‘Simple Description’ Baffles

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31145, 23 August 1966, Page 1

‘Simple Description’ Baffles

The “simple, brief description” of the Christchurch Master Transport Plan, written by Mr C. B. Millar, the Christchurch Regional Planning Authority’s director of planning, was criticised by the Civic Trust Board last evening as being anything but simple.

“It’s not very clearly written at all,” said Mr J. Oakley, the trust’s chairman. “It is a very difficult thing to read. Professor Colin Buchanan’s report on the plan was very clear, but this is very odd and strange.” The board received a written appraisal of Mr Millar’s booklet, prepared by Mr H. A. Montgomery, one of its members.

Mr Oakley said it was disturbing to find that Mr Montgomery’s report seemed to indicate that very little notice had been taken by Mr Millar jf Professor Buchanan’s report.

The map at the back of Mr Millar’s booklet seemed to show a bridge ever the Avon at Antigua street and an

interchange at Park terrace, both of which Professor Buchanan opposed. But there was no mention of these in Mr Millar’s text. “So we are rather in the dark there,” said Mr Oakley, “and it is important that we write to the authority for clarification.

“The Regional Planning Authority says that a lot of its proposals were agreed with by Professor Buchanan, but it does not admit that any were at variance with his opinion,” said Mr J. Drennan. “We have got to get the authority to make a clear statement on three important issues—do they propose that the motorway should cross the Avon and Park terrace in a single span; do they propose to have a bridge at Antigua street; and do they propose that all the main approaches to the city centre should be from the east or the west?”

Mr Oakley said Mr Millar’s map seemed very inadequate. “I have no doubt,” said Mr H. G. Royds, “that they intend to make Antigua street —Rolleston avenue—Park terrace a primary road, which is quite contrary to Professor Buchanan’s advice.”

In his report, Mr Montgomery said that Mr Millar’s

booklet was an interesting document in that it was written after the Regional Planning Authority had received and studied Professor Buchanan’s report, “and therefore it might be expected to reveal to some extent the effect his proposals have had on the transport plan. . . . “The Authority has had an unenviable task in attempting a simple brief description of such a complex project We find the result disappointing for two distinct reasons:

“First, perhaps in an attempt to be brief, some of the authority’s proposals remain obscure, particularly in the contentious river - precinct area.

“Sceond, where the booklet is clear and Professor

Buchanan’s proposals are relevant, there would appear to have been little or no modification of the original plan to meet his criticisms. ...

“We find it strange that nothing is said about the proposed functions of Park terrace and Rolleston avenue and that there is no statement as to whether or not Rolleston avenue and Antigua street are to be linked by a traffic bridge, for these are important and contentious issues for the central area.” The trust board decided to write to the authority for clarification of those issues, and to send copies of Mr Montgomery’s report to the authority, the City Council, and other local bodies.