TOWN-PLANNING SCHEME

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21908, 8 October 1936, Page 10

TOWN-PLANNING SCHEME

TERRACED HO

pORTY-FEET FRONTMfHH FOR EACH DWFJ.TJiiaII

CITY COUNCIL’S A'

Terraced houses may be built Christchurch only if each coat Slim' ent dwelling has a frontage of £> least 40ft and the section on it stands has an area of at least' perches. This is the policy at Christchurch City Council, accQrtt#ft to a statement made yesterday the chairman of its town planawpl committee (Mr E. H. Andrews), ajjjKj it will form the most imports® I point for discussion between , council's representatives awl tjpf*'; members of a committee set up tmi cently by the Town Planning who will probably arrive in ■ church early next week. : ||p According to a statement MiMI more than a year ago by the l|SP| D. G. Sullivan, who was then the board proposes that provijpi for terraced houses should be m«KI in the local scheme. The experieqjf., of the City Council with terraatf|: houses had, however, made it that they were not a desirable mE. The Town Planning Board, on other hand, apparently having mind the terraced houses of OMip Britain, seemed keen that proviai«|should be made for them in . Christchurch scheme. The view the council, Mr Sullivan said, that there was a tendency q|: terraced houses to develop intojkMgii buildings. It was mainly on count, Mr Sullivan thought, that'tlip| council was opposing the suggesti«fc but the council had not been able convince the board of the ness of this view. Jny"No Concession” ’\y-' The view of architects to wfaffc|r : the policy of the council was ferred yesterday was that there been no concession to the wishes the board, for no one was likely to ■ build terraced houses with each Balt of such a large frontage as 40ft. It*; was also stated that there was possibility of this proposal being acceptable to the board. . .5 It is now nearly three years sm« the City Council planning scheme to the Town Planning Board for examination and ap»; proval, but Mr Andrews, after yv- . lining the council’s policy expressed the hope that the j coming discussions would enable U». ; f differences between the board anft--,> the council to be settled. The tion of the difficulties, of which ttjfi major one concerned houses, would, he, hoped, mean tQHL I early operation of the- scheme, v-aßr Although the statement made Hb Mr Sullivan suggested that theeomg? cil was opposed to terraced without exception, Mr would not agree yesterday that view of the council as W \ him indicated a change of policy. It 3, was felt, he said, that as eachhouattin a terraced block was capable housing a large family, regulations as to frontage and arM should apply as to ordinary dwell- b ings.

Distinction With Flats “If people want to build terraced? houses the council will have no oe» jection if they can provide a gflPfr - age for each dwelling house of 4B B and a section of 24 perches, be “for these constituent houses can unsold under a separate title. We making a distinction with blocks « % flats. These are usually small and occupied generally by perhaps • couple or at most a very anaH tamy ily, and they are not capable of division for sale.” .. V Mr Andrews agreed that a UUK* of flats could have the same ance as terraced houses, but he the town planning committee JMfe* no objection to the appearance flOterraced houses. The committee chiefly concerned with the dangtf ep|i terraced houses developing slum areas. Such houses led to Cpn* gestion on a very small area, bin* hj his experience there was not tsal-ip danger with flats. Architects who were asked comment on the council’s policy sart it would be uneconomical to f terraced houses with each unit ing a frontage of 40ft. In effect would mean the prohibition of type of building, prppotli '■ was obviously aimed at that. - £