Sumner Sea Wall
Sir, —“Once Bit’s” deliberate attempt to mislead your readers by claiming that the 1954 photographs “supply the complete answer” is typical. He completely ignores these vital facts: (1) Since then, £50.000 has been spent on an effective rampart of huge rocks. (2) The embankment behind is now much higher and much more steeply sloping, the slope now being towards the sea instead of towards the road as formerly. (3) Had the culverts and stormwater drains not been so inadequate. flooding would not have occurred. Flooding similar to the photograph takes place there every heavy rain, because of the inadequacy of these pipes. <4) The real danger was erosion, not sea water. Finally a 3ft 6in wall, which has a mere 12-inch foundation, can hardly be termed a “protective” wall, anyway.—Yours, etc.. D. E. SMITH. May 17, 1959.
Sir, —In reply to “Otarama.” may I ask if he can name a place, anywhere in the world, where there is a wall built for protection from the sea the foundation of which is only 12 inches into the earth and which is reinfocred with only i-inch and 3-8-inch rods?—Yours, etc., SCEPTICAL. May 16, 1959.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19590518.2.7.3
Bibliographic details
Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28897, 18 May 1959, Page 3
Word Count
195Sumner Sea Wall Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28897, 18 May 1959, Page 3
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.