The Petone wharf: Should it go or should it stay?
Petone residents are being asked to make a tough call: Do they want to keep and fix their derelict wharf, build a new library or repair the earthquake-prone Petone grandstand?
On Sunday, protesters gathered on the beach in support of the wharf, which the council is currently proposing to demolish for $6 million.
They were part of Save the Petone Wharf, which is promoting US strengthening system PileMedic and calling on the council to look at alternatives to demolition.
The council is consulting on its long term plan and is proposing to demolish the wharf and part of the historic Petone Rec grandstand and to build a new library hub, which could include apartments, with the money set aside to repair the wharf.
With the council spending most of its money on Three Waters and transport over the next decade, it had signalled that it did not want to spend more than $6m on the wharf.
Save the Petone Wharf argued that in justifying demolishing the wharf, the council was relying on an estimate that it would cost $23.3m to retain and repair it.
“However, such cost estimates for refurbishment are out of date,” the group said in a document to support its petition.
Save the Petone Wharf believed it could be repiled by RockBond for $6m.
“RockBond has said that they could restore the wharf ... at a cost of between $5m to $6m and can guarantee that it will cost no more than $6m to bring it up to a safe strength,” the group said.
Deputy mayor and Petone resident Tui Lewis said the issue was complex and a lot more information was needed before an informed decision could be made.
She was aware that the piles were only a small part of the wharf and there were other significant features, including the cross beams and deck, that also needed repair. Repairing the rest of the wharf would significantly add to the cost, she said.
Fixing the piles would buy time for the council to stage future repairs over the next few years.
Lewis said that if the piles could be fixed for $6m, the council should look seriously at PileMedic.
Mayor Campbell Barry said the council was facing major financial hurdles and Three Waters infrastructure had to be the priority.
Any decision had to take into account the cost of repairing the entire wharf and ongoing maintenance for the next 30 years, Campbell said.
Repairing the wharf had the support of Hutt South MP and Minister for Infrastructure, Chris Bishop.
His social media post in support of the protest resulted in a number of people, like Ross Parker, asking if he was prepared to fund it.
“As a Central Government MP that has been working to improve accountability such as Govt department inefficiencies that will result in many locals loosing their jobs, asking local ratepayers to pay for repairs for a wharf ... that is a ‘nice to have’ rather than ‘must have’ seems somewhat of a contradiction.”
Bishop replied. “There are two options. Either demolish or restore.
‘‘Both cost a lot. The ratepayer is up for either.
‘‘My view is if it costs less to restore than demolish then it’s a no brainer.”
RockBond director Jeremy Lough conceded a lot more work was required before a final figure of how much it would cost to repair the wharf was known.
Although the wharf was earthquake prone and closed to public access, he believed it had not yet reached the stage where it was beyond repair.
“There are much worse wharves that are still in use.”
Repairing the piles should be the priority as it would allow for the repair of the rest of the wharf over time.
He acknowledged that ongoing costs would be an issue and said that until there was a detailed engineering report, it was hard to estimate overall.