ACCESS TO THE SEA

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21744, 28 March 1936, Page 20

ACCESS TO THE SEA

TO THE EDITOR OR THE PRESS. Sir, —There are points in “Confident’s letter that may be worth discussion. He asks whether the opinions of experts have not been practically unanimous in favour of the estuary. The answer is “expert opinion is unanimously against the estuary.” Since its condemnation in 1908 by the British engineers, Coode, Son, and Matthews, the chances for an estuary harbour have steadily declined. Investigation after investigation, commission after commission, and report after report, have been made, and every one has condemned the estuary, and advised us to stick to Lyttelton. On the strength of this unanimous advice much money has been expended upon the improvement of Lyttelton and the electrification of the- tunnel. Time, too, has brought great and very significant changes. Ships are larger and fewer, motor traction has grown to huge proportions, the air competition has commenced, and legislation has been passed to prevent a recurrence of scandals such as that of the Napier estuary. The country districts are solidly against the estuary .schema, and apart from the land owners and speculators who for so many years have kept the agitation alive, there are now, few strong advocates in the city. Another , corerspondent, “C.D.M.,” objects to the local bodies being entrusted with the guidance of the question. A little history comes pertinently in here. In 1911 the estuary advocates made a compact with their opponents that if the pros and cons were placed before an independent commission for investigation they would loyally abide by the decision and accept it as final. The commission was set up and heard evidence, the verdict being that not only would there be a loss of more than £1,000,000 in Lyttelton, but the estuary port itself would be very inferior and would show a financial loss of from £76,000 to £113,000 per annum. How shamefully the estuary advocates have broken that promise we all know.— Yours, etc., A. N. DAVIS. March 27, 1936 b

TO THE EDITOR 01* THE PRESS. Sir,—l regret that an error crept into mv letter of to-day’s issue of “The Press.” The £750,000 mentioned in two places should have read £1,500,000. That is the figure mentioned by the chairman of the Lyttelton Harbour Board as being the estimate for the necessary alterations to cope with the new tunnel road. Thus the estimated cost of the tunnel road amounts to 25 per cent, of the total.—Yours, etc., C.D.M. March 27. 1936.