Evolution of the 'long' jetty in Governors Bay...
The locally-acknowledged date for the construction of the Sandy Bay and
the Governors Bay jetties was 1883. This puzzled me. Why would two public
jetties be built in such close proximity in the same year? Some detective work
at Archives NZ
unravelled the story. With the jetty on the beach at Sandy Bay proving
inadequate there was much local lobbying for a better-sited jetty. A
determining factor was depth of water - but self-interest meant that vocal
locals also agitated for a jetty proximate to their property.
At a meeting in March 1874, three sites were considered: (A) the
location of the current long jetty; (B) on the beach in Sandy Bay; and (C)
where the remains of the Sandy Bay Point jetty can still be seen.
![]() |
Documents from Archives NZ |
The decision having been made in favour of 'Dyers Point', tenders were
called for construction in July 1874 and by November the Press
was advertising land for sale ‘situated close to the New Jetty’. The structure
was modest but sufficient to accommodate reasonably sized boats at high tide.
Tourism took off - just see how crowded Mullogh is in the photo below...
![]() |
Mullogh at Governors Bay
jetty, no date (Coral Atkinson postcard collection)
|
However the relative shallowness of the water at Dyers Point, combined
with ongoing harbour silting, made the Dyers Point jetty less and less viable.
In 1883 a decision was made to build a second jetty at Percivals Point
(C on the diagram above). (See another post for the story of this jetty). So
now the Harbour Board had two jetties to maintain in Governors Bay.
In 1910 the Harbour Board decided to close the 'upper wharf' as an
economy measure.
A petition
signed by most bay residents argued that the wharf’s accessibility by road made
it much handier for visitors and less expensive for commerce than the ‘lower
jetty’. The locals not only wanted to retain the upper wharf but also to
lengthen it and dredge an approaching channel. The costs would be covered by a
toll levied on visitors using the jetty. In October 1912 the Harbour
Improvement Committee recommended that the upper Governors Bay jetty be
extended so that launches could use it, regardless of the state of the tide. (Head of the Harbour, 197)
By January 1913 the piles had been driven out for a distance of 600ft and by June the first 900ft were almost completed. It was only a temporary fix however. In December 1927 residents were again petitioning the Lyttelton Harbour Board for better access to the Bay by water. The options were to lengthen the jetty yet again and/or to dredge a channel to the jetty. The Harbour Board was reluctant to consider either option but work must have occurred in the late 1920s to extend the jetty to its final 250 yards. After inspections in 1993 and 1994 revealed cause for concern about its condition, 20 new piles were driven under the jetty in 1997. The pile driver was mounted on a flat barge made from mussel buoys. At the sea end of the jetty the 10-metre long piles went 4 metres into the silt.
Following
the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010/11 the jetty was deemed unsafe and cordoned
off. It is currently awaiting a rebuild under the auspices of the Governors Bay Restoration Trust.
![]() |
Wharf at Governors Bay c. 1905, J Kinsey photograph, Canterbury Museum |
Is there a consensus on the cause of harbour silting? My first guess would be all the land clearing in the surrounding hills and resulting run-off...?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure there's a 'consensus' as such. Over the years a lot of locals have blamed the dredging further down the harbour and the construction of the breakwater at Cashin Quay. But yes, I think there would be general agreement that run-off is the #1 culprit. Not helped by the logging that's now happening at Teddington.
ReplyDelete