Objection-time extension refused

Press, 11 July 1980, Page 4

Objection-time extension refused

The Christchurch City Council was asked yesterday either to reopen objections to its reviewed district scheme or extend the period of cross-objections by one month. Mr G. Stone, an executive member of the AvonsideWoodham Exp.essway Association, said this would allow affected residents and p-roperty owners “time to unify their submissions and objections.” However, the council’s town-planning committee declined to act on Mr Stone’s request. Cross-objections to the scheme, will close today.’ r The council had not fulfilled its obligations under.

the Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, to notify property owners affected by designations in the scheme, Mr Stone told the committee. Present and prospective property owners had been denied sufficient knowledge of how the reviewed scheme affected them, he said. This was compounded by a town planning system of “legaluse” which confused people as to their rights and facility to object. Mr Stone cited the case of a paraplegic man who had bought a Woodham Road property this year only to find afterwards that it was partly designated for the proposed expressway.

The council should record designations on titles of properties, he said. The committee’s chairman (Sir Terence McCombs) said it was intended to hear minor matters related to the scheme review before the local body elections; bigger issues would not be dealt with until probably February next year. “The whole process will take a long time to complete and we do not want to push it further out,” he said. Sir Terence did not rule out a deferrment of the expressway hearing if the association requested this early next year. The city planner, Mr W.

T. Williams, said that if itj delayed the hearings the council could be criticised for holding up the objections of other people for the sake of one group. He was doubtful about the council’s powers to extend the cross-objection, period. Mr Williams said he could not see any advantage in this for objectors, anyway. “It would take only one person to object to preserve the rights and interests of all those people involved.” Having a petition tabled at the council would be the same as having many objections lodged to part of the scheme. Committee members were concerned about the pros-

pect of people buying properties and not being aware of designations. Cr N. G. Eattaway said anybody who inquired at the council would be given the relevant information. Mr Williams said such inquiries were made “every day.” “Real estate agents should have the integrity to point out where major designations are on properties,” Cr D. J. Rowlands said. This was the case, in his observations, said Ct Hattaway. The committee adopted Cr Rowlands’s motion to write to the Real Estate Institute, “in general terms” raising the question of property designations.