Supreme Court SHINGLE PIT PERMIT

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28922, 16 June 1959, Page 8

Supreme Court SHINGLE PIT PERMIT

Appeal Against Refusal Decision was reserved by Mr Justice Haggitt in the Supreme Court yesterday when Ashby Bros, Ltd., sought a writ of certiorari quashing a decision of the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board which refused the flrm'the right to open and operate a shingle pit in Waimakarirl road, Belfast For Ashby Bros.. Mr E. S. Bowie submitted that the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board, in dismissing Ashby Bros’, appeal, was wrong in law and had gone beyond its jurisdiction. Mr G. S. Orr, who sppeared for the board, offered no argument, but strongly opposed an application for costs against the board. Mr W. K. L. Dougall appeared for the Waimairi County Council, joined as second defendant. Ashby Bros, had applied to the Waimairi County Council for a permit to establish the shingle pit on March 23, 1958, said Mr Bowie. "There was no need for such a permit as the law stands, but in the light of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1953. no doubt it was thought wise to apply,” Mr Bowie said. On April 29, 1958, the council refused the permit, basing its refusal on section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which dealt with detrimental works.” Mr Bowie said. , Appeal Lodged An appeal was lodged to the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board on May 23, 1958. “The grounds set out in the council’s reply as respondent in the appeal were slightly different from the original grounds, but essentially they followed section 38.” Mr Bowie said. The new grounds were that the establishment of a shingle pit would detract from amenities of the neighbourhood, which were to be preserved under the council’s undisclosed scheme. "In its decision, the appeal board found no evidence that the establishment of a shingle pit would detract from the amenities of the neighbourhood,” said Mr Bowie. “The proposed pit was on a plot of land adjoining an area reserved for industrial use. “The board could only dismiss or allow the appeal on the basis of section 38,’’ submitted Mr Bowie.' "Either it should have allowed the appeal on the ground that consent to the permit should not have been refused by the county council; of It should have dismissed the appeal if it found that consent had been properly refused under section 38. “To do anything else was. I submit, an error in law, and went beyond the board’s jurisdiction." Mr Bowie said. But the board had proceeded to base its decision on a ground not found at all in section 38. 7316 ground on which the board purported to base its decision was a principle in the Town and Country Planning Act, forbidding any structure, excavation, or other work that would be a physical obstacle to any work likely to be constructed in the area. “It would be necessary for the board to And that the pit would be an obstacle to any likely work in the area but there was no evidence of that,” said Mr Bowie. "In dismissing the appeal, the board went outside section 38 and exceeded its jurisdiction.”

PYRAMID MOWER CLAIM

Further Evidence For Defence A claim that the Pyramid experimental mower had mown 900 acres in three weeks in February, 1955, was described by a defence witness as nonsense yesterday when the claim by Pyramid Machines. Ltd., against W. H. Price and Son. Ltd.,' was continued in the Supreme Court. Robert Alistair Garden, a schoolmaster, told Mr R. A. Young he had workefl on mowers and balers in the Hawarden district during vacations from school and university for about six or seven years. In the 1954-55 and 1955-58 seasons he had worked for Baker Brothers, of Hawarden. There was generally very little mowing done Irom the middle of February to the first week in March. If it was said that an average of 300 acres a week was cut in the district in three weeks from the middle of February he would say it was "nonsense.” To Mr R. W. Edgley, Garden agreed that the amount of mowing in February would vary quite considerably with the season. To mow 300'acres a week more than 40 acres would have to be cut each day and even if the tractor would travel as fast as that there was a speed above which the cutter-bar would not mow effectively. “Have you any reasons for this being nonsense?” asked counsel. Garden replied that even in an exceptional season between February and March it was doubtful if there would be enough mowing available to contractors to keep one mower going steadily for three weeks. He agreed that there could have been quite a lot of mowing done after he had returned to university at the beginning of. March. Garden said that under good conditions he would mow for an average of 12 to 13 hours a day. He would average about three acres an hour under normal conditions. Raymond William Moore, a farm worker, said that during the 195455 season he had seen a Pyramid mower working on a farm. It gave a “fair bit of trouble” in clover but seemed to work well in lucerne. Cross-examined he said the Pyramid machine had done a fair amount of work on that occasion and he had not seen it having trouble with the breakaway.