Subdivision At Prebbleton

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31307, 1 March 1967, Page 20

Subdivision At Prebbleton

The Christchurch Regional Planning Authority yesterday granted an application by the Paparua County Council for a modification of the authority’s planning scheme to permit an initial stage of subdivision of seven acres and a half of kind at Prebbleton.

The land, which fronts the south-west side of Blakes road, is owned by Mrs N. R. Leeming. The council wrote to the authority to advise that in view of the lack of available land for subdivision into residential lots within the area zoned for urban purposes it had approved the subdivision of Mrs Leeming’s land in principle, but sought the regional authority’s approval of a modification so that the subdivision could begin immediately. The council, in its letter, expressed concern that the lack of residential land in the township might precipitate minimum area subdivision of the surrounding rural area to the detriment of the community as a whole. The proposed subdivision provided for some 28 residential sections as well as the internal roads. This initial proposal was understood to form part of a larger scheme under consideration which involved some 120 sections. Mr J. U. Barclay asked if the planning authority was going to show foresight and let the township develop or was it going to let it stagnate as it had in the past The authority had before it two recommendations—the

one it adopted and another which suggested that the Paparua County Council be advised that consideration of the proposal be deferred pending the completion of the review of section one of the regional planning scheme. The chairman (Mr E. J. Bradshaw) strongly supported the second recommendation. He felt the other one was quite unwarranted. Mr R. C. Neville said the Regional Planning Authority had a job to do for all concerned. If it gave way to one local body then the rest

would suffer. The authority, he suggested, should stick to its plan and go ahead on that basis. Paparua might suffer but in the end it would be for the common good of all. Mr D. B. Dallas said the question appeared to be a local matter. Provided there was nothing inconsistent about it then there was no reason why the subdivision should not proceed.