Port Revitalisation Project – Give us your ideas!

In August 2016, the Government announced that they would provide $500,000 funding support to help Whanganui District Council develop a detailed blueprint to revitalise the Whanganui Marine Precinct.

This is an exciting and ambitious project that will develop the local marine industry and improve the area’s recreational facilities.


Now it’s time for you to tell us what you want to see. We are looking for feedback from anyone who is interested in the Port Revitalisation Project, from business owners, to boat users, residents of Castlecliff, educational providers and more.

All feedback is important!

For businesses who are interested in registering their business with the project, please fill in this form on the Whanganui District Council website.

Joe Salmon

62 thoughts on “Port Revitalisation Project – Give us your ideas!

  1. I personally agree 100% with the vision of building a port in Whanganui as it will bring business and tourism to Whanganui which is so much needed. A busy port will bring employment, and a new vitality to our city. If the port runs boats and ferries from Whanganui to Nelson that would be awesome and take a lot of heavy truck of the main Whanganui to wellington highway which are tearing up our roads and costing the tax payer millions. Kia Kaha for those who have the business sense to do it.

    1. Its great to see several ‘irons in the fire’ none are magic bullets and only time will tell which work for ALL of us. Good thorough long term planning, managing the risks and ensuring central Govt provides appropriate support are required. With the proposed increase of heavy traffic to the wharf, there must be a plan to bring Mosston and associated roads up to standard to handle the extra traffic, weight and allow safe room for the cyclists currently taking their life in their hands. Hope the flooding issues are also resolved or mitigated, there’s insufficient accommodation in town if ferry sailings are delayed.

  2. Whanganui is a great heritage city not just for its buildings but also for vintage and veteran cars, trucks, motorcycles, steam engines and our iconic Waimarie. I think a part of the development of the port should be set aside for the restoration of old boats and ships. Nostalgia is big business around the world and NZ and we have the restoration skills in Whanganui.

    1. Hi Sharon. Great comment, thanks.
      The draft masterplan identifies existing heritage at the Port and connects the Port Basin to Castlecliff (through the Castlecliff Rejuvenation Project) and the Whanganui town centre. We need to take an open-minded approach to ways the existing land and buildings at the Port can be used, re-used or developed. The Victory Shed and Red Shed are likely to be retained to maintain the history and authenticity of the Port.

  3. This is a very exciting project and one that we must get right the first time. Good supporting infrastructure will be the key to its success. I think we need to look beyond the zones currently proposed all the way to the river mouth and back to the City Bridge. We should look at this as an opportunity to make a real difference to the growth of Whanganui and its prosperity. With the freight potential for the Port I would suggest that the rail lines are extended passed Wharf One as far as possible to maybe accommodate new rail yards. In future a roll on roll off rail ferry might be a viable option. Why there are rail yards in the middle of the City is beyond me. Bullocks and all other heavy industry should be encouraged to move out and the area returned to the Community for recreation purposes. The existing rail lines should be used for trams when not used by trains. I believe that the current trams are a different gauge to the rail lines. However, there lots of trams around the same as the rail gauge. However, I would not support overhead lines. The trams would need to be battery electric or diesel electric.
    This is a huge opportunity for Whanganui which will secure a bright future for all its residents and business owners.

    1. In 1995 I submitted to the district plan with WEDCO the concept of Trams running on existing Rail Tracks to Culvers Corner to link up with The Paddlewheeler Otunui for a return journey from the City. Your onto it Neville as the same could be done to Castlecliff linking with Riverboats etc for a round trip multi transport experience.
      There is a lot to be seen by River at the port and History.

    2. The reason the train yards and bullocks and pitzac and all those outfits are where they are is because they have been there for almost a century. They are their because the boats used to come up and unload cargo at the inner town wharf. A lot of the heavy industry in Wanganui was established many many many moons ago and whats happened is the city has grown around it. In a lot of cases its a situation of they were their first. I personally feel we need to embrace our industrial side. In reality we are an industrial town even though the town often tries to pass itself off as many other things. Industry is just as big of a deal as tourism or any of those other things.

