Appeals Heard Against Fendalton Rezoning

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31319, 15 March 1967, Page 20

Appeals Heard Against Fendalton Rezoning

The present Memorial avenue - Fendalton road-Clyde road shopping centre had already become untenable for the purpose it served and must become increasingly so, Miss Nancy Northcroft, a town planning consultant of Christchurch, said in evidence at a sitting of the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board yesterday.

Miss Northcroft said the centre, situated astride the crossroads of a busy intersection, had been overtaken by circumstances. The proposed roading improvements for the area were needed and the shopping centre should go.

Before the board were appeals from 10 shopkeepers and owners of shops and business premises near the intersection against a decision of

the Waimaini County Council to re-zone the area from commercial C to residential A. Evidence and submissions were heard from six of the appellants, and the hearing was adjourned until today. The board comprised Mr J. W. Kealy, S.M. (chairman) and Messrs W. F. McArthur and E. Whittleston.

The Waimairi County Council has yet to hear an application by the W. J. Turner family partnership to establish a shopping centre a short distance from the intersection at 19-23 Memorial avenue.

The partnership (Mr G. S. Brockett) owns property in the existing shopping centre and became one of the 10 appellants in yesterday’s hearing in case its application in respect of the new shopping centre is refused by the Council.

The council, in its plans for the improvement of the intersection, seeks the zoning change so that the shops on the north side can be removed to allow for realignment of the road.

Giving evidence on behalf, of the Turner partnership, Miss Northcroft said that, notwithstanding the present I untenable situation of the ‘ shopping centre, she was equally convinced that a shopping centre was required more or less in the same vicinity. “To remove the present centre is to deprive the local community of an amenity that is heeded, that they have enjoyed in the past and should be able to expect in the future.” Third Aspect Miss Northcroft said that a third side to the question was a possible alternative site for the present centre so that the local community should not be deprived of its shops. “Irrespective of the effect of the proposed road improvements at the intersection, increasing traffic volume, together with the lack of offstreet car parking and loading and unloading facilities, are creating congestion and hazards that make the present site quite unsuitable as a shopping centre.”

She said the centre could no longer provide the service and facilities of a modern shopping centre. There was, in effect, commercial overcrowding. “It is my opinion that whether or not the proposed changes had been introduced at this stage, the disabilities that the centre is now suffering, and must increasingly suffer, are such that the centre must, in the coming years, inevitably lose ground,” Miss Northcroft said. Mr R. J. de Gold!, for

Lillian Elizabeth Hooper, the owner of land and buildings at 3B Memorial avenue, said the proposed change of zoning would cause injustice and irreparable loss to his client. The proposal would not materially assist the promotion and safeguarding of the health, safety, convenience, and economic and general welfare of the inhabitants, and amenities in the area.

He said it was contrary to the public interest that the south side be rezoned. It was not desirable on traffic grounds, and the council’s action was a profound misuse of its powers. He said the centre was of considerable size and importance. There had been a residential increase in the area accentuated by the university move to 11am, both of which had increased demand for shopping services. From the point of view of traffic problems, rezoning was not necessary to alleviate them.

“The proposal to rezone the south side is a paper change only and would remain so for many years. It can't add to or improve the traffic problem. At the end of a 20-year period the centre is likely to have become a slum commercial area.” He said a more desirable solution would be the provision of off-street parking on available land, and the prohibition of street parking in the area.

He said that, although the council had power to change zoning, it should exercise its power reasonably and fairly. Zoning changes tended to de-

stroy public confidence in existing zoning. “It is entirely wrong that zoning should be changed almost at will after being fixed by an elaborate procedure. If it is found after zoning that the controlling authority was wrong, or there has been a change of community habits, the cost of rectifying the situation must be borne by the community as a whole and not the individual directly affected.” Retention Sought

Mr J. R. Woodward, for Development Services, Ltd., said he sought the retention of the existing commercial C zoning on the grounds that a change on the south side to residential A was contrary to the public interest, and contrary to good town planning because it did not make adequate provision for alterna Itive commercial sites. His client’s interests were affected as owner and occupier of 35.9 perches on the south-west corner of the Clyde road-Memorial avenue intersection.

Mr J. B. Williams, for Keith Derek Cochburn, said his client owned and occupied property at 135 Clyde road He purchased the property more than five years ago after being assured by the council that he could erect shops and carry on the business of a jeweller. He said the change of zoning would deprive the appellant of valuable shop sites facing Memorial avenue and generally reduce the value of his property. His business

did not affect the traffic flow now was it affected by it. On behalf of the Fendalton Businessmen's Association Mr B. L. Stanley said those appellants who were affected would suffer hardship in that they could not alter their preI raises to keep up with curI rent shopping trends. No adequate provision existed for resiting their businesses.

Mr Stanley said that the appellants would suffer grave loss in that the valuable goodwill built up after years of successful business in the locality would be lost. Mr P. T. Mahon, for Frank William Pankhurst whose property is on the south east side of the corner, said he adopted the submissions of Mr de Goldi. Mr J. G. Hutchinson appeared for the Waimairi County Council and Mr J. N. Matson for the Regional Planning Authority in support of the re-zoning.