Harbour Bd unlikely to appeal on crane

Press, 22 June 1978, Page 2

Harbour Bd unlikely to appeal on crane

By

BOB McCORMICK,

£, shipping reporter

The Lyttelton Harbour Board is not expected to appeal against the Ports Authority’s refusal to allow a second container crane, but a committee recommendation will not be made public for two weeks. The board’s chairman (Mr J. Brand) declined to release the recommendation of the Port Development Committee on the appeal, although much of the discussion was held in open meeting. He said he did not favour an immediate appeal but wanted to give his reasons in committee and the committee's recommendation could be released after the meeting. Mr Brand declined to do this after the meeting and said the recommendation would have to go to the board in two weeks. Most board members were present yesterday as committee members. Mr Brand had earlier indicated, after hearing strong support for the appeal, that he had confidential information he did not want to make public and that he supported the opposition to an appeal by another board member.

r Mr R. G. Gerard called for ) all the discussion to be held s in open meeting and quesv tioned whether the Ports Authority had taken into i- account the extra steaming - costs for diverted ships to Wellington and Port r Chalmers. e The Ports Authority decie sion referred to a possible e shift of New Zealand’s , primary produce exporting , patterns away from the major trade area of Britain to a much wider range of r smaller trade areas which c could cause a shift from the 3 larger cellular container ves- ’ “Why didn’t they think of 5 that 12 months ago when they gave Port Chalmers the > second container crane deciI sion?’’ Mr Gerard asked. ’ He called for more lobbv- - ing from local members of t Parliament to bring pressure t on to the Ports Authority. Mr P. J. R. Skellerup said he was not too unhappy - about about the authority’s ► decision and he frankly t thought it had made the - right decision. i “If we had received the 1 crane we would have to pay 1 §600,000 loan service charges for a SSM loan and that

■ would have meant an increase in our port charges,” he said. Unlike Mr Skellerup, he was most unhappy about the : decision, said Mr M. J. Dobi son. “It seems that they : have seen the sense of our application and then decided ■ to defer it for 12 months. > “It seems to me that the ; members of the authority : have no faith in the economic future of the country — even I have more faith in the country’s economy.” Captain A. R. Champion said the Meat Producers Board insisted on going to Port Chalmers and the Ports Authority wanted the meat to go out through that port. Mr L. W. Laing opposed delaying the appeal because the Otago Harbour Board’s reclamation programme would be well on the way in 12 months and it would be more difficult for Lyttelton to then justify a second crane. Mr Brand said he held the ■ same view as Mr Skellerup and the board would be in a stronger position with more figures in 12 months to present a case. The meeting then went into committee.