Appeal against approval of Cust subdivision

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32562, 23 March 1971, Page 15

Appeal against approval of Cust subdivision

Opposition to the subdivision of land on the east side of Cust was the basis of an appeal heard by the No. 1 Town and Country Planning board—Messrs A. R. Turner, board, Messrs A. R. Turner, S.M. (chairman), A. E. Kennard and R. S. Martin reserved its decision.

The Ministry of Works (Mr D. C. McGill) appealed a decision by the Rangiora County Council (Mr A. C. Fraser) on property owned by Mr D. McKay (Mr D. E. Ames).

The proposed subdivision was on State Highway 72 at the east end of Cust, Mr McGill said. The grounds of the appeal were that the development would detrimentally affect the highway, did not conform to town-planning principles and would not be in the public interest Cust was a town of 300 people developed along a twomile ribbon of main highway, Mr McGill said. Such ribbon development must not be allowed to continue. Mr G. C. Suggate, a design engineer with the university, said that Cust, in terms of its water-supply scheme, extended for more than two miles.' In terms of the 40 m.p.h. speed zone it was only 0.7 miles long. For a village of about 300, two miles was ribbon development of a high order, but 0.7 miles might be considered reasonable. It was believed that the village population was, if anything, declining. Development might advance the need for an im-

proved water supply and cause a demand for a sewerage system. There was no apparent need for the expansion of Cust, and it would not be in the public interest, he said. County’s views The Rangiora County Clerk (Mr A. A. H. McKenzie) said that he believed the subdivision plan had taken the ministry’s views into account and allowed Mr McKay a limited amount of subdivision. Miss N. Northcroft, the Rangiora council’s townplanning consultant, said that if the application was allowed it woud consolidate an urban community within the urban fence advocated by the council rather than create an unwarranted extension of the urban area.

The existing urban fence had within it 35 houses, and the applicant’s subdivision would add seven residential sections. There were about 50 houses in a two-mile radius, and the “village” probably had a population closer to 180 than 280, Miss Northcroft said. The facilities in the village indicated that the community was a viable and essential part of the locality. The subdivision lay within the urban zone of Cust She felt that the urban zone was properly planned, and that the proposed subdivision would facilitate better development of the township, Miss Northcroft said.