Power boat club opposes zoning placed on Estuary

Press, 15 July 1982, Page 11

Power boat club opposes zoning placed on Estuary

The Recreational 5 zoning placed on the Estuary in the Christchurch City Council’s District Scheme Review was a means of preserving the Estuary for its prime use of effluent discharge, the Planning Tribunal has heard. Counsel for the New Brighton Power Boat Club, Mr A. Hearn, was opening the hearing of an appeal by the club against the City Council’s District Scheme Review, which imposed conditions and restrictions on the club's power boats using the Estuary. "The Estuary is used primarily for effluent discharge, and' the zoning seeks to preserve that use while restricting outdoor activity on the Estuary so as not to interfere with the discharge of effluent, or with the residents living round its shores." said Mr Hearn. The tribunal was told that the club was restricted to a speed limit of 16km/h on the Estuary, except on race and regatta days. The club was restricted to 16 racing days a year, which amounted to a total annual time of 15.33 hours on the Estuary. "The New Brighton Power Boat Club’s position is that it doubts the council has the power to regulate water uses, and that, while the whole concept of the Recreational 5 zoning may be commendable, it is invalid,” said Mr Hearn. Mr R. B. Savage, president of the’ club, said that the power boat club had used the Estuary for the last 90 years. The club had 250 members and about 60 boats, of which only eight were capable of speeds of more than 100 miles an hour. The club had

a lot of public support, and on race days and regatta days as many as 9000 people would line the Estuary shores. "The club is therefore greatly concerned that the City Council has said that it is desirable in the long term that the dub's activities on the Estuary should cease before the next review of the City Plan, which would be in about five years time,” said Mr Savage. The club favoured many aspects of the Recreational 5 zoning, if in fact it was a valid zoning, and out of consideration for others, the club would accept its restrictions. he said. The club’s satety record was well proved and there had been little injury or damage caused by members on controlled club days. The club had come to an agreement with the Pleasant Point Yacht Club about access to the water during race days, and mutual demarcation lines had been drawn to prevent accidents. Under cross-examination, Mr Savage said that there had been one fatal accident on the Estuary in February during one of the club’s races as a result of a driver's going too fast for the conditions. There had been other occasions when drivers had been thrown out of boats, but a “dead-man’s” safety switch cut off the boat’s power supply on such occasions, he said. There had never been a collision between power boats or between a power boat and a yacht, he said. Mr Savage agreed with counsel for the City Council, Mrs H. Hodgson, that the speed of power boats had

increased considerably since the club began its activities 90 years ago. He also agreed that the Estuary was more widelyused now, with yachts and power boats being joined by windsurfers and waterskiers. Mr Hearn said that the 16km/h speed limit imposed on the power boats was frequently exceeded by some of the windsurfers. Boats

going at the speed limit were often passed by windsurfers on the Estuary, he said. Mr Savage said that the club "had a lot of difficulty in understanding, why the council had imposed a dual set of controls on the club,” with the conditions and restrictions imposed on the Estuary power boats under certain sections of the draft ByLaw and the District Scheme Review.