      Apart from that I am fully behind this port development and am really happy with whats happening.

      1. I’m typically to blogging and i really appreciate your content. The article has actually peaks my interest. I am going to bookmark your website and preserve checking for new inronmatiof.

    3. Hi Neville. Thanks for your comments. As for your query about developing the area from the Whanganui City Bridge to the Port, that area of Whanganui is not within the scope of the Port Revitalisation draft masterplan. However, this area will continue to accommodate manufacturing and residential use. The Urban Shared Pathway, which runs from the Whanganui City Bridge to the North Mole, will also continue to be developed in this area.

      As for your second question, the future use of the rail line within the Port area has been considered, although there is limited use for rail at Wharf One, primarily because there is insufficient space for large scale wharf-side sorting and loading areas. The present location of Q-West Boat Builders has been identified within the draft masterplan as a possible future inland port area for a rail terminus, inland port operators, containers, logs, and dry goods.

      We have put together a list of frequently asked questions about the Whanganui Port Revitalisation which you can read at http://www.whanganui.govt.nz/portFAQs

  4. The bigger we can make our port the better. It would bring more business to Wanganui and create employment. Wanganui is also a central area that we can use for shipping to Australia.

  5. I would love to see a ferry service from Wanganui to the South Island. There are times when it is a PITA to get to the ferry terminal in Wellington because of the traffic, and a ferry service from Wanganui would be a very attractive alternative option for both cars and trucks. If the port development were sufficiently attractive that cruise ships called in then that would be a major bonus for Wanganui, with more cash coming into town and more jobs for people.

  6. We would really like to see a well developed and busy port/marina in Whanganui. The recreational boating in our area is second to none when one can get out to sea, but the lack of depth is often a problem for many boats around low tide times. Young people swimming at the slipway is also dangerous and we wonder if there should be consideration given to those who wish to swim in that area to have a separate safe swimming area that will not have boats trying to launch or land. We urge that the port development organisers and Whanganui District Council keep a firm eye on the future when designing the area so that the initial outlay will last well into the future. We are excited by the mooted ferry service between Whanganui and Motueka. It would save fuel, time and transport costs. WDC should definitely lobby effectively for government funds to assist development with firm facts behind their promotion, but businesses and individuals should also contribute.

  7. This is a great and long overdue initiative and I absolutely support making the most of our Castlecliff assets like the Port.
    As a Wellingtonian professional couple who have moved to Castlecliff for the incredible & affordable lifestyle Wanganui’s neglect of what anywhere else would be prime assets for the city & region like the port and the coastal area has been perplexing. Its great to see the port getting the focus it deserves! What benefits Castlecliff benefits Whanganui.

  8. Having been in Freemantle near Perth this year it would be great to see a cafe for casual diners and recreational foot traffic and family groups. Aussies in Freemantle port side restaurant could dine in or outside. Food ranged from sandwiches and fruit and hot fingerfood to full seafood meals etc. Could eat inside or outside under big umbrellas. a happy family atmosphere with ankle biters to tweens ,teens and couples and older crowd.Alcohol available and priced to make it an addition to meal not a place to drink.

  9. The council needs to get behind this 100% even looking at owning part of the ferry company. Yes its a big risk/investment but the returns are worth the risk. Don’t let this idea die like many others the city has wasted money on for little return.

  10. Yes, we need the Port Revitalisation, and I would love to see a salt-water tidal swimming area put aside for children to use safely, just a rock-walled -off area that each new tide fills, then it warms in the sun and is wave-free as the tide goes out around it. Newcastle NSW has one.
    As natural-looking as possible, not square, concrete and chlorinated.
    Also the ferry service to and from Motueka is great. That was one of the frequent runs our early coastal ships used from 1842, before road and rail access. Are there thoughts of having local Shareholders? I’m sure many would be interested.
    I also suggested a tram service on the railway line several years ago, complete with hostesses in Edwardian costume, and traditional tearooms at the wharf end, with old photos around the walls. Our heritage tourism experience is a major drawcard for visitors.

