Objections To Proposed Subdivision At Halswell

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27628, 7 April 1955, Page 12

Objections To Proposed Subdivision At Halswell

The consent of the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board to a proposed subdivision in Halswell county was sought at a sitting of the board in Christchurch yesterday. The board’s decision was reserved. Hilda Cameta Simpson appealed against the decision of the Halswell County Council refusing to approve the subdivision of 37 acres on the corner of Halswell road and Milnes road, and against the decision of the Minister of Lands (Mr E. B. Corbett) refusing approval to the subdivision. The board yesterday consisted of Messrs F. F. Reid (chairman), C. H. Taylor, ,and G. Tremaine. Mr J. B. Weir appeared for the appellant, and Mr C. G? Penlington for the Halswell County Council. Mr J. G. Haughey appeared for the Minister of Lands. Mrs Simpson had originally proposed to sell the sections for £250 each, said Mr Weir. Subdivisions of other properties in the county had fetched up to £450 and £5OO 'a section. His client hoped to see workmen settled on her sections, which were 4| miles from Cathedral square and only a short distance' along Dunbars road from the industrial areas of Sockburn and Hornby. The 37acre block was not an economic farming unit, but it would provide at least 100 sections.

Other large subdivisions already approved in the county were the Christ’s College, “Oaklands,” Graham and Muir subdivisions, said Mr Weir. The amenities of his client’s land were equal to those of any of the others, except that the “Oaklands” land was shingly. Richard Francis Simes, a land and estate agent, said that, if the sections could be sold for about £350 each, “I would venture to say that they would all be sold in one hit.”

Herbert Massey Simpson, husband of the appellant, said his wife had indicated in her notice of appeal that the price she had in mind was £250 a section, but she did not intend to be limited by this figure. The price would depend on market conditions,

but she was not concerned with obtaining maximum prices. The Christ’s College subdivision on Halswell road was a mile nearer the city than the proposed Simpson subdivision, said Mr Simpson. A short distance from the Halswell Hotel—which was a mile and a half further along the road—was the “Oaklands” subdivision. The Muir subdivision was a further half to three-quarters of a mile along Halswell road, and the Graham subdivision was not far from the corner of Sparks road and Halswell road.

The county council considered the subdivision to be a detrimental work within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1952, said Mr Penlington. The principles laid down for a distinct scheme also had to be considered. There was at present no formal scheme, though there was an embryo one.

The council considered it desirable to plan for an orderly development of settlement on the fringes of Christchurch, and round the present Halswell township, said Mr Penlington. The Christ’s College subdivision was adjacent to the city, and the other three subdivisions were adjacent to the Halswell township. The proposed, Simpson subdivision conflicted with the council’s policy, for it was between the subdivisions round Halswell and the Christ’s College subdivision, which was now in the city, said Mr Penlington. It was true that the extension of sewerage to the Hoon Hay area and the reticulation of those sections were not expected to be completed before 1959, but the council did not consider that the proposed Simpson subdivision would be an economic proposition for connexion to the Christchurch sewerage system. James MacKenzie, chairman of the county council, gave evidence along the lines indicated by Mr Penlington, Mr Haughey said he wished to make a formal objection to the proposed subdivision, but would not make any submissions.

The chairman of th ' board said that the board might visit the area before coming to a decision.