Town planning

Press, 26 August 1986, Page 18

Town planning

Sir,—On July 31, the Christchurch City Council Town Planning Committee met to discuss the Regional Planning Scheme. I was most distressed at the pace the proceedings motored along. Indeed I ended up not being present at any true discussion as only the councillors who were against the scheme spoke. The Issues raised by submissions presented by concerned groups were not talked about and, I had the feeling, not even heard. Our councillors had rubber stops in their ears. Last year the City Council decided not to seek an amendment to the Christchurch (Reserves) Empowering Act, 1971. This meant Latimer Square would not be touched by road development schemes. This year it has neatly forgotten that promise. I am questioning our council as to why this was not discussed at the meeting.—Yours, etc., HERMIONE FRANKPITT. August 3, 1986. [Cr H. L. Garrett, chairman, Town Planning Committee, Christchurch City Council replies: “The transportation section of the Canterbury United Council's proposed Regional Planning Scheme has been circulated to all constituent councils for their approval or otherwise. The proposals are the result of work done over the last 15 years and, in particular, of the intensive work over the last two or three years of the Transport Studies Working Group, an expert party of reading and traffic engineers and other specialists in related fields. Councillors have traversed the ground frequently and are •pretty familiar with the material. It is at present council policy that it supports the broad planning concepts underlying the Regional Planning Scheme in its transportation section; this was the recommendation that was before the Town Planning Committee and that has now been communicated to the Canterbury United Council. In my absence from Christchurch, the Town Planning Committee meeting on July 31 was chaired by the deputy chairman, Cr Arbuckle. He would have had no intention of ‘motoring’ over the subject, but would have been aware that the matters under discussion have already been very thoroughly canvassed, as would other councillors present — and I, too, had I been able to be there.”]