The Guardians have been looking at this bylaw and trying to find positive aspects to it that would benefit mooring owners and recreational users.
Unfortunately we can’t find any benefits, only negative impacts, this bylaw is quiet clearly a way to legitimize the Port Companies desire to clear all the moored vessels that presently occupy water space that they desire , against the wishes of the community and Te Atiawa, to allow them to expand their marina by 4 football fields out into Waikawa Bay.
This By law is just another example of “The Tail Wagging the Dog” The Port company says jump, and you say How High !
Your role is to serve the community, not to help the Port Company to develop and grow in such a way as its developments have a negative impact on the Sounds Environment and our community.
You say that the moorings in Waikawa are a shambles, only because council has deliberately allowed it to degenerate , you have systematically refused to renew resource consents until many of those mooring owners in Waikawa are in limbo.
You say that we need a mooring Manager, This would be creating another unnecessary level of beauracracy, that will have to be managed and funded.
But hang on a minute we already have a harbor master with a deputy and an assistant , they have a fully equipped office, vehicles and a wonderful craft to use for navigational safety and harbor patrol work.
Mooring management has traditionally been their role, if anyone is going to be a mooring manager it should be the Harbor Masters Office. And if mooring owners have to pay an annual fee , we can all live with that, within reason !
But what we strongly object to is council hiring a consultant to run and manage what should be the Harbormasters function.
You propose to give him sweeping powers to make up new rules as he sees fit with no consultation process !
He will have the right to board confiscate and remove a vessel that the owner hasn’t paid his account.
He will have the right to reposition your vessel anywhere inside the management area. To his discretion, at the moment my mooring is a GPS position, and this is associated with our property, we chose this position for a number of reasons, distance from shore, swing room, depth of water , if it is moved any further out it will lose the shelter afforded by the headland and be much more exposed.
To think that a mooring manager good have the right to just come along and shift my mooring to suit his agenda doesn’t sit well with me.
My Resource consent to occupy that particular spot is an individual property right that we should all guard jealously.
This Bylaw if forced upon mooring owners will mean that instead of an individual Resource consent which gives the holder a 15 year tenure or right to occupy the seabed , this will be replaced with a one year tenure with no guarantee of renewal.
If the owner upsets the manager, or more likely the people who are really pulling these strings the Port Company that mooring owners tenure will not be renewed.
This is a trick that works very well for the Port Company, it is an extremely efficient way of controlling opposition to development.
They have all of their tenants on short term leases , the tenants have to sign agreements that they will not object to any port company operation and will not make submissions against any new developments.
Question needs to be asked “ How is this any different, ? You propose to take away a 15 yr individual property right and replace it with a 12 month short term lease with NO guarantee of renewal.
You try and justify that by saying , you don’t have to keep renewing your R/C and having to incur
Associated costs, but if you add up the cost of a $200 management fee by 15 years it will be more than you have to pay for renewing your resource consent.
Another serious concern is that you say the mooring manager has to cover costs, you don’t stipulate that it will be a non profit making organization.
We have all been down this trail before, with marina berths and wharf age fees controlled by our friends at Port Marlborough.
The cost of berths were originally affordable, then the prices rose by , 10% pa, 20 % 50%, !00% then 300% the rates are now that high that the average wage earner cant afford to keep his boat in a marina.
When they increased the rates for Tutanekais berth from $3000 pa to $ 6.500 PA that forced us to leave Picton Harbour.
So take heed from that ! the Port Company have spent a huge amount of money putting this private plan change together, they have convinced council to promulgate a By Law to manage the so called “Bay Wide solution” Solution to what ?
Solution to achieving their goals of a further marina extension, and because they just happened to pay you a dividend of 7 million dollars this past year they expect you to oblige.
It must be Non Profit making , otherwise it will turn into another marina scenario !
The buying and selling by the Port company and certain companies and individuals, has forced the values of moorings up from $500.00 up to $20,000 !
If the Port Company want those moorings out of their way they should provide the owners with free berths in the new marina ! That is fair and logical.
Some owners like me prefer to have their waka on moorings, in that instance, if the moorings are relocated and they are required to have screw anchor and bungy cords the Port Company should have to upgrade the mooring tackle.
Why should the mooring owner have to subsidize the Port Company development.
Speaking as a launch operator who steams in and out of waikawa Bay most days over The summer Months, believe me when I say the moorings don’t want to be any closer together than they are now.
The Port company have been circulating a diagram that shows lots of overlapping circles and telling everyone who will listen that its chaotic out there.
Of course the swing circles overlap they always have done, but you don’t have vessels crashing into each other everytime the wind blows. The time when it can happen is in conditions of very light or no wind when they very rarely come back to back, but because theres no wind, no damage is done and as soon as the wind picks up they all swing the same way.
You say that if in over 7 metres of water depth mooring owners will have to upgrade their tackle to a screw anchor and bungy, this could cost between $5000 and $10,000 that’s what I was quoted by the mooring provider.
This is an unfair and unreasonable expense to impose on a mooring owner, and it impinges on our human rights, because it doesn’t improve our moorings, if anything the failure rate of screw anchors is higher than of the conventional system and when it comes time to service your mooring they are much more expensive because instead of just lifting the mooring block with its own tackle the service provider has to send a diver down to inspect the tackle.
Our recommendation is ;
Don’t change what isn’t broken, Council and Harbor master have allowed the mooring situation to degenerate for a number of reasons, main one probably being the Foreshore and seabed issue, council are wanting to introduce coastal occupancy charges but need to wait until the fore shore and seabed is resolved, the Port Company Marina development has forced your hand.
All you need to do is do what you recommend about repositioning the Waikawa bay moorings and allocating space for relocated moorings( at port Companies expense).
Reissue resource consents for those mooring owners with 15 yr tenure, as a condition of consent owners need to agree to a regular inspection , that carries some kind of warrant of fitness ( for insurance purposes. )
The management needs to be undertaken by the Harbor masters office, not an independent consultancy firm ! and any associated costs passed on to mooring owners but on the understanding that it is to cover costs only and not to generate profit !
This community is very distrustful of the Port company, in the last 12 months the council or its commissioners have made several decisions relating to navigational safety and issues regarding licenses to occupy the seabed, the decisions took into regard, the boating communities rights of access, traditional rights, privatization of the seabed, treaty of Waitangi, associated costs being that high they could force small operators out of business.
The decisions made on these issues, has brought about a renewed level of confidence in the MDC, you have listened to the community on these issues.
Listen to us now , don’t allow Port Marlborough to bully you into setting up a system that will please them but disenfranchise the boating public.
