Decision Reserved On Shingle-Pit Appeal

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32351, 17 July 1970, Page 7

Decision Reserved On Shingle-Pit Appeal

Even if shingle pits were filled with rubbish, buildings on them would require much extra expediture on foundations, and as recreation areas they would require much topsoil spread on them at high cost, the county engineer and town-planning officer of the Paparua County Council (Mr A. Dyhrberg) told the No. 2 Town and Country Planning Appeal Board in Christchurch yesterday.

At a former pit in Hayton's Road a developer was having to excavate the rubbish and fill with shingle, and in the case of a 15-acre pit it was estimated that spreading the soil necessary for a recreation ground would cost about $64,000, Mr Dyhrberg said.. He was giving evidence for the council in an appeal by Sockburn Shingle Supplies, Ltd, against refusal of the council to grant a specified departure for quarrying on a five-acre lot adjoining the appellant’s existing quarry near Wilmer’s Road.

Mr R. S. Boland appeared for the company, and J. R. Milligan appeared for the Paparua County Council. The board, which reserved its decision, comprised Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M. (chairman), and Messrs R. R. Beaumont, L. P. Blunt and C. M. Turner The land was part of the block between Halswell Junction, Wilmers and Awatea Roads and Wigram airfield, and was zoned Rural, Mr Boland said. The area was entirely unsuitable for farming. Grounds of Appeal The grounds of the appeal were that it was in the public interest that the land, which could not be used for any other purpose, be worked as part of a quarry site; that the appellant would suffer severe hardship if the application was refused, and that the appellant was merely seeking permission to enlarge an existing quarry. Mr Boland said the appellants’ present site was almost worked out, and the high cost of moving to a new site would be prohibitive. The area would be back-filled with clean filling as it was excavated.

The secretary of the appellant company, Mr R. F. Murray, said if the appeal was refused the company would be faced with having to give up quarrying and wind up the business.

With the extra land there Would be enough material for a further five years work. At the end of this time the area could be backfilled and landscaped or developed as an aquatic playground Mr Dyhrberg said the council had concluded that the eventual appropriate use of the land would be for industrial purposes. The further extraction of shingle from these areas would make this ultimate use more difficult and expensive. Even if the pits were filled with rubbish, buildings would require considerable extra ependiture on foundations. An example of this was a former pit in Haytons Road where a developer was having to excavate the rubblish and fill with shingle. The council felt the urban fence would inevitably be extended to cover the land in question, and its future use was likely to be for industrial use. The proximity of the land to the present urban fence nude it even

more important that the land should be protected from virtual destruction, Mr Dyhrberg said. The land was zoned rural now, the chairman said, and he felt the discussion of possible eventual industrial use was irrelevant The appellants had a large capital expenditure on an adjacent existing use. Paparua Appeal

Decision was reserved by the board on an appeal by the Christchurch Regional Planning Authority against a decision of the Paparua County Council to permit the building of a house on a five-acre 20-perch section just outside the urban fence on Cashmere Road.

Mr J. N. Matson appeared for the authority, and Mr J. R. Milligan appeared for the council.

Mr F. S. Robinson, regional planning officer with the planning authority, said Cashmere Road was a proposed limited-access primary road and therefore no development such as houses with individual access faints should be allowed. The soil in the area was of first-class quality, and the application would tend to promote close settlement and thus to create a demand for urban services, Mr Robinson said. If the appeal was not allowed there would be demands for permission to build on other small sections in the area.

Mr P. J. Adams, a sewer design engineer with the Christchurch Drainage Board, said the land was not suitable for the disposal of effluent by soakage, but a house could be served by connexion to the main sewer line in Cashmere Road or Hurunui Street. This would have to be at the cost of the applicant, Mrs A. B. Mills. The Drainage Board would not accept any significant load from an area outside the urban fence, he said, but the "insignificant” load from the one dwelling would be approved.

Mr I. D. Dalton, a registered surveyor, said the council regarded the area in question as suitable for lowdensity residential development. This conflicted with provisions of the operative regional planning scheme, and such proposals were not included in the proposed district scheme, but both the council and most of the pro-perty-owners in the area had lodged objections seeking Rural R zoning.

Rural R zoning would permit residential uses on sites which were a minimum of five acres. Most of these objections, which were opposed by the Regional Planning Authority, had been allowed by the council, and were now the subject of appeals which had yet to be heard, Mr Dalton said. Appeal Allowed An appeal by several Waimairi residents against a decision of the Waimairi County Council to permit Feltex New Zealand, Ltd, to build a store on residential iand adjoining its Athol Terrace industrial site was allowed by the No. 1 Appeal Board, which part-heard the case last week. The board comprised Mr A. R. Turner, S.M. (chairman), and Messrs A. E. Kennard, R. S. Martin, and G. R. Tutt. The appellants were G. W. Marshall, P. Taitoko, and B. Harnett, of Peer Street, and K. Timins, of Brodie Street, all occupiers of properties adjoining the site. Mr J. E. Ryan appeared for the council, and Mr R. F. B. Perry appeared for Feltex New Zealand, Ltd.

The chairman made it clear the decision did not prevent the company from making a further application to the Waimairi County Council in respect of the land. The proposed building would constitute a gross breach of bulk and location requirements, the chairman said, but that divergence froi" these requirements was sought had not been advertised in the published advertisements, nor drawn to the council’s attention in the report of its town-planning offices.

Adjourned The board adjourned sine die an appeal by R. F. Hussey (Mr I. S. Cameron) against a decision of the Waimairi County Council to refuse approval for a scheme plan of subdivision. The appeal was part heard on Wednesday, and con-! cernedx the proposed subdivision by Mr Hussey of about 145 acres of rural land between John’s Road and Styx Mill Road, Belfast. Mr J. E. Ryan appeared for the Waimairi County Council. The chairman, in adjourning the appeal, said the board would require more evidence on whether the separate lots in the scheme plan would be economic productive rural lots.