Lake Camp supporters offered some hope – but is it too late?

Nicole Mathewson Reporter from The Press

By local democracy reporter Jonathan Leask:

A councillor fears it might be “too little, too late” for a Canterbury lake as council officials investigate whether a new resource consent could replenish its depleted water levels.

The Ashburton District Council called for a report to understand the potential costs and implications of applying for the consent to re-establish the Balmacaan Stream diversion to help top up Lake Camp.

The lake's water level has dropped considerably, sparking a community campaign to restore its historic water source – a diversion of the Balmacaan Stream, which had a resource consent up until 2020.

Councillor Rob Mackle said he was frustrated that a potentially drawn-out and expensive fresh resource consent application process would have no guarantee of being approved.

“I have grave concerns that this process going forward is going to be too little too late.”

Chief executive Hamish Riach said the report will take at least a month to collate all the information.

It had been made abundantly clear the need for “various studies and reports to be done as part of any consent application”, Riach said.

As well as considering a myriad of things for the application, the report will consider the time required to prepare the paperwork and how long it could take for Environment Canterbury (ECan) to process it.

“Our report will try to canvass all of that process, try to put an estimate of cost on it and give you an idea of time.

“It might even reflect on the chances of success.”

It will also consider impacts as if it was publicly notified, and any objections or appeals could mean the process could take years and have "significant costs”.

Councillor Russel Ellis was cautious of giving “false hope to those who most want this” as the council was only investigating the application, not committing to undertaking it.

Mayor Neil Brown said the report only outlined the work and cost that will be required, and there would be “one more decision after that” if the council wanted to proceed with an application.

At the Lake Camp workshop a week earlier, councillor Mackle grilled ECan, DOC, and Fish and Game representatives over what he described as inaction, going as far as accusing them of “turning their backs on the lake” - a claim they all refuted.

ECan advised the councillors at the workshop that in relation to Lake Camp there are three activities that require resource consent when applying the rules set out within the Resource Management Act and the Canterbury Water and Land Regional Plan: the taking of water; discharging it to another waterway; and the works/building of a structure in a waterway.

Riach said the workshop made it clear the diversion required consent.
“There is no path I can see for really quick, 'needs to be done now' action [as this] involves a complicated and potentially contentious consent.

“It also requires a permit from DOC, so the consent is not the only regulatory approval that is needed.”

Without the consent and approval to reinstate the diversion “nothing will happen” Riach said.


Councillor Lynette Lovett believed the council “has the responsibility to look at it” for the benefit of the community and the whole district.

Councillor Carolyn Cameron didn’t want to enter an “exercise in futility” but supported the report outlining the expectations for any application to help councillors and the community understand what is required.

Councillor Richard Wilson wants the report to thoroughly consider all aspects and what is involved in the process to fully understand the risks and ramifications so the councillors can make an informed decision.

Councillor Liz McMillan said that after hearing from the public and a lot of different people, seeking the report is moving in the right direction.