PAST
COURT UTTERANCES
These
are a selection of statements that were made at the at the Planning Tribunal
Hearings in 1991 - 1992 relating to:
Appeal
312/91 - the Port Company - a planning consent appeal concerning the
Boiler Point (outer) reclamation. An appeal against conditions.
Appeal
315/91 - the Port Company - a planning consent appeal concerning the
Boiler Point (inner) reclamation. An appeal against conditions.
Appeal
324/91 - the Port Company - a planning consent appeal concerning the
Boiler Point (inner) reclamation. Consent totally opposed.
Appeal
325/91 - the Port Company - a planning consent appeal concerning the
Boiler Point (outer) reclamation. Consent totally opposed.
"He
(Mr
Roil for Port Otago Ltd.) Was asked whether it was his position
that the Port Company should be able to reclaim additional land at Boiler
Point to extend its capacity to store empty containers, and he answered
that this was not his position."
(my
retort) ... So what have they be storing there since construction was
completed? ... Scotch mist? ....
also
refer recent Port Otago statement:
"It
is not practical to either mix full and empty containers or to relocate
the full container stacks out onto Boiler Point outer".(click
here for full story).
and
also:
(P
R Skelton - Planning Judge): " .... If we thought that this had been
established, (building the reclamation to facilitate the storage of
empty containers) we can say now that we would have ruled against the
Port Company's application for Boiler Point (outer) on that ground alone.
(my
retort)...Well,
I never! .. Of course I must be quite wrong in as much as those boxes on
the reclamation are in fact not empty containers at all!
(Mr
Roil for Port Otago Ltd.): "It is difficult to store containers
in blocks more than three high, because of the limitations of specialised
handling equipment such as straddle carriers."
(my
retort)... this is still the case and it is interesting that as an
investigative test for height effects recently at the Boiler Point reclamation,
Port Otago chose only to stack small containers or Teu’s (twenty
foot equivalent units) five high, small containers 5 high would reach a
height of approximately 12 metres (3 metres below the 15 metres asked for),
- so do they want to stack containers there at all? Or do they wish to
build something big and high, like warehousing facilities ... (big sheds!!).
(Mr
I J Farquhar, a shipping agent and a director of the Port Company at the
time): "Mr Farquhar was asked some questions by Miss Owen about using
the multi-purpose berths at George Street for forestry cargoes in the future.
He denied that this would put a strain on the use of those berths for container
cargo, because AFTER THE TURN OF THE CENTURY CONTAINERS MAY REDUCE IN
NUMBERS as some cargo is shipped by other means"
(my
retort) .. it seems that this has not come to pass, - talk about opening
your mouth and letting the wind blow your tongue around, so long as it
advances your current argument
(P
R Skelton - Planning Judge): " .... we also accept that there are likely
to be adverse impacts on the residential amenities of the Careys Bay area
if these reclamations eventuate ........ We accept, too, that these potential
effects are not minor.
(my
retort) .... Funny, .... now the DCC is saying that add 15 metres to
the top of the reclamation and in their view of a perfect world, there
will not be any additional adverse effects .... give us a break!!
Make
up your own mind send us some comments and let us know how you feel.
|
