Travis Swamp

Press, 31 January 1989, Page 12

Travis Swamp

Sir, —The North Canterbury Catchment Board, in its decision on the water right application for the drainage of Travis Swamp, stipulated conditions that would protect much of the northern part from destruction. The Christchurch Drainage Board, purportedly through a quirk in their empowering rules, made the application on behalf of the development company that owns much of the swamp. What I and many others would like to know is what mandate the Drainage Board had to appeal against the protective conditions which, although not recognising wildlife values, do attempt to maintain the wetland and its botany. Was the decision to appeal made by the full Drainage Board and what attempt was made to gauge public opinion on the matter? — Yours, etc., BERNIE CALDER.

January 12, 1989. [The Chief Engineer of the Drainage Board, Mr H. P. Hunt, replies: “As part of the drainage conditions for the development of the area known as Travis Swamp the Christchurch Drainage Board required the developer to apply for a water right in the name of the Christchurch Drainage Board for stormwater discharge to the Avon River. Not all subdivisional developments in Christchurch are required to obtain a water right However, in this particular case it was felt that the community and other interested groups,

such as the one your correspondent represents, should be given the opportunity to present their views. On December 2, 1988, the North Canterbury Catchment Board and Regional Water Board granted the water right with conditions attached. This decision was reported to the meeting of the Christchurch Drainage Board on December 14, 1988. The board resolved that the developer be given approval in principle to appeal against the conditions imposed with the water right in the name of the Drainage Board. To withhold approval to appeal would have been a denial of the rights of the developer in this matter. Any appeal had to be lodged within 28 days from December 2. Any further sampling of public opinion in this time would have been’ impracticable.”]