I see the Herald is continuing some fearmongering stories over the Port’s Bledisole Wharf situation after the Port gained consent to extend the wharves 92 and 98 metres respectively.
From the Herald
Boaties rally against Auckland Council’s port plans
5:00 AM Tuesday Feb 17, 2015 – Bernard Orsman
Yachting identity says harbour proposals should go to referendum, marina users deeply concerned.
Auckland boaties are rallying against council plans to weaken controls over further reclamation of the Waitemata Harbour for port use.
Boating clubs are looking at their options and one yachting identity, Alan Sefton, is calling for a referendum.
In a secret vote on Thursday, the Auckland development committee voted 9-8 to weaken its position going into mediation on zoning for the port precinct in the Unitary Plan.
It also emerged that two large port wharf extensions into the harbour had been approved by council officers.
……..
Boaties speak out
• Opposed to further reclamation of harbour for port use
• Opposed to council weakening rules for further reclamation
• Talking among themselves about what action to take
• Calls for a referendum by one yachting veteran
• Ports of Auckland happy to address boaties’ concerns.
I love to know what the boaties are rallying about. Below is a picture with the Bledisole Wharf extensions (red) and the “limits” Wynyard Wharf and Ferguson Wharf form to which I shouldn’t be seeing any sailing activities in there. Not with the amount of traffic including port traffic moving within in those limits. Now if the wharf extensions when outside that limit then we would see impediments to other marine activities. But otherwise there should be effectively none unlike what those in the Herald claim.
End to End of the two outer wharves forming a super imposed limit The Bledsole extensions sit in side that limit (click for full resolution)
I have noted that the Port is only doing wharf extensions which are on piles rather than full reclamation. That needs to be taken into perspective before we start jumping up and down as I believe if reclamation was to occur a separate consent is needed.
With the issue around further reclamation going from Non Complying to a Discretionary Activity under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan we also have to remember a few things to maintain perspective:
Other ports for reclamation have that activity set under Discretionary. To have our Port have reclamation set at Non Complying would have us out of sync with the others. This could form an expensive legal challenge in the Environment Court. Effectively the Council would have to prove why POAL’s reclamation activity is different to everyone else under the Resource Management Act.
The Council and POAL are about to enter mediation under the Unitary Plan to set the activity control for reclamation. After that mediation the pair go before the Unitary Plan Hearings Panel to argue their case.
From there the Unitary Plan Hearings Panel will make their decisions around reclamation for the Port. Those decisions will be pretty much set into the Unitary Plan as the rule to which must be followed
So this noise about referendums and carry on is out-of-place. The wharf extensions were made under the legacy Auckland Regional Council rules which are a dog. The Unitary Plan will deal with that post 2016. The UP also will deal with reclamation post 2016 as well.
It comes to the point did those calling for referendums and so on with the port issue submit to the Unitary Plan on port issues?
If ‘Yes’ then carry on although referendums though? Better to make your case to Judge Kirkpatrick and the rest of the Unitary Plan Panel.
If ‘No’ then it might be an idea as long with the rest of us to take a step back and let the Panel work through this. It is in their hands now and they will do the grilling on the submitters and their takes on the port situation. Screaming referendums and so on otherwise sounds extremely silly while the Hearings are in session.
So everyone, lets take a step back, breath and let the Independent Unitary Plan Hearing Panel do their work on the Port including the reclamation issue.
It includes the environmental outlay via the Port’s submission to the Unitary Plan if the port was to relocate. Something to bear in mind as the debate on the future of the port continues.
Talking Southern Auckland 