THE DRAINAGE CONFERENCE

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1791, 17 November 1879, Page 2

THE DRAINAGE CONFERENCE

A deputation, appointed at a conference re the question of drainage held between the different Road Board representatives and the Sydenham Borough Council, waited on the Drainage Board this morning ; the deputation consisted of Mr Olcphane (of the Heathcote) and Mr Flesher (of the Avon). Sydenham was not represented. The members of the Board present were : Mr Tancred (chairman), Harman, Boes, Duncan, and Brown. The resolutions were then taken into consideration clause by clause. The Chairman requested the deputation to explain their views. Mr Olephane remarked that the demand upon "the thinly-populated district by the present rates were regarded as excessive in in proportion to the benefit derived. He pointed out that the way to have proceeded should have been to commence with the thickly-populated districts, and gradually progressed; as it was, the amount spent in Ohristohurch was very much greater in proportion to the amount paid by each individual than was the case in a district like the Heathcote. Mr Duncan opined that it would be well for the Board to have the specific cases of com* plaint before the Board, as there appeared to be certain grievances referred to in the resolutions passed at the conference. The Chairman read the first clause, which, said that the Drainage Board had not done justice to the Borough of Sydenham, and other suburban districts, in their drainage scheme. Mr Flesher, speaking as to the sense of the resolution generally, about which as to the wording he thought there might be some milconception, said that the idea intended to be conveyed was that the benefits derived from the drainage in the districts named were nothing like commensurate with the proportion of rates paid. The Chairman pointed out that the Sydenham Borough Council was not represented. Mr Flesher said the first part of the resolution originated entirely with the works committee of the Borough Council. In answer to a question from the deputation, The Chairman said that the £IB,OOO for the outfall drain was included in the £25,000, upon which Christchuroh had to pay the interest last year. Mr Hobbs read those clauses in the Amendment Act under which he said the rates had been levied. Mr Flesher asked what the outfall drain referred to was.

Mr Hobbs—lt is the new outfall drain, from the East belt to the estuary, and the Board had to make an estimate of the amount to be expended in this direction for the year. Sir Fleeher said, while the Ohristohnroh city was being largely improved in drainage, the suburbs were not so benefitting. The Chairman said all drainage must first pass through Chriatohurch. Mr Flesher said that might be true as to sewer drains, but not with regard to the surface drainage into the river. Mr Duncan pointed out what bad been done with regard to putting down sewage pipes to carry away the water to the river till oonneotion could be completed with the sewer system. Mr Hobbs pointed out that £3500 had been expended in the Avon district in cutting open water courses. Mr Flesher said he should like to refer to that subsequently. But what the suburbs, in the first place, contended was that the Drainage Board might have done better by providing the suburbs with the means of carrying away surface drainage and stormwater instead of devoting the funds to forwarding the deep sewer in the city. The Chairman said the answer to that was that the city paid for the works done. Mr Flesher said that was not looked upon as any satisfaction. After some further discussion, The Chairman read the third of the resolutions in support of which the deputation were acting. Mr Harman asked the deputation for an explanation of the term " benefit derived." Mr Clephane said he might explain by saying that one portion of his district could never be proportionately benefitted by any work to be done by the Board. Mr Harman said that the Board had to consider the district as a whole, and could not deal with particular parts. Mr Clephane said he had already expressed the opinion that the drainage had been carried too far, and one part of the district had been excepted. Mr Harman pointed out that the district had been defined and the loan raised on security, and therefore no alteration could be made. In reply to a question from Mr Harmar, Mr Clephane said the district north of the canal should be exempt, but generally he thought the Boad Board could have done all the drainage of the district for 6d in the £. Mr Flesher said a large amount of money had been spent on an outside swamp district whij was being levied on a cottage population. Further explana'ion having been entered into by the Board, The Chairman ta\d it was proposed to answer the deputation in writing, and the object now was to discuss the matters referred to as fully as possible. The various resolutions were then discussed, in the course of which Mr Hobbs remarked that he believed that by the time the whole of the loan was expended £50,000 or £BO,OOO would have been spent on the city as against £120,000 spent in the suburbs. Finally, Messrs Harman, Hobbs, and Duncan were appointed a committee to draw up a reply to the deputation.