Objections To Paparua Planning Scheme

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32126, 23 October 1969, Page 16

Objections To Paparua Planning Scheme

Objections to the Halswell section of the Paparua County district planning scheme were heard by a committee of the Paparua County Council yesterday. The committee’s recommendations will be referred to the full council for its decision. A schedule of 35 objectors to the scheme as it applied to the siting of buildings comprised, in the main, residents of Cashmere Road. Others were owners of land with a Cashmere Road frontage. They were represented by Mr R. J. de Goldi. Mr F. S. Robinson, regional planning officer, appeared in opposition to the objections.

The objections all related to the rebuilding of nonconforming residential buildings located in a rural zone. Under the present ordinances owners are unable to rebuild houses on land of less than 50 acres unless they are allowed a specified departure. Mr Robinson said that in adopting the particular clause of the ordinance the council was reserving the right to reduce the amount of noncon-

formity within the prescribed zones. “The clause applies not only to rural but to all zones and many cases could be found where prevention of the reestablishing of an appropriate use would be desirable,” he said. “It should be noted that not all houses in the rural zones are nonconforming, and rebuilding would be treated in the same way as any application for a new building.” Objections to the proposed line of the Foothills Road route were made by Lieuten-

ant-Colonel R. D. Yetton, Mr R. E. Cameron (Mr I. S. Chapman for both objectors) and Mrs M. I. Hamilton (Mr J. S. Bisphan).

The Paparua County district scheme makes provision for the construction of this route after 1986. Mr M. Douglass, regional traffic engineer for the Christchurch Regional Planning Authority, said the need for the route was related to the need for a supplementary route into the south Christchurch area with access con-

trolled over its rural length, and the need to provide relief for the present Cashmere

Road if and when major urban development occurred on the adjacent slopes of the Port Hills. “One of the design problems was to achieve a satisfactory alignment and after several routes had been investigated that shown in the district scheme was selected. It represented least severance of long-term agricultural uses and at the same time an appropriate location to provide a route across the lower limit of the spur developments,” Mr Douglass said.

. Referring to the objections by Mr Cameron and Colonel Yetton, Mr Douglass said that the moving of the line to the north between one and two

chains would increase the degree of severance of adjacent farm properties only marginally, and there was no engineering reason to prevent such a minor relocation. He said that in the case of Mrs Hamilton’s objection, there was no alternative to the road location because of constraints to the east and west of the site.

“The road is not proposed for many years, and it would seem that the existing house

may well have come to the end of its useful life by that time,” he said.

In an objection by the county and the Regional Planning Authority to a clause of the district scheme requiring 70 car spaces per 1000 sq. ft of gross hotel bar floor area, both objectors sought a reducation in the number of spaces, on the ground that the present provision was. excessive. They said this was especially so since the change in licensing hours from 6 o’clock closing. The council’s proposal is for 30 cars, and that of the authority is for 40 cars. Objection by the council and the authority was also made in respect of the district scheme as it applies to vehicular access, development adjacent to motorways, limited-access roads and parking ordinances.

The objections were made to reconcile the Halswell and Paparua sections of the scheme so that both had the same requirements.

Mr Douglass said the provisions suggested conformed with the intentions of the scheme as agreed among all of the councils.