Bowenvale Valley

Press, 3 February 1984, Page 16

Bowenvale Valley

Sir,—At the recent public meeting called by the Heathcote Reserves Action Group it seemed that Mr Lohrey claimed the unanimous support of the Heathcote County Council’s Recreation and Community Development Consultative Committee for his motion at the 1983 meeting disagreeing with the council making moves to purchase the “Bowenvale Block.” In fact, several of us voted against his motion, and at least one member

abstained because of lack of background information. Those of us who voted against it saw the rare opportunity to purchase this land for a wide range of recreational purposes as a positive step showing foresight and vision, and we hope the council’s attempts to secure this land will continue.—Yours, etc.,

CAROLINE OLIVER, MARGARET BUCHANAN, NOELINE WALKER, PRUE BILLINGS. February 2, 1984.

Sir,—Many visitors to Christchurch have favourable and lasting impressions of this city because of the natural beauty of the Port Hills back-drop. Most residents will identify their home city with the hills, while runners, walkers, cyclists, picnickers and hanggliders have intimate appreciation of the hills’ recreational value. If the land is allowed to be subdivided, as has happened to the Huntsbury block, or planted in forest, with consequent tree-felling and logging trucks intruding on the environment, their image and recreational value will change. Mr A. Smith’s action group appears to be parochial and lacking in vision. It desires to create its own sporting fields, etc., without regard to those facilities provided by the City Council. It appears that long-term control of the hills cannot be achieved by zoning regulations, so it is important for councils to own the land to ensure control for the benefit of Christchurch as a whole.—Yours, etc., A. J. DAKERS. February 1, 1984.