Anti-port group ‘Stop Stealing Our Harbour’ is once again misleading the public over the need to extend Bledisloe wharf. These deliberate attempts to hoodwink the Auckland public have to stop.
The group claims Marsden wharf can be easily removed to make room for bigger ships. This is not true.
The southern end of Marsden wharf is a reclaimed structure built on solid rock. Removing it and dredging the shallow basin around it is no easy task. It is a multi-year project.
Getting consent for this work would be difficult. Removing the southern section of the wharf (declamation) is a ‘non-complying activity’ – this is the activity status that port opponents want in place to stop the port reclaiming any more land.
While it is in our long-term plan, the removal of Marsden cannot provide the solution we need in the time available. Bigger ships are here now and more are on the way: we need berth space next year, not next decade.
Port opponents need to stop the spin and be honest with the public. The extensions are needed urgently so that the port can handle the ships and freight that Aucklanders need. If port opponents don’t know the facts, they are welcome to come and talk to us. Our invitation to Michael Goldwater to visit the port to discuss the issues remains open.
Facts about the removal of Marsden Wharf:
In order to create a usable berth in this area we need to do four things:
• remove the wharf;
• dredge the basin;
• build a new seawall at the southern end of the basin; and
• strengthen the wharf structure at the southern end of Bledisloe wharf.
We have consent to demolish the northern piled section of Marsden and we are currently removing the concrete deck. The piles will remain until such time as we can secure consent to dredge the area.
We do not have consent for any of the other works. Several consents would be required including consent to ‘declaim’ the reclaimed southern section of Marsden. Under the Operative District Plan declamation is a ‘non-complying activity’. This makes getting consent difficult.
The seabed beside Marsden wharf has heritage status as a result of the Rainbow Warrior sinking; capital dredging in this area may also require consent as a ‘non-complying activity’.
The work itself is difficult. The wharf basin is shallow and the seabed is rock (sandstone – it is the location of the former Point Britomart). We will need specialist dredging equipment, which may have to come from overseas. It could take a year from the granting of consent just to get the equipment in place.
The southern 150m of Bledisloe wharf is too weak to berth ships and will need to be rebuilt, a large project in its own right
large project in its own right We have nowhere to dispose of the spoil from dredging. There is too much to put in our Fergusson reclamation and we don’t have consent to reclaim at Bledisloe, so the remainder would have to be dumped at sea. We don’t have consent for that.
The work will be expensive and at present we can’t afford it. Our plan is to spread the work over several years to make it affordable.
These are just some of the difficulties of this project. It is a big project with many hurdles and there is no way it could be done in 18 months as an alternative to the wharf extensions.
ENDS
Wednesday, 22 April 2015 Media Release Port opponents misleading the public again Anti-port group ‘Stop Stealing Our Harbour’ is once again misleading the public over the need to extend Bledisloe wharf. These deliberate attempts to hoodwink the Auckland public have to stop. The group claims Marsden wharf can be easily removed to make room for bigger ships. This is not true. The southern end of Marsden wharf is a reclaimed structure built on solid rock. Removing it and dredging the shallow basin around it is no easy task. It is a multi-year project. Getting consent for this work would be difficult. Removing the southern section of the wharf (declamation) is a ‘non-complying activity’ – this is the activity status that port opponents want in place to stop the port reclaiming any more land. While it is in our long-term plan, the removal of Marsden cannot provide the solution we need in the time available. Bigger ships are here now and more are on the way: we need berth space next year, not next decade. Port opponents need to stop the spin and be honest with the public. The extensions are needed urgently so that the port can handle the ships and freight that Aucklanders need. If port opponents don’t know the facts, they are welcome to come and talk to us. Our invitation to Michael Goldwater to visit the port to discuss the issues remains open. Facts about the removal of Marsden Wharf: In order to create a usable berth in this area we need to do four things: • remove the wharf; We have consent to demolish the northern piled section of Marsden and we are currently removing the concrete deck. The piles will remain until such time as we can secure consent to dredge the area. We do not have consent for any of the other works. Several consents would be required including consent to ‘declaim’ the reclaimed southern section of Marsden. Under the Operative District Plan declamation is a ‘non-complying activity’. This makes getting consent difficult. The seabed beside Marsden wharf has heritage status as a result of the Rainbow Warrior sinking; capital dredging in this area may also require consent as a ‘non-complying activity’. The work itself is difficult. The wharf basin is shallow and the seabed is rock (sandstone – it is the location of the former Point Britomart). We will need specialist dredging equipment, which may have to come from overseas. It could take a year from the granting of consent just to get the equipment in place. The southern 150m of Bledisloe wharf is too weak to berth ships and will need to be rebuilt, a large project in its own right large project in its own right We have nowhere to dispose of the spoil from dredging. There is too much to put in our Fergusson reclamation and we don’t have consent to reclaim at Bledisloe, so the remainder would have to be dumped at sea. We don’t have consent for that. The work will be expensive and at present we can’t afford it. Our plan is to spread the work over several years to make it affordable. These are just some of the difficulties of this project. It is a big project with many hurdles and there is no way it could be done in 18 months as an alternative to the wharf extensions. ENDS For further information contact: |
