Favour and caution mixed

Press, 11 February 1981, Page 19

Favour and caution mixed

The reactions of various individuals associated with organisations which could be expected to play a part in setting up the sheep centre.'if the project goes ahead, are-mostly favourable, with some caution being sounded about where the money might come from and about the commercial prospects. . The following are individual reactions. Being personal, the comments should not be regarded as representing the considered views of the organisations for which the individuals work or which they represent.Mr N. M. Woods, director of the Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Association: “There is a need m Christchurch .for a centre such as that envisaged. I have had a brief look at the material which

Miss Crampton has gathered and congratulate her on the amount of research which she has carried out. My main concerns would ; bc for the suitability 1 ofthe building, the cost of setting it up as an exhibition centre, and the organisation required to ensure continual manning of the displays. I can see that: the central location would, have advantages so far as visitors to the city are concerned, but also consider that a rural setting would add some atmosphere.” Cr Rex Lester, Deputy Mayor of Christchurch: “Many millions are spent by producer boards in. promoting New Zealand’s produce. overseas and it seems realistic and good commercial practice to support that investment by an activity similar to

that proposed by Miss Crampton. (The Apple and Pear Marketing Board is an obvious exception.) “The Christchurch City ratepayers alone could not be expected to fund such a Venture, but as they have proved many times, they are likely to accept a fair share of such costs. Promotion of New Zealand within New Zealand generally is lacking — hopefully this proposal will prove to be a stimulus toward positive action.” Mr K. R. McNeil, the Christchurch City Council’s director of housing and property: “Miss Crampton is to be commended for her imaginative proposal. It • has been looked at with interest and has been referred to the Wool Board and to commercial interests. The' council would, no doubt, welcome such an added

attraction to tourist interest here and a further amenity for local crafts. At this stage, comment by the Wool Board on the proposal is not encouraging as it is seen to be lacking in commercial viability. “The council’s Manchester Street premises are firmly for sale and for Miss Crampton’s proposal to proceed, the involvement of commercial interest and a purchaser of the property willing to invest in such a scheme are essential ingredients. I understand that it is still under consideration by the property development firm to which it was referred. It may well be possible that Miss Crampton’s proposal, or an adaptation of if, could be of commercial interest but there is no firm indication of this at present.”;

The reactions of Mr A. L. Mulholland of Darfield, Provincial President of the North Canterbury Branch of the Federated Farmers, and of Mr E. W. Turrell, of Banks Peninsula, chairman of the meat and wool section of the North Canterbury branch, are also favourable. They feel it is an interesting proposal and that if it has any relationship to the flourishing Agrodrome and Cattledrome, it should go ahead. Federated Fanners, from the nature of the organisation, would not be able to put any money in to the project, but the two officers support the concept as such, and if it did get off the ground they would give what support to it they could in the way of advice and expertise.