Decision Reserved On Siting Appeals

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32379, 19 August 1970, Page 16

Decision Reserved On Siting Appeals

Decision was reserved by the No. 1 Town and Country Planning Appeal Board yesterday when it considered an appeal by Ashby Brothers, Ltd, against the refusal of the Waimairi County Council to consent to the use of land in a rural zone for the storage and manufacture of concrete farm products. The Regional Planning Authority had objected to the use sought of part of an 89acre site off Johns Road and the County Council considered that such a business would be better situated in a special rural zone further west.

Ashby Brothers, Ltd, which already had a conditional use to extract shingle on the site, now wanted to store and manufacture concrete products on a three-acre section of the site, said Mr J. D. Ashby. Products such as farm troughs, paving slabs and water tanks would be manufactured there. The business was wholesale and 80 per cent of the products were sold to farmers, he said.

The appeal board was Messrs A. R. Turner, S.M. (chairman), A. E. Kennard, R. S. Martin and G. R. Tutt. Mr R. F. B. Perry appeared for Ashby Brothers, Ltd, and Mr A. Hearn for the Waimairi County Council. Giving evidence to support the application, Mr Ashby said the company considered the site would hav? an approximate life of 30 years using three acres a year for the extraction of shingle. The excavated area would be back-filled. The company felt that at the end of that time the existing shingle plant and offices would have to be moved, and it would be prepared to sign a statement to that effect.

Answering a question from the chairman, Mr Ashby said the lease of the company’s present site in Carmen Road, Hornby, still had seven years and a half to run. This could not be relinquished and the company would have to look round for someone who would be willing to have the lease transferred to him. Mr A. W. J. Lamb, the Waimairi County Council engineer, said the council had been concerned with the sporadic development of industrial uses of the rural area, and in April, 1968, it had changed the district scheme to guard against this. If a concrete products manufacturing business was established in the rural zone it would be a conflict with

the policy of the district scheme, and this could lead to a similar conflict with other applicants. Belfast Appeal

Decision was also reserved by the board on an appeal by Mr A. R. Stagg against a decision of the Waimakariri County Council not to allow a property at 800 Main North Road, Belfast, to be used for the display and retailing of caravans made by Belfast Caravans, Ltd. The land is zoned Residential B.

Mr L. R. Harman appeared for Mr Stagg, and Mr J. E. Ryan appeared for the council. Two private objectors to the appeal, Messrs J. W. Hawkins and B. Cottrill, were represented by Mr K. H. Thwaites.

Mr Stagg said he did not wish to appeal against the council’sydecision relating to his application to construct a building on the site for the display and retailing of caravans and camping equipment, but to the decision not to allow the site to be used for a yard for the displaying and retailing of caravans. The use proposed would not detract from the amenities of the neighbouring properties and would be cut off from sight of these by a 6ft high paling fence. There would also be no interference to the free flow of traffic along the Main North Road as there would be no access to the yard from this road. The site was on a corner and access would be from Third Street.

At present there was considerable confusion as to the whereabouts of the Belfast Caravans, Ltd, factory by persons wanting to obtain caravans. ■ The factory was about 200 yards away in Darroch Street, but a main road site was wanted for the retailing of the caravans as it was considered this would be a good commercial proposition, said Mr Stagg. The Waimairi County Council submitted to the board that its reasons for declining the original applications were still applicable. These were that the proposed use of the land was contrary to the intention of the district scheme. It could also lead to interference with the free flow of traffic on the State Highway as well as detracting from the amenities of the neighbouring properties. Mr Ryan said an attempt to extend the commercial zone along a very important street frontage was not sufficient to justify the action.