Could N.R.B. do more to avoid bad planning alongside roads?

Press, 28 March 1979, Page 2

Could N.R.B. do more to avoid bad planning alongside roads?

. The National Roads Board was not willing to exert its strong influence, in planning issues that affected State highways and limited access ; roads, said Canterbury ; Regional Planning Authority [officers yesterday. But several Planning Authority executive committee members said the detached stance from planning 1 hearings might not be such a bad thing. The authority’s regional traffic engineer (Mr J. L. Robb) said some hearings concerning proposed roadside land uses would be unnecessary if the Roads Board simply used its power to say that a licensed access for that use would not be given, no matter what the hearing decision. .“It is important that their attitude is available when the hearing is held,” said the Planning Authority’s chairman (Mr D. B. Rich). Mr Robb said the Roads Board stance was “one of its serious blind spots,” since it; made bad planning decisions] easier. In the end, the board itself had to spend extra] money, on intersection im-'

provements, for example, when inappropriate developments were allowed alongside a road. Such spending could be avoided if the board acted earlier, Mr Robb said. | Surely it was up to the [planners to give a lead, said Mr T. M. Inch. The Roads Board was “telling them] quite clearly” that the lead should be taken by planners, not Roads Board administrators. “If they are left with an increased bill, is that any business of ours?” asked Sir Terence McCombs. Leaving decisions to the Planning Tribunal was inadequate without Roads Board evidence to help the appeal body make a decision. According to a Planning Authority staff report, the Roads Board response “indicates a lack of understanding” by assuming that “all will come right when the tribunal has established [enough precedents. [ “By that time, much of [the public investment in [roads will have been negated, and the board will

, have to raise more money to patch up the results of its ■ inactivity. The problem of this waste of diminishing re- . sources is ignored.” j Because of disagreement about what the Roads Board . role should be, the Planning I Authority will ask for clari- ; fication of its letter. II Part of that letter said the I board did not want to act in an autocratic way, but ! would accept the Planning Tribunal as a competent , arbiter in planning matters.