Gondola hearing might go before commissioner

Press, 21 February 1986, Page 5

Gondola hearing might go before commissioner

The rejection by Heathcote County councillors of a proposal to change the council’s District Scheme to allow the Mount Cavendish gondola project to be fully and impartially considered meant that the application would have to be heard by an appointed commissioner, said the County Chairman, Mr Oscar Alpers, last evening. Mr Alpers, who was the only councillor in favour of the scheme change, rather than the usual application for a specified departure, said councillors had been lobbed by residents, and this meant the application should be heard by an independent commissioner. “We will discuss it at the next town-planning meeting,” he said. “But it is virtually automatic. The council cannot be suspected of not having an impartial hearing.” The proposal was forwarded from a previous town-planning committee meeting, but councillors voted not to adopt it, and referred it back to the town-planning committee, asking that the County

Clerk and County Engineer prepare a written report covering the procedures for a scheme change or a notified application.

About 25 residents and members of the Heathcote Valley Community Association attended the meeting. The association had written to the council expressing its concern about the proposal to initiate a scheme change, rather than let it proceed as an application for planning consent. The proposal to initiate the scheme change was first suggested after an informal gathering of members of the Canterbury United Council, the promoters of the project, and the Heathcote County Engineer, on December 16.

After the meeting, which was believed to have been organised by the chief executive of the United Council, Mr Malcolm Douglass, the United Council sent a letter to the Heathcote County Council suggesting the gondola proposal be treated under a scheme change. The United Council said

this would widen the opportunity for public objection.

The County Engineer, Mr David May, said last evening that the scheme change would give residents more time to lodge objections, as it allowed one month for objections compared with the 21 days allowed by a specified departure application.

The final decision would be made by the council in both cases, he said.

The community association, however, said it meant that many individuals would be able to claim an interest and this would lessen the effect of the public’s objections.

“We feel our rights of objection are actually enhanced if the greater public are restricted in some degree,’ . the association said.

The association said it was not concerned with time limit differences, and it believed it could rely on the local authorities to give greater notice on an application for a specified departure than

the minimum 21 days.

“The suggestion, instead of helping the association’s cause, would assist the promoter overcome the obstacle of facing more than one town-plan-ning hearing and would put those who objected to it against the council, with the promoter behind the council. “Scheme changes are inititated by a council when it perceives the need to rezone, not when a developer or promoter decides he or she would like a zoning change to accommodate a business,” the association said.

Supporting this view, Cr Margaret Buchanan said it appeared the scheme change proposal would smooth the road for developers and water down representation.

“I do not want to be opposing the project, but I do want to see democratic procedures,” said Cr Buchanan.

Mr Alpers said he did not want to see the council throw unnecessary obstacles in the face of the developers of an imaginative project.