TOLL PLAZA Unfilled Ornamental Pool Discussed

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32361, 29 July 1970, Page 18

TOLL PLAZA Unfilled Ornamental Pool Discussed

The vexed question of the ornamental pool at the Christchurch-Lyttelton road tunnel administration building, dug ready for filling in 1964 but not filled, was discussed by the Christchurch Drainage Board last evening.

The board received a letter from the solicitors of the Heathcote County Council stating that the council will hold the road tunnel authority, or any other local body which was a party to the construction of the drop inlet structure for the pool, responsible for any resultant damage. “The council has no objec-: tion to expert advice being sought in an endeavour to resolve the question, but it does not see that any useful purpose could be served by the setting up of a tribunal as suggested by the North Canterbury Catchmen Board.” said the letter. The board’s chief engineer (Mr P. J. McWilliam) reported that in May, 1964, the Heathcote County Council wrote to the board about work on the ornamental pool near the toll plaza, and said that no possible danger to the county or its ratepayers could be caused by the installation of the drop inlet structure. Mr McWilliam said the 1 council was informed then by ' the board that it would not c accept any responsibility in 1 the matter, and that in its c opinion the creation of an ornamental pond by the con- 8 struction of the type of inlet c structure installed was a ’ hazard, and the inlet structure 3 should be removed. ® Tribunal Suggested The Road Tunnel Authority j was informed in September. „ 1964, that the inlet should be a removed and that the f original culvert conditions , under the road embankment 0 should be reinstated. The board had considered the matter again in June last year, and it had decided to refer the matter to the North Canterbury Catchment Board. The catchment board considered the matter to be basically technical, and that it should be resolved by a j tribunal of three engineers y appointed by that board after c consultation. One of the con- j ditions of appointing the r tribunal was that each of the j three parties (the Road | Tunnel Authority, the County

Council and the Drainage Board) should abide by the tribunal’s decision. The board decided last evening to inform the county’s solicitors that the drop inlet was constructed without the board’s prior knowledge, or approval, and that the board would not accept any responsibility for resultant damage. A letter from the Catchment Board, read at the meeting. said that because of the attitude of the Heathcote County Council, there seemed little merit in proceeding to

set up the technical tribunal. The Catchment Board said further that it was doubtful whether the drop-inlet structure came within the ambit of the acts pertaining to the Catchment Board. Mr C. H. Russell said it appeared that the ball had been thrown .back again into the Drainage Board’s court; he moved that the question be referred back to the works committee. He said that some further legal advice might have to be sought The motion was carried.