TOWN PLANNING BILL

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27131, 29 August 1953, Page 8

TOWN PLANNING BILL

“ GENUINE ATTEMPT TO CREATE ORDER”

SECOND-READING DEBATE CONCLUDED (New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, August 28. Hie bill was a genuine attempt to create order out of chaos, said Mr T. L. Hayman (Government, Oamaru), when the second reading debate on the Town and Country Planning Bill was

resumed in the House of Representatives today. It was designed to give some direction, but not dictation unless absolutely necessary, he said. The Government did not subscribe to the Socialist idea of complete planning, operated from a central point with few individual rights, Mr Hayman said. The present measure set out to preserve the freedoms of the individual and of the local authorities. Adequate rights of appeal were given; so were rights of compensation.

Planning might prove expensive, said Mr Hayman, but the outlay would be repaid by the provision of amenities and comfort for all to enjoy.

Mr C. L. Carr (Opposition, Timaru), said most New Zealand towns had grown up “like Topsy,” with houses among the factories, and with heavy and light industries mixed up. It would be difficult to correct this position. “We can plan for the future, but it is very difficult to plan for the past,” he said.

Mr Carr said he trembled to think what would happen in Wellington’s narrow streets in the event of a major earthquake. The cul-de-sacs, narrow streets, and blind alleys of the capital would prove dangers to human life in any disaster. Mr E. H. Halstead (Government, Tamaki) questioned whether the bill had “enough teeth in it” to encourage the recalcitrant local body to develop a plan in the interests of the people in its area. Similarly, was there suffi-

cient power to deal with the landowner who could hold up the implementation of a plan? Criticism by Mr Skinner The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr C. F. Skinner) said that, desirable and all though planning might be. it would be impossible to put the bill into operation unless money, labour, and materials were made available. There seemed to be indications that the Government was undoing the good work done by the Labour Government, and was now reverting to a policy of centralisation.

Mr P. Tait (Government, Napier) said the bill was based largely on the plan put into effect in Napier after the 1931 earthquake. Napier, he said, had one of the best town plans, simply because the Borough Council had adopted the approved Government scheme. However, he did not want to see another national disaster such as the Napier earthquake before cities and towns were replanned. Miss M. B. Howard (Opposition, Sydenham) said she hoped the introduction of town-planning schemes would mean that industry with smoke stacks was kept out of residential districts, or, if this were not practicable,- that smoke arresters were fitted. Replying to the debate, Mr Goosman gave an assurance that there would be ample opportunity to appeal against the inclusion of any Government works in a town-planning scheme. Mr J. Stewart (Opposition, Arch Hill): There are too many grounds for objection in the bill.

Mr Goosman: That may be so, but there should be co-operation and not dictation, and the bill provides the avenue for co-operation. The Town-Planning Board, under the old legislation requiring local authorities to come to Wellington to submit their plans, was one reason why that legislation did not work, saicf Mr Goosman. It was far better, as was proposed in the present measure, for the towns themselves to draw up and administer plans, and call on the advice available. Local Body Responsibilities Local bodies, he said, had the responsibility of formulating plans and submitting theifi to the people for approval. The local bodies heard objections. and appeals from their decisions could be made io the appeal authority. Practically all the responsibility was given to the local bodies who governed the towns. The people would be the final judges of the plans. Replying to a question from Mr Stewart. Mr Goosman said that all the 292 local bodies would not be required to produce Mr Stewart: The people’s opposition will be determined by necessary additions to the rates.

The Minister said that this might be so. He could not agree with those who claimed there were too many grounds for appeal. He agreed that there must be a limit, and added that the application of these appeal provisions would have to be studied.

The bill was read a second time, and referred to the Local Bills Committee.