‘Businessmen’s Chess’ With Property

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32382, 22 August 1970, Page 17

‘Businessmen’s Chess’ With Property

Two businessmen “playing chess” with a property at 35 Chester Street, central Christchurch, had placed a very severe emotional strain on the elderly couple living nearby, their counsel, Mr &, H. Wood* told the No. l Town arid Country Planning Appeal Board yesterday. ■ Mr Wood said this when asking the board to deny a request by , Oscar Coberger, Ltd, for an adjournment of its appeal against the Christchurch City Council’s refusal to allow the construction of a three-storey building at 35 Chester Street. Coberger, Ltd, represented by Mr J. E. Ryan, asked for an adjournment sine die because of difficulties which had occurred in purchasing the site. The land is zoned Residential C and Residential 5

under the Operative and Reviewed Schemes effectively. Th ground floor of the building planned for the site would be for a showroom and storage of ski and mountaineering gear, and the two upper floors would be leased for offices. The board comprised Messrs A. R. Turner, S.M. (chairman), A. E. Kennard, R. S. Martin, and G, R. Tutt. Mr A. H. Young, for the City Council made no objection to the adjournment request, but Mr Wood, appearing for Mr and Mrs C. H. Cameron, at 31 Chester Street, said the appeal application should be withdrawn.

; His clients were both in > their eighties and should not - be, subjected to any further - stress. The. appeal application s hqd no legal standing now , because a- conditional agreement tb buy the site by - Coberger, Ltd, had expired. 1 The appeal board decided to adjburn the application i sine die but awarded $lO costs i to Mr and Mrs Cameron. , Belfast Subdivision f Decision was reserved by - the board on an appeal by 1 Mr R. F. Hussey against the i Waimairi County Council’s re- > fusal to approve a scheme plan of subdivision of 145 1 acres in the Belfast area, r south of Johns Road. - Mr I. S. Cariieron appeared i for Mr Hussey, and Mr J. E. s Ryan for the Waimairi County - Council. , 5 The appeal, which concerns

14 lots ranging in size from 5 to 18 acres, had been partheard previously. The county council’s reasons for refusing the original application were that the arrangement and shape of the sites were not in conformity with the purposes of town and country planning; some lots were liable to flooding: and not all were capable of being used as separate economic units. Evidence was given by Mr A. E. Smith, of the Horticulture Division of the Department of Agriculture, on whether the lots were capable of being used as economic independent rural units.