WATER SUPPLY BEYOND CITY

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26729, 13 May 1952, Page 8

WATER SUPPLY BEYOND CITY

Further Reports To Council STATE HOUSING APPLICATIONS The Christchurch City Council will adhere to its decision made last month that water connexions outside its boundary should not be made unless the local body concerned undertakes not to object to the amalgamation of the area affected.

Two earlier applications of the Government Housing Department will, however, be granted, and individual cases contiguous to the boundary will be considered (where hardship exists) up to July 1.

An inter-linked water supply scheme for Aranui was conditionally approved by the council, but it was stated that the Heathcote County Council was apparently not now agreeable. A long report on these discussions—all held privately—was presented to the council last evening. A deputation from the Ministry of Works sought further consideration of its request for the supply of highpressure water to two housing blocks contiguous to the city boundary in Hoani street, Papanui, and in Mcßratney’s road, Dallington. The deputation also urged the claims of a group of sections in Bower avenue which the Housing Department had purchased because it considered city high-pres-sure water would be available.

‘Tn the case of the two housing blocks, all the work had been done on the assumption that city water would be available, and in one case a fourinch water main was completely installed,” the report said. “It was also stated that the Housing Department would naturally prefer to deal directly with the City Council.”

It was stated at this meeting that, if these State blocks were supplied, under no conditions could any extensions be made by the Waimairi County Council, nor could that local body be permitted to draw any water through the Government meter. Housing Department officers had approached the Waimairi County Council. who had agreed not to oppose the inclusion of these housing blocks in the city. The deputation had said there was no legal obligation whatever on the City Council to help the Government in this matter, but. as previous discussions with City Council officers had not disclosed any doubt over the possibility of supply, the three cases concerned did merit special favour. "As the council’s decision may pre- , vent a large number of houses being made available, the committee recommends that the applications of the Housing Department be approved subject to the usual conditions and that consideration be given to individual applications from owners of properties contiguous to the city boundary up to > July 1, 1952, where'hardship exists,” the report said. “It is also recommended that these requests of the Housing Department be brought to the notice of the Prime Minister.” Aranui Proposal The Heathcote County Council had suggested that a conference be held to discuss the possibility of installing a combined water reticulation which “would be of mutual benefit to ratepayers in both areas.” The Heathcote representatives stated that the county wished to install a high-pressure water supply at Aranui and that an independent supply could be instituted at a cost of £30,000. They appreciated that there would be immediate advantages in connecting up with the city supply and if, with amalgamation, the supply was to be linked with the city, then connexion should be made at the outset. If an independent supply were installed it would be at a much lower pressure than in the city. It was agreed that if the two installations were interlinked the advantages to the district would include the saving of the erection of a water tower and the availability of a large » reserve of water in emergencies, and that for these benefits the county should compensate the city in some way. The city representatives decided finally that the City Council should agree to the inter-connexion of the two schemes or alternatively supply water subject to (a) the engineers drawing up a scheme mutually satisfactory and making detailed arrangements regarding payment; (b) the Heathcote County Council agreeing that it would raise no objection to the amalgamation of the area with the city when this question was again brought forward.

Reply to Heathcote Claims “Newspaper reports of the county’s meeting indicated that there is no likelihood of the County Council agreeing to the above conditions. It is regrettable that the council has been criticised in the newspapers prior to the formal reply of the county being made available for further discussion by this council,’’ the report said. "Mr F. W. Freeman quotes the Heathcote County Council action in supplying water to Victoria Park as it it was an outstanding service. In fact, Victoria Park, being in the Heathcote County and some miles from the city boundary, should be supplied by the county. Residents of the county have the same opportunity to make use of the park as do residents of the city. The city has had to provide a reservoir, pipe line, and pump from the nearest available county supply to Victoria Park. County ratepayers also benefit from the scheme, and applications for water from the city’s pipe line have been received.” The County Council had agreed to suggest, at a meeting of interested local bodies to be called by the Minister of Works, that the Christchurch Drainage Board be constituted a metropolitan drainage and water board to take over the supply of water in the metropolitan area, so that a supply would be available to gll local bodies in the area. “The committee recommends that any suggestion of the city’s water supply being transferred to another body be strongly opposed,” the report concluded. Cr. J. E. Tait said the council would be dismayed that the proposals had been divulged by Heathcote before an official reply had been received by the City Council. Heathcote wanted to take the city water, yet opposed amalgamation against the wishes of residents and further suggested a new water authority. This attitude ’was deplorable. The Mayor (Mr R. M. Macfarlane. M.P.) said he had never heard of such an action as seeking city help and then proposing that assets built up by the city should be taken over by yet another body. As trustees of the ratepayers, the council would be wrong in serving outside residents who had contributed nothing to the capital outlay on waterworks. said Cr. T. H. McCombs. The council did not demand amalgamation of areas concerned, it simply asked that if they wished to come in the local body would not object.