Protecting Individual From Local Bodies

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31123, 28 July 1966, Page 18

Protecting Individual From Local Bodies

(New Zealand Pre«« Association) WELLINGTON, July 27. Protection of the rights of the individual from powerful local authorities and state departments was said to be the fundamental idea of the Town and Country Planning Amendment Bill which was given a second reading in Parliament tonight.

“It is too easy for local bodies to get carried away over town and country planning and swamp the individual,” said Mr J. H. George (Govt., Central Otago) when the debate opened.

the amendment had a negative approach—-an attitude of saying what might not be done in certain areas—a zoning rather than a planning scheme, be said. The Environment It was a failing of present planning that it did not regard the environment as such, Dr. Finlay continued. An overriding authority which could properly consider the needs of a metropolitan area could approach what had been a nagging problem. It was difficult for a local body to make a comprehensive plan, knowing the Crown at any time could override it. Regional planning authorities existed but they had no real authority and no power of initiation. Some government must review the situation to see that under the legislation those charged with town and country planning really planned and not zoned. In the meantime, how could a positive approach be expected when the whole approach of legislation was negative, Dr. Finlay asked. “Thorough Review” The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Seath) said that the bill was the outcome of a very thorough review of town and country planning legislation. “There can be few measures which have in ■recent years received such a i thorough and critical examination as this one,” he said. He told the House that all

concerned, including the Government, must be vigilant in recognising and correcting the “unforeseeable social effects” of the operation of this legislation. The Government had a special responsibility where those affected were people whose interests could be overlooked when pressures from more powerful interests were brought to bear. As an example he cited the owners of residential properties in industrial and commercial zones. Last year the Rating Act was amended to alleviate effects of the zoning on the rates those people had to pay. Big Notices Mr A. J. Faulkner (Opp.. Roskill) told the House local authorities in Britain had to erect big notices when changes in a district planning were intended so the local population could see notice of the changes in the street. He said the New Zealand Law Society was in favour of a similar scheme in New Zealand and added it would be an easy matter to carry through by regulations. Mr W. A. Fox (Opp., Miramar) said every individual in the country was entitled to protection if he were forced to move from his hotise. There was a clause in the bill which provided for compensation to be paid but he ■did not think this was enough. Most people would (prefer a similar house in a (similar locality.

Planning inevitably meant some sacrifices for someone. This sacrifice should be cut to a minimum both by the provisions of the bill itself or the authority invested by the bill, he said. Dr. A. M. Finlay (Opp., Waitakere) told the House he did not know what to say about this or any bill which did not embody a radical reappraisal of the prickly problem of town planning. Both the present Act and