-
28 -
The suggestion by some Members of the Bills Committee that the objection hearing committee should be an independent body from the Town Planning Board goes against the intention of the Bill. The Administration's views to such a proposal, which is shared by the Town Planning Board, is that it will not assist the Board in hearing the outstanding objections quickly. Moreover, as I explained earlier, the Governor in Council is the plan approval authority. The consequences of having a body outside the Board to hear objections, its relationship with the Board and the Governor in Council and its operation in the context of the Town Planning Ordinance, let alone the likely financial implications, do not appear to have been thought through. The spirit of the extant legislation is to allow the Board to complete its "consultation" process through the consideration and hearing of objections, which are views of the public on its plans, before submitting the plans to the approving authority. The Bills Committee has been advised that these important issues require detailed and careful consideration, and should not be rushed through in the form of a committee stage amendment to the Bill.
In the event, the Bills Committee decided to move a committee stage amendment to delete clause 2. The consequence of the deletion is that the proposed means to quicken up hearing the backlog of objections cannot be implemented and, hence, draft town plans cannot be submitted to the Governor in Council expeditiously for decisions, resulting in possible delays to development or redevelopment. We are disappointed at this outcome but would respect the decision of the Bills Committee.
Clause 3(a)
The Bills Committee supports it which clarifies that a judge may be appointed to the Town Planning Appeal Board. The Bills Committee also unanimously agrees that if in future a judge is appointed to chair the Appeal Board, he or she should come from the High Court or below. The Bills Committee considers that if the Appeal Board is chaired by a senior judge such as a Justice of Appeal, it would create difficulties for the Judiciary if Appeal Board decisions are challenged in the courts, because the senior judge's decision, albeit in a non-judicial capacity, would be seen to be reviewed by a junior judge acting judicially. This situation could give rise to criticism that justice may not be done. We accept the Bills Committee's view and I will move an amendment to clause 3(a) at the committee stage to reflect the Bills Committee's proposal.