Two Town Planning Appeals Disallowed

Press, Volume C, Issue 29556, 4 July 1961, Page 14

Two Town Planning Appeals Disallowed

(From Our Own Reporter)

WELLINGTON, July 3. An appeal by the J.J. Construction Company against a decision of the Christchurch City Council zoning a property at 102 Champion street as residential has been disallowed by the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board. The property, which covers more than an acre, is in an area zoned as residential under the council’s proposed district scheme. The appellant company lodged an appeal asking that the area be zoned as industrial B.

The board found as follows: “The property in question is situated in a block bounded by Champion street. Edgeware road. Hills road and Gresford street. This property is rear land and is used as a builder’s yard with joinery workshop. The buildings on it are of a substantial nature, being constructed in concrete

"The property is situated in the centre of an area zoned as residential and predominantly residential in character and the property constitutes a ’spot’ industrial zone in a residential area. To re-zone it as industrial would be contrary to town and country planning principles and practice

“The buildings being of a substantia] nature, the appellant company can continue to carry on its business on the site in question as a nonconforming use for many years to come.” Second Appeal

An appeal by Bascands. Ltd., against a decision of the Christchurch City Council has also been disallowed by the board The appeal, which was under Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1953. disputed the zoning of a property at 144 Peterborough street as residential Bascands. Ltd., claimed that the land should be zoned as industrial. The objection was disallowed, and the appeal resulted. After hearing evidence and submissions, the board has found: “The appellant company is the owner of a pro-

petty having an area of 1 rood 5 perches situated at No. 151 Kilmore street, Christchurch, on which it carries on business as a printing works and attendant offices. This property adjoins No. 144 Peterborough street and the appellant company acquired No. 144 Peterborough street for the purpose of extending its existing buildings.

"There were numerous objections from the property owner)! in the vicinity to the appellant company’s objection. '

"The appellant company, when it came to appeal, asked only that part of the property be zoned as industrial, leaving the balance as residential. This propisal is unacceptable because it would not be permitted, having regard to the size of the section under the code of ordinances to the respondent council's scheme.

“Apart altogether from that aspect, the property under consideration fronts on to a street that is zoned as residential and which is predominantly residential in character and occupancy. To re-zone the appellant company’s land as industrial would be contrary to town and country planning principles.”