Residents oppose plans

Press, 17 February 1978, Page 3

Residents oppose plans

Owners of Leinster House had bought the property many years ago and had deliberately let it run down so that it could not help but be improved by any proposed development, Mr F. Chisholm told the planning panel on behalf of 13 of the nearby residents objecting to Hardy Baird’s scheme.

Mr Chisholm said that the proposed development of the old house would also add considerably to traffic congestion, both on Papanui Road and Leinster Road, as well as being to the detriment of a “prime residential area.”

Another nearby resident, Mr A. A. Mackintosh, of 142 Leinster Road, said that he and his wife objected to the company’s application for a specified departure because the noise factor in the evenings would be a profound public nuisance and might well lead to violence in the area.

“Elderly people, as well as young people, who walk along Leinster Road to the shopping centre will be prevented from doing so because of their fear of molestation and certainly their dread of bad language,” he said.

“I bought my property

and built my home in Leinster Road in 1952 because it was on a peaceful and desirable site,” Mr Mackintosh said. “The peace of this residential area, coupled with the closeness of the schools and the shopping centre, makes it a most desirable area. It will be a gross injustice to all the residents if a further inroad is permitted on the already unwarranted intrusion.”

Countering the objections of residents living in Leinster Road, Mr W. H. Barker, a surveyor and town planner, said that traffic and parking fears expressed by residents were demonstrably groundless, as the removal of a vehicle access from Papanui Road was advantageous; while the car-park attached to the development would reduce parking problems in Leinster Road.

Shops would not generate noise, and the restaurant was situated on the far side of the building from houses, so that any noise would be of minimal annoyance. High levels of noise were not usually associated with small “character” restaurants. There would be no band and no takeaways associated with the restaurant, he said.

The objection of intrusion by the proposed development into a residential zone was unfounded. In fact, the reverse was true, because Leinster House was previously the only residential use in a commerical area.

Mr J. L. Robb, regional traffic engineer, on behalf of the Regional Planning Authority, which objected to the application, said, the development would be contrary to the specific purposes of the Regional Scheme.

“It is contrary to a policy of containment and concentration of visitor-attracting and commercial uses along major roads as specified localities,” Mr Robb said. “The Regional Scheme policy aims at consolidated development comprehensively in depth rather than in ribbon fashion along major roads.” The buildings already converted to shop use by Hardy Baird’s contained six different enterprises but no parking spaces had been provided as required by the council, leaving customers to park on the street opposite an intersection and on one of the busiest streets in Christchurch.