Riccarton Council "Closing Its Eyes To Progress”

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29878, 19 July 1962, Page 15

Riccarton Council "Closing Its Eyes To Progress”

Tn its zoning of a business a: 7 Riccarton road as residential, the Riccarton Birrtigh Council was com. P'.eteiy closing its eyes to ;:r grass, said Mr A. E. D. Ludecke. on behalf of Daly's Grain and Produce S >res, Ltd., when the hear- . g of objections to the counc is district planning scheme was continued last evening. The committee hearing • em comprised the Mayor 'Mr E. J. Bradshaw), as chairman, and Cre. G. A. Franks. F. W. Gilbert, R. W. J Harrington. R. S. Lester, E W. H. Prebble, and W. G. S'evenson. The company objected to its property at 7 Riccarton r ad being zoned as resident al, and asked for a zoning cf commercial. In the last 30 years, no uses had been built along R ccarton road from Deans avenue to the railway line, and Mandeville street bey nd, said Mr Ludecke. In contrast. existing houses had been sold and converted into flats, or for industrial purposes.

On the south side of Riccarton road down to Mandev lie street, industry was going on apace, said Mr Ludecke. The council was

closing its eyes to progress in zoning it residential. “No-one would want to buy a house in this light industrial area." said Mr ludecke. “The houses are also near a hotel, and quite unsuitable as residential sites.”

There would in future be a complete shopping area or ’ ght industrial area along Riccarton road from Deans avenue at least up to Divi-

s»n street, if not beyond, Mr Ludecke submitted.

Counter-objection A counter-objection was lodged by the Regional Planning Authority. Riccarton road was a major traffic road, it said, and should be protected from industrial and commercial land uses, which by their nature hindered the free flow of traffic.

A resident in the same area. Mr A. C. K. Ford, of 13 Riccarton road, also objected to his property being zoned as residential and asked for a zoning of commercial.

Mr Ford said that he used to live in the house on the property. but stopped doing so because the increasing traffic on Riccarton road created a worsening traffic hazard, and the presence of the Riccarton Hotel 50 yards away >was undesirable —one of his problems had been persons urinating in his driveway. Between Deans avenue and the railway line were two timber yards and joinery works, two garages, a grain store, a hotel and 13- shops, said Mr Ford. The shops gave a service to residents in that part of Riccarton road and in Matal street, who would otherwise have to walk a mile to the main Riccarton shopping centre for daily household supplies. "I submit that it is unreasonable that the council, after approving of so much nonresidential building on this section of Riccarton road in the past, should now decide that commercial and other properties should now be zoned as residential." Mr Ford said.

Decision on both objections was reserved. Three Other Objections

Three other objections regarding zonings in the lower part of Riccarton road were also heard, decision being reserved in each case.

Mayo’s Grocery, Ltd. (Mr AHearn) objected to its property at 20 Riccarton road being zoned as residential, and asked for a zoning of spot commercial. On behalf of the company,

Mr C. W. T. Mayo said that it bad occupied tne property for four years. The site had not been residential for many years. Next dor, across the street, and close by, were other shops. The proposed zoning did not have regard to existing use, and would unreasonably interfere with the future expansion of his business, and adversely affect its value, Mr Mayo said.

Mr F. H Steel (Mr A. Hearn) objected to his property at 25 Riccarton road (on the comer of Bartlett street) being zoned as residential and asked for a zoning of spot commercial. Mr Steel said that he had carried on business at the site as a dressmaker and dress designer for eight years. The site had never been completely residential, he said, and next door and across the street were shops. The operation of his business did not interfere with nearby residential areas, and his customers, who could park off Riccarton road, did not impede traffic flow in Riccarton road.

‘The proposed zoning as residential does not take into account existing use,-and would unreasonably restrict future expansion of my business and adversely affect its value.’’ he

Mr D M. Maefarlane “d to his property at 27-29-31 Riccarton road—comprising a butcher’s shop, a grocer's shop, and a confectioner’s shop—benF as residential, and asked for a zoning of commercial.

The area was a shopping one and there were three residences at the most on one side of the road and five on the other side, Mr Maefarlane said. The value of his property would be considerably reduced if zoned residential. and his plans for improving his own shop, Riccarton Provisions. Ltd., at 29 Riccarton road, would be frustrated. “Potential Slums” Mrs A. P. Knight (Mr M. F. Hobbs) objected to her property at 30 Riccarton road—between the railway line and Harakeke street—ibeini! zoned as residential, and asked for a zoning of commercial or industrial. It seemed plain that the future of this section of Riccarton road was doomed already. said submissions read by Mr Hobbs, on Mrs Knight's behalf. No person in his righ' mind would contemplate living in the area, which was predominantly commercial, and the balance zoned industrial A Noise from adjacent commercial and industrial concerns was continually high, with some of them working late into the night. An attempt to convert the area into a residential one would only result in a depressed area of potential slums, Mr Hobbs said. Mrs Knight. an elderly woman, was anxious to sell the property—a two-storeyed house —because of the stairs, but was unable to do so because of the proposed residential zoning, Mr Hobbs said. On the other hand, she had a buyer ready and willing to purchase the property for a suitable price, should it be zoned commercial or industrial. Decision on the objection was reserved.