BOARD ENDORSES PLAN FOR HARBOUR EXTENSIONS

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27396, 8 July 1954, Page 16

BOARD ENDORSES PLAN FOR HARBOUR EXTENSIONS

“The public of Christchurch will never be able to say again that this board has no policy and does not know where it is going,” said Mr W. S. MacGibbon, just before the Lyttelton Harbour Board at its meeting yesterday agreed to a proposal to frame legislation for a harbour enlargement scheme to cost £3,500,000. Mr Mac Gibbon said that when the scheme went before the ratepayers, he hoped the vote for it would be outstanding, The scheme embraces road and rail access with transit sheds for three 600 ft ships at a new wharf, and a new breakwater running out from Sticking Point. The board also agreed that the draft legislation be circulated to local bodies in the board’s electoral district, and to the apropriate Government departments for study and invesitgation. The chairman of the board (BJr F. E. Sutton).said in his report that on June 22 marine superintendents of overseas shipping lines had visited Lyttelton and Christchurch and examined in detail the technical and navigational aspects of the proposed harbour extensions. In submitting their reports, the superintendents had given consideration to an extension of the tunnel to the south to provide for a greater navigable area in the new harbour and/or an extension of the proposed mole to provide added protection for vessels lying alongside the new quay during range operations, said Mr Sutton. When those points were raised it was virtually agreed that both those matters could be attended to without undue additional expense. The general opinion was that while the extra area was necessary the question of an extension to the mole could be held over in the meantime.

“The Overseas Shipowners’ Allotment Committee has considered the report of the marine superintendents and in a letter dated July 3 commend the board on the steps taken to extend the harbour, and state the scheme has the support of the committee,” Mr Sutton said. “In view of the endorsement of the scheme by this committee after the visit of the marine superintendents, it is my view that the board should now proceed with the preparation of empowering legislation so that ratepayers in the board’s district may be given an opportunity of approving or rejecting the extension proposals .at a loan poll.”

They were fortunate to have such general agreement with the shipping authorities, and he thought with the general public, said Mr G. Manning. Mr Sutton’s report was described by Mr F. W. Freeman as the most important report from a chairman during his association with the board. “We are on the eve of something for which this board has been struggling for 60 years,” he said.

When Mr Mac Gibbon moved the proposal to prepare legislation—a motion adjourned from the June meeting— Mr E. C. Bathurst said other ports were advancing and spending money. If the port was extended it could attract more trade from the area he and Mr P. J. Mowat represented. Timaru had greater handicaps to overcome than Lyttelton, but was going ahead. If charges were kept down to a level which would attract trade, the alterations would benefit the whole province. Air Traffic Mr Bathurst said he did not think air traffic would ever handle large volumes of freight which went through the port. ° Air services were right for speed, but they could never compete in passenger traffic with the sea, said Mr W. P. Glue. In its best quarter in 1953, the USS?? I Airways Corporation handled 27,720 inward and outward passengers at Harewood. That was about 300 a day The steamer express service could take 1800 a day when loaded. Airport dues totalled about £lO,OOO or £ll,OOO a year, compared with harbour dues of £138,000, he said. Mr P. J. Mowat said that in the minds of most people there were three reasons for supporting the extension scheme. They were (1) There was to be more shippnig and the board had to cater for it; (2) More ships, and bigger ships, had to be handled; (3) If the extensions were carried out the tunnel road would go through. Was there to be a continued increase m trade at Lyttelton? asked Mr Mowat. Were they going to get better facilities for road transport? He had yet to learn of any serious hold-up in taking goods from Lyttelton. At present six vessels of 15,000 tons or more could be handled. For this to be increased to nine, the board was going to spend £3,500,000. He did not think the whole province should be put to an annual charge of £215,000 just as a lever to get the tunnel road. Christchurch would pay £86,000 a year, and Christchurch would benefit most from

the extensions and the tunnel road. Outside areas would pay £129,000. Was it fair to expect outside areas to pay the biggest part of that rate? “I say this in spite of the unwarranted and unfair attack made on country members after our last meeting by a Christchurch newspaper,” said Mr Mowat.

It was no wonder Christchurch was known as “Sleepy Hollow,” said Mr N. R. Forbes. Nothing came forward of a constructive nature without opposition being raised immediately. It was the board’s duty to plan for future generations, said My Manning. Mr Mowat: Hypothetical. Mr Manning: Yes, very hypothetical, but Moorhouse did not put the tunnel through the hills for the small population Canterbury at that time. Mr Mac Gibbon said he was proud to feel the atmosphere there was in the board. Bluff had gone ahead with a £5,000,000 scheme, Dunedin wanted a new scheme, Timaru was going ahead and had rated the people for it. They knew that if they did not improve their ports they would lose trade and lose prosperity. Lyttelton was small but the bestequipped port mechanically in New Zealand, said Mr Mac Gibbon. The public knew that Lyttelton was going ahead to become one of the most important ports, ff not the most important.

When the motion was put, the only dissentient vote was from Mr Mowat, who said he was pledged to oppose the levying of a rate.