THE PRESS SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1980. Christchurch Hospital’s growth

Press, 20 September 1980, Page 14

THE PRESS SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1980. Christchurch Hospital’s growth

In its efforts to provide the best services possible for the citizens of Christchurch at a hospital built on a confined, awkwardly placed site, the North Canterbury Hospital Board has, through the years come up with several proposals concerning the development of Christchurch Hospital. Some have given the impression that they would threaten the quality of adjacent areas. Two proposals are the subjects of discussion at present. One is the building of a permanent bridge into the hospital grounds from the southern end of Rolleston Avenue; the other is the use of houses at the western end of Cashel Street for clinics. The first scheme is to go ahead soon; the other is in abeyance.

Opponents claim that both developments will make less attractive for its designated purposes an area reserved for residential and cultural uses. The primary designations of this area for these purposes are wise. They are not in dispute. Encouraging people to return to living closer in to the centre of the city makes good economic and social sense. There is a growing realisation that the constant spread of suburbs on the city’s periphery makes the provision of services unduly expensive and discourages the development of a satisfactory urban life in the centre of Christchurch. So long as fostering such life is a goal, it is somewhat contradictory to complain that such new departures as using houses for clinics will lead to disturbing levels of activity in the area.

A higher level of activity is something to be encouraged and people who have chosen to live in such areas, should welcome it, not deplore it, so long as it is hot so incompatible as to cause a genuine disturbance of residential life. Some of the most satisfying urban areas overseas are areas in which a great variety of activities are permitted; offices, small shops and businesses, and flats can be successfully mingled together. Such a mix should be the aim for the area into'which the Hospital Board is said to' be encroaching.

Perhaps the only serious drawback if commercial and other non-residential uses extend into the areas zoned for housing is ‘ that rates increase as properties gain a “commercial” rather than a “residential” value. If this is found to be inhibiting a return to citycentre . Jiving , in Christchurch, steps . shbuld be taken to avert its happening. For this reason,' ajjart frOm the. heed to •, consider carefully whether clinics will - be acceptable, neighbours,- the Christ? f church City Council was right to defer a final consideration of the Hospital Board’s request until it can be included in an over-all review of the district planning scheme. . ■

The tolerance and even encouragement of greater activity in the area should also apply to the increase in traffic which will be generated by the hew,: permanent, bridge. This need not be regarded as unacceptable, provided that passage across the bridge is restricted, as it must be to accord with a Planning Tribunal decision. Perhaps the interpretation of the tribunal’s ruling need not be so narrow that the disabled or infirm who are using, the hospital’s services are put to the inconvenience of being excluded from the vehicular use of the bridge. Perhaps their needs can be met through later developments on the hospital site when other convenient access may be available.

It would be reassuring if the board could relate such specific developments to an over-all plan, so that the city and the area’s residents could know they were not opening the gates to more than they are prepared to accept. The fact that it was after new buildings were completed on the hospital side of the river that a permanent bridge was deemed necessary, though only fop emergency purposes, suggests that the board has not planned as carefully as it should have. The board, admittedly, faces a difficult job keeping the hospital running while it is, in effect, being rebuilt on a tight site. This should not excuse the board from providing guarantees that nothing in its plans will lead to hospital activities which are truly incompatible with predominantly residential use of the area.

This particular debate must be related to a much bigger question about hospital development. In response to what has been read as a public demand for economy in building large hospitals, for the creation of medical services closer to where peonle live, and for the greater care of patients in their own homes, a policy has been adopted to restrict the growth of hospitals. At the same time, the demand for services in central hospitals is undiminished, and it will remain so until alternative sendees are offered elsewhere. These services, of course, may reproduce in the suburbs, exactly the kind of objection that has been raised against the proposed clinics near Rolleston Avenue and Cashel Street.

The expansion of the hospital may be temporary. If this is so, some plan

must be devised so that “temporary”

can be defined. Such a plan depends on c policy and, the provi§imr of'funds; the board does not command either. Unless a local solution ■ can be found to. the contentions, the final answer: lies in the national policy on medical care and in the speed with which a new kind of service is provided and accepted.