    1. I too believe we are missing a HUGE opportunity if we do not initiate a tourist train/tram service from Taupo Quay to the Mole!
      Sadly I think we may be too late as the railway line has already been buried alongside the fishing Wharf and seems to have disappeared somewhere around Qwest!

      1. I already though of this possibility running a steam train from Taupo Quay to the Wharf or the Mole in conjunction with a ferry service way back in 2011 and made such proposals to Mayor Annette Main & Cr Vinsen from 2010 to 2013. I would not worry about railway lines being buried because where there is a will they can be re-established and should be too.

    2. Hi Marion,
      Thanks for your great comments.
      There is public support for recreating a Port Basin which will increase recreational opportunities in the surrounding area, such as swimming. Re-filling the hole in the Basin Wall, with the associated expense of initial and ongoing dredging makes it more likely to be a gradually staged, longer term goal. In the short-to-medium term, the location which has been selected for the swim/bomb area is tidal with saltwater.
      Regarding the heritage tourism, the draft masterplan identifies existing heritage at the Port and connects the Port Basin to Castlecliff (through the Castlecliff Rejuvenation Project) and the Whanganui town centre. We need to take an open-minded approach to ways the existing land and buildings at the Port can be used, re-used or developed. The Victory Shed and Red Shed are likely to be retained to maintain the history and authenticity of the Port.

      For more frequently asked questions about the port revitalisation, including information about a potential ferry service, you can visit http://www.whanganui.govt.nz/portFAQs

  11. Getting a Social licence off the public before we have any environmental or cultural impact reports is really sneeky.
    Whanau Hapu have not been consulted in the first instance over the activities that are to happen on OUR AWA .. you are pulling the cart before the horse .. in this case the boat and we’ve seen that happen many a times ending up in shit creek.
    Who are the investors and Shareholders in this project! I smell a rat/rats!

      1. Here we go again. If the IWI can stop some thing they will.
        Can you not see it is for the betterment of Wanganui!!
        I now see what IWI stands for; “I Want It”.

    1. Do you not love our City? Why create problems when there are none.
      The Port at the present is a dead duck, so this is one way of putting Wanganui back on the map and also creating jobs. There will be NO cultural impact; after all there is already a wharf, and this will make it a port.
      That can only enhance the environment.

    2. I like the way you say OUR AWA, interest is only shown when it looks like someone might make a dollar or two. I think you should keep out of it and stay up the other end of the river. let the people with knowledge and the get up and go handle the port. don’t need negative people slowing it down

    3. Tane point taken have you looked at this ferry plan….pie in the sky idea…..it’s going to end up in the environmental Courts…

    1. Very exciting indeed and obviously Wanganui will leap ahead once the port is established.
      Fifty years ago there was a Waterfront Industry Commission dealing with many small cargo ships coming and going to the port.
      There were 90 full time Wharfies and 120 casuals with a really great office (building still there but somewhat dilapidated . )
      Can’t wait to see things take off.

  12. Awsome way to go with the port will make this town go ahead .one question will the river mouth be moved to stop port silting or will it just be dredged like in the past

    1. Hi Bevan.
      Thanks for your positive attitude toward the port development.
      A very comprehensive study was completed by the Whanganui District Council in October 1993 titled ‘Wanganui Port Development Feasibility Report’. In the report, a river diversion to sea near the Whanganui Airport was estimated to cost $15M, the port terminals $32M, the port plan $4.5 and the new port entrance work $19-26M, with extensive, ongoing bar dredging or a sand pumping bypass system.
      Natural forces influence our river mouth and we have a shallow, high-energy coastline which results in lateral drift of sand across the front of the Moles of about 250,000 m3 per annum.

