Move For Estuary Development

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30559, 30 September 1964, Page 18

Move For Estuary Development

Thirty-seven representatives of associations and sporting bodies in Christchurch who met last evening at the invitation of the Canterbury Progress League to discuss the development of the Estuary set up a committee to have discussions with the City Council and the Drainage Board and report back to another general meeting as soon as possible.

The committee will consist, of a representtaive of each of; the following organisations, and have power to co-opt:— The Canterbury Rowing Association, Canterbury Progress League, Canterbury Yachting I Association, New Brighton Power Boat Club, Mount Pleasant Community Centre, South Shore Residents’ Association, Christchurch Beautifying Society, Canterbury Public Relations Officer (Mr C. N. Todd), Sumner Residents’ Association, Canterbury Water Skiers’ Association, and New Brighton Business Association. The meeting also adopted a resolution urging the City Council and the Drainage Board to make every endeavour to ensure that maximum use is made of the Estuary by providing parks and facilities for all aquatic sports and ' generally beautifying the Estuary. The meeting urged that such steps be taken to make . the Estuary worthy of the ; garden city of Christchurch, ) and that provision be made 1 to include any necessary adoptions in the experimental model at present under construction at Wallingford, Es-) sex, The president of the Canterbury Rowing Association (Mr B. R. Walker) was elected chairman of the working committee. The object of the meeting, t said the chairman of last , evening’s meeting (Mr P. J. ( Skellerup) was to try to co- j ordinate many of the varied ( ideas for the development and • progress of the Estuary. , The development had to be (

(looked at from three main (points of view, he said. These were the functional development, including the essential drainage of Christchurch; the development to meet the requirements of various water! sports organisations: and the) need to ensure that, what-i ever form of development tbok place, it was satisfactory from an aesthetic point of view. “For too long it has been an eye-sore,” said Mr Skellerup. “It has been called so many things over the last few years that I can’t remember them all.” Mr Skellerup said that the City Council had applied to the Marine Department* under the Harbours Act, for authority over the Estuary, but had agreed to comply with the requirements of the Drainage Board Act in all stances.An apology was read from the member of Parliament for Lyttelton (Mr N. E. Kirk), who expressed his regret at the “present unhappy state of) affairs.” 1