Cost of Christchurch suction tank blows out by more than $3.4m

A price hike of $3.4 million on a long-delayed water storage tank project in the heart of Fendalton is being criticised as "far too high".

The budget for the planned Jeffreys Reserve project has increased to $6.02 million, up from $2.6 million in 2019, Christchurch City Council confirmed last week.

Head of Three Waters and Waste Helen Beaumont said the increased price tag was due to the increased scope of the project.

However, Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board member and Waimairi Ward councillor Sam MacDonald said he was unhappy with the price.

“It just seems an extraordinary amount of money to have increased in that amount of time,” MacDonald said.

The project will see the current 200m3 earthquake-damaged tank, which supplies water to the north-west of Christchurch, replaced with a 500m3 tank.

Beaumont said the additional scope of the project would include developing new wells, new pumps, an increase in tank size, an electrical upgrade, security fencing and tank cladding, and additional planning and design costs caused by lengthy community consultation.

“This is a significant project . . . to increase capacity, improve the security of supply, and meet the increased requirements of the regulatory framework,” Beaumont said.

Construction is due to start in March next year, with the city council currently looking for a contractor to carry it out.

Planning for the project began in 2017, with work initially intended to be completed by June 2018.

The project is now expected to be completed in March 2023.

Adjusting the design to satisfy the community board and pausing the design to learn from the construction of Bexley’s Ben Rarere pump was the cause of the delay, Beaumont said.

MacDonald said the design was a compromise with the local community, with residents criticising earlier conceptions.

“By the nature of this stuff, you’re never going to please everybody but at the same time, I think people began to appreciate we’d gotten the best compromise we could,” he said.

“It does prove that the council is investing properly in its infrastructure . . . it’s going to be a long-term asset for the community to ensure that we have good water.

“Don’t get me wrong, I’m still not happy with the price.”

The city council declined to provide a cost breakdown yesterday, citing commercial sensitivities.