Private drains assistance?

Press, 30 August 1984, Page 9

Private drains assistance?

Property owners may get more help from the Christchurch Drainage Board over the piping of private drains. The board has called for a report by its officers on the assistance it gives to residents for the piping of private drains which will not directly benefit the board. The call for the report was prompted by discussion at a board meeting last evening of three separate drains in which the board had been involved. A board member, Mr D. G. Rich, said the board was more interested in helping commercial developers than private citizens to pipe possibly hazardous drains. The board approved a recommendation to make a 10 per cent contribution to the cost of piping Prestons Creek as part of the development of a subdivision in Prestons Road.

The developer involved, William Eldra, Ltd, had proposed diverting the drain to make work on the 32 sections easier and had sought the board’s financial help because the company felt it was unreasonable for it to meet the $65,000 cost alone.

The board had required that the drain be piped by a

900 mm pipeline. It was not mandatory that the drain be piped but the subdivider had suggested it for his own interests, said the board’s engineer, Mr H. P. Hunt. Piping of the drain would reduce maintenance by the board and for that reason a contribution of 10 per cent or $6500 was recommended, Mr Hunt said. The second case involved a subdivision in Olliviers Road, and the proposed piping of Neames Drain. Again the piping of the open drain that ran through the subdivision was not obligatory on the developer, Mr Hunt said. The developer, because of the cost of piping, had proposed using the drain for outfall and fencing rather than piping it. Piping would be better and if the drain was to be left open, maintenance work would have to be done on it, Mr Hunt said.

The engineer had recommended board funding of $16,500 towards the piping of the drain with the developer, Merritt Homes, Ltd, meeting the $BOO necessary for the outfall if the drain was not piped. Piping the drain could be made a requirement of the

subdivision, Mr Hunt said. The board will negotiate further with the developer to reach an agreement. The third case concerned a drain on private property in McFaddens Road. The drain, running from McFaddens Road to Dudley Creek, had been the source of contention and a complaint, now withdrawn, to the Ombudsman. The engineer had suggested the drain could be piped if the property owners, Mr and Mrs B. J. Hawkins, met the cost of the pipes through the property ($900) and the board the $l6OO for the piping across the footpath and the double sump and flap valve. The board’s contribution would be for that part of the work that would be of direct benefit to the board. The board’s policy was not to contribute towards the piping of private drains where the work was of no benefit to the board, Mr Hunt said. Mr Rich argued that the piping of the drain on the Prestons Road subdivision was of no more benefit to the board than the work that was suggested for the Hawkins’ property.

“We seem more inclined to help commercial developers than our ratepayers,” he said. Mr R. S. Leech said that the Hawkins would in fact be receiving well above the 10 per cent proposed for the Prestons Road project, under the proposed contribution. The council decided to ask its operations and services committee to reconsider the Hawkins proposal and to prepare a report on the board’s policy on assistance in the piping of drains on private property.