Intolerable Delay At Harewood

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27591, 23 February 1955, Page 12

Intolerable Delay At Harewood

The City Council, with the support and, indeed, the urging, of Canterbury and South Island organisations, has been trying for many months to obtain from the government departments concerned—principally the Civil Aviation Department and Ministry of Works—approval of its plans for a new passenger terminal building to replace the present internal services building (which is inadequate and inconvenient) and the temporary overseas terminal (which is in an annex to a hangar and is a standing disgrace to this country). The Director of Civil Aviation (Mr E. A. Gibson) is well aware of the anxiety of the City Council and the public to have the new building begun at the earliest possible moment. Early this month, when questioned by “The Press”, Mr Gibson denied that the council’s plans had been rejected by his department. Certain modifications had been suggested, he said, but no major alterations; and these were being considered by the City Council. The inference plainly to be drawn from Mr Gibson’s statement was that, subject to a decision on whether the control tower, communications, and meteorological offices should be housed in the terminal building or in a separate building, and the completion of a master plan ” locating the various buildings on the airport, there need be no delay in the approval of the council’s plans. “ Once we have “determined the building line and “site for terminal buildings”, he said, “ everything can go ahead ”.

In the circumstances, the latest letter from the Civil Aviation Department asking the council’s permission to add another storey to the present terminal building to house its Air Traffic Section is inexplicable; tor this is the building

the council hopes very soon to replace with something that will give air travellers the comfort and convenience to which they are entitled. Insult is added to injury by the explanation in the letter that the request is made “ in view of “the protracted investigation neces- “ sary and the period of time which “ must elapse before the present “ proposals for a new terminal “ building and Air Traffic Section “ facilities could come to fruition ”. Protracted investigation, indeed! The letter should at least serve to show the City Council the futility of its decision on Monday to go ahead with the planning of a terminal building regardless of the mysterious “ master plan ” which Mr Gibson, in the statement referred to, assumed was being drawn up by the council and the Ministry of Works in collaboration, but which the ministry in fact seems to be hugging to itself. The danger of having to scrap the plans for the terminal building or extensively to modify them to conform with the plan is not one lightly to be courted by a council already —and very reasonably—exasperated at official delays. The better course probably would be to press the Minister in charge of Civil Aviation to convene under his chairmanship a meeting of all the departmental and local body officers concerned, so that high policy can be determined without further delay and the City Council can get on with its necessary work. The Minister, whose interest in the development of Harewood is unquestioned, could then metaphorically knock together the heads of officials who show any disposition to wait upon the “ protracted “ investigations ” of each other’s departments.