Supermarket Site In Wilsons Road Sought

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31983, 9 May 1969, Page 12

Supermarket Site In Wilsons Road Sought

Five properties, worth $50,212, had been bought for a supermarket complex, at the corner of Wilsons and Gamblins Roads, Opawa, after City Council town planning officers had said they would recommend the scheme. But the council had later refused approval of the plans, it was said at a hearing before the Special Town and Country Planning Appeal Board on Wednesday. The managing-director of G.U.S. Properties, Ltd, Mr E. G. Stonestreet, said that the town planning officers, Messrs R. M. Critchley and W. T. Williams, approved sketch plans of the supermarket proposal, including sites for five shops, doctor’s rooms and parking for 75 cars.

They had said they would support a specified departure from the zoning scheme, and foresaw no difficulty in obtaining council approval. “I considered that there was a very slight, minimal risk, of not being allowed to proceed with our plans, after buying properties following this advice,” Mr Stonestreet said.

The company (Mr P. T. Mahon) was appealing against the City Council’s refusal to allow a specified departure from zoning. The City Council (Mr A. Hearn), the Estate of H. M. French (Mr B. A. Barrer), owners of land and shops op-

posite the site of the proposed supermarket, and five shopkeepers (Mr R. L. Kerr) opposed the appeal.

Mr Mahon, in his opening, said that the company had bought a commercially-zoned property on the corner in 1968. The company could have applied for a permit to build on the commercial zone. It was decided to buy residential adjoining land for car parking. After discussions with the town planning officers, it was decided to build the supermarket and shops on the residential land, and use the com-mercially-zoned area for offstreet parking as this would provide a better layout from the town planners’ point of view, and the company agreed with this view, Mr Mahon said. He said that this scheme was followed in July, last year, after negotiations with the town planning officers in June. A plan was drawn in July. Properties were then purchased. An application to have the residential sections rezoned industrial was lodged on September 9. On November 6, the City Council gave public notification of a review of its planning scheme. Under this review, all land on the west side of Wilsons Road, the side of the proposed supermarket, was to be zoned residential. The hearing of the company’s application to build a supermarket on the residential land, with the proviso that it occupy no more land than the area of the commercially zoned block, was heard on December 3, and the council’s decision, refusing the application, given on December 9. “Decision Influenced” Mr Mahon submitted that the council’s decision had been influenced by the review of the council’s district scheme which proposed that all the land bought by the company, and all the land of that side of Wilson’s Road, should be residential. He submitted that this approach was wrong. The compiny had bought the blocks zoned commercial A in the existing district scheme in good faith and had no knowledge that the review of thescheme proposed that the block should be rezoned residential. The council and the board should consider the whole position only on the ground of district scheme as it was now, and not on the scheme after review. Mr Stonestreet, crossexamined by Mr Hearn, said he agreed that the council did not necessarily have to follow the advice of its town planning officers. However, after the advice he had received that the town planning officers were in favour of the plans, he felt that any risk of not being able to proceed was minimal. To Mr Barrer, Mr Stonestreet said he was aware that the council’s review of its district planning scheme would be announced towards the end of 1968. He did have an indication that commercial development could be restricted to one side of the road.

His company's supermarket complex would be in direct opposition to about one-third of the 20 shops opposite, but experience showed that supermarkets generated more custom which benefited all shops in the immediate vicinity. To further questions, Mr Storestreet said that the proposed increased commercial zone opposite the site of the proposed supermarket was suitable for his company. Two sites only would cost $60,000. The area would not be big enough unless some shops were demolished. The cost of sites could be $lOO,OOO, compared with $50,000 on the proposed site, and this would make a supermarket development uneconomic.

Mr Critchley, in evidence, said that after it had been established that the G.U.S. Company had bought the commercial A zoned block in good faith a hint had been given that the zoning could be changed in the district scheme review. When he met the architects for the company last June he had told them that they did not have a strong case for the proposal. He said that he had recommended the second plan made by the architects because it provided better offstreet parking. He had suggested that the company obtain a building permit for the commercial block as this would strengthen its case. The company could have obtained the permit, as of right He had never said that the council would oppose the plan. He had said he would recommend the second plan as the better of the two alternatives.

Mr Williams said that the architects had been given a hint that the commercial zoning of the site the company had bought could be changed to residential. He supported the second plan as better than the first, but was against the supermarket on the west side of the road as this would mean the commercial area would straddle Wilsons Road. “It is a general principle that commercial centres should not straddle principal routes but should be confined to one side. Wilsons Road will i be a primary route under the ! reviewed scheme," Mr Williams said. Straddle Road

To Mr Mahon, he said his objection to the proposed supermarket under the existing scheme was that it would be opposite existing shops and the commercial centre would straddle the road i To Mr Kerr, Mr Williams

said there was a need for more retail space to serve the area. The reviewed scheme provided more area, but on the opposite side of the road to the proposed supermarket. Mr M. L. Gadd, City Council traffic engineer, said it was most desirable that the level of traffic on primary routes such as Wilsons Road were not affected adversely by extended commercial development or development split by the main traffic route.

Parking and pedestrian movement could be handled much more safely easily if commercial business were confined to the east side.

Shopkeepers gave evidence that existing shops gave adequate services to the population in the area of the proposed supermarket. Mr Mahon, in cross-exam-ination, elected that the three shopkeepers who gave evidence were all members of Four Square, an organisation competing against G.U.S. Mr R. H. French, for the French estate, also said the area was well served by existing shops. He said 29 shops served a population of 3707 in the primary area, and 51 shops served the secondary area. The 80 shops served a population of 7770. To Mr Mahon, he agreed that, using the town planning formula, this meant a total of 22,000 sq. ft of retail area was needed to serve the needs of the population in the primary area, but according to the town planning figures there were only 11,800 sq ft of retail shops. Witness agreed that on Mr Williams’s figures of popuI lation in the primary area ; (2700), a total of 16,000 sq. ft ' of retail space was required. Two women, living next door to the site of the proposed supermarket objected on the grounds that it would cut sunlight from their houses, increase traffic and cause other difficulties. Counsel agreed to make written submissions, and the board reserved its decision.