TOWN PLANNING BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19406, 14 August 1926, Page 10

TOWN PLANNING BILL.

CRITICISMS' OF SURVEYORS

REPLY BY THE MINISTER.

RIGHTS OF LOCAL BODIES. THE QUESTION OF APPEALS. [ex telegraph.--'special reporter.] WELLINGTON. Friday. Comments made in Auckland at the annual conference of the New • Zealand Institute of Surveyors on the provisions of the Town Planning Bill now before Parliament were replied to by the Minister of Internal Affairs, Hon. R. -F. Bollard, to-da\. Members of the institute described the measure as "fundamentally wrong in principle," "childish in conception," arid "impossible of execution." "I will concede it to the Surveyors' Institute conference," said Mr. Bollard, "that its condemnation of the bill is wholesale, but certainly not justifiable. Personally I think that the wrath of the surveyors has been stirred because the bill does not follow the suggestions made in 1916 by the president of the institute, I will deal separately with the institute's objections to the bill as they were reported in the daily papers.

"In regard to the first objection that local bodies appear to be faced with the whole of the" cost of the betterment schemes it is somewhat hard to understand that opinion, as local bodies are not faced with the cost of a betterment scheme, the betterment provision being inserted with the specific object of requiring owners of land whose property benefits to pay half 6f the ascertained betterment to the local authority. Local authorities certainly have to bear the cost in the first place of a town planning scheme, and it would be difficult to see who else could bear' the cost, but the betterment provision will help toward the payment of such cost. '' ; ' - Decentralisation Question. , "The institute said there • was no decentralisation provision in the bill. Apparently that is aimed at the fact that there is only one town planning board proposed. The question of decentralisation was carefully considered. It was not, however, thought desirable at the present stage to divide the control, at all events until it was s6en whether decentralisation was necessary. It may *be added that it is quite realised, and is a matter for administration by the board, that reports will probably be necessary for the board's information from officials jand_ others in tho locality, concerned, but obviously there is no necessity for legislation to provide for this. Mr. Bollard said there appeared to be some misconception on the part of the surveyors in holding that in the bill, there was too much interference : with the powers of the Municipal. .Corporations Act. "It will be observed," he pointed out, "that the bill provides among other things, in addition to any powers conferred on it by the Municipal Corporations Act, 1920, or in any, other Act, that a borough .council shall have all such powers and authorities as may be .reasonably necessary to give full e'ffect to any approved soheme. If , the carrying out of a scheme conflicts with any. limitations or conditions, prescribed by ,any Act, such provisions mgy ba' modified or suspended by Order-in-Council, but the Order-in-Council has to be,, approved by both Houses of -Parliament before coming into effect.i, .Provision-on similar lines is made in regard to county councils. It will thus be seen that' not only are no existing powers taken from local bodies but their powers are largely-increased." ' ' ; Rights of Land Owners. •

. Referring to the statement that there was no .appeal allowed a land owner except to a town planning board, the Minister said'it. was quite true that the bill did not provide ; for appeal from the decision of the town planning board;' It must be recollected that the board consisted primarily of experts and obviously it was necessary that there, must be some finality in regard to town planning schemes. It would be extremely difficult to get any finality if the decision of the board at any time was upset. If a property was likely to be injuriously affected m consequence .of the operation of a scheme the person concerned could apply for compensation, claims for , which should be made and determined within the time and manner provided by the Public Works Act.

AMENDMENTS TO MEASURE. THE BETTERMENT CLAUSE. [BY , TELEGRAPH.—SPECIAL REPORTER.] . ' WELLINGTON. Friday. • Some' amendments. to the Town Planning Bill are recommended by the Lands Committee of the House of Representatives in a report presented- to-day. The. whole clause relating to betterment is redrafted to provide (hat betterment increase shall mean any increase in value attributable to the preparation or operation of a town or regional planning scheme.; The amount of betterment is to be assessed by the Compensation Court under the Public Works Act in the same way as the .amount, is to be fixed in claims for compensation under the bill, except that the Compensation Court may take into consideration the prospective betterment, through. the operation of the townplanning scheme. . In such claims the local body shall be the claimant and the-owner the respondent. The Court may hear two claims together and apportion, the better-ment-as it thinks fit. : In cases of hardship provision-is made for the amount of betterment being reduced or the time of payment extended. PLEA FOE. POSTPONEMENT.

MEMBERS URGE DELAY. [by telegraph.—special reporter.] WELLINGTON. Friday. Several members to-day expressed the opinion that both the Town Planning Bill and the. Local Bodies' Loans Bill should be postponed until next session. Mr. T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South) said the Town Planning Bill introduced new principles and now that some amendments had been made by the committee to which the measure had been referred he suggested that it should be reprinted in its amended form and circulated through the country among all those specially interested. The bill should be allowed to stand over until next session. The local bodies would like to have a further opportunity to consider it. / Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) said it should be emphasised that the local bodies required a further opportunity of considering the bill. There should be a postponement also of the Local Bodies'. Loans Bill.

Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) requested that these two bills-should be postponed until next session. Very serious, interference with local government was proposed. Mr. G. W. Forbes (Hurunui) said it was absolutely necessary that the opinion of the local bodies should be obtained. It would be a very great mistake to hurry through such- important legislation. He would like to know from the :Minister where was the urgent need for haste. • The Prime Minister ,; d not make any reply to the suggestions.