SEWERS IN NEW SUBDIVISION

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27098, 22 July 1953, Page 3

SEWERS IN NEW SUBDIVISION

BOARD’S POSITION EXPLAINED

ATTITUDE OF PROPERTY PURCHASERS

“It is fair that the purchasers should know that the board is merely following its standard policy of asking the suodivider to lay the sewers in new streets created by him, and the fact that in this case the purchasers are being asked to pay results entirely from the somewhat unusual arrangement between Mr L. S. Smart and them,” said Mr H. P. Smith at last [evening’s meeting of the Christchurch | Drainage Board. • j Mr Smith said it had come to his notice that the purchasers of sections in Mr Smart’s last subdivision were [under the impression that they were being treated harshly by the board in being asked to find approximately £lOO ekch towards the cost of installing sewers in the subdivision. He understood that they had held a meeting concerning the matter. “I also understand that the purchasers are erroneously under the im- | pression that the board has loaded the cost of this sewer because it is unable to determine the necessary levels, and that although Mr Smart was of the j opinion that he could have the work done for less than the board’s estimate, he was confronted with so many difficulties that he preferred to pay the amount asked by the board, recovering I such amount from the purchasers,” said Mr Smith. - , “In order that the position will be made clear to the purchasers, I would like the engineer to answer the following questions:—(a) Could Mr Smart have' been given the levels within a reasonable time, to enable him to have the work done independently, if he so desired? (b) Did Mr Smart at all times have the alternative of doing the work himself by means of a private contractor? (c) Does the estimate prepared by the engineer include laying sewers through any property other than Mr Smart’s? (d) Were alternative schemes of laying the sewer submitted to Mr Smart or anyone on his behalf?” In reply the engineer (Mr E. F. Scott) said Mr Smart could have been provided with the necessary levels within a week of his requesting them and had the right of any subdivider to lay the sewers if he had so desired. The estimate provided for the sewers in Mr Smart’s property only. If access through adjoining property were not available, the board would have to face extra cost. Three alternative schemes were suggested to Mr Smart’s surveyor —(a) through a deep but expensive sewer in the roads of Mr Smart’s subdivision. This would have been against the grades of the road; (b) by an easement out to the angle of Maryhill avenue; | (c) through the road reserve out to [Maryhill avenue. 'Any of these three alternatives would cost more than the amount deposited by the subdivider.