The Press SATURDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1970. City reserves bill

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32430, 17 October 1970, Page 16

The Press SATURDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1970. City reserves bill

The bill to be presented to Parliament next week on behalf of the Christchurch City Council should unravel the “ tangled skein ” of law that now appears to complicate the control of the city’s parks and reserves. The bill invites Parliament to rule specifically on the change of use of 19 areas of reserve land. These areas include sections of river bank over which bridges have already been built or are intended to be built; the verges of carriageways around Hagley Park, some of which have been used as roadway for many years; a strip of Sydenham Park on the south side of Brougham Street, which for some time has been assigned for widening under the district planning scheme; parts of Latimer and Cranmer Squares; and, of course, the portion of Hagley Park on which the council wishes to realign Harper Avenue.

Apparently all the reserved land designated for roading purposes in the city’s part of the district planning scheme is listed in the schedule to the bill. That being so, all the proposals have been open for objection, further consideration, and appeal. It is clear that some citizens are still not satisfied that justice has been done; some believe that significant protection against impulsive actions by a council would be lost by the passing of the bill; but it would surely be wrong to describe the protracted and thoroughly-debated decisions of the council on the listed areas as “ impulsive

These are matters to which Parliament should give due consideration. But it is to be hoped that members will not unduly delay the decisions that will enable the district planning scheme—itself required by Parliament —to be effected. Although Parliament is usually reluctant to rule on matters that are essentially subjects of local concern, it has provided in the Reserves and Domains Act extra protection of reserved land by requiring Ministerial approval of any change of use or of the revoking of any reservation. When the council submitted its proposals for Hagley Park to the Minister of Lands several months ago. it did so believing that the Minister could exercise the discretion given him by the Reserves and Domains Act Indeed, the Minister believed this too: and barely a year earlier he issued a notice in the Gazette that Hagley Park and numerous other areas were deemed to be recreation reserves subject to the act The application of the act remains subject to provisions in any other special acts and Provincial Ordinances. The Christchurch Domains Act of 1946, for example, secured the exclusive use of the Botanic Gardens; but it clearly made Hagley Park subject to the Reserves and Domains Act Since the Minister of Lands still could not persuade himself of his authority in respect of Hagley Park, it became inevitable that the whole question should be reconsidered. Parliament might well conclude that the proper course is to give the Minister of Lands the same discretion in dealing with these Christchurch lands as he has in respect of other reserve lands. It might well entrench, as an exception, the long-standing ruling on the Botanic Gardens. As for any further intentions to change the purpose of reserved land, the council’s bill proposes that when land is shown in an operative town planning scheme to be roadway, or to be intended for roadway, the Minister may be requested by the council to add this land to the list of areas assigned for roading. All such proposals in a planning scheme are open to objection and appeal. In effect, the bill ensures that Christchurch’s reserved land is accorded more protection than is given by the Reserves and Domains Act

The bill proposes the repeal of the 1877 Christchurch City Reserves Act This act comprehends the promenades and gardens along the Avon River in the centre of the City; Cranmer, Latimer, and Victoria Squares; and numerous small reserved plots throughout the city. The bill will not be complete until it includes a new schedule of these lands, redefined by up-to-date points of reference. There is room for amendment in this bill. There is room for argument as to whether some Christchurch reserves should be accorded special protection beyond that considered by Parliament in the past to be adequate for other reserves. A wider question raised by this bill, not concerning Christchurch alone, is whether proposals to change the use of reserves under district planning schemes should be accompanied by detailed and exact drawings open to inspection by persons who wish to examine the proposals. Should the Minister alone determine contentious roading proposals under the Reserves and Domains Act, or should the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board first rule on such proposals affecting reserved lands? These wider questions deserve full consideration at some suitable time. Their settlement should not be allowed to delay unduly the authorisation of necessary works that have already been too long delayed.