: port (Mr McLachlan) to the; member of Parliament for!: i Lvttelton (Miss C. E. Dewe)]i advising that he would:: recommend to the Governor-! General that the extension of 1 the wharf limits to include]: I the building be approved. I Mr McLachlan said that]] ithe building was an “integral]! ■ pan of the terminal exclu-: [sively occupied by opera-]: ! tional staff connected with]’ I; the terminal.” ii The general manager ofi; - the Harbour Board (Mr J. A.y e McPhail) said that only! ’’ organisations directly con-; cemed with the terminal; t operations were given leases] t in the building. These in-] l| eluded Agriculture. Forestry,] -. and Health officials. - The Shipping Corporation, of New Zealand had asked'

to have its roll-on administrative staff housed in the building but had been told to find alternative accommodation. The council insists that Mr McLachlan was “wrongly advised that only terminal staff were in the building.” The three departmental tenants were’ not in this category. They could be housed anywhere. Mr McLachlan described the $6741 the borough would! lose in rates as “hypothetical.” "I believe the 1976-77 rates were actually $857.60 and that the increased figure for this year is based upon the completion of the administration building,” hei said. However, the council says that the $6741 is the actual amount of rates charged for 1977-78 and is the minimum amount other ratepayers will have to find in future years. The changed wharf limit also means another cost for the borough: the supply of more free water. Under an act more than 100 years old (the borough must maintain a ' water supply to- the harbour : board free of charge. A meeting of the council i last evening decided to dig ! its toes in over the issue. I “We will leave no stone ; unturned to keep the building in the borough.” said Cr • G. C. Adams.