Problem of higher sections’ run-off

Press, 24 September 1980, Page 6

Problem of higher sections’ run-off

The recurring problem of new subdivisions being raised above surrounding properties and spilling stormwater on to the lower land was debated again by the Christchurch Drainage Board last evening. Mr C. H. Russell said he had never heard a clear statement about the problem — what the board was willing to do about it, and how to police any remedies — in his 16 years on the board. Until all the land was raised to similar heights, there should be better protection for land that had not yet been raised. The works committee chairman (Mr T. B. Whelan) said the theory was that, in 100 years, all properties would slope, from the back toward the streets. r “In the meantime, I agree that will cause some problems for properties that don’t slope that way,” he said.

Board members were also concerned about the Christchurch City Council’s continued intention to control stormwater from buildings and subdivisions which had an outfall to street side channels or soak pits. Earlier this year, the Drainage Board considered a report on plumbing and drainage regulations as they applied to private piped stormwater drains, and decided to administer the regulations on such drains within the board’s district. Aside from the City Council, all metropolitan local bodies in the board’s district agreed to that approach.

Mr A. S. Cockburn asked whether it would be better, under the circumstances and for the public’s sake, for the Drainage Board to hand over all its functions to the Christchurch City Council. That would make drainage responsibilities clearer to residents. He had been on

the board for three years, and it was his last meeting, but he was still 'as confused as when he started about where one authority’s duties ended and the other’s started. •

“I have been here a long time, and I am just as equally confused, maybe more so,” said Mr J. F. Davidson.

Mr Russell said Christchurch must be unique in New Zealand, with its plumbing and drainage administered by one authority, and its stormwater by another.

But he said it was “quite clear” that the council had no authority to delegate part of , its authority to other than a registered drainlayer. The council had suggested that some minor stormwater connections did not have to be installed by a registered drainlayer if the work was on a private property and was in accordance with a valid drainage permit.

Mr Russell said that went outside the scope of regulations, and he would challenge the council’s right to allow such installations. Mr R. S. Leach said the City Council was at fault in this case: “It cannot be a law unto itself.” He said people needed to know where help could be received immediately when they had problems.

“More important than a Drainage Board member’s confusion is the people’s confusion,” said Mr M. J. Dobson-.

Railways share The Railways Department should be willing to pay at least half of a $356,000 Addington Drain flood relief project since it would alleviate frequent flooding in its workshops and some adjoining streets, board members said.

An agreement should be reached with the Railways Department before work

proceeded on the project’s $220,000 first stage, they saidf

Mr Whelan said the board should leave itself room to manoeuvre With the Railways on the size of a contriubtion. He believed that the department was willing to share the cost. “Of course they are. it is all public money,” said Mr Davidson. “They will only add it to the national debt.” Still confidential On a 7-5 vote, the board decided to keep a confidential Ministry of Works and Development report on Mount Pleasant drainage problems in committee. Mr Davidson, a long-time advocate of the board’s doing more to help some property owners in the problem area below Billys Forest, said there was no reason why the report, stemming from a Ministry of Works study of the problem for the Minister of Works and Development (Mr W. L. Young), could not be discussed now in open meeting. Subsidy delegation

Mr Davidson said he was disappointed that the Drainage Board would not make its case for special flood-re-lief subsidies to the Government until after the localbody elections. “We have ’a case to make, and it is sad to let the opportunity pass for this board at least, to have a crack at the Prime Minister,” he said. Mr Dobson said that metropolitan residents were already carrying a substantial financial burden in trying to improve the drainage system. Although the board had “done a marvellous job over the years,” it vzas “coming to a crunch point when major works will have to be done on rivers to keep ahead of the problems.”

Some works in the Heathcote River could be even more extensive than the proposed Woolston Cut.