PROPOSED BILL TO PRESERVE SUMMIT ROAD SCENERY

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29871, 11 July 1962, Page 15

PROPOSED BILL TO PRESERVE SUMMIT ROAD SCENERY

The draft of a proposed bill, the Christchurch jmmit Road Scenic ProtecAct. 1932. which would npcwer a trust beard to ,c:...-e land up to the stifn- : of the hills and 100 feet tow the Summit road be- < en Mc4t.Pt Pleasant read d Cooper's Knob “pro.ted land" so that it could be subdivided below 10; cs or built on. .was dis-' i--ed at a meeting last The meeting was convened I the Summit road ad-1 :y committee of the! -puna! Planning Author- ; and was attended by rep-! entatives of the Christ-1 inch City Council, the Lyt-I .ton, Riccarton. Kaiapoi.' d Rang.ora Borcug.i Coun-i s. and the Halswell. •hccte. Maunt Herbert. to.:r.a,ri. Eyre. Paparua. d Rangiora Ccur.ty CcunT.to chairman of the nal Planning Authority .1 E J. Bradshaw), who - dcd. said that the ret and draft bill would be : i: cd officially to the .1 • -‘.ls represented at the .ting iplus the Springs ::‘y Council, which had ned to attend the meetand landowners who : be affected by the procontained in the bill I If ■:■>■:■ councils approved of; bill, in its present or I : led form, it would be to the authority’s legal . t. Then the support of I ■al members of Parliament ,iid be sought in putting bill before the House ofl .pre rentatives and having enacted as local legisla739 Acres Involved The land recommended for toction comprised 739 •re- along about 15 miles the road, between Mount ta-ant road and a point t s uth cf Cooper's Knob, tween the skyline and a' nt, ur line 100 feet below; road, said Mr Brad-haw ; T i proposed trust board d d;e!2re all er any parts' t'.i ; land "protected land”) ■i t i.s land it would have; p wcr to prohibit ab'u'toy the subdivision of; i to less t u an 10 acres d to prohibit, or aorove. orove conditionally, the ■ cticn or extension cf any! s'ructure. or pole : the land. The proposed bill would; ve the trust board power! compensate owners whose I nd suffered any harm be-1 use of any prohibition ex-'

ercised by the board, said Mr Bradshaw. The trust board could buy or lease any of the lands in the area, hold such lands in trust and improve the lands as it saw fit, and otherwise treat the land as if the board was a local authority in accordance with the provisions of the Reserves and Domains Act. The trust board could delegate all or any of its powers of purchase or lease to any one or more of the loca’ bodies contributing to the board. Thus, the board could be wound up if all the land were acquired or leased, and its functions cf maintenance and improvement carried ou by a council or councils. Compensation

Mr Bradshaw said that the compensation for owners harmed by loss of revenue or prospective revenue from the “protection” of the lands would have to be paid by contributions from councils represented on the trust. The value of the land at present was £18,500 If the contributing councils were to rate at I'looth of Id on the total rateable value of the boroughs and counties 'including Springs county, he levy would be £10,893 Thus, in two years, if all the landow’ners sought compensation. that could be paid to them. However, u would be unlikely that all landowners would want to subd vide and erect buildings in two years. It had to be pointed out. however, that the value of the land was bound to rise as the years went by. Under the proposed bill, Mr Bradshaw- said, the money for compensation of landowners would be paid by the City Council but would be a debt recoverable by the council from the other councils according to their contributing shares. The City Council would be responsible for providing all officers and facilities necessary to give effect to the decisions cf the trust board, the cost of providing such administration to be charged as an expense cf the trust board. The bill proposed that the Commissioner of Crown Bands in Christchurch, the District Commissioner of Works, and a person appointed by the Regional Planning Authority should be members of the board. In addition, the following

■; contributory local bodies should be represented on the trust board as follows:—City Council (5). Lyttelton <l>, Riccarton (1). Halswell (1), Heathcote (1). Mt. Herbert (1) and Wsitrairi (2). Eyre County C ttintvl (tEyreton riding) and Kaiapoi Borough Council (1). Paporua and Springs County Councils (1), and Rangio.a and Ranoiora County 'Rangiora riding) C-uneils (1). “I take the liberty of' sugi jesting th: t every membqr ’resent w u’d feel guilty of criminal neg! gence if we did not take s'.ees to protest tihe 'cen'c boauty cf the Swnmit •■cad, wiych is an asset not nly to Cior.'s'church but to all those areas su- 1 ounding it.” Mr Bradshaw said. “The only trub'.e we had; was in deciding how far to rst our net. The Springs • unty hrs decided that it is o-.t involved, but we will end the council a copy of his report and draft of the bill never.*hele-s.” | Answering questions, Mr, Bradshaw, the Chief Su.--| veyor of the I.nnds and Survey Department in Cmisthurch (Mr J. M. Grant) and 'be Regional Planner (Miss N. Nor'hcroft) said tihe Crown would mt be bound, by the pr.p sed b'U if it be--'me lew; the protected area if land could be extended, : n the bill, to Gobble's Pass f the contributing councils deefred it, and tors would make tihe Wriwera County, Council a contoitutory mem-| ber; it would not be possiblei to moke the trust board a netioral institution. Mr Bradshaw said that the; committee had previously; met landowners. The land-' owners had shewn no violent t opposition to the protection f scenic amenities but had. not wanted their title to; lands affected in any way.] Under the draft bill, the trust board would have no intention of taking any land against the owner's wishes. ; Subdivisions! Area Mr B-adsbow agreed with' Mr G. v. n Asch (Ha’swetl) '.'.rat there was a subdivisional area, near Marley bill, in the land to be made “pro-, tected." He thought that this land must be included, but; ‘hat the owners, when they applied for a buildimg permit, would be ccmreneated for the loss of not being able to do so because it was “protected land." Mr R. A. Young (Heath-"r-.'e) said he thought that the Regional Planning Authority should be congratulated on the work it had put into its report and into the draft bill. The proposal to protect the scenic amenities of the Summit road showed vision and foresight, qualities that Mr H. G. Ell had shown. He felt that all present, and all ratepayers, must approve of the proposal to protect the Summit road in perpetuity.