Jump to content


Photo

Queens Wharf Dolphins - Give us more ammo


  • Please log in to reply
233 replies to this topic

#1 Knot Me... maybe

Knot Me... maybe

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,115 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 09:06 AM

More on them here for those not up with it.  http://crew.org.nz/f...l=wynyard wharf

 

Basically the council is spending a huge pile to then try and spend a huge pile more to extend Queens Wharf by 90mts more out into the harbour. They are calling them Dolphins with a access gang plank. The gang plank is 2mts wide and has a pile of piles under it, it's no gangplank it's a jetty if not a wharf in it's own right. The story is the gang plank is access for the dock workers when line handling on arrival and departures.

 

The niggle is the council have been under pressure by the cruise lines to do this or they say 'we will not come to Akl if we have to hover mid stream'. All a little blackmail like considering the ships go to a huge pile of destinations where they can not berth along side, they decided to build massive ships for their own balance sheet and it goes a bit against the growing trend worldwide to limit the number of ship visits due to the fast expanding numbers of them, environmental concerns and a few other bits n bobs. Plus we all lose more of the harbour...again!!!!

 

We are talking the largest newer ships here, not most that do and have visited NZ.

 

In the councils 'extensive' consultation they spoke to some iwi's, the ferry operators and the harbour master. Hardly a representative group of harbour users. Recreational was never spoken to or considered, the report simply says 'It's inside an exclusion zone so recreational never go in there so we have no need to consider them' {translated from report speak}. At a meeting with Panuku I did point out it was plainly obvious the expensive report was written by someone who has never seen Auckland harbour.

 

It's now getting very serious and there is a big hearing next week. There is a group (a combination of the AYBA, AMUA, WMUA, PCC, RYC and Squaddy) who are sending representatives to speak to aspects of the proposal, along with other submitters of course. This group is against the plan and while not against ship visits we do not want to lose more harbour so we will be explaining why and presenting options that get the same end result but are less harbour invasive.

 

So tell us more about your opinions and thoughts on this. Give us more ammo.


  • 0

#2 MarkMT

MarkMT

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 982 posts
  • LocationLake Zurich, Illinois or Waiuku, NZ, depending on how I feel. And snow, especially snow.

Posted 30 January 2019 - 10:04 AM

Give us more ammo.

 

Given recent press reports, that statement probably falls afoul of the Harmful Digital Communications Act. It's plainly an incitement to violence.

 

On the substantive issue, based on other reporting, the official position seems likely to be "boaties may be the ones that need to learn to adapt."

 

More seriously, I really don't how you fight this, but more power to you. My general view is that far too many resources are devoted to supporting tourism in this country - benefitting visitors and corporations that service them at the expense of the broader population, but that's hardly a popular view. Most political leadership seems to see things through the lens of "bigger is better" and anything that helps "little old NZ" to be seen by the rest of the world obviously must be a good thing. I can't help thinking there is some deep-seated emotional insecurity involved.


  • 1

#3 khayyam

khayyam

    Advanced Member

  • Marine Forums Only
  • PipPipPip
  • 568 posts
  • Locationnorth shore

Posted 30 January 2019 - 10:50 AM

does anyone have a good map of the proposal? e.g. how does the proposed queens wharf extension compare to the existing line between wynyard and bledisloe ?


  • 0

#4 Veladare

Veladare

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 11:01 AM

Id rather have it tied up to a wharf/dolphin near where we dont go anyway, than blocking the harbour for all and sundry to have to pass


  • -1
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may lead you to think people are laughing WITH you.

#5 Fish

Fish

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,519 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 11:03 AM

Keep up the good work KM.


  • 0

#6 Knot Me... maybe

Knot Me... maybe

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,115 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 11:28 AM

does anyone have a good map of the proposal? e.g. how does the proposed queens wharf extension compare to the existing line between wynyard and bledisloe ?

https://www.google.c...PGcwruxfRPCzire

 

 

Id rather have it tied up to a wharf/dolphin near where we dont go anyway, than blocking the harbour for all and sundry to have to pass

We, the group, have no issues with ships being tied along side but we do have issues with 2 large structures being built out into the harbour which results in yet more lose due to creep. Don't forget if the Dolphins go in 90mts out then technically the exclusion zone also pushed out another 90mts. Sure they aren't enforcing the exclusion zone.....yet.

 

We are objecting to the Dolphin structures, not the ships coming, going or berthing alongside. We will be presenting alternatives that achieve the same end result but are not bloody expensive harbour pinching permanent structures.

 

There is also questions about why so much of an expansion when in reality they are trying to cater for ships only 12mts longer than was parked in that very spot 48 hours ago.


  • 0

#7 khayyam

khayyam

    Advanced Member

  • Marine Forums Only
  • PipPipPip
  • 568 posts
  • Locationnorth shore

Posted 30 January 2019 - 11:41 AM

https://www.google.c...PGcwruxfRPCzire

 

 

We, the group, have no issues with ships being tied along side but we do have issues with 2 large structures being built out into the harbour which results in yet more lose due to creep. Don't forget if the Dolphins go in 90mts out then technically the exclusion zone also pushed out another 90mts. Sure they aren't enforcing the exclusion zone.....yet.

 

We are objecting to the Dolphin structures, not the ships coming, going or berthing alongside. We will be presenting alternatives that achieve the same end result but are not bloody expensive harbour pinching permanent structures.

 

There is also questions about why so much of an expansion when in reality they are trying to cater for ships only 12mts longer than was parked in that very spot 48 hours ago.

 

 

I'm not seeing a map of the proposed dolphins in there. Can you point me to the right spot?


  • 0

#8 Fish

Fish

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,519 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 11:48 AM

I'm not seeing a map of the proposed dolphins in there. Can you point me to the right spot?

That's the whole point khayyam,

POAL / Punuku / Council are obfuscating. They don't want you to see what it will look like, so they make it very hard for you to understand what it will look like. If they had one good clear picture of what it would look like, opposition groups may use that against them. Better to make you troll through a 78 page report, get bored, and forget about it.

 

Edit,

and I believe the pictures you are after may be included in the appendices, which are not part of the 78 page RC application. There are 21 appendices. Some of those are very large plans, reports, strategies etc, that also have their own appendices. It would take a professional (i.e. an RC Commissioner) a couple of weeks full time to read them...


  • -1

#9 dutyfree

dutyfree

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 328 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 04:08 PM

Here you go

 

https://www.auckland...ing-dolphin.pdf

 

https://www.auckland...ng-dolphin.aspx


  • 0

#10 Knot Me... maybe

Knot Me... maybe

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,115 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 04:13 PM

Thanks DF, that saves me scanning stuff tonite.


  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users