TOWN PLANNING

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27443, 1 September 1954, Page 13

TOWN PLANNING

Sir,—lt is an education to attend the City Council meeting. Cr. McCombs’s —marks in the town planning debate opened my eyes. The districts in dispute are the homes of the workers.— Yours, etc., R. WOODHOUSE. August 31. 1954.

Sir,—May I suggest that a map of the city be published which will show the industrial zones as now defined The average citizen going about with his (or her) interest alert, could prob•bly give valuable practical advice as to the best use for controversial sites What is to become of the good shops in Sydenham when the customers are pushed out? Blocks of fiats should be puat on the sites of derelict houses. Christchurch is the largest city but we have not heard of any plan for State gats here. Auckland and Wellington lie more wide awake. Factory buildings should be multi-storey, so that] several small manufacturers can rent premises in one building instead of a big area being taken up by single or tvo-storey buildings. Every new factory flea should provide for a foundation deep enough to make top additions possible in years to come.—Yours, <te ’ ... SENSE. August 31, 1954.

Sir.—l am not surprised to read of the widespread dissatisfaction with the town planning of this city. My home is buut on a wide quarter acre section, in a main street exactly 15 minutes walk from the Square. The house stands on the front of the section and it thus leaves a big space idle at the back. We decided to use this space by extending the house and erecting three modern self-contained flats. Costs were gone into, and plans drawn up, but when I applied for a permit it was a different story, and the project was abandoned. The area I live in is zoned as special residential, and therefore no more than two kitchenettes are allowed to one house. The space at the back still lies idle, and two p&-sons are occupying a section that otherwise would have housed at least eight—Yours, etc.. CITIZEN. August 31, 1954.