XN000022-1982-02-19 — Page 12

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1982

NEW LAW ON ROADWORKS PROPOSED

*****

THE GOVERNMENT HAS PUBLISHED A BILL TO REPLACE THE EXISTING STREETS (ALTERATION) ORDINANCE WITH A COMPREHENSIVE NEW ORDINANCE.

IF APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, THE BILL WILL PROVIDE IN ONE ORDINANCE ALL THE STATUTORY POWERS REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTING ANY ROADWORKS. THE BILL GIVES RIGHTS OF OBJECTION TO ANY PROPOSED ROADWORKS AND PROVIDES FOR RIGHTS OF COMPENSATION.

ALTHOUGH THE BILL IS BEING PUBLISHED NOW AND IS EXPECTED TO BE INTRODUCED INTO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ON MARCH 10, THE GOVERNMENT WILL THEN PROPOSE THAT THE SECOND READING DEBATE BE DEFERRED TO LATER IN THE COUNCIL'S CURRENT SESSION. A GOVERNMENT SPOKESMAN SAID THE REASON FOR THIS WAS TO ALLOW AMPLE TIME FOR THE UNOFFICIALS TO STUDY ITS PROVISIONS AND FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

THE GOVERNMENT SPOKESMAN SAID THAT THE GOVERNOR-IN-COUNCIL WHEN CONSIDERING AN OBJECTION UNDER THE EXISTING STREETS (ALTERATION) ORDINANCE HAD ASKED THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL TO CHAIR A WORKING PARTY TO REVIEW THE EXISTING LEGISLATION. THIS REVIEW IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF SERIOUS DEFICIENCIES IN THE PRESENT ORDINANCE, INCLUDINGI-

* THE EXISTING ORDINANCE DEALS ONLY WITH +ALTERATIONS+

TO EXISTING STREETS, AND DOES NOT COVER NEW ROAD PROJECTS WHERE AN EXISTING STREET IS NOT AFFECTED.

* NO PROCEDURE IS PRESCRIBED FOR ALTERING A SCHEME

ONCE GAZETTED, NOR FOR WITHDRAWING A SCHEME.

*

THE MEANING OF CERTAIN KEY DEFINITIONS IN THE ORDINANCE IS UNCERTAIN. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR WHETHER A PERSON WHO IS AFFECTED BY ROADWORKS IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION NOR THE BASIS OF ASSESSING COMPENSATION.

THE SPOKESMAN SAID THAT THE WORKING PARTY HAD FOUND THAT THE DEFECTS AND DEFICIENCIES OF THE EXISTING LEGISLATION WERE SO NUMEROUS AND IMPORTANT THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS INCAPABLE OF RECTIFICATION BY AMENDMENT. THEY HAD REPORTED TO THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL THAT IN THEIR VIEW THE ONLY SENSIBLE COURSE WAS TO DRAFT AFRESH A COMPREHENSIVE CODE RELATING TO ROADWORKS. THEY HAD APPROACHED THIS TASK IN THE LIGHT OF TWO BASIC CONCEPTS. FIRST, THAT THE NEW BILL SHOULD EMBODY A COMPREHENSIVE CODE THAT WOULD SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE BE SELF-CONTAINED FOR ALL NECESSARY MATTERS RELATING TO OR ARISING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWORKS OF ALL SORTS INCLUDING TUNNELS, AND SHOULD EMBRACE ALSO THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING ROADWORKS. SECONDLY THAT WITH REGARD TO COMPENSATION A REASONABLE BALANCE SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ITS NEED FOR THE PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE OF AN ADEQUATE ROAD SYSTEM ON THE ONE HAND, AND ON THE OTHER IN GIVING FAIR COMPENSATION WHERE A PERSON HAS SUFFERED DAMAGE DIRECTLY FROM THE CARRYING OUT OF ROADWORKS. THE WORKING PARTY HAD RECOMMENDED THAT NO COMPENSATION SHOULD BE PAID FOR ANY PREJUDICE CLAIMED TO ARISE FROM THE USE OF ANY ROADWORKS AFTER COMPLETION, OR FROM THEIR EXISTENCE AS SUCH ONCE CONSTRUCTED.

THE BILL.