Inner harbour moorings

Press, 20 September 1985, Page 16

Inner harbour moorings

Sir,—Since my first letter charging the Lyttelton Harbour Board with “ineptitudes” — perhaps this was not a strong enough word — my telephone has run hot with stories of planning blunders, works completed and then demolished, costly projects started and abandoned, and commercial opportunities lost. These all appear to be common knowledge in Lyttelton, and if all, or any of them are true, this is a disturbing situation, and Canterbury people should be aware of it I am told the cost of all this would be well over $2 million, which would have financed a fullyprotected marina or a fishing port. The board’s policy over the inner harbour moorings points up all this unfortunate handling of many aspects of Lyttelton. It would take too much space to spell out all of this dossier of dismay, but as one example let us ask the chairman why it is necessary for the board to have 14 engineers, when Auckland, much larger, gets by with three? — Yours, etc., B. R. WALKER. September 18, 1985. Sir,—The general manager of the Lyttelton Harbour Board, Mr Brokenshire, airily dismisses protests over the “phasing-out” of the inner harbour moorings, as “coming from a vocal minority.” How wrong he is! What he is hearing is the opinion of the majority of

boating people, including the Banks Peninsula Cruising Club, whose members are among those most affected. Yet Mrs Waters, a board member, confesses that the board is scared of “what people from the marina might say” if the board puts in a few piles to solve the problems of Pastime and at least two others who are being treated unfairly. If ever there was a “vocal minority” it is these few marina representatives who seem to have the ear of the board, and they are motivated by the fact that they have had to find large sums to buy a berth in the marina. I am sure that the majority of marina people are not so small-minded. — Yours, etc. JACK TURNBULL. September 19, 1985. Sir,—l read with interest of the plight of the Pastime, which has virtually had a death sentence placed on her by the Lyttelton Harbour Board. The date for the removal of this yacht from her present berth is to be September 30, barely two months from notification for the owner to find a safe replacement mooring — an impossible task. Is the harbour board going to start work straightaway on its latest development scheme for this area, and if so, what is the nature of this scheme? Are their plans so vital that a yacht of Pastime’s historic interest must be dealt with in this summary fashion? People are fighting to save historic buildings and yet here is a piece of our maritime heritage ( which is now in jeopardy. Is there

a real commercial need for the harbour board to replace a safe and picturesque yacht haven — has it no other options? — Yours, etc., NAN ELDERTON (Mrs) September 13, 1985.

[Mr I. H. Brokenshire, general manager of the Lyttelton Harbour Board, replies: “A meeting of the board on September 18 agreed that the board will make available berthage for the yacht Pastime for two months. During this period, the owner, Mr P. Beecroft, will be requested to provide a report by an independent suitably-qualified surveyor on the condition of the yacht. It is intended that the board will give this matter further consideration on the receipt of the report. In respect of Mrs Elderton’s question regarding the western harbour development, this work has already commenced, in that the grab dredger Te Whaka is already working in the area, but it is necessary for additional inner harbour mooring piles to be removed to enable the full scope of dredging required to be carried out. In addition, upgrading work on the land adjoining the berthage has also commenced. Flat operational land adjacent to berthage areas is restricted in the port, and reclaiming to develop additional land is extremely expensive. It is therefore necessary that where the board does have land that can be used for operational purposes, it must make good use of that land. Having regard to these facts, the board does not have any viable option other than to carry out the planned

redevelopment work at the western end of the inner harbour.”]