My reply to the POO TANKS question. In reply to your - TopicsExpress

My reply to the POO TANKS question. In reply to your question. "There has been a lot of controversy regarding the Council installing Waste Tanks on private property around the city. If you become Mayor will you continue to go down this path the current Council has adopted for Christchurch?" I am of the opinion that what we are looking at here is risk transfer for equity. The Port hills decision where EQC is trying to transfer the risk of rockfall and land slides over to Council is very similar to what you are facing there. Council can not mitigate the Port Hills risk sustainably. In my opinion some areas should have been red zoned due to risk which can not be mitigated. There is no legal definition difference between TC3 and the Red Zones. The only difference is the government offer and if council can provide their services as they are obligated to do. There are pockets in Christchurch that have various risks, some can be dealt with and mitigated properly. Be it subsidence causing flooding issues, draining issues, storm-water issues etc. Short term solutions are unsustainable. I am of the opinion that the sewerage pumps are unsustainable. Seismic activity is predicted for the next 20 years in Christchurch. Our problems are not going away. As is it with the flooding issues in the Flokston area and storm-water solutions in South Brighton. Floxton area does not have a buffer for stormwater, council does not have a solution. In fact I would define that a Red zone. South Brighton, Subsidence below high tide. The proposed solution is a short term one, Stormwater basin that is close to the river and only a few centimeters above high tide. Lowest part of the basin is to be below mean high tide mark. Groundwater is to be pumped back into the river. This is in a sandy area and the groundwater flow will be constant. In a sandy soil this will progressively generate an underground river and will eventually fail. There are other cases that I do not have information for. The only difference between the risk transfer in the Port Hills and the other risks is that Port Hills is considered to be live threatening. The other risks have a direct impact on peoples equity. Once this case is concluded it might be possible to challenge authorities for having put residents in this situation. Conclusion: CERA has produced the LURP (Land use recovery plan) that & the District plan control all planning in Christchurch. Including where the land allows where to build or repair houses. And where it is not allowed! I will challenge this plan as it does not consider all the risks that have been identified. Elected or not. I am against short term solutions forced on residents including the waste tanks. We need long term planning and the district plan and LURP updated including all the new risks following the earthquakes. It is no good informing people of these hazards after repairs have been done and all papers signed. I will aim for sustainable recovery. Kia kaha Hugo