Commercial zoning for supermarket opposed

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32707, 9 September 1971, Page 15

Commercial zoning for supermarket opposed

Although the Turner family partnership has a specified town-planning departure permit to have its supermarket and shopping mall on land zoned residential A at 19 to 23 Memorial Avenue, the Waimairi County Council, in its re. viewed scheme, has retained the commercial zoning.

This was disclosed at a council town-planning hearing yesterday, when the partnership (Mr J. R. Woodward) objected, and asked for commercial A zoning. The council’s town-planning officer (Mr R. M. Parker) said that to grant this request would be to allow the partnership as of right to continue to develop the site. The partnership’s original application for a specified departure led to long townplanning, and Supreme Court and Ccuirt of Appeal hearings; and yesterday there were 22 individual objections from residents and one from the Regional Planning Authority before the council.

The sitting marked the Start by the council of the hearing of evidence on 300 objections and crossobjections to its reviewed town-planning scheme. Eleven all-day sittjngs have been arranged, to end on October 5, and are expected to enable the hearings to be completed before the council elections on October 9. In the Memorial Avenue hearing, Mr Woodward said that the council, in its re-

viewed scheme, had applied residential zoning to the existing shops at the junction of Fendalton Road, Memorial Avenue, and Clyde Road, for the purpose of road re-align-ment.

The Town and Country! Planning Appeal Board had made a special commercial zone for the land occupied by the service station, garage, and fish shop on Memorial Avenue and this zoning had been continued by the council.

These shops would go out of existence when the road was re-aligned and could be relocated between Otara Street, Hamilton Avenue, Clyde Road and Memorial Avenue (in which the shopping mall is situated).

“Organised objection” “It is apparent that there is a body of organised objection to the partnership’s request,” said Mr Woodward. “The partnership does not want anything more than to have an appropriate zoning for the existing uses of its land.

“There is not the slightest intention or desire to engage in unrestricted commercial development of its block. Having regard to the very large capital outlay following the specified departure, it would be only fair that the owners should have some security in their zoning rather than the possibility of just a non-conforming use.” There was no reason, said Mr Woodward, 'why the council should not make the partnership’s land a special commercial zone, as had been created by the appeal board nearby. This could answer any justifiable fears by residents that there would not be some control by the council, yet preserve reasonable flexibility for the owners. Apart from possible doubts as to its legal effect, Mr Woodward said, it was bad planning to perpetuate a specified departure from one scheme to another. By providing a special commercial zone, the council could satisfy objectors, town-planning principles, and the interests of those who were concerned for the preservation of residential amenities.

The partnership’s application now appeared to be for commercial A 1, or special zoning, instead of ordinary commercial zoning, said Cr R. C. Neville, who, with Cr I. Calvert, heard the submissions. If that was so, the application would have to be readvertised. For most of the residential objectors, Mr D. M. Palmer Mid that the departure had been granted only after protracted hearings extending over some years, and had been hotly opposed by residents who feared its effect In its final decision, the appeal board had laid down T 8 stringent conditions, clearly for the benefit of nearby residents. The request for commercial zoning could not be -justified in any way. “If commercial zoning were granted, Turner's would have acquired through the back door what it was careful not to apply for through the front door,” said Mr Palmer. “The objectors could be

• excused for thinking that L this application demonstrates . a cynical disregard for the spirit of the appeal board de--1 cision, and for the feelings ; of individuals whose amenities have been seriously eroded.” Mr Palmer said that several residents had supported the partnership’s application to the appeal board. It was significant that none offered support now after the supermarket had been operating for nine months. There were now more objectors to the present proposal than there were to the original one. “The appeal board granted the application with reluctance and it was careful to lay down strict conditions which, while protecting residents, would also allow a viable and economic shopping centre,” said Mr Palmer. “It is the council’s clear duty to accord priority to the protection of residents. The only possible course is to refuse the zoning sought by Turner’s.” Corner shops Owners of shops at the junction of Holmwood Road and Rossall Street objected to a proposed change to residential A zoning. They were Misses E. E. and M. Orchard, owners of seven shops on the south comer, and Berwick’s Food Store, Ltd, in respect of a grocery store, and a butcher’s shop on the north comer. A valuer, Mr D. O. Chapman, said that the shops owned by the Misses Orchard were worth $35,000 with commercial zoning, but they would be impossible to sell at a realistic figure if the

zoning were changed. The section would be worth $lO,OOO. Evidence was given of the community value of the two blocks of shops. Mr R. W. Britten, 186 Yaldhurst Road, objected to residential zoning for his shop-house at the comer of Yaldhurst Road and Nortons Road, and asked that commercial C zoning be retained. Mr Parker said it was not the policy of the reviewed scheme to spot small commercial zones, but Mr Britten’s counsel (Mr Woodward) asked how the council reconciled commercial zoning for a discount store on the opposite comer. A cross-objection by Mr G. W. Main for the Regional Planning Authority supported the council. Mr Main said that Yaldhurst Road at this point carried 6000 vehicles a day, traffic growing at 54 per cent a year, and commercial zoning should be restrained. Industrial zone Thirty-five residents of Roydvale Avenue, Teesdale Street, and Wairakei Road, objected to the proposed creation of an industrial A 1 zone as an extension of the present industrial zone in Wairakei Road, and asked for residential zoning, or, alternatively, for a reserve on the land. The land concerned is occupied by the old Ashby’s shingle pit. The objectors said that property values would be depreciated and added that they were losing faith in the council. Decisions will not be announced until after the hearings are completed.