Appeal On Riccarton Zoning Adjourned

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30115, 26 April 1963, Page 15

Appeal On Riccarton Zoning Adjourned

An ’ appeal by Ranelagh Holdings, Ltd., to have a site near Matipo street, Riccarton. zoned commercial B (1) was adjourned to enable further discussion by counsel representing objectors to the appeal when it was heard before the Towm and Country Planning Appeal Board on Wednesday. Ranelagh Holdings proposes to establish a large shopping centre on three acres of land near Matipo street. The land was formerly owned by Beath and Company. Parking for 200 cars will be provided if the centre is established. The board comprised Mr J. W. Kealey, S.M. (chairman) and Messrs C. H. Taylor and W. F. McArthur. Objectors were William Hamilton Noonan, of 15 Maxwell street iMr P. H. T. Alpers). Robbie George Soutter. of 12 Maxwell street (Mr J. B. Stringer). George Edgar Crow, of 16 Maxwell street (Mr A. B Harman) and James Neville White, of 83 Division street (Mr N. P. Williamson). Mr E. E. England appeared for the appellant company. Mr J. G. Leggat represented the Regional Planning Authority* and Mr E. I. White the Riccairton Borough Council. Messrs Soutter and Crow said that access to the centre would be between their properties. The traffic would result in dust, exhaust fumes and smell; it would make Maxwell street unsafe for children: the proposed offstreet parking would spoil the residential character of the area; the centre would have an adverse effect on the value of their properties; and they would hase difficulty backing cars from their properties. Messrs Noonan and White made similar objections. M: White said that the centre would make Division street “a little Riccarton road" in density of traffic. Mr Noonan, whose property is opposite the proposed road to the centre, said car lights would shine directly on his house. Mr England said that the advantage of the scheme to

the district must be looked ait. There must be hardships to someone, he said. There were only four objections but a great number of people would receive benefits. The company was willing to purchase properties from objectors at reasonable terms. An appeal by T. I. Riseley Ltd., electrical engineers, of 241 Brougham street to have adjoining land owned by the company changed from its residential zoning was granted subject to conditions satisfactory to the Christchurch City Council. Mr J. N. Matson appeared for the appellant and Mr R. M. Critchley represented the City Council. Two appeals by Charles Leonard Russell (Mr H. M. S. Dawson) concerning properties at 54 Matai street and 8 Straven road were dismissed so that the Code of Ordinances of the Riccarton Borough Council’s by-laws could be changed to accommodate the requirements of the appellant.