Legal wrangle over Judge’s jetty bid

Press, 27 January 1988, Page 7

Legal wrangle over Judge’s jetty bid

By

JANE DUNBAR

Complicated legal arguments are being heard over an application by Judge Corporation’s chairman, Mr Bruce Judge, to extend a jetty from his property into the Estuary. Mr Judge bought a property on Beachville Road, Redcliffs, in 1986, and decided to extend his 4m jetty 7.5 m further out.

He said he was looking forward to boating with his children, and the jetty was useable only at high tide.

Some objections were made, and Mr Judge volunteered to reduce the addition to 6.5 m. The Christchurch City Council then approved his application.

That council decision has since been appealed by the Combined Estuary Association (C.E.A.), and

the Planning Tribunal is now hearing the case in Christchurch.

The C.E.A.’s objections have centred on issues such as safety for recreational users of the Estuary and the value of preserving open spaces. Fears were also expressed that if Mr Judge’s application was approved, other jetties and extensions could follow. It is unlikely, however, the case will be decided on any such point. In fact, it may be that the Planning Tribunal should not be making a decision at all.

The debate is now centring on the unformed legal road which runs around the foreshore.

The jetty crosses this road, which is the property of the Christchurch City Council. Mr Judge’s counsel, Mr

Tony Hearn, Q.C., is arguing that as roads can not be zoned, they do not come under the control of the District Scheme, and the council can licence people to do whatever it considers appropriate. If this is the case, Mr Judge does not have to apply for planning consent to extend his jetty, and the Planning Tribunal should not be meeting to decide on the matter at all.

The C.E.A.’s submissions have emphasised that when it is high tide the unformed road is covered by water. Even if it is seen as a road, however, the C.E.A. believes it should still be controlled by the Town and Country Planning Act, and Mr Judge should not be able to extend his jetty for reasons found in the District Scheme.