Decision On Apple Board Property

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30153, 10 June 1963, Page 12

Decision On Apple Board Property

(From Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, June 9.

The decision on whether the Apple and Pear Board will be allowed to build on its Wellington site will be made next week, according to Wellington City Council sources. “The board's proposals are being sympathetically considered, and I hope a solution will be worked oul,” said the Mayor of Wellington (Mr F. J. Kitts) today.

In Christchurch recently, the deputy chairman of the board (Mr H. R. Sampson) charged the Wellington City Council with “driving us out of Wellington.” and suggested that the board would have to go to Blenheim or Hutt Valley. The proposal which the board put to the Wellington City Council was to build a two-storey administrative block at the corner of Aro and Willis streets, on a site which the board owns. This area has been zoned by the council as residential. The council view is that the proposed building would make inadequate use of the site. Apart from the residential requirement, council officers said, any building erected in this area should have a minimum of three and a maximum of 10 storeys. Council officers offered some criticism of Mr Sampson’s remarks. They said some months ago the board had sold its large premises in Argyle and Lome streets, in the Te Aro section of central Wellington, to W. T. Rawleigh and Company, Ltd. The Mayor (Mr F. J. Kitts) had been approached by an officer of the board “only a few days ago” for an "urgent” decision on the replacement building. “We must have this building completed within 12 months. The zoning system of the Wellington City Council seerhs to me to be stupid,” said the manager of the board (Mr D. F. Campbell) today. “The area around the

corner of Willis and Aro streets is full of professional offices and extensions to commercial buildings. AH we require are administration offices. Our cool storage plant in Wellington has been moved to Rongotai, and there is no question of noise involved. “Nevertheless, the council committee which considered our application has advised that it is not prepared to vary the residential qualification. What sort of residence could be built on this site? A 10storey block of flats’ I am beginning to think the Wellington City Council is flatcrazy.”

Mr Campbell said that if the board had to go elsewhere, Hutt Valley rather than Blenheim would probably be the place. He appreciated the views expressed by Mr Sampson, but there were other factors involved which would make Hutt a more satisfactory centre.