Heathcote stands firm on authority payment

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32874, 24 March 1972, Page 10

Heathcote stands firm on authority payment

The Heathcote County Council last evening decided not to pay any more than it was legally required as its contribution to the Christchurch Regional Planning Authority for the next financial year.

The council received from the authority a ' copy of a letter from the J Minister of Works (Mr 1

Allen), who had been asked by the authority to resolve the matter of the council not meeting more than its legal maximum.

The Minister said that he had not statutory powers to vary the maximum level of contributing councils, therefore he was not in a position to resolve the authority's problems. The authority had claimed $l4OO on top Of the $2571 which the county had paid as its “legal maximum” required for 1871-72. Covering some of the history which led to the council's decision, Cr R. H. T. Thompson said last evening that the council had not been satisfied with information given on the second transport study made by the authority. The study was criticised on two main grounds—it was claimed that it was unlikely to serve any useful purpose, and that it had been used as a vehicle for promotion and reorganisation within the authority. The council received no reply from the authority, which wrote direct to the Ministar asking him to enforce the council to pay beyond its legal requirements, said Mr Thompson.

This was in spite of the fact that the authority had been advised by its own members that the Minister had no power to make such an enforcement.

The authority had also asked the Minister for more money for its transport study, and the Minister said “I am not prepared to waste any more of the (National Roads) Board’s funds on it,” said Mr Thompson. “It is a kind of comedy of errors, except that rateSiyers of greater Chrstchurch ave already paid something short of $lOO,OOO on it,” said Cr Thompson. “It is quite a serious matter. Throughout we have asked relevant questions and have been persistently ignored or at least unanswered.

“I believe the recommendations we have made are soundly based and will be soundly defended,” said Cr Thompson. ARTICLE The Regional Planning Authority came under fire again from the county chairman (Mr E. L. Tyndall), who criticised an article written in the Town Planning Quarterly Magazine No. 26 by a member of the authority’s Staff, Mr F. S. Robinson. Mr Tyndall said that the article entitled “Protecting the Port Hills,” did not refer

to the Heathcote council by name, but it referred to alleged actons taken by a council to forestall any action being taken by the authority to make part of the Rapaki Path a reserve. Mr Tyndall read extracts from the article and said the whole thing was “a bit on the nose.” He said such comment coming from what was indirectly an employee of the council was a cause of great concern to him, and he moved that it should be taken up with the authoriy. Cr J. M. McKenzie moved that the authoriy should ifisist that its employees in their official capacities should not make derogatory remarks about contributing councils. Both resolutions were passed. The council agreed that Crs Thompson and McKenzie should attend a meeting of the authority to consider its financial position on April