MOTION REFUSED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26915, 29 October 1948, Page 9

MOTION REFUSED

ALEXANDRA RESIDENT LAND FOR NEW HOSPITAL SUPREME COURT HEARING On June 19, 1947, Harold Charles {fotman McDonald, then a taxi driver, of Alexandra, lodged an objection against the Vincent Hospital Board's declared intention of taking 13£ acres of his land in Alexandra for the erection of a hospital. Yesterday in the Supreme Court in Dunedin, before Mr Justice Christie, McDonald asked that the Vincent Hospital Board be restrained by injunction from proceeding further with the taking of his land. The judge dismissed the motion and allowed costs to the defendant amounting to £3l 10s, with disimbursements, including agency charges and other expenses. Mr J. C. Parcell, of Cromwell, appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant board was represented by Mr F. B. Adams. In a statement, the plaintiff said he had prepared-a subdivision plan which had been approved by the Alexandra Borough Council. The land was immediately adjoining the town of Alexandra, in which building operations were proceeding at present. He considered that the expansion of the town must in the immediate future bring building operations on to his land. Offer of Land Realising that the board had statutory powers to take land when needed for its reasonable requirements, the plaintiff would be quite willing for the board to take a portion of his land sufficient to enable it to carry out its hospital building programme. “Alexandra recorded a population of 1026 at the census in 1946,” the plaintiff stated. “Based upon what I have been told by local residents, I believe the population of Alexandra to have been equal to this during the dredging boom about 1900. I am satisfied there has been some progress during the past 40 years, but I know of no reason whatsoever to cause anyone to believe that the town of Alexandra or the neighbouring district is likely to increase in population at such an enormous rate as to render a hospital occupying < l3 acres either necessary or advisable.” William Bringans, deputy chairman of the Vincent Hospital Board, said that the question whether the whole, or only part, of the area should be acquired had been carefully considered by the board on several occasions and a decision had been made that the whole of the land should be acquired. The board’s decision had been influenced by views expressed by the former Minister of Health, Mr Nordmeyer, the present Minister, Miss Howard, and by the Director of Hospitals, Dr L. C. McNickle. The board was faced with the necessity of planning for the establshment of an institution that would ultimately replace the Dunstan Hospital, at Clyde. In addition to hospital buildings it would be necessary to provide homes and recreational facilities for doctors and nurses and other employees of the board.

® Counsel’s Plea For the plaintiff, Mr Parcell said that the legislation required the board to act reasonably when individual’s land Was at stake. When the board published its notice of intention to take the land, it had secured no expert opinion of its requirements. Counsel contended that the board was taking too much land. The plaintiff had tried to give the board three acres, but the offer had been rejected. The plaintiff had an investment to protect. Counsel pointed out that the Otago Hospital Board had recently acquired between two and three acres for a new hospital at Roxburgh. The Dunedin Public Hospital itself covered an area of only 12 acres. Counsel submitted that the board should not take land just because it was there. Counsel said that under the legislation, the board had no power to make reservations for the future. The board had plans and specifications for the new maternity hospital, but at the present time the general hospital at Alexandra was just an idea, he continued. “ There is not even a resolution on the board’s books that it will proceed with the general hospital,” Mr Purcell declared. He submitted that if the matter had been placed before experts, the board would have discovered that 13 acres was not rerequired. “ When a local body proposes to take land from individuals, its action must be scrutinised very thoroughly so that when it is exercising its powers it does all that is reasonably required," counsel concluded.

In his address, Mr Adams said that the board had wanted the block of land owned by the plaintiff. The actual acreage was not important—the board would have “ got along ” with 10 acres. Any surplus land round the buildings would be used. According to statements before the court, the population of Alexandra had doubled within the last 20 years. There was nothing to disprove that the board had acted in good faith with, the plaintiff over the block of land. “Reasonableness and necessity ” were two provisions of the Act, and he submitted that the board had proceeded within those conditions. Judge's Remarks Giving his judgment, his Honor said he was satisfied that the board had acted within the powers of the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act, which was its authority for proceeding with • the. acquisition of the land. The only question for the court to decide was whether the body had acted in good faith. “ I have no doubt that the board has acted in perfectly good faith,” his Honor said. There may be a question whether the board should be controlled by the Health Department in its building operations, or merely guided, but I think that a hospital board in any case is well advised to pay serious attention to the recommendations of officers of the Health Department. It appears conclusive that the department, in the circumstances, is of the opinion that the whole area of 13 acres should be acquired. “ His Honor said that a board had to provide a great deal more than the actual hospital buildings. In larger hospitals, and perhaps in Alexandra, it might be necessary to provide buildings for a nurses’ home, the medical superintendent’s quarters, accommodation for staff and recreational facilities. In addition, grounds have to be made as beautiful as possible, under the circumstances," his Honor said. “All patients are not confined to bed all of the time and it may be that they derive as much benefit from the surroundings out of doors than from the medicine poured into them in hospital."