Soil erosion law invoked

Press, 8 May 1982, Page 4

Soil erosion law invoked

A market gardener with land on the Port Hills in Bowenvale Valley Huntsbury, was convicted in the District Court yesterday of a charge arising from his carrying out bulldozing work liable to facilitate soil erosion, last January 27. Mr N. V. Taylor, who appeared for the North Canterbury Catchment Board, which brought the prosecution, said it was the first prosecution in Christchurch for earthworks done on the Port Hills without a permit. The defendant, Enrico Cescon. was charged under the provisions of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act that being the occupier of land in Bowenvale Valley he carried out bulldozing operations on the land in such a manner as to facilitate soil erosion, without the consent of the North Canterbury Catchment Board. He pleaded guilty through counsel (Mr K. A. Flood) and was fined $75 by Judge McAloon. Mr Taylor said large-scale earthworks were , found to have been carried out, involving the widening of an existing track on a hillside and construction of a new portion of track. Spoil from the working had been pushed, over the

side of the cut and allowed to spill down the side. The work had not been authorised by the Catchment Board. Consent would not have been given for work of the nature undertaken. The defendant had since responded to a letter from the board to carry out remedial work to improve soil stability, and minimise the risk of soil erosion on the cut-down surface. Mr Taylor said the maximum fine for the offence was $2OO. Mr Flood said the defendant had been approached by the chief forester at the Bottle Lake plantation for land access to enable logging operations in the vicinity of Victoria Park. He agreed to this in return i for work being done on his track. On discovering the extent of the work done, the defendant had taken steps to remedy the damage, and had employed his own engineer, and outlaid $2OOO. - The. Judge said the work was unauthorised and was not of a type that would have been been approved by the catchment board; had application been madetto it. However, he took into account the remedial work undertaken by the defendant, and the fact that a portion of the widening work was greater than he had agreed to.