Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Parks bill ‘centralisation’

The National Parks Bill was another example of centralisation, the Canterbury United Council’s regional planning committee decided yesterday. The committee decided that there were several points on which a submission to the Government on the bill from the United Council would be warranted.

It recommended that the bill be.opposed where it encouraged centralisation rather than a shifting of responsibilities from the Government. Since the bill provided for

local authorities to con- . tribute to the national parks, they should be able to participate in park management. The committee also decided to have discussions . with adjacent regional councils so that their submissions : did not conflict. National parks' were of ; national importance, but they were also of regional impor- : tance. They contributed to regional •'economy through ■ tourism and were a main recreation facility for the re- . gion. The committee agreed that

a member of the United Council should be on the national parks boards proposed in the bill. The regional planning committee has decided not to extend its membership to include representatives of interested bodies. The committee considered extending its membership after representations from the North Canterbury Hospital Board, Federated Farmers, the Lyttelton Harbour Board, the Forestry Development Council, and the Christchurch Drainage Board,

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19800717.2.24

Bibliographic details

Press, 17 July 1980, Page 2

Word Count
204

Parks bill ‘centralisation’ Press, 17 July 1980, Page 2

Parks bill ‘centralisation’ Press, 17 July 1980, Page 2