      The only reason there is not a continuous beach on our coast is because the concentrated river flow scours it out. Diverting the Whanganui River would result in the formation of a beach where the river mouth used to flow. On a smaller scale, you can see the natural forces at work and their results by looking at the mouth of the Turakina River in the Rangitikei District.

      We’ve put together some frequently asked questions with more information about the river and other environmental factors which you can find at http://www.whanganui.govt.nz/portFAQs

  13. Well done team. I can see this project booming ahead; just an idea, has any thought been given to creating a “Dry Dock” and having it large enough to cater for the inter-island ferry’s? This would gain a great financial gain/return for them and the Port.
    It would enable their ships to be serviced here in New Zealand as opposed to sending them over seas for repairs or maintenance, which cost millions of dollars.

  14. I’m all for developing the port and would love to see the Mountain to Sea cycle route go through there on its way out to the mole, rather than sending the riders onto Heads Road. I hear talk of a cafe of some sort and that could be an added attraction for people riding that route or simply from Whanganui or Aramoho to the mole.

    1. I don’t agree that the cycle track should go anywhere near the wharf. it needs to be a mainly commercial wharf if its going to make real money and this means trucks and other machines on the wharf. not the place for cycles or kids and since the end closest to the mole is were the shipping needs to be there is no safe area for cycles. the port bason by the ramp is the area that should be for kids and socialising.

      1. Hi, been harbouring this for a while… I heard about the money devoted to the cycle track to the mole. I thought it was a fantastic idea and great that the council was spending money on this sort of thing. I thought I’d check it out and go for a run, I got as far as I can, to Bedford Ave, then found my way to the rest of the yet to be developed track.

        Please tell me there is a plan to get around the horrific scene that that insults every sense between the proposed port area and Bedford Ave. Points along that stretch I literally couldn’t breath from the stench of offal and chemicals, there were trollies with parts of animal hanging over their sides and black back gulls tearing at them, there were scull and cross bone signs warning of toxicity… the list swirls into a dizzy nightmare. I would hate to send any tourist–or person–along that gauntlet.

        I understand that this industry is Whanganui’s major employer, which is great, but did anyone do that same run as I did before they decided to pour money into a cycle track through the middle of it? Send the cyclists through Mosston, it’s beautiful out that way.

  15. I think this project is wonderful too. Like Lyneke, I’d also really like to see the Mountains to Sea Cycle Trail / new paved cycleway go through the port – I think it’d make travelling on it much more appealing (riding the stretch of road from Gilberd St to Morgan St feels unsafe and unpleasant) and could turn it into a great weekend family thing to do – a terrific new recreational facility for Whanganui. If there was a marked-off swimming spot as well, I think it’d be fantastic as the beach isn’t always safe for swimming, and would be likely to mean the cycleway is used much more. A new cafe is being opened on Rangiora St in Castlecliff this month. Imagine being able to bike along the river from town to the sea with your family, safely away from cars the whole way, swimming in a safe and accessible part of the river at the end, popping into the cafe along the beach a bit, checking out the pottery over the road, and biking back to town – move over New Plymouth, our waterside cycleway will be much better!

    1. Thanks for your feedback David and we agree its exciting to connect our town centre with our beautiful town centre. As mentioned in response to Lyneke, the Mountains to Sea cycle path will be extended through and around the port. We’ve looked into creating a diving/bombing spot. to the east of the existing boat launching ramp, although there is scope to move this location as we develop the plan.
      There is also public support for recreating a Port Basin which will increase recreational opportunities (like swimming) in the surrounding area. Re-filling the hole in the Basin Wall, with the associated expense of initial and on-going dredging makes it more likely to be a gradually staged, longer term goal.
      It appears the Citadel – the café you mention, is getting great community support. When the Bedford Avenue to the Mole section of the urban share pathway project is completed there will be better accessibility along the river to the sea.

