Appeal boards not ‘nomads’

Press, 27 July 1976, Page 13

Appeal boards not ‘nomads’

A suggestion that planning appeal boards were “becoming the planning authority fod Canterbury” has been dismissed by the chairman of the No. 1 Town and Country Planning Appeal Board (Mr A. R. Turner, S.M.), in a statement after a reported remark by a member of the Canterbury Regional Planning Authority, Mr 1. G. Clark, on June 29. Mr Clark is also reported to have said that members of the appeal boards were “almost like nomads, who come in, pitch their tents, make their decisions and move on without ever being affected by the decisions they have made.” His comments were made after a decision of the No. 2 Town and Country Planning Appeal Board which was critical of the regional planning authority's approach to the question of the amount of land available for residential development in greater Christchurch. Mr Turner's rebuttal said that such an implication was most unfair to members of the appeal board concerned. "The reported comments reveal ignorance of the functions and responsibilities of the appeal boards and imply that the mettbers of No. 2 Board rrase their decisions ligir'v anc without regard for the consequences. "The appeal boards are judicial tribunals. They de-

cide cases according to law and according to the evidence, not according to the personal predilections of their members,” he said. “Each appeal board includes one member nominated by the Municipal Association and one member nominated by the Counties Association. It is true that no appeal board member lives in Christchurch. But for the last three years almost every Christchurch appeal has been heard by the No. 2 Board. That board has a thorough appreciation of the planning problems in the areas and it will continue to do the Christchurch work for the foreseeable future. “Apparently the authority does not accept the finding of the No. 2 Board in its most recent decision, given after considering the evidence of all parties, that in greater Christchurch there is a serious shortage of land available for immediate development for residential purposes, let alone for future development. “One wonders whether the members of the authority have even read the text of that decision. They complain that the Appeal Board is becoming the planning authority for the Canterbury region. But the decision contains a clear call for Christchurch to get on urgently with an inves'iaation into the future growth of its urban area.”