ACCESS TO THE SEA

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21714, 22 February 1936, Page 22

ACCESS TO THE SEA

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir,—The proposal by Mr Leadley to submit to arbitration the rival schemes for more direct access to the sea will not get us anywhere. It is only a waste of time for such a procedure to be adopted. The right course is for the people to decide by way of referendum as Mr Semple suggests. Overseas engineers from time to time have reported favourably on the feasibility of the Port Christchurch scheme, and on the face of it, it recommends itself as the one and only safe course to follow.

It is not a case of how many men either scheme is likely to employ, or the amount of distress to be relieved; it is the future welfare of the city and province that have to be considered. Lyttelton cannot be improved to any great extent without enormous expense, owing to the nature of the harbour bottom. Therefore, I fail to see how another tunnel is going to improve matters, for lack of space, too, kills the idea. The tunnel road group and the Harbour Board, are naturally afraid of a referendum; they know too well that the ultimate result would overwhelmingly favour Port Christchurch.—Yours, etc., ACCESS. February 21., 1936.