The Press FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1961. Unfair To The Club?

Press, Volume C, Issue 29459, 10 March 1961, Page 16

The Press FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1961. Unfair To The Club?

We print today a letter in which the president of the Canterbury Club (Mr C. J. Ward) criticises our reporting of the recent decision of the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board and our editorial comment on that decision. “From your “ headlines and editorial ”, wiites Mr Ward, "many of “ vour readers must have “gained the impression * that the case was argued “on the suitability of our “site for a civic centre"; and he goes on to say that the club’s appeal referred “ purely ” to the zoning of the property and that it was upheld by the board. To this we could reply, quite briefly, that our report was concerned not with what the club argued or did not argue, but with the findings of the board; that we reported these findings faithfully, accepting the board’s own definition of tne issues before it and making as plain as the board did its disclaimer of any responsibilitly to consider alternative sites. But Mr Ward’s contention deserves proper consideration. If accepted, it would mean that there was no other issue, or more fundamental issue, before the appeal board than the question of zoning; and this is contradicted by the first finding of the board. The club ignores this finding in claiming a victory in the appeal proceedings. “ The “ Press ”. on the other hand, interprets the findings of the board as a victory for the City Council on the major issue and a victory for the club on a minor one. The question turns on whether the suitability of the site was in question before the appeal board. When counsel for the club during the proceedings raised the question of alternative sites the chairman of the board interposed, saying that the board was not charged to examine other sites “ tut “ only whether the taking “of your clients’ property “is justified or desirable Then—not now—was the time for the club, through its counsel, to say it did not

dispute the suitability of tne site; whereupon the board have been relieved H>f the responsibility of on it and F would have been left with I the comparatively minor ' task of directing how the intention of the City Council should be given effect to in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Regulations. But the chairman did explicitly accept that responsibility of pronouncing on the suitability of the site. And this question was vital. If the board had pronounced the site unsuitable the whole project would have ended there and then; the club would have been left undisturbed, and the City Council would have had to start anew on the selection of another site for a town hall and to scrap its forward-looking plans for a civic and cultural centre in the club area. This, as we understood it, was the fundamental issue before

the board; we believe that this was the public’s understanding of the issue; and we believe it was also the understanding of the appeal board itself.

The board did not hold the site unsuitable; it was “ satisfied that the site is “ intrinsically suitable for “ the designated purpose ”. That was the simple reason and, in our opinion, the abundant justification, for the heading to our report: “ Club Area Held Suitable “ For Town Hall Site ”. Further, far from the board being “ purely ” concerned with the zoning of the property, the board, in its decision, says it was concerned “ to inquire whether “or not the proposal to “ site the town hah and “civic centre on the block

“. is contrary to Town “ and Country Planning “ principles and practice ”. The board found that the proposal was not contrary to 'these principles and practice, which is only another way of saying what it said in the first paragraph of its judgment—that it regarded the site, leaving aside any question of alternatives, as “ in- “ trinsically suitable ” for the purpose. In the second paragraph the board found that the City Council erred in the method by which it set out to reserve the land for civic purposes; and in the third paragraph it directed the simple amendments to the town planning ‘rheme necessary to make these designations effective. Whether these findings will prove advantageous to the club by increasing the market or compensation value of its property remains to be seen They are clearly, in our opinion, of less significance to the public than the first of the' board’s findings. It hardly needs to be added that “ The Press ” would be very sorry if, through inadvertence or misunderstanding, it had given its readers a false impression of what was the fundamental issue in the appeal. If it had done so it would, of course, have wronged not only the club but the appeal board itself, which is entitled to have its findings fairly and accurately reported The club thus has the means of putting the question to the test. It is entitled to ask the appeal board for an opinion whether our report was accurate and factual and whether undue emphasis was placed on minor considerations to the detriment of major. If the board held us at fault we would willingly accept correction, apologise to the board, and make suitable amends to the club. We would suggest further that the board should at the same time be asked to pass judgment, applying the same tests of accuracy, factualness, and emphasis, upon other versions of the board’s findings that have been or are being offered to the public —in Mr Ward's letter, in the circular that the club has sent to its members, and in the reports of any of our contemporaries.