Objections To Removal Of Fendalton Shops

Press, Volume CV, Issue 30981, 10 February 1966, Page 14

Objections To Removal Of Fendalton Shops

The shops at the Fendalton road-Memorial avenue-Clyde road intersection should not be removed until the Waimairi County Council had decided on an alternative site for shops in the vicinity, objectors told the council’s town planning committee yesterday. This view was supported in evidence for the Christchurch Metropolitan Regional Planning Authority.

Obj ections heard yesterday were on the council proposal, in line with the city’s master traffic plan, to rezone business premises on the south side of the block from commercial C to residential A, and to take land for road widening on the north side between 178 Fendalton road and 10 Memorial avenue. Twenty-two businesses and a post office are affected.

In reserving its decision for recommendation to the council, the committee indicated that it would probably be some time before firm decisions were reached. Mr F. W. Pankhurst, the owner of shops on the northwest corner of Fendalton and Clyde roads, said that there was a definite need for the preservation of the shopping area. To rezone would involve hardship on property owners and shopkeepers, as well as financial loss. For the estate of A. F. Matthews, owner of shop and residential property on the north-east side of the corner, Mr S. R. Dacre said the proposals of the council were against the natural evolution of the area and the wishes of residents. Doctors would tell the council of the effect of moving the shops on older residents. The scheme subjugated shops and people to traffic, when it might well be that in 15 years’ time no traffic would be allowed in to the central city. “This is speculation, but the proposals have cast cold water over the whole area,” said Mr Dacre. “They are not for the benefit of the people who built the district. The council has to consider the people, and not just traffic.” He added that Mr Matthews had died since his objection had been lodged. “Cut In Half” Mr W. Anderson, Canter-bury-Westland manager of the Self-Help Co-op., Ltd. (Mr G. F. Rae) said that the company had started business in Fendalton road with 36 perches. If the road widening went on, this area would be cut in half. Some years ago. he said, plans had been produced for seven shops, two on Fendal-

ton road and five on Clyde road; but this had been turned down by the council. The council’s changing policy made mockery of any reasonable plans his company had for future development. It struck at the rights of a landowner to do what he wanted with his land. Mr Anderson said that the shopping block was the only one on Fendalton road. The council should allow it to remain. If not, the council should offer an alternative site. “It is inevitable that these shopping centres be located along the main routes into the city,” he said. “The council is trying to change the living and shopping habits of residents to conform to the council's theoretical planning.” Mr R. J. de Goldi, for Mrs L. E. Hooper, the owner of two Memorial avenue shops, said that the council before it put the plan into effect should consider: (1) the rights of owners to preserve their capital in accordance with well-established and appropriate existing zoning; and (2) whether the proposed change in zoning would effect what was wanted. Reduction In Values Mrs Hooper, he said, had [gone to the locality with the blessing of the council. Town planning, it was realised, could cause some hardship, but not the wholesale reduction in values that would result here. It did not seem that the master traffic plan would be implemented before 1980, perhaps not before 2000, said Mr de Goldi. That remoteness should be considered in the light of the losses the proposals would cause. Mr de Goldi mentioned the similarity with Ferry road, and said that the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board had accepted that, while there should be no substantial increase, commercial i businesses should be allowed to remain in Ferry road. Mr A. W. Moyle, a valuer, said that Mrs Hooper would suffer £3OOO loss of value on her property if the scheme went through. Mr C. F. Hart objected on behalf of himself and his wife, Mrs K. C. Hart, and the Fendalton Fish Supply, Ltd., in respect of the fish shop and land at 5 Memorial avenue. He had bought the land in 1953 for £l5OO for commer-

cial purposes, said Mr Hart He planned to build a twostorey block, with ground floor shops and flats or offices above. A permit was obtained for the fish shop, and the building was made strong enough to take additions. The shop, equipped, had cost 1 £5500. It was leased. i Estimated Loss The shop’s turnover of £39,362 was evidence of its popularity, said Mr Hart. It was a suburban business of unusual magnitude. He would suffer major loss if the area were rezoned. Mr Moyle estimated his losses at £3OOO. Mr Hart said he thought the hardships resulting from rezoning would be out of proportion to the benefits. There was no real reason for the council to enforce grave loss and diminution of values. Mr K. D. Coburn (Mr J. B. Williams) appealed against the rezoning of his property at 135 Clyde road. He gave general objections, and said that the council had not considered an alternative site for the shops. More shops were wanted, and there was a moral and legal obligation on the council to provide for them. Mr D. L. Jones, the president of the Fendalton Businessmen’s Association, presented a statement by the secretary (Mr N. J. Owens). This stated that 22 business premises and the post office were affected. All were well-estab-lished, with growing turnovers. No provision had been made for resiting. The association believed the council’s decision had been reached in haste and without due consideration and should be revoked or provision made for new sites. “This means virtually the complete destruction of a prosperous business community,” said Mr Jones, giving evidence on his own behalf as the owner of the Fendalton chemist’s shop. 1 “Out Of Balance” Mr K. Cockbum, of 28 Jacksons road, said that reading expenditure nationally had got out of balance. The 99ft carriageway was not necessary. Creyke road and Kilmarnock streets could be developed, and it might even be best to use public transport, even at the ratepayers’ expense. He suggested rounding the comers on the intersection by setting them back 10ft to 15ft. His wife, Mrs K. D. Cockburn, said that the council I was doing too much for the motorist and not enough for the community. Mr J. R. Woodward, for Fendalton Service Station, Ltd., and W. J. Turner, Ltd., grocers, both of Memorial avenue, urged the council to defer a decision on the proposals until it had considered an alternative site. Called by Mr Woodward, Miss N. Northcroft, a town planning consultant, said there were good reasons for having the centre in its present position or in the vicinity. She said that Mr Turner's turnover had grown by 45 per cent in five years, and the post office business had grown by 70 to 75 per cent. Mr J. N. Matson, for the Christchurch Metropolitan Regional Planning Authority, said that it was realised that there would be hardship “whichever way it goes,” but the authority was not talking the line that it carried on in its ivory tower without reference to peoples’ feelings. Proposals Supported The authority’s director (Mr C. B. Millar) said that the authority supported the proposals, but earnestly suggested that the change should not be made without a decision as to relocation of the businesses. “It is unfortunate that the council has not seen fit to bring down a scheme for the relocation of the shops concurrently with the road improvement changes,” he said. This could be done and a firm policy adopted by the council before the council considered the results of the hearing. If relocation could not be resolved immediately, this section of the scheme could be delayed until it had been settled. Concluding the hearing, the committee chairman (Cr. R. C. Neville) said he could not, as in earlier hearings, promise an early decision as there was such a mass of material for the committee to study. The council would apply vigour to a determination of the problem. Thirteen other submissions were made, most of them in writing from objectors who did not appear.