Riccarton Objections To Three-Storey Flats

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30725, 14 April 1965, Page 18

Riccarton Objections To Three-Storey Flats

Loss of privacy, sunshine, and quietness, and a decrease in resale values, were cited by Straven road property-owners who objected last evening to the proposed erection of a three-storey block of 12 flats at 48 Straven road—on the south-east corner of Straven road and Matai street.

Those objecting, at a sitting of the Riccarton Borough Council, were the Waimari County Council, Mesdames L. Hunt and P. M. Nichols, Miss S. J. Robinson, and Messrs A. Clark, K. Y. le Castro, J. L. Pale, C. L. Griffiths, I. Mannering, and J. Marlow.

Permission to build the flats, on a 52-perch section and designed to accommodate 24 to 36 persons, is sought by Mr R. L. Kennedy, a builder, for whom Mr B. L. Stanley appeared. The 52-perch property is zoned residential A. Because of their height and their outside access balconies, the flats would overlook all the surrounding properties, said one objector. Such loss of privacy would be distasteful.

Another considered the flats would create a huddled kind of atmosphere—as if they were living on top of one another like battery hens ” A third complained of noise from the cars of 12 families in the flats, and pointed out that they would be garaged 9ft from his bedroom wall. Large blocks of apartments were at their best when grouped on spacious, landscaped grounds—but the Straven road-Matai street-Kil-marnock street block scarcely ciualified for a slum clearance programme, said a fourth objector. Waimairi Objections

The county council, whose boundary as part of Straven road opposite the proposed flats, objected on the following grounds: (1) That the flats would detract from the amenities of the district, particularly as far as county

ratepayers were affected. (2) That approval of the flats could lead to the erection

of many other multistoreyed flats in the area. (3) That Straven road was a major traffic route, and the creation of highdensity flats on such a route should be avoided. (4) That off-street parking, proposed to be provided for the flats, was considered inadequate. Mr J. R. Woodward, who appeared for Mrs Nichols and Mr de Castro, said that highdensity housing in the Riccarton borough should not be considered piecemeal. “The Riccarton Borough Council should reconsider the whole matter of blocks of flats in its district scheme,” Mr Woodward said. “The erection

of these flats should be deferred until a detailed plan for high-density housing can be formulated.” Mr Woodward also mentioned loss of privacy, sunshine, and quietness, and general depreciation of neighbouring properties, in his submissions. “Considerable Dismay” In a personal submission, Mr Mannering said that he and his wife bought their property at 83 Matai street in June, 1964, because of its spaciousness and quiet locality, and they regarded the proposed flats with considerable dismay. The main rooms of their property were exposed to view from the south-east windows of the flats and their outside access balconies, Mr Mannering said. The angle of

view was quite unusual and very objectionable. The proposed maximum density of 36 persons on 52 perches would also indicate that parking would be a problem for the flat occupants, their visitors, and their neighbours, since Straven road was a busy road, and parking would probably concentrate on Matai street.

In a written submission, Mr Griffiths said that Christchurch had always prided itself on its reputation as the garden city, and the encroachment of apartment buildings on good residential areas would destroy that reputation. After all 10 objections had been heard, the council resolved itself in committee to reach its decision. This will be made known at the next monthly meeting of the council.