Lyttelton harbour project setback

Press, 12 July 1979, Page 10

Lyttelton harbour project setback

The $792,000 inner-har-bour development project for Lyttelton has suffered a setback. Approval for an application lodged early this year to raise loan moneys for the work has been delayed.

The Local Bodies Loans Board considered the Lyttelton Harbour Board’s application at its June meeting, but held the matter over until its August meeting after dealing with a verbal report on the scheme. It is believed that the Ministry of Transport will now submit a written recommendation on the development proposals, for consideration at the August meeting. The Harbour Board's general manager (Mr J. A. McPhail) said that he had been advised of the application’s deferment, but he was unable to discuss details.

Mr J. E. Mannering, chairman of the board, said that he was concerned about the delayed start to the project. It had been planned to demolish

N 0.6 wharf this year and make a start on the extensions to N 0.7 for quarterramp roll-on shipping. Lyttelton is believed to be favoured as one of the terminal ports for a new quarter-ramp roll-on Russian service, which the Baltic Shipping Company is expected to start in October or November. Objections to the proposed inner-harbour development were lodged two months ago with the Minister of Transport (Mr McLachlan) and the chairman of the Ports Authority (Mr D. N. McKay) by the Timaru Harbour Board.

The Lyttelton Harbour Board previously sought approval from the Ports Authority for a bigger scheme which would have cost about SI.6M.

This was subsequently withdrawn and the board used the provisions of an old Lyttelton Harbour Board Loan and Empowering Act, 1962, for a smaller scheme with the cost pruned down to the present application.

The Timaru board’s chairman (Mr B. J. Petrie) said that the Lyttelton board was “making a mockery of the most important statutory responsibilities of the Ports Authority.” The move now requiring Loans Board approval was described by Mr Petrie as a means of circumventing national planning aims. He called for an inquiry into

the Lyttelton board’s procedures. “We ask that the Lyttelton board submit to the same jurisdiction as any other port in New Zealand would have to do in carrying out capital works of this magnitude,” he said.