PORT AND CITY LEAGUE.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20251, 1 June 1931, Page 7

PORT AND CITY LEAGUE.

PRINCIPALS AFFIRMED.

ESTUARY PORT OPPOSED.

The following statement has been issued by the organising secretary of the Port and City League:— In view of the fact that the Port Christchurch League, through certain of its representatives, has suggested in tho local papers within tho last month or two that there might be a possibility of some, sort of fusion between that League and the Port and City, League, with a new to concentration on securing a canal 'port at lioathcote, tho Port and City League thinks it wise to correct any false impression .-.hat may possibly nuve been gathered by the public through the lailure of the Port and City lieaguo to take active steps immediately to combat '<juch an erroneous idea. A round-table conference was suggested by the Port Christciiurch League'and duly took placej but it was' entirely abortive except as to this point: that both Leagues agreed that better accesb from Christchurch to the sea was long overdue. So that the public may have no doubt as to where the Port and City League stands, it may be advisabl« to state definitely that at no time has the Port and City League favoured an Estuary port at Heathcote. The Canal Proposals.

The League examined the canal proposals for the best part of,a fortnight during the sitting of the Access to the Sea Commission in June last, and was then nven less enamoured of the canal scheme than it had beten in the early days'of the League, when, after careful examination, it discarded the canal scheme amongst others as being quite impracticable from every point of view, except that it "could" bo constructed. We see no reason to disagree with the last Commission in this one respect at least wlien they said: "We have investigated the plan and estimate prepared for and submitted by the Port Christchurch League and find tho estimate to be incomplete, inadequate, and unreliable." However, not only do we condemn the half-loaf scheme put forward by the Port Cliristchurch League, but we respectfully join with Messrs Coode, Son, and Matthews (the harbour engineers of international repute, whose representative spent not two or three days, but three weeks, in Christchurch examining the cana] proposal from everv angle) in advising Christchurch to leave 1 the idea of a canal alone. These engineers rather than let Ctiristchurch embark on the fatally attractive though financially ' unsound sthenic of giving itself an unnecessary alternative or additional harbour were compelled to advise against it. They said this: "And after fall deliberation we are of opihion that, apart .from questions of finance and general policy, the Board would on the whole be best ad-vised-in adhering to' Port Lyttelton for future harbour extensions." Mr Cyrus Williams, the then engineer to the Lyttelton Harbour Board, in commenting on this report; wrote as follows:"In the main their conclusions and recommendations are very close to my own." ' .

The Opinions. Throe separate Commissions have failed to recommend to us a canal port,' and nothing said at the Inst Commission has altered, but in fact everything said there hag' only confirmed the League's opinion, arrived at' nf £er four years of careful study,of the questions, that:— V

(1) Lytteltcm is an excellent port at present lacking though capable " of great development. - (2) As the natural growth of Chriatchnrch proceeds, Lyttelton must eventually become a suburb of Christchurch. / (3) The Tunnel road, must come sooner or later lis an imperative highway . facility quite apart from the big trade questions Lytteltoa will never be serspMd, and Canterbury is not 60 foolish or so prodigal of its resources as to contemplate running two ports for its main City. The duplication of capital expenditure and administrative costs would run into millions. (5) The canal would in any case provide only a fair weather port, and £4,000,000 is too much to pay for the pleasure' of having an alternative port expensive in . maintenance and not accessible in all weathers. . „ (6) The expense and uncertainty of the canal scheme are quite unworthy of further consideration until such time as the facilities of lyttelton shall have been , expanded to their limit and Christchurch shall have gathered a huge population. And by that time i airways will probably have brought a dominating note'into • , | the problem.

The League) therefor, stands as firmly as ever for a Tunnel road, and it believes that the improved trade conditions which will come in the next few years will compel Christchurch to secure it.- ' ' '■ ' However, the last few years haye unquestionably brought 'a new aspect upoir any,> consideration of the estuary, 1 and the League sees a major purpose to which the estuary can ana probably will be put,in the not too distant future. Before many years have passed the authorities will probably be •searching our coasts for seaplane bases, and the estuary is obviously the ideal one for Christchurch. So important do we feel the question.to be that we consider that the proposed new Conservancy Board should hot only do its best to improve the estuary for aquatic sports, but should the idea of a seaplane base in the estuary the dominating consideration in its policy.