Talks On Pond Sought

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30560, 1 October 1964, Page 1

Talks On Pond Sought

The ChristchurchLyttelton Road Tunnel Authority will seek further discussions with the Christchurch Drainage Board on the ornamental pond proposed under the authority’s administration building at Heathcote.

I The board wrote saying that it would not accept responsibility for the structure, as it created a hazard, and that any alternative schemes affecting the waterway must have the prior approval of the board. Mr P. J Beaven, the authority’s architect, urged that It should keep the pond. The area was the historic and traditional entry to the Canterbury plains, he said. It had been landscaped carefully and thoroughly. The traditional elements of water for coolness, a stone wall defining the patch, trees for shade, lawns, and flowers would transform an ugly gully into a beautiful garden overlooking the plains. “We have a splendid motor-

way, a historic site,” he said. “Surely all have agreed that this area must be beautifully landscaped, a symbolic entry to a garden city. The assaults of purely rational engineering are destroying much of the careful landscape given by generations who have lived before ** Mr W. Lovell-Smith, the structural engineer for the building, said that the lake, with modifications to the outlet structure and waterproofing he had proposed earlier, presented no flooding or maintenance hazard. This opinion was shared by other engineers with whom he had discussed the scheme, he said. “That these proposals have been turned down by the Drainage Board 1 feel sure is a result of internal politics and tensions within the board,” he said. “The implied suggestion of the Drainage Board engineers that the outlet should be removed would, if carried out, be an act of vandalism, which besides being completely unnecessary, unjustifiable, and costly, would ruin the effect of the careful, well-thought-out landscaping of the site.” He recommended the authority to ignore the Drain-

age Board’s rejection of the scheme and to accept responsibility for maintenance of the part of the waterway affected by the scheme. “We can’t go against the advice of the drainage experts, and in any case the board has authority over water-courses,” said Mr W. P. Glue. “Personally, I think the pond will be dry most of the time.” Describing the pond as “only a footling little thing,” Mr J. B. Collett said the authority should not go into any more expense on it Its job was to administer a tunnel. “We are in a predicament,” said Mr F. W. Freeman. He had-seen water almost up to the back doors of houses in Heathcote township, and it was With that in mind that he had doubts about the pond. If a flood did occur the authority would have a lot to answer. If the Drainage Board gave its specifications for modification of the pool they could be considered by the authority, said Cr. L. G. Amos, but he agreed with the chairman (Mr R. A. Witbrock) that the works committee should hold further discussions with the board.