PROTECTIVE WORK AT SUMNER

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27699, 1 July 1955, Page 3

PROTECTIVE WORK AT SUMNER

MINISTER’S LETTER TO ASSOCIATION Misunderstanding may have occurred over the Government’s attitude to work on the Sumner foreshore, said Mr R. C. Neville, moving at a meeting of the Sumner Residents’ Association that the Minister of Works (Mr W. S. Goosman) be thanked for the help the Government had given the protection works and also for his reply to a letter from the association. The motion was carried unanimously. Concern had been expressed in this letter that the Government did not consider the properties endangered by I the sea warranted the expenditure of an estimated £lOO,OOO on protection works. The implication that the Government might adopt a niggardly attitude was unwarranted, said Mr Goosman in his reply to the association. The association’s attitude was not consistent with that of the Christchurch City ! Council, which had expressed keen appreciation of the Government’s cooperation. All concerned with the design of the proposed works desired to carry out adequate protection at minimum cost, said Mr Goosman.

“An important point in all such requests for assistance by the Government is that the proposals shall be prepared in the first' instance by the controlling local authority,” he said. The fact that the scheme put forward" must be acceptable to the Government is a reasonable safeguard of the expenditure of the taxpayers’ funds on what, after all, is really a ratepayers’ problem. Previous cases of similar nature had been considered with emphasis on permanent remedy, said the Minister. “This does not mean that the cost shall be entirely ignored, for as you will see from youi’ own case, this can reach a very high figure, and a design which combines economy with efficiency means a substantial saving to all.”

The chairman (Mr G. F. Allen) said that a newspaper report of a reply by Mr Goosman to the City Council “seemed to convey the rather alarming statement that the expense of the work was not justified by the worth of the properties.” That was the reason for the association’s letter to the Minister. “His reply to us is very reassuring. “I think some misunderstanding has arisen and it is unfortunate,” said Mr Neville. “This association has always been unanimously in support of and appreciative of the work done by the City Council. The important thing is that the Minister emphasises that the work is to be carried through to the stage where it is permanent.”