Charges of council prejudice 'hurtful'

BY FRITHA TAGG

Accusations of bias or pre-determination levelled at the Marlborough District Council over the proposed navigational bylaws cannot be substantiated, says the council's lawyer.

The accusations have been made at a hearing in Blenheim this week before a three-person committee looking into the council's proposed navigation bylaw.

The bylaw includes a scale of fees on commercial vessels to help pay for safety and the compulsory placement of transponders on all commercial vessels.

"The criticism was particularly hurtful; council embarked in good faith," said counsel for the MDC Rachel Dunningham in her closing submissions on the proposed changes on Monday.

The council decided to review the bylaw after several reviews of harbour safety.

Its first plan was to have the area of water in the Marlborough Sounds seen as an extension of State Highway 1, and therefore managed at a national level. After a year of lobbying Parliament, central government answered that the area was the council's responsibility.

"Everyone wants safety, but no-one wants to pay," Ms Dunningham told the hearing.

"There has been criticism of the Marico Report 2005 and the length of time it has taken to get the hearing under way. So council updated the report and had it peer reviewed but it is still in draft format," she said.

Many submitters have told the hearing they weren't consulted.

Ms Dunningham said the council had been gathering information for some time and it was impossible to speak in person with everyone.

"The hearing is part of the consultation process."

She said there was little to be gained from the call from several submitters to "start again", and there was still the question of how costs should be met and who should pay.

The current bylaw expires this year and council needs to deal with some changes to implement the new bylaw.

"The committee may decide to recommend all or only some of the changes," said Ms Dunningham.

- The Marlborough Express