Governor’s Bay planning row to be tackled

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33611, 13 August 1974, Page 1

Governor’s Bay planning row to be tackled

(By a local body reporter)

A step nearer to resolving the townplanning row which has split the small community at Governor’s Bay will be taken next week. The Mount Herbert County Council will consider setting a date for the hearing of objections and cross-objections to its reviewed district planning scheme.

Charges have been made that undue weight has been given to the objects of Mr G. F. O’Farrell for developing his extensive land holdings at Governor’s Bay and Allandale, about a mile away.

The nub of the trouble, according to the council’s critics, is the environmental plan for Governor’s Bay-Allan-dale, which was prepared to guide the council in its scheme. Opponents see the plan as leading to undesirable growth and changes for the worse.

This emotional atmosphere, in which speculation appears to have run away with reason, has led to four residents, Messrs G. Kirk. J. Brockhurst, D. Bundy and G. Bain, saying that they will contest the council’s Port Victoria riding seats in opposition to the countv chairman Mr E. R. Radcliffe, his brother, Cr M. D. Radcliffe, and Crs C. C. Manson and G. M. M. Couch. Committee Much of the dissent has arisen from lack of communication by the council, which has discussed its planning scheme as a townplanning committee, and has not fully reported its decisions. It is, however, usual for councils to consider planning details in committee. In fairness to the council, it must be noted that the council has given detailed information to meetings of residents. and that publication of matters relating to Mr O’Farrell’s land was not possible for some months. To do so would have been a breach of law. as he had a Supreme Court action pending to contest aspects of the council’s planning scheme. If the council decides to make a special effort to dis-

pose of the hearing of objections and of the crossobjections to the objections, and to reach a decision before the council elections on October 12, the possibility is that half of the eight members of the new council might be pledged to destroy the plan, even though they had not heard the submissions.

Mr G. W. Lucking, one of the group that prepared the environmental report, said that the group had been left to determine the scope of its survey.

The survey did not cover land at Governor’s Bay already zoned residential, because it was too difficult to rezone as rural, land that had been zoned residential. “We left that well alone,” said Mr Lucking. “We did suggest the creation of new special residential zones of from two to five acres, but this did not mean that you would end up with 20 fiveacre sections on 100 acres. “The idea is to have these groups spread as hamlets, with special environmental planning controls. It is a longterm scheme, for an ultimate population of 1800 over the whole district, including about 800 at Governor’s Bay. “Unfavourable” “This is a long way from the 12,000 to 20,000 people talked about in earlier proposals. If ever there was an unbiased scheme, it is this one. It is unfavourable to Mr O’Farrell, as the maximum number of people that can go on his land would be about 1000.”

About 250 people are enj titled to object to the scheme. I The council has received 23 : objections. According to Mr E. R. Radcliffe, only 4 per , cent of those who are entitled to object have done so, and I only a few of the objectors oppose the whole concept of the scheme. While the other objections came by letter, the Minister of Works and Development (Mr Watt) sent his by a fivepage telegram. His objection is concerned w’ith the plan’s concept, and with changes wanted to preserve coastal land for recreation. Minor points i The Minister’s objection appears to be at variance ■ with the views of both the member of Parliament for the district (Mr T. M. McGuigan) and the Prime Minister (Mr Kirk), both of whom are in I favour of planned development, Mr McGuigan supporting the environmental plan. The council is concerned that Mr Watt has written to 'individual electors and, in its 'opinion, has pre-judged the I issue. Mr Radcliffe says he will take this cuestion up with the Prime Minister. The Canterbury Regional Planning Authority has not objected to the scheme as a whole, but to minor technical questions.

The council’s course now is this: It must advertise the objections, now being collated for that purpose, and set a date for the lodging of cross-objections, giving at least 28 days. It must also fix the date for the start of the hearing of submissions. Indiscreet? The council meeting will be on August 23.' If the dates could be advertised on August 24—and this is unlikely—a month for the receipt of cross-objections would run to September 21, or 21 days before the council elections.

The council may be prepared to sit virtually continuously to complete the hearings and reaph decisions, as the Waimairi County Council did three years ago to complete the review of its planning scheme before the elections. Would this course not be indiscreet. haste by Mount Herbert? Could it be capable of interpretation as an attempt to ram the scheme through? The council has, for various good reasons, proceeded slowly with its scheme. It would be diplomatic to delay again so that the new council could take the hearings, and resolve the objections. Whatever the council decides to do, the exercise will be an academic one. Feelings, even if misguided, are so high that whatever the old or new council decides, new objections are bound to be taken to the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board. Though the council must, by law, reach decisions on the objections, the board, in fact, v/ill produce the final scheme by judging both the council and the objectors.