‘Secret’ L.P.G. report denied

Press, 11 December 1981, Page 4

‘Secret’ L.P.G. report denied

‘No' “secret” report about Liquigas’s proposed liquefied petroleum gas depot at Woolston existed, a hearing into the development was told yesterday. Dr D: F. S. Natusch, technical director.of the Liquid Fuels Trust Board, said that there was a report on L.P.G. facilities in New Zealand, but it was not secret.

The hearing commissioner, Mr J.. M. McKenzie, had asked Dr Natusch to appear after an objector had suggested there was a secret report about the proposed depot.

Liquigas, Ltd, has applied for planning consent to build a 2000-tonne bulk storage depot for L.P.G. in Chapmans Road, Woolston. . Yesterday was the fourth day of the hearing at the Heathcote County Council chambers. It is the first

town-planning hearing on bulk storage facilities for L.P.G. to be heard in New Zealand. Dr Natusch, who said he was a member of one of President Reagan’s advisory committees, outlined the background to the report.

Dr Natusch said that criticism. had been made of the favourable report on the bulk storage depot prepared by an international engineering . consultant company, Arthur D. Little. Because of this it was decided to get a second opinion and a Dutch company, T.N.0., had been asked to prepare a critique on the A.D.L. report.

It had done this and had sent it to Wellington, but the problem was that nobody could understand it, because it had been written by a highly technical person in “Anglo-Dutch,” he said.

Also, the T.N.O. report had specifically discussed only the situation at New Plymouth, and there were no figures about the Woolston depot. Dr Natusch said that the T.N.O. report would have no bearing on the present hearing, but it would be released as soon as it was rewritten by the Dutch company and could be understood. “I do not believe there is anything in the T.N.O. report which shows the A.D.L. report in error,” he said. Mr L. R. McCallum, a consultant planner for the Lyttelton Borough Council, told the hearing he did not think the proposed depot fitted into the Heathcote County Council’s district scheme. “I consider that the council does not have any jurisdic-

tion to approve the application,” he said. The depot could not be classed as either a prominent or conditional use in the scheme because of the potential danger to nearby properties.

“L.P.G. installations of this size have a potential for widespread destruction should an accident occur,” said Mr McCallum.

“Any provision for it should be by way of a change to the district scheme." Mr McCallum also said that approval of the depot would predetermine the need for berthing, pipeline, and pumping station facilities. At the moment a petition was before Parliament on the offloading and piping of L.P.G. through Lyttelton. “Any plans for bulk L.P.G. tankers to use the inner

harbour must be regarded as tentative,” he said. Even though planning consent was not needed in Lyttelton Borough for L.P'G. facilities, giving the go-ahead to the depot would be unfair to Lyttelton residents.

Mr McCallum said that the Minister of Energy (Mr Birch) had promised Lyttelton residents a Commission of Inquiry into the introduction of L.P.G. facilities there. It would be the only opportunity the council and the residents would have to debate where these facilities would be.

Three Chapmans Road residents object to the proposed depot, mainly because of potential dangers and noise at the site.

The hearing of further objections will continue this morning.