PORT CHRISTCHURCH.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VII, Issue 2018, 3 August 1920, Page 10

PORT CHRISTCHURCH.

THE MAYOR'S SCHEME. REJECTED BY CITY COUNCIL. The Mayor of Christchurch (Dr H. T. .1. Thacker, M.P.) brought up at the meeting of the City Council last evening a motion, of whicli he had given notice, and consideration of which had been postponed several times previously: — That the council take the necessary steps to obtain legislative authority to enable it to construct harbour works on the Estuary of the Heathcote River, in the vicinity of the Heatheote Bridge.

Dr Thacker explained that, by the Harbour Boards Act, 1008, any municipality had authority to make a waterwar on any part of a river that touched tidal water. Referring to the Hiley scheme, he said # that, had it been pursued as originally contemplated, it should have been complete by 1918. He. referred to the deputation that waited on the Prime Minister regarding the port improvements, and to Saturday's deputation to Mr 11. W. McVilly, General Manager of Railways. On that occasion, said Dr Thacker, Mr McVilly had declined to discuss the Tunnel Road, but said that the Hiley scheme would be gone on with as soon as men, money and material were available. The question was not so much that of a port as of a terminal. "We know that the vast majority of the citizens are in favour of Fort Christchurch," Dr Thacker continued, "and the surrounding boroughs and districts have a majority for it. Now it has become a question whether the country is going to override the city. The farmers say that when they get their wheat into a truck it doesn't matter to them whether lit is shipped at Lyttelton or at Fort Christchurch." The Mayor referred to the £4,000,000 that the Hiley scheme was expected to cost, and contrasted it with an offer by Mr W. Forrest Marshall, an English expert, whom he had mentioned on various earlier occasions, to get Fort Christchurch into workingorder at an outside cost of £2,000,000. He had asked, he said, for a Select Committee of Parliament to visit the locality and report on the scheme. Cr E. E. Langley, in seconding the motion, said that it was possible that the Hiley scheme would be carried out, but. the Tunnel Road was as dead as Julius Caisar. On a division, the motion- -was declared lost by eight votes to seven. The voting was: — Ayes: Crs Andrews, Herbert, Langley, Burgoyne, Flesher, Williams and the "Mayor.

Noes: Org Beanlaml, Cooke, Sullivan, Hunter, Armstrong, Jameson, Agar and McKellar.