Council Allows Hohepa Home In Hackthorne Rd.

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30528, 25 August 1964, Page 1

Council Allows Hohepa Home In Hackthorne Rd.

The Heathcote County Council last evening approved, by four votes to three, the application for the establishment of a Hohepa Home for intellectually-handicapped children in Hackthorne road, Cashmere. Six conditions have been set.

The council reached its decision after meeting in committee for three hours. The chairman (Mr J. C. Holliss) and Crs. L. L. Smith, J. S. Scott and E. L. Tyndall voted for the proposal. Crs. C. M. A. Thompson, W. E. McGavick and C. D. Le Comte voted against it. One councillor, Cr. W. B. Laing, was absent.

The application to establish the home at 141 Hackthorne road was made by the New Zealand Trust Board for Home Schools for Curative Education of Intellectually Handicapped Children.

Mr C. M. Roper appeared for the board. Mr J. G. Leggat for some 30 objectors who live in the vicinity, and Mr R. A. Young acted as legal adviser to the council. Conditions set by the council are:—

That the maximum number of children attending the school be 15: being males up to the age of 13 years and females to 18.

That the property be adequately fenced to the satisfaction of the council by the board and at the board’s expense: the fences to be adequately maintained at all times by the board at its expense and to the council’s satisfaction. That no new buildings or additions to existing buildings

be permitted on the property., That the school be ade-| quately staffed at all times, I the minimum full-time staff not to be fewer than seven at any time. That the board must strictly comply with all acts, regulations and by-laws governing the use of such land and buildings as a boardingi school and, in particular, the board must comply with the requirements ' of the Christchurch Fire Board as to safeguards against, and means of escape from. fire. Considerable public interest was aroused during the hearing, which extended over eight nights. More than 200 foolscap pages of sworn evidence was heard by the council which sat in a semijudicial capacity under section 38A of the Town and Country Planning Act. The area in question is zoned as residential A in the council’s undisclosed scheme. The Act requires that the consent of a council must be obtained where the use of any land or building is not of the same character as that which i immediately preceded it. The

main point the council had to consider was whether the proposed use “. : . detracts or is likely to detract from the amenities of the neighbour; hood.” Comments Told of the council’s decision late last night, Mr A. G. Van Asch, a member of the board and the chairman of a committee which has been formed to assist the board in Canterbury, said he was very pleased. “The conditions set by the council are in line with those made in our application and at the hearings,” he said. Mr Leggat said there. was little he could say about the council’s decision. Asked whether an appeal

would be lodged with the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board, Mr Leggat said he had not received any instructions from the objectors. “I imagine they will want to see the provisions and study their implications first,” he said.