What response on parking issues?

LETTER

Re: Parking exemption will help port development, October 31 story.

Firstly, on the still unanswered question of the 50-year tenure for car and trailer parking — can all councillors confirm this 50-year tenure that was a requirement to secure the external trust monies to assist in the building of the ramp, as discussed in a public meeting and later added to the minutes of that meeting, was included in this decision?

What was the outcome of that issue? How and why has it been ignored? Can GDC management please answer how can the original consent for ramp and parking protected by this 50-year covenant be ignored?

It sets a damning precedent for any future trust monies for local projects.

As reported, “. . . in line with other prime waterfront locations around New Zealand”. All similar prime waterfront locations that have a marina and ramp facility have sufficient designated parking for ramp users and berth holders.

Can councillors then confirm Gisborne as being in line — as the article reads — in this respect, with sufficient designated car/trailer parks?

If not, can Eastland Group then provide assurance that berth holders (also tenants) who pay a significant yearly amount to lease the marina berth, who cannot gain a park at any particular time, will see a reduction in yearly fees as well as recompense in a devaluation of the berth lease they have with them — if berth holder/inner harbour tenant parking cannot be assured?

Peter Millar

Re: Parking exemption will help port development, October 31 story.

Firstly, on the still unanswered question of the 50-year tenure for car and trailer parking — can all councillors confirm this 50-year tenure that was a requirement to secure the external trust monies to assist in the building of the ramp, as discussed in a public meeting and later added to the minutes of that meeting, was included in this decision?

What was the outcome of that issue? How and why has it been ignored? Can GDC management please answer how can the original consent for ramp and parking protected by this 50-year covenant be ignored?

It sets a damning precedent for any future trust monies for local projects.

As reported, “. . . in line with other prime waterfront locations around New Zealand”. All similar prime waterfront locations that have a marina and ramp facility have sufficient designated parking for ramp users and berth holders.

Can councillors then confirm Gisborne as being in line — as the article reads — in this respect, with sufficient designated car/trailer parks?

If not, can Eastland Group then provide assurance that berth holders (also tenants) who pay a significant yearly amount to lease the marina berth, who cannot gain a park at any particular time, will see a reduction in yearly fees as well as recompense in a devaluation of the berth lease they have with them — if berth holder/inner harbour tenant parking cannot be assured?

Peter Millar

Your email address will not be published. Comments will display after being approved by a staff member. Comments may be edited for clarity.

Poll

  • Voting please wait...
    Your vote has been cast. Reloading page...
    Do you think the benefits of forestry to the region outweigh its negative impacts?
    See also: