Slip risk may mean homes abandoned

Last updated 08:16 18/08/2012

Relevant offers

Christchurch Earthquake 2011

Cathedral advocates 'appalled' at comparisons Patience needed to change an insurer's view Where to next for our sinking city? Bravery of quake rescuers recognised Does Christchurch have a rat problem? Approach to Key advances EQC claim Homeowner - at 3degC - is over EQC Principals past get on with their lives Council holds out on church repair bid 88 house checks and still waiting

Residents who had to leave six Christchurch homes because of landslide risk may never be allowed back in their homes.

Those living at the affected houses in Lucas Ln, Hillsborough, had to evacuate on Tuesday night after heavy rain created the potential for a landslip behind the properties.

The Christchurch City Council yesterday placed section 124 notices on the six houses, meaning residents were prohibited from accessing their homes.

"Our geotechnical staff have been monitoring the site for the last few days and have recommended the placement of section 124 notices because of the life risk posed by the cliff," council regulation and democracy services manager Peter Mitchell said.

Two of the Lucas Ln homes were abandoned before this week's flooding, but four had still been occupied, a council spokeswoman said.

Mitchell said the council was unable to review the notices until further investigations had been completed, but the notices were likely to remain until October, when the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority was expected to announce land- zoning decisions on the currently white-zoned properties.

A review of aerial photographs indicated the presence of a historic slip on the site.

Ground investigations would be undertaken to confirm the slip and to "better understand the mechanism of this slip", he said.

Ad Feedback

- The Press

Comments

Special offers
Opinion poll

Should the Canterbury Provincial Council buildings be restored?

Yes, they are NZ's best example of high Victorian gothic revival architecture.

Only if the cost can be brought down.

No, $70 million could be used for more important things.

Vote Result

Related story: Provincial chambers repair bill $70m

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content