“Buck passing” on planning alleged

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33370, 31 October 1973, Page 14

“Buck passing” on planning alleged

Which body should be responsible for planning the development or conservation of appropriate parts of the Port and Cashmere Hills was argued at a meeting of the Christchurch Regional Planning Authority.

The authority was discussing a request from the North Canterbury Catchment Board that the authority, in anticipation of needed changes in planning schemes, should make a detailed assessment of the erodible hill country in Christchurch city and the counties of Heathcote and Paparua as a basis for more effective town-planning. The authority’s executive ■recommended that the board I be asked to prepare a map of I the land it considered to be risk-prone for building so that the councils could amend their planning schemes. This was questioned by Mr D. B. Dallas, who said the authority had earlier offered its support to the board, but was now “buck-passing” the issue back to the board. “It is not the Catchment; i Board’s function to determine the nature, direction or timing of urban development.” said Mr Dallas. “There are

-many considerations apart (from credibility, and it seems 'clear that the initiative must jeome from the authority.” He asked that the Director ■of Planning (Mr C. B. Millar) 'should be directed to prepare la step-by-step development plan for the hill country. BOARD’S EXPERTISE “The Catchment Board would have the expertise and would cover a wider area than the authority,” said the chairman (Mr D. B. Rich). “The authority does not zone land.” Mr M. R. Carter said that Mr Dallas was only trying to jwarn the authority that hill country had many problems for service authorities, especially the Drainage Board, and that investigation of i these was properly a planning i function. The authority accepted the recommendation from its executive.