Hearing of subdivision application adjourned

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32524, 6 February 1971, Page 19

Hearing of subdivision application adjourned

The hearing of an application to the No. 1 Town and Country Planning Appeal Board by a Christchurch company manager to subdivide land in the Paparua County was ! adjourned sine die by the board this week. Mr W. H. Archdall, represented by Mr G. H. Gould, sought the right to subdivide a 117-acre block on the old Tai Tapu Road into two blocks, one of 62 acres and the other of about 55 acres. This would mean a frontage of two chains, which the Paparua County Council says is contrary to its regulations, which demand a frontage of 10 chains. In cross-examination of the applicant, by Mr J. R. Milligan, appearing for the Paparua County Council, it was revealed that a third section of land also needed to be considered in the application. Mr Archdall explained to the board (Messrs A. R. Turner, S.M., chairman, A. E. Kennard, G. R. Tutt and R. S. Martin) that the comnlete piece of land allowed for two building sections and an area on which he hoped to develop a stud sheep farm.

Mr Milligan said that although the application related to a plan showing two separate lots of land, there were in actual fact three lots, the last being on the other side of the old Tai Tapu Road.

“It seems that the applicant has presented the board with a fait accompli, using this third section of land,” he said.

After a private discussion between the board and those appearing for the applicant and the Paparua County Council, the board decided to adjourn the application to allow Mr Archdall to decide what he was going to do with the third block of land and whether he wanted to appeal against any decision in regard to this at a time in the future when the original appeal was heard again. The board reserved its decision on an application for a specified departure from the Paparua County Council’s district zoning scheme. The applicant, G. J. Ford, Ltd, represented by Mr B. S. Palliser, asked for the right to centralise the manufacturing of smallgoods for six

butchers’ shops at premises in Wycola Avenue. Mr J. R. Milligan, appearing for the council, said that, in so far as the applicant intended to manufacture goods for sale elsewhere, the proposal, if permitted, would constitute a manufacturing use which as a matter of good planning and in the public interest should not be permitted in a predominantly retailing zone. Mr Turner said that if a specified departure was granted there would be little to stop the firm from substantially extending its premises.