  16. It’s great to see positive plans covering industrial, transport, and recreational opportunities of a port basin.
    A couple of point to be considered:P
    1. The railway line runs so nearly to the port area. It would be a great shame not to extend the railway to the docks to facilitate easy transfer of freight from train to ship and vice versa.
    2. The potential for a ferry service seems to be donwplayed in this masterplan. If the ferry service is to eventuate, careful thought needs to be given to the placement of the berth to allow for easy access and parking/queueing area for the large number of both cars and trucks that would congregate in the area before a sailing. Passenger facilities also need to be considered to ensure that the access, setting, and views make for a fantastic experience for passengers.

    1. Hi David.
      Thanks for taking the time to comment.
      In response to your first point, in the draft masterplan, the future use of the rail line within the Port area has been considered, although there is limited use for rail at Wharf One, primarily because there is insufficient space for large scale wharf-side sorting and loading areas. The present location of Q-West Boat Builders has been identified within the draft masterplan as a possible future inland port area for a rail terminus, inland port operators, containers, logs, and dry goods.

      To comment on your second point, the Port Revitalisation Project Team’s view is that a ferry service would most likely start on a smaller scale than that proposed by Midwest Ferries. Wharf One is well-positioned to accept a ferry vessel, with land within the port area available for the staging of trucks or cars.

      Expansion of the wharf to the west would allow a second vessel to be berthed in the area if necessary. While the Council is enthusiastic about the Midwest Ferries initiative, we are still awaiting detailed information and a comprehensive business proposal from the promoter. A ferry service would be fantastic for Whanganui, but the information we have received from Midwest Ferries so far suggests a very ambitious initiative from an environmental, capital raising and operational perspective.
      You can read more about the proposed ferry service and other issues regarding the port revitalisation at http://www.whanganui.govt.nz/portFAQs.

  17. In April 2013 when I approached Councillor Rob Vinsen of the Council’s Strategy and Finance Committee told me he saw little point proceeding with such a proposition.

    From 2012 I was banging my head on a closed door with Council trying to get either Mayor Annette Main or the Port Company to talk about a proposal for such a service. It would appear now in hindsight they were perhaps reluctant because they were themselves already involved in favoring a rival project?

    I enquired in April 2013 about a costed proposal to Cr.Rob Vinsen only requiring some $6 million and not requiring $50 million that Midwest Ferries is now panhandling for. I received studied indifference.

    This entire project could be developed for far less than $50m so I shall be enquiring with relevant Government Ministers and Opposition shadow spokespeople why Wanganui Council opted for a far more expensive & less viable project. I think both taxpayers and ratepayers deserve to know why this project is so overpriced?

    If central Government shells out $50m to fund this ostentatious project what would happen to the other $44m ?

    Rather specifically who exactly benefits from surplus funding for the Midwest Ferries proposal?

    Nor has Neville Johnson of Midwest Ferries thought through these issues. Motueka has a channel depth of about 2m and Wanganui has a depth of 3.2m over the bar. In rough weather & floods large standing waves make the Wanganui bar unnavigable to vessels of more than 2.4m draft. Motueka suffers from huge tidal ranges.

    No fast ferry vessel of <2.4m draft will carry more than half a dozen B-Train trucks so one can forget about trucking revenues supporting a service. Six truck B-trains will provide a measly revenue of $21,600 for a vessel costing $60,000 per crossing to operate. Please can Neville Johnson explain how he proposes to stem losses of $38,400 per crossing?

    I have surveyed the fuel consumption of available fast ferry vessels. Any fast ferry capable of 30-40 knot crossings will burn 5,000-6,000 litres per hour ($20,000/crossing).

    Because of Maritime NZ rules, fast ferries also require large crews of 12-14 personnel, thus must cover a large wages bill, a large fuel bill and have limited cargo capacity. For a 24/7 Operation crew costs alone will be $90,000 per week.

    Amortizing just the principle for a debt of $50m over 5 years will require the ferry earning $27,400/day simply for debt repayment. That level of overheads versus the available revenue makes the Midwest Ferries project economically unviable.

