Jump to content

Queens Wharf Dolphins - Give us more ammo


Recommended Posts

More on them here for those not up with it.  http://crew.org.nz/forum/index.php/topic/15963-here-we-go-again/?hl=wynyard%20wharf

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwipoOfjjZTgAhXUEHIKHQVcDNUQFjABegQICRAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz%2FResourceConsentDocuments%2FCST60323353-02-AEE.pdf&usg=AOvVaw37XcddsPGcwruxfRPCzire

 

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwipoOfjjZTgAhXUEHIKHQVcDNUQFjABegQICRAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz%2FResourceConsentDocuments%2FCST60323353-02-AEE.pdf&usg=AOvVaw37XcddsPGcwruxfRPCzire

 

 

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

If I may in an effort to understand as many views as possible being a Representative not a decision maker with this one,

 

You comment 'where we don't go anyway'. Do you mean it's water YOU personally don't go into much or do you mean it's water ALL users of the harbour don't go into much?

 

I understand your blocking comment, one stop did cause me an big pile of arse, but if you had to go one way or the other would it be -

A: 4 - 6 stops a season mid stream, generally dawn to dusk. As the Ovation of the Seas did yesterday.

or B: Queens wharf sticking out 90mts more for at least 10 years maybe longer?

 

 

I must say canvassing views and info on all this has been utterly fascinating. We are in the presence of some very clever and wise NZers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than occasionally fighting tide on race day, who goes near Princess or Queens wharf?

 

You have no need to, they have all but banned us all from the viaduct now anyway.

 

The fastest way to both Waiheke or north is to point at north head and go down the northern side, grabbing people fishing lines off devo in the process

 

I used the Admiralty steps once last year, after dark as we had a minor emergency. My crew were told off, photographed, threatened, and I got a letter smacking my hand that I was in a restricted area.

 

I struggle to see how a dolphin is going to effect anyone, which is not the same as agreeing there should be one, I just dont see how if will impact anyone. For Fullers to say it going to add time to its trips is just a complete load of horse sh*t

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I struggle to see how a dolphin is going to effect anyone, which is not the same as agreeing there should be one, I just dont see how if will impact anyone. For Fullers to say it going to add time to its trips is just a complete load of horse sh*t

 

If this particular structure doesn't worry you personally, perhaps consider what will happen if this is green-flagged.  Basically it would provide a precedent and useful blueprint for taking more and more of the harbour.  At some stage you have to decide when enough is enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are inside the boundaries they have been allocated.

Are those boundaries correct, well thats up for debate, but they are working within the boundaries they were given.

 

Can anyone honesty say the new container ship park impacts how they use the harbour?

Eye sore maybe, but direct impact on ones use... no hardly.

 

Im not here to defend the port, more to look at it in how these things effect me, which is what KM asked... and from where I sit, they don't.

 

Id rather have a dolphin, in part of the harbour that I dont use, then have a ship 7 days a year block my ability to sail/race down it

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so much a PoA thing as a Council thing so I doubt your connection is anything vested like. If the PoA could be told what to do by the council, something they can't, then the dolphins wouldn't be needed. The plan is to make a dedicated cruise ship terminal but until the PoA have finished with Marsden or Cook that is not going to happen. 

 

The dolphins or options being presented next week, are a sort of stop gap measure until the PoA is ready to hand over the wharf.

 

But good feedback to put into the pot, Thanks V.

 

I bang the ends of the wharfs a lot, grab that tidal back eddy ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can assure you PoAL are very mindful of public opinion... and their political masters.

They are not simply land grabbing monsters trying to expand their empire...if they were they would have claimed to the boundary decades ago.

They are trying to put a square peg in a round hole, merging hostile masters and public in one hand, with inadequate space on the other, which in turn throttles growth and increases costs to shipping lines, transport companies, businesses and ultimately, consumers.

 

They are not perfect in any shape or form, and I clash with them over decisions they make on a regular basis, but they are also not blood sucking vampires intent on stealing the f**king harbour, no matter what the merchants of doom and death sometimes peddle both here and in the media.

 

Not quite sure how I ended up saying the above, but Im not deleting it and stand by it....!

 

The sooner it is moved the better...that is where the argument should be. They know, we know it...let get on with it 

 

That is all.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The sooner it is moved the better...that is where the argument should be. They know, we know it...let get on with it 

 

That's interesting that they know they should move.  

 

And in comes the off topic thread drift...

 

Where do you think they should move to?  (or possibly more to the point, if they were to move, where would they like to move to?)

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...