Development Of Estuary

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31187, 11 October 1966, Page 18

Development Of Estuary

An independent authority should be formed to undertake the development of the Estuary for recreational purposes, suggested the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) at a public meeting held in the Mount Pleasant Community Centre last evening. Mr Kirk suggested that the Canterbury Progress League should approach the Regional Planning Authority to deter mine how the Summit Road Protection Society was formed and that a similar body could then be formed to look into the development of the Estuary.

There appeared to be a conflict between the Christchurch Drainage Board and those interested in the development of the Estuary.

Mr Kirk said that he had approached all problems associated with Estuary development with an open mind except for any sort of barrage between the Estuary and the open sea to w’hich he was opposed. He was addressing a meeting called by the estuary development committee of the Canterbury Progress League to discuss an interim report of tests conducted with a model of the Estuary at the Wallingford Research Centre in England. About 300 were present. Mr Kirk said that a conservative estimate of cost to the ratepayers of Christchurch for the construction of a barrage was £995,000 based on estimates now three years old. Such a proposal was economically untenable. If constructed, a barrage

would restrict the use of the Estuary for recreational pur poses, said Mr Kirk. Even if it remained open for most of the time it would not permit the passage of sailing craft.

Mr Kirk said he was in favour of an alternative scheme, such as floodgates, which would be economically practicable. These would not prevent the development of the Estuary. Earlier Mr Kirk said it was wrong to think, as some did, that it was part of the Christchurch Drainage Board’s purpose to provide an aquatic playground for Christchurch. The prime purpose of the board was to provide a drainage system for the city.

The chairman of the board (Mr F. R. Price) said the board had decided nothing, and the final decision would be the responsibility of the Marine Department.

All the board had done was to find the facts. These might have been delayed because originally the board had approached a French firm to do the research. The board had then been told the work could be done in the Dominion so the job had been hawked around the universities. Finally, consulting engineers in Christchurch had taken it on in conjunction with the Wallingford establishment. Mr Price said that even if the research establishment decided in favour of a barrage he was not in a position to know what the board would decide. The board was not committed to anything beyond the payment or the research already carried out.

In informal talks the Marine Department had indicated there would have to be very substantial drainage benefits before there would be any restriction of the water way, said Mr Price. He said the board’s problem with stormwater had increased tremendously in recent years. The board could be criticised for having stalled this problem while it dealt with drainage. Now a major solution was needed. Mr B. R. Walker, chairman of the Progress League’s subcommittee, said that where the conflict of interests crystallised was in seeing that drainage would not interfere with the facilities enjoyed on the Estuary by sportsmen. Mr Walker said he had a strong distrust of experts. Sportsmen with practical experience of the Estuary should examine the experts’ proposals carefully. Earlier in the meeting the drainage board’s chief engineer (Mr P. J. McWilliam) showed slides of the Wallingford test model and explained technical aspects.