    Wanganui Councillors turned down my far less expensive and economically viable project. If ever funded, I prophesize this Midwest project will be a white elephant with just a few key people lining their own pockets before it all goes bust.

  18. As an update to my previous comment about disinterest in a ferry proposal that I previously put to Council I tracked back through my own emails only to discover I complained to former Councillor Michael laws about Council’s disinterest in my proposals in August 2011 alluding to earlier emails which I sent to mayor Annette Main outlining a proposed Wanganui-Nelson ferry service in 2010.

    I have now raised concerns with the new Mayor Hamish McDoull about what I perceive was corrupt conduct by Council officers in plagiarizing my ferry proposals.

    Michael laws has just responded to me today suggesting that if I have concerns over political corruption, or acts prejudicial to my ferry proposals, to take a complaint to the Ombudsman.

    Needless to say this seems a matter destined for show down in the Courts. I have a long trail of emails establishing that at the time Midwest Ferries was hatched elected Council officials were refusing to co-operate with me, or a company subsequently established, in efforts to investigate the viability of a ferry service, whilst they were actively promoting Midwest Ferries.

    1. Good on you for following this through, your ideas are a no brainer. I believe that if you do the right thing long enough it will win through. Thankyou

  19. Thanks everyone for your feedback on this site, it’s been amazing to see the level of passion and enthusiasm you have for the Whanganui Port and our community.

    We would like the opportunity to address the points Simon Gunson has made on this blog.

    While the Whanganui District Council supports the Midwest Ferries idea in principle, any greater support requires a robust business plan, as it would with any concept.

    Supporting the Midwest Ferries concept does not mean we aren’t supporting other ideas. At the end of 2016, we released a draft master plan for the Port Revitalisation and we want everyone’s feedback.

    We are still looking for those ideas, so please continue to post to this blog, or visit http://www.whanganui.govt.nz/port to send us your ideas and feedback and sign up to our mailing list. ​

    The Port Revitalisation Team

  20. I would suggest that there should be provisions for two types of marina:
    a. Short term marina docking facilities for travellers who can stay in close proximity to city centre, say for a period of 3-5 days, to encourage maritime travel/tourism to Whanganui.
    b. Long term (residential) marina for permanent moorings in a larger facility that could be developed in stages, partly owned by council for rental income, and the rest sold off for rates income. This would cater for maritime users, and clearly give maritime enthusiasts reason to based themselves in Whanganui, particularly if they had a place to store their boat/car, and if there was the proposed ferry service to the South Island (Motoeka)
    c. Regular bus service – I would propose that the council should offer a bus service that travels from the airport to the city centre, then to the ferry terminal, with ‘long term’ residential marina users being able to use that service. It probably need only ‘sync’ with airport arrivals/departure.
    d. Development of an ‘tiny home’ community in the marina precinct, which ought to be the basis for ‘low cost’ living for people with an interest in fisheries. If Wanganui is going to commit to a ‘premium treatment plant’ for waste, then you can start looking at the encouragement of fisheries in that coastal strip south of the river mouth. A tiny home takes up only 24m2 and can be built for $15-50K depending on whether amenities are communal. That means more ‘benefit recipients’ living in Wanganui with money being spent in the community, as well as more ratepayers financing local industry. We don’t need to be living on massive 700-1200m2 lots and in 80-160m2 homes if we don’t need so much space. Some people only want a minimalist lifestyle. A life of fishing, boating, swimming. Life in ‘over-regulated NZ is ‘over-capitalised’ as a result. Consideration for people on low incomes begs the question – why is there no opportunity for this type of development in a community that has so many low income people, despite pretty typical levels of rates. It already has one of the lowest costs of living in NZ. Why not ‘cost of housing’. Not cruddy old houses, but modern ‘minimalist’ housing. There is already a tiny homes movement in the USA, and it is coming to NZ. Arguably its been in Japan for decades. Its not a ‘burden’ for many people, but an opportunity.

