Jump to content

Yacht on the rocks at Matiatia (Waiheke)


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, khayyam said:

Wonder what the reason for insurance declining payout was. I guess anchoring unattended in matiatia in a blow maybe. 

My understanding is that they werent insured in the first place..

 That Stuff article presents the case in a rather favourable light - the facts are they could have picked a better place to anchor a 70 ' boat- not a lot of room for a boat of that size amongst the moorings (someone else anchored it) , went ashore when they knew a front was coming through , and seem to have a vague plan to leave it there as a monument turning down help to try and remove it

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Deep Purple said:

The cost of cleaning up, getting to the school, appropriate permits, foundations, and making it safe for children to climb over would be over $100k. That's not even lightweight journalism, that's just pathetic

It worries me that an Eco style school can get involved in a project with a couple that are clearly out of their depth with handling something like this - the logistics of moving that boat are significant - will do some local research and try to get some more detail

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Our ship may look abandoned on the rocks of Matiatia but it's not. We are forging a plan with the authorities to salvage it in pieces to repurpose into a playground. It is quite a process and these things take time. We go out there regularly to check on it and make sure it's all stable and wreckage is contained. Last time we went out there we noticed someone had cut out 4 more bronze portholes which were supposed to be a part of the ship themed playground.
Please don't assume its an abandoned wreck and if you took or know who took the portholes thinking that it was, could you please let us know and or return them."
 
Today on local FB- Not that I condone anyone taking things from it but the reality is it has been there since mid December getting things hacked off it ( some by owners and obviously a few things going missing) -  when it potentially it could have been salvaged originally if that was the original intention ( Ok that would have taken money and it was uninsured) but I fear this story is going to go on for some time..... Shame to see it go this way.....
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

She is doing a very good impression of abandoned, coming up to two months.... surprising the harbour master hasnt authorized the chainsaw boys to get into it and sent the clean up bill to the owners, previous harbourmasters would have. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, waikiore said:

She is doing a very good impression of abandoned, coming up to two months.... surprising the harbour master hasnt authorized the chainsaw boys to get into it and sent the clean up bill to the owners, previous harbourmasters would have. 

He doesnt want to spend taxpayers money on something that he will never recover from the owners when they are telling him they have a plan!

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 1paulg said:

He doesnt want to spend taxpayers money on something that he will never recover from the owners when they are telling him they have a plan!

I reckon that must be right. And I guess the hm must imagine that there's some chance the plan will eventually make the boat go away. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jon said:

Question 

When does an grounded wreck become abandoned officially ?

The Maritime Transport Act 1994 guides us. Note tyhe requirement to be a "hazard to navigation" may be that it is not deemed a hazard where this one lies. May than use 33L which is about 'abandoned' vessels. Tight parameters though. The Resource Management Act 1991 does also offer solutions where the vessel/wreck breaches a rule or is discharging a pollutant (breaking up would do that). Again all down to interpretation.

33JRemoval of wrecks by regional council

(1)

A regional council may take steps in accordance with this section to remove and deal with any wreck within its region that is a hazard to navigation.

(2)

The regional council may—

(a)

require the owner of the wreck, or an agent of the owner, to remove the wreck within a time and in a manner satisfactory to the regional council:

(b)

destroy, dispose of, remove, take possession of, or sell a wreck (or any part of it) if—

(i)

the regional council has made reasonable efforts to find the owner or agent; and

(ii)

the owner or agent cannot be found or fails to remove the whole of the wreck within the time specified or in a manner satisfactory to the regional council.

(3)

The regional council may reimburse itself from the proceeds of any sale of the wreck for any actual expenses incurred in removing the wreck (but must pay any balance owing to the owner of the wreck).

(4)

The regional council may recover the expenses incurred in removing a wreck as a debt owed by the owner of the wreck in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...