SOME OBJECTIONS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 66, Issue 272, 29 August 1946, Page 3

SOME OBJECTIONS

ASHBURTON-HINDS DRAINAGE

COMMITTEES TO MEET RATEPAYERS

Out of the 1800 ratepayers concerned, only eight had objected to the classification of their properties under the Ashburton Hinds drainage scheme, the chairman (Dr. P. R. Woodhouse) told the South Canterbury Catchment Board in Timaru yesterday. They were J. Keith, J. 11. Papworth (Willowby), T. O’Neill (Waterton), W. H. Mulligan (Maronan), A. and G. J. Giddings (Huntingdon), W. L. Maginess, W. W. Lowe (Eiffelton Rural), and W. T. Lowe (Mayfield Rural).

It was possible that some of these objectors might withdraw their objections after the scheme was explained to them further, reported the engineer (Mr P. R. Milward), but authority was requested to proceed with arrangements for a hearing before a Magistrate in the near future. A sub-committee comprising the chairman, engineer, Messrs S. P. Taylor, and H. G. Kemp, was appointed to meet the ratepayers to-morrow and discuss their objections with them.

On the recommendation of the engineer the board decided, that instead of the northern drain of the scheme following the alignment of the existing roads, as originally proposed by Mr H.. G. Royds, it should be placed through the middle of the properties fronting the roads in question, wljere the ground was comparatively low.. In connection with the scheme, Mr Milward recommended that the Ashburton County Council be advised that it would be necessary for it to assume control of all essential water races in the district, as county water races, and that the board should not recognise any race not coming under that category. His recommendations -were adopted, and it was decided to submit them to the County Council. »

Huntingdon Area An alteration to the scheme in the Huntingdon area was proposed by the engineer and submitted to the board on an objection being lodged by Mr A. Giddings to new proposals by Mr Royds, which had been submitted to the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council for approval. Mr Milward reported that Mr Royds had • proposed that the draining of water from above Ford’s road be carried out with a new drain, known as Merrin’s drain, from Lagnihor along the road line, through Giddings’s,-Ves-sey’s, and Robinson’s properties to Ford’s road, and then along the northern side of Ford’s road towards the Tinwald township. As that drain traversed property in an entirely new' cut, notice had had to be given property owners, and it had been then that Mr Giddings had lodged an objection, continued Mr Milward’s report. If the board desired to proceed with that drain, the matter would have to be referred to the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council for permission to do so.

Alternative Proposals

A representative of the District Engineer, Public Works Department, Christchurch, had inspected the property, and was of the opinion that the objection would probably be upheld, added Mr Milward. He submitted the following alternative proposals, which he considered would give satisfaction to ratepayers in the area:

(1) That portion of Merrill’s drain be abandoned; (2) that the existing drain from the junction of the Wheatstone cut-off he reconstructed and taken over as one of the main drains in the scheme; (3) that the balance of Herrin’s drain be retained as at present; (4) that portion of the Wheatstone cut-off be reconstructed to dimensions capable of taking both drainage and flood waters; (5) that the balance of the Wheatstone cut-off be abandoned as a cut-off, but be used by the property owner as ,an ordinary drainage ditch if so desired, and not become part of the board’s main reticulations; (6) that the creek bed southwards be known as the Wheatstone creek, being outside the class A rating area, and therefore entitled only to flood protection. To provide for flood water which would be carried by the Wheatstone cut-off, it was suggested that the creek bed, which was approximately two to three miles in length, could be cleared of by a bulldozer and its size increased sufficiently to accommodate water, the expenditure not to exceed £3OO. That estimate would also include the thinning out of certain willows. With those new proposals the scheme should cost approximately the same amount as before, said the engineer. It was decided to ask the sub-com-mittee appointed to meet the ratepayers to investigate the matter, with power to act.

River Control Ashburton River control was also the subject of discussion at the meeting, when a report by the engineer Avas considered. The engineer’s recommendation that the board grant authority for expenditure up to £267 for discing the cleared areas, Avas adopted. After discussion in committee his recommendation that the pilot channel Avork as proposed by the- Public Works Department below the State highway be not proceeded Avith, Avas not carried. Authority was granted for the cutting of scrub and willow growth below the present cleared area, and any other portions of the riverbed which would respond to this treatment. A pilot channel about Digby’s Bridge to relieve pressure on the north bank was no,t a big job, and members agreed that the Avork, as recommended, be done even if the money had to come from maintenance rates.