The Estuary.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20045, 29 September 1930, Page 10

The Estuary.

The City Council's programme of business to-night includes the question of the control of the Estuary and the question of a poll on the construction of a port there. It should be remembered that these two questions are quite distinct in origin and in nature, and it is important not to confuse them. The first proposal affecting the future of the Estuary arises from the refusal of tho Lyttelton Harbour Board to have anything further to do with it, and it is to the effect that a Conservancy Board should be established. The Board would be composed of representatives of the City Council and neighbouring Borough and County Councils, akd be endowed with a limited rating power to enable it to carry out certain improvements in the interests of aquatic sports and recreations and for shallow navigation purposes generally. Preliminary steps have already been taken, and the first conference of representatives of local authorities and clubs interested is expected to be held this week. The second proposal comes from the Port Christchurch League, which, at a meeting held earlier in the present month, issued a formal request to the City Council to have the Estuary vested in the City, and to submit loan proposals at the elections next year for "an up-to-date deep-sea port for " Christchurch, situated on the PJstu- " ary." Since the request was handed on by the Council to the Finance Committee for report, probably the matter will be brought before the Council tonight by a report from that committee. It is impossible to know what the committee has decided, and it would be useless to speculate; but what is known, and what the City Council, ns the local governing authority primarily concerned, will have to consider very carefully, is that an effort is now being made, despite the adverse report of the Access to the Sea Commission, to revive the Port Christchurch scheme and to make it an issue at the next municipal elections. In consequence, there is some danger that the first and quite modest proposal to improve the Estuary may be confused by the public with the revival of the Port Christcmirch scheme and prejudiced by it. The City Council should be the first to understand that the two proposals are totally' independent, and to remove this danger by preserving the distinction clearly in its discussion.