Appeal on restrictions on subdivision shops

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32462, 24 November 1970, Page 20

Appeal on restrictions on subdivision shops

Conditions fixed by the Waimairi County Council for the provision of shops in a big subdivision at North Beach were unreasonable, the No. 1 Town and Country Planning Appeal Board was told yesterday. Mr C. L. L. Smith asked the board to remove conditions attached to a specified departure permit issued by the council requiring that no shops be built until 300 houses are built or actively being built, and that not more than three shops be built until 500 houses are in sight. The board comprised Mr A. R. Turner, S.M. (chairman), and Messrs A. E. Kennaird, R. S. Martin and G. R. Tutt. Mr J. R. Woodward appeared for Mr Smith, and Mr J. E.

Ryan appeared for the council. Mr A. J. Carter, partowner of shops at Burwood Road, opposed the appeal on behalf of himself and others. A syndicate of landowners, of whom Mr Smith was one, had in 1968 been given council permission for a housing subdivision on land bounded by Mairehau, Inwoods and Rothesay Roads, said Mr Woodward. The council agreed that development was an urgent need, arising from the shortage of medium-priced sections in greater Christchurch. The council’s restrictions were not based on statistics and were without logic, he said. If commercial developers were willing to provide shopping facilities when and where they were needed, it was in the public interest that they should be free to do so.

Mr R. L. Bodger, a townplanning consultant, said that 1150 house sections would be initially developed, providing for a population of 4000 to 5000 in from 15 to 25 years. It was hoped to let contracts for the first block of 80 houses within the next few months, and to have three shops at that stage. Three more shops were wanted at 150 to 200 houses.’ The council’s town-plan-ning officer, Mr R. M. Parker, said he thought there should be shops before 300 houses were built. “We have never objected to the houses or commercial development, but only to the central location and planning of shops,” said Mr Carter. “We are content with the council conditions, but do not agree with them.” Mr Smith proposed 11,600 sq. ft of shops, including a 4000 sq. ft supermarket, and this would draw business from his own block nearby of eight shops and one empty shop, he said. The block served 600 houses, and Mr Smith’s shops would be about a mile away by road.

He denied that he was concerned with his own advantage at the expense of housewives living on the new subdivision.

If the council had accepted the need for more housing land, it was of concern to the board that it had been inactive in its planning, said Mr Turner. Decision was reserved.