Anti-tower councillors not allowed vote

Press, 12 April 1988, Page 9

Anti-tower councillors not allowed vote

By

KAY FORRESTER

Four Christchurch City councillors who lodged formal objections to the Victoria Square tower scheme change will not be allowed to vote on the issue at next week’s council meeting. j

The advice of the City Solicitor is that the councillors should not vote whether to accept the recommendation of the Commissioners who heard (submissions on the scheme change accommodating the tower. "I believe that the filing of formal objections to the scheme change could give rise to a suspicion of predetermination and bias,” said Mr David Palmer, of Weston, Ward and Lascelles, in a legal opinion to the Town Clerk, Mr John Grav.

The four councillors are Crs Alex Clark, Carole Evans, Ruby Fowler and Noala Massey. Cr Massey signed a petition ppposing the tower, but did not seek speaking rights before the panel of commissioners.

All oppose the siting of the tower in Victoria

Square. They received yesterday a copy of Mr Palmer’s i report to Mr Gray, marked for their information. Other [ councillors denied ail knowledge of the repoijt when Cr Clark raised the matter at yesterday’s i policy and finance committee meet--ing. J In theory, the disqualification of the four councillors from voting — Mr Palmer’s' report notes that the rules-of natural justice do not i preclude them from taking part in the debate — gives the protower gijoup the numbers to reject the commissioner's i recommendation to not go ahead with the scheme change for the tower. The September vote which withdrew the approval for the tower but sent the scheme change to

a hearing did so by a margin of only one vote. However, the council seems unlikely to go against- the commissioners’ recommendation. Several councillors — some who voted in favour of the' tower initially — have said there is no point in appointing independent commissioners if the council does not heed their recommendation. Mr Palmer was also asked for an opinion on whether the council could reject the commissioner’s recommendation or whether it was bound by them. His opinion is that for the council to reject the “no-tower” recommendation it must first rehear the case, and all the witnesses and legal argument. itself. He notes that the power to appoint commisssioners

under local government law was to give councils the chance to avoid having to hear and decide politically contentious planning’ issues. | “If the recommendations of the commissioners become the subject of council debate, the purpose of appointing them could be said to be negated.”

i Cr Alex Clark yesterday sought to avoid any "confusion and confrontation” at next Monday’s meeting by suggesting that instead of voting on whether to accept the commissioners’ recommendation the council simply vote on withdrawing the proposed scheme change that necessitated the hearing.!

"That would tidy up any loose ends," he said. “If the council voted to withdraw the change I understand that would be the

end of it. If we accept the commissioners’ recommendations there is always room for appeal.” He challenged the City Solicitor's ruling, but did not want any confrontation at the meeting. -‘•I really do not think there will be- any challenge to the commissioners’ recommendation. It is the principle of the thing.” It is the principle of the matter that worries Cr Evans also. She intends to seek her own legal opinion today on whether she can vote.

“We should 'have been told the possibility of not being able to vote months ago — before we made our submissions. I was offered an opinion by the City Planner that I should hot make my submissions as a concillor but as an individual’ratepayer, so I rlirl ”