‘No alternative found to Hagley Park road’

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32604, 12 May 1971, Page 1

‘No alternative found to Hagley Park road’

Endeavours had been made, without success, to find an alternative to a route across Hagley Park, the Mayor (Mr A. R. Guthrey) told the Parliamentary Local Bills Committee at its sitting yesterday in Christchurch.

Mr Guthrey said that Professor Colin Buchanan, the British town-planning expert, invited by the Christchurch City Council to examine the roading master plan, had been unable to find an alternative.

The scheme had been given much publicity since its first inception; neighbouring councils were involved, said the Mayor. The Citizens' Association in 1965 and 1968 had made the roadins proposals one of the mam planks in its policy and it had been returned with majorities in the City Council, he said The Harper Avenue diver sion would be most attrac tiveiy landscaped. Witnesses for the Christchurch City Council and the Christchurch Regional Planning Authority said that the diversion of Harper Avenue from the Carlton bridge to Salisbury Street to link with the one-way street system was the most satisfactory solution to traffic congestion.

1 the best for environmental , purposes, and the least costly , way of making the proposed > Fendalton-Avonside motorl way achieve its purpose of > relieving the future volume of traffic in the existing inner city streets. Sitting today f The Parliamentary Local , Bills Committee is hearing j evidence in connection with' . the Christchurch City (Reserves) Empowering Bill (No. . 2). It will conclude its sit- . ting in the Provincial Council Chambers today. The committee sat until 6 , p.m. yesterday and heard . seven witnesses. It is sche- , duled to hear 11 more witj nesses today and will start at i 9 a.m. i Members of the committee , are: , Mr L. F. Sloane (National, Hobson) chairman; the Minis- ' ter of Internal Affairs (Mr Seath): Mr R. M. Barclay (Labour, New Plymouth); Mr J. G. Chewings (National, Invercargill); Mr D. A. Highet (National, Remuera); Mr J. L. Hunt (Labour. New Lynn); Mr J. F. Luxton (National, Piako); Mr H. L. J. May (Labour, Western Hutt); Mr J. G. O'Brien (Labour, Island Bay); and Mr L. C. Schultz (National. Hauraki). ‘Red tape’ In welcoming witnesses and members of the public to the sitting Mr Sloane said that he had to mention remarks made by Mr Guthrey and reported in the newspapers after the meeting of the committee in Wellington. He could not agree with the Mayor that the sitting had been “red tape” and a “waste of time,” Mr Sloane said. "The wish of many people to cut red tape is reasonable and often a worthy exercise. But ‘cutting* as against ‘brushing aside* is a different matter.” he said. The amendments to the . Christchurch City (Reserves) I Empowering Bill made by the : City Council were such that t it became a new bill, said Mr : Sloane. The decision of the committee that the amended I bill was a new one—and had i to be advertised so that objectors could know of it—was the decision of the com- ' mlttee, and the correct one. Mr Sloane also referred to public remarks by the Mayor when the proposed road

through Hagley Park was started. Mr Guthrey had said: “Let’s do the work and have the laws later." ‘‘That attitude was quite rightly strenuously opposed," said Mr Sloane. He ruled that having made those remarks in his opening address, they were not to be the subject of debate. “It is unusual indeed for <the committee to sit outside I Wellington. However, be that as it may, we are here to see the ground, to hear evidence and to let the public of Christchurch hear,*’ said Mr Sloane. Mr Guthrey said that the committee was very welcome and particularly because the hearing was open to the news media and public. "The City Council has nothing to hide," he said. “We are pleased you are here to see for yourselves the parks and reserves in question. We are pleased the public will know all that is said.” History given Mr Guthrey gave evidence of the history of the proposed road through Hagley Park since it was proposed by the

Christchurch Regional Planning Authority in 1962. It ; was part of the master trans- ' port plan for the Christchurch metropolitan area, and the plan had been widely circulated. The Mayor was questioned , at length by Latour ntemi bers of the committee about the Qty Council’s action in starting the diversion. He maintained that the council thought its action was legal, and that it would never have started the work if it had known that the work might l be illegal 1 The City Engineer (Mr P. ' G. Scoular) questioned on the point, said that his depart--1 ment had not thought the ! work would be illegal. The ■ City. Solicitor (Mr J. K. : Brookman) said that the • council had the power under the Domains Act to do the i work. It had not been 1 thought that changing of the : park from a domain to a re- : serve would alter that power. 2000 objections I Examined by members of the committee, Mr Guthrey ' said there had been a conflict ' of opinion. The City Council ' had a duty to conserve and • to add to reserves, but it ! also had a duty to see that . traffic could flow easily to 1 the residential and commercial properties in the city. More than 2000 objections had been heard and considered.

Mr Sloane said: “As far as I am concerned, we are here to find out if the road is a good one, if it will work and if there is any alternative.”

Mr Guthrey said the City Council had made many modifications to the planning authority’s original concept The council had decided that Harper Avenue should be diverted instead of a new road’s being put through the park from west to east, and had resolved that instead of an overbridge at Perk Terrace there should be level bridges.

Latest views Cr N. G. Pickering, a Labour member of the City Council, in his submissions said that the principle of bringing traffic into the heart of Christchurch was

contrary to the latest views of traffic experts and town planners in other cities round the world. The road through the park must be looked at not only from the standpoint of its effect on the park but also its effect on the city centre.

“My view, shared by many others, I believe, is that traffic should not be encouraged to come inside the city belts. I strongly support the upgrading of Bealey Avenue in place of the proposed park road to Salisbury Street with its ultimate maze of roading network in the city centre,’’ he said. Cr Pickering said he enS. number of parking on the three city motorist to rely on a modem public transport system to take him into the city and out Mr R. R. Livingstone, a valuer and development planner, said that if the road through the perk was approved it would be a precedent almost certain to whittle away parks and reserves in other New Zealand centres. He said that the bill before the committee had not

been presented fairly to the public because of “incompetence and muddling.” It would force more traffic through the city centre. He said that if the Fen-dalton-Avonside road was to be a motorway It should have a fly-over at Park Terrace. He objected to this, and therefore to the proposed motorway. Mr Livingstone proposed an alternative of widening the Carlton bridge, widening Harper Avenue and Bealey Avenue and placing, ultimately, a fly-over between Harper Avenue and Bealey Avenue east of Papanui Road.