PUBLIC ANSWERS SOUGHT

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31921, 24 February 1969, Page 14

PUBLIC ANSWERS SOUGHT

The competence of the Christchurch Regional Planning Authority’s report recommending restraint on residential development in the Port Hills, had been publicly challenged and should be publicly answered, Cr R. H. T. Thompson, of the Heathcote County Council, said yesterday.

Cr Thompson, at a meeting of the Heathcote County Council on Thursday, said the report reflected no credit on the competence of the authority. On Friday the chairman of the authority (Mr G. D. Griffiths) said the report had been made only after careful study and long research by highly qualified technical staff.

Cr Thompson said last evening that Mr Griffiths had not attempted to answer specific criticism and he did not believe the authority could give a satisfactory answer to them.

He did not doubt the importance of the authority’s work and he had a high regard for Mr Griffiths even though he took issue with his I comments.

1 The report on the amenity i and potential recreational

value of the Port Hills was grossly defective.

“The assurance of the (authority) chairman that it is the result of ‘very careful study and long research by highly-qualified staff’ means only that the report was expensive as well as defective," Cr Thompson said.

The report began with a patently misleading assumption and then moved into the realms of psychological speculation with dark hints of a neurotic population and some kind of parallel with Hong Kong should any building on the hills be permitted. “No Reference” “If the authority has carried out psychological research in Christchurch no reference was made to it,” Cr Thompson said. The importance of issues which should have been explored in the interests of all were given no consideration. “It is clear that the work which should have preceded this portion of the regional scheme was not ’done. “It is a measure of the Inadequacy of the report that it makes nonsense of the two of the authority’s own proposals to extend the urban fence,” he said. If evidence showed it was undesirable to develop new

suburbs on parts of the Port Hills he would oppose such development strongly. But the report on traffic flow and the D.S.I.R. data on soil quality went some way in supporting the case of those who wished to see residential development on the Port Hills.] “Apparently the authors of technical report No. 3 failed to see this.” It was true the Heathcote County Council would have an opportunity to put its case before the Town and Country planning Appeal Board next month, but it should have been possible to iron out some matters under appeal through discussion and negotiation before that.

“The appeal board should be the last resort after attempts to reach agreement have failed. It should not be a substitute for discussion and negotiation by the authority itself. The present method of procedure is inefficient and a waste of public money,” Cr Thompson said.