The Star. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1926. THE DOMAINS BOARD TANGLE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18011, 23 November 1926, Page 8

The Star. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1926. THE DOMAINS BOARD TANGLE.

The City Council seems to have got itself into a pretty tangle in the appointment of six representatives to the Domains Board, but the Legislature cannot escape a share of the blame for the creation of constant pitfalls in everything connected with these appointments. The Act of 1913 provided for the appointment of members to hold office for five years, but by one of those eccentricities of which law draughtsmen seem to be capable, no provision was made for reappointments other than on a particular date. This date was allowed to slip by unnoticed, and the position then was that the original appointees would have held office for another five years until the fateful date came round again. To overcome the objection to a ten-years tenure, Parliament made two attempts to clear the matter up with clauses in the Washing-Up Bill, one in 1925 and one in 1926. The City Council determined not to be caught napping again, and proceeded in good time this year to make the six appointments required. But now, owing to another legislative pitfall, it seems that the Council made the appointments too early, hut is now too late to make oilier appointments or to confirm those that have been made. The position is utterly absurd, and it only shows what legislative tinkering can do. The whole trouble has its origin in a desire to appoint members for a term far in excess of the tenure of the local bodies making the appointments. The principle is bad, and may lead to grave abuses. One effect of it has been seen in the absolute refusal of members appointed by the City Council even to discuss the proposal of the Council that it should take over the entire control of the domains. We are not really sorry that this latest hitch has occurred, because it will bring the matter into public notice during the next session of Parliament, and emphasise the need for a complete reconstitution of the Christchurch Domains Board. At present the City Council, though finding four-fifths of the revenue, is outvoted on the board, and cannot induce some of its own nominees—who are entrenched by a five-yearly appointment—to support its demand that the domains should he handed over to the City Council and entirely maintained by that body. “ Never again ” is the resolve of the City Council in regard to such things as carnivals on Cranmer Square, but it seems to he quite prepared to put a bandstand there, and inflict on this quiet neighbourhood many of the objectionable features that attended the recent carnival. The unsuitableness of Cranmer Square for this purpose, from every point of view, but particularly in regard to its unsheltered position, have been sufficiently demonstrated, and there always remains an objection to turning a quiet residential square into a popular rendezvous. The Council, indeed, had its attention turned last night to “ zoning ” generally, and when the Town Planning Act comes into force in January next this question will take on a special interest. Zoning has been defined as a means of protecting the community against the detrimental actions of individuals. The setting aside of certain areas for residences alone, is one of the most important aspects of zoning, which should be an integral part of town planning. At present many quiet residential areas are subject to he disturbed by the erection of factories or motor garages, and there is always the danger, in suburbs like Woolston, that positively offensive trades will be established in residential areas. There is no city in New Zealand that is more deeply interested in town planning than Christchurch, and we hope that a special effort will be made by the City Council to consider every aspect of zoning, hut particularly the preservation of the quiet beauty of the western end of the city, which, to a very large extent, has become the educational centre of the province.