Skip to content

Deadline looms to restore infilled ditch in east Richmond

The deadline for a property owner to pull down an illegally built wall and restore a ditch in east Richmond is Friday 5 p.m. If it’s not done by then, the City of Richmond will schedule a city crew to do the work at the expense of the owners.
Ditch
Property owners have filled in a ditch and built a wall - the City of Richmond has ordered this work reversed and the area restored.

The deadline for a property owner to pull down an illegally built wall and restore a ditch in east Richmond is Friday 5 p.m.

If it’s not done by then, the City of Richmond will schedule a city crew to do the work at the expense of the owners.

Council affirmed the order at a specially held meeting on Monday, after hearing an appeal from the property owner, who said it was done for safety reasons.

It’s estimated by city staff it will cost $58,400 to remove the decorative wall and repair the ditch.

The watercourse is part of the 320-kilometre network of ditches and canals throughout the city, protected as part of the Riparian Management Area (RMA).

The property owner, at 13740 Westminster Hwy., said they had an engineer design the work, claiming there were rats in the ditch and that it was dangerous, for example, her dog fell in and broke its leg, costing the family $5,000 in vet bill.

John Irving, general manager of engineering and public works with the city, pointed out the installation includes a “small, substandard pipe” that is causing flooding upstream. Even if the property owner applied to the province to allow the structure, it would have to be removed and rebuilt.

“There isn’t any situation where the city could tolerate the current installation remaining in place, subsequent to any provincial approval,” Irving said.

But after hearing the property owner’s appeal, Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie questioned the actions the family had taken.

“You applied for the permit, you couldn’t get it, but you went forward anyway?” he asked the property owner.

“I didn’t have any choice because of my kids, my dog – there’s no safety,” she replied.

She explained the house is on a small lot – a quarter acre – and therefore it’s located close to the ditch.

The property owners have already been fined for the illegal structure.

While the property owner said others had filled in ditches, the city clarified any work on ditches on the same road had been done with permits prior to council adopting the RMA in 2006.

Any infill requests in the RMA would have been denied after 2006, explained city spokesperson Clay Adams.

Minor watercourses, like the ditch in front of this property, have a protected setback of five metres on each side. (Larger ones, deemed “major designated streams” have setbacks of 15 metres on each side.)