Freight Firm Refused Use Of House Land

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31153, 1 September 1966, Page 19

Freight Firm Refused Use Of House Land

Alternative access sought by Port Carriers, Ltd., to its Mowbray street warehouse and yard over a house property in Shakespeare road was refused at a sitting of the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board yesterday.

The board also refused the company permission to use the back yard of the house property for storage and for the parking of vehicles. The company operates 19 trucks on the Lyttelton shipping freight service. The home property, owned by the company and backing on to its Mowbray street area, is zoned residential B. The application was opposed by the City Council (Mr P. Hutchison) and by Mr P. O. F. Foley (Mr G. T. Mahon), owner of the house next door in Shakespeare road. Mr C. B. MacLachlan, for the company, said the proposal would reduce traffic congestion and would not detract from a decaying residential area. Mr Mahon claimed that the drive would pass within a few feet of Mr Foley’s livingroom and that it would be used by 50 or more vehicles a day. Mr J. Vryenhoek, a director of the company, denied that incorrect zoning advice had been taken, and that the company now was trying to get out of trouble. The access proposal was opposed by the council for its effect on Shakespeare road traffic and for the annoyance it would cause to residents, said Mr Hutchison. Old residential areas were vulnerable to industrial infiltration and should be pro-

tected. said the board’s chairman (Mr L. W. P. Watts). I There was no justification for an extension, said Mr Watts, when the board refused an application by Anthony Shearer. Ltd., builders’ suppliers, of 554 Main North road, Belfast (M - W. N. Matson) for extension of an existing non-conforming use in a rural area to allow a 3700 sq. ft. storage shed to be built Two conditions had been proposed by the council, said Mr Matson. One agreed to by’ the company, was that the area between the Main North . road and the northern bound-; ary be kept clear for car-' parking. The second condition, that, no more extensions would be i allowed, was challenged by

I the company as the appeal board and council should not say what use could be made of the land in five or 10 years [time, Mr Matson said. “I doubt if the board has [power to make binding decisions affecting the future, and it would not attempt to do so,” said Mr Watts. I Opposing the application for the Regional Planning Authority, Mr W. R. Lascelles asked the board to consider pressure by the individual to use his property as he wished with a minor degree of public interest against the high purpose of the scheme plan, the whole concern of which was public interest.