  21. Time to stop talking Wanganui, “Just Do It”, we need this port revitalisation to encourage growth & business in our City.

  22. For Wanganui to even survive, let alone thrive, the Port Revitalisation simply MUST go ahead – stop talking and just get on with it!!!

  23. All great positive stuff. However getting over the enthusiasm we need to look at where the money is coming from.Everyone has acknowledged that we will have to pay for a sewerage scheme we can’t really afford now we are talking about a multi million dollar project with no real costings as to where the money will come from and who will pay.
    Overall the council has not had a good track record into putting rate money into business ventures and given the failures of some of the ventures talked about we should be treading very carefully.
    I have no problem with private enterprise investing, but if it all turns belly up who will be paying for any fix up required.
    Some of the proposals talked about have been tried before and identified limitations as to what can be done. These should be available from the ports records, and from what I have read I have grave concerns that proponents of some of these ideas may not have accessed these records.
    Before everyone gets to excited lets see what hard and fast facts can be tabled and to where the money will come from.

    1. Hi T,
      Thanks for your comments.
      Within the Port Revitalisation, the variety of projects and their funding will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The initial business case will seek investment from private enterprise, central government and Whanganui District Council. The Council may choose to fund items through Harbour Endowment loans, rates or asset sales.
      I will forward your comments about past proposals to the Port Revitalisation Team for their feedback.

  24. There are some really great ideas here. The opportunities for the Port Revitalisation Project abound and it is exciting. The devil will be in the detail!

  25. Some thought on what I see as the key elements that need to be taken into consideration for the wonderful “no brainer” project.
    1. Make the port a DESTINATION, not just a commercial port venture. Take a good look at Mapua port in the Nelson district. They have used the old cold stores for great cafes, art galleries, a micro brewery and a port museum (What about a shipwreck museum for us?).

    2. Create a high viewpoint to look at the sweep of South Beach, airport, Castlecliffe, Mt Taranaki , the river, the town and Mt Ruapehu.

    3. Refurbish the North mole and accessways to make the Mountain to the Sea a memorable and photogenic destination. Local housing will quickly become sought after and improve.

    4. Complete a river and coastal walkway/cycleway from the CBD to Castlecliff. This needs to take advantage of the River/ Seaside reserves and avoid the (current) ugly side of the industrial/poorer housing areas. – Whanganuis version of the New Plymouth walkway – perhaps with changing/iconic sculptures along the way?

    The port needs to be a visitor “must do” rather than the current apology we have to offer visitors.


    1. I love your ideas but what is the point in all this upgrading when it stinks out that way with all the filthy industries. The area along Heads road is a health hazard. There are far too many dirty industries there to support the ego systems of the river there. They should be moved a long way from anywhere.

    1. I agree Dirty industries out there low cost housing. Troublemakers . Get rid of the industries out there which attract low wage workers if any.

  26. The port is an excellent idea to revitalise the Mole area but I hope adequate consideration and CONSULTATION is given to all residences living on the routes increased traffic will take! When the milk plant was built that was not the case and those of us who own homes on Heads Road are subjected to unmonitored truck and auto traffic 24-7 that often exceeds the 50 k relatively unposted (from the hospital to digital K read) limit. I frequently attempt to turn into my home and are passed on the right currently by those who feel this is a 75k speedway. Additional port traffic can only worsen this situation for children, pets, pedestrian, bikers and local residents.

  27. The port revitalization is a brillant plan which will bring so much to Whanganui. I can’t see it bringing it’s full potential until all the dirty inductries in Heads road is got rid of. The smell along Heads road is awful and it stinks all the way up to Dublin Bridge . I can’t even visit Castlecliffe without my nasal passages being stung by the petrid stench of these industries. Get rid of the dirty industries so that our beautiful river can heal itself from the years of pollution.

  28. Is this going to be a slow burner or will it be full steam ahead. If so, when will the work start? What’s the timeframe. I think it’s huge for Whanganui and just the boost to get Whanganui going again.

    As they say, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way”…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.