Draft rules lenient?

Press, 2 October 1979, Page 6

Draft rules lenient?

The North Canterbury Catchment Board is concerned that the Christchurch City Council’s planned regulations to govern earthworks on the Port Hills are too lenient.

Control over earthworks on the Port Hills will pass from the board’s soil conservation committee to the City Council if the Local Government Amendment Bill, at present before Parliament, becomes operative in April, 1980.

A by-law has already been drafted by the council outlining regulations it plans to enforce when it takes control. but at the board’s soil conservation committee’s meeting yesterday the draft was criticised as being too lenient.

At present, earthworks on { the Port Hills have to be ap-[ proved by the Catchment, Board under the Soil Conser- • vation and Rivers Controll Amendment Act. The City Council assists with recoin-I

mendations on the applications.

The new local government legislation will effectively reverse these roles. The Board’s chief soil conservator (Mr R. W. Cathcart) said there would be many administrative advantages in the council’s exercising the controls, in association with its building permit procedure.

Several amendments to the proposed by-law, recommended “to remove any chance of misinterpretation or any apparent loopholes,” have been suggested by the hoard. These include tighter definitions of earthworks, vegetation, clearance, erosion and sediment.

The council’s desire to prevent damage to property caused by iandslip was “uniderstandable, but ignores both the onsite and offsite [effects of erosion.” said Mr Cathcart. He urged an addition to the proposed by-law to cover the omission.

Mr Cathcart said the minimum areas and minimum depths of earthworks proposed by the council were too lenient.

The council has suggested that a “minimum area” under the proposed legislation be “one-fifth of the area on the site” and that a minimum depth be 600 mm. “Earthworks involving a fifth of a 4ha lot would be far too large an area not to be covered by controls,” said Mr Cathcart. “Experience has shown that it is the so-called ‘minor works,’ carried out by the 'home gardener, that cause many of the problems.” An explanatory sentence suggested by the board for addition to the by-law said: “It is not intended to prevent the home gardener from cultivating or carrying out

minor landscaping except where that landscaping involves removal of the topsoil and exposure of the subsoil.”