Plans for Linwood indoor mall may go to appeal

Press, 22 February 1978, Page 3

Plans for Linwood indoor mall may go to appeal

Plans for a big indoor shopping mall and car-park in Linwood will probably go to the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board. G.U.S. Properties, Ltd, wants to put its “Linwood City” Shopping Centre near the south-east corner of the already overcrowded intersection of Linwood Avenue and Buckleys Road, on a major route to New Brighton.

Businessmen at New Brighton are adamant that the proposed mall less than four miles away from their fledgling Brighton Mall could reduce the impact of that shopping area. Many immediate neighbours of the Linwood project, which would have Cuba and Cranley streets as its other boundaries, told a Christchurch City Council tow n-planning hearing yesterday that the indoor mall was simply not needed, or demanded, by their shopping district.

But a city planning report said that the present application, a new version of one made first almost two years ago, had been expected by planners for about 10 years. The Linwood shopping area had been expected to grow into a major suburban complex which would rival Papanui, Sydenham, New Brighton and similar-sized districts.

When the shopping centre area was considered by councillors in 1968, it had been decided that the best place to extend the centre would be in the block where the large project is now proposed. G.U.S. Properties had to apply for a conditional use and specified departure because part of the block is zoned residential. Their project would more than double floor space in the commercial district.

The Acting City Planner (Mr W. T. Williams) said that he supported the project “in general principle,’’ but could see the reasons for general concern about pedestrian safety and traffic capacity of the streets. He recommended a general approval, to be followed by design details in a special change to the district scheme. That would ensure public scrutiny of the construction project. Mr Williams said the Linwood centre at present was one of many in the city “well noted for bad design and layout,” particularly in relation to traffic patterns and pedestrian facilities. “It straddles the four corners of this intersection,” he said, “and suffers from the worst effects of dispersion

of retail uses and detrimental effects of traffic.” But there was no way, short of public purchase of existing commercial properties, to ensure that businesses would eventually move to one corner of the intersection and relieve the situation. The council could face ‘‘some fairly drastic changes” to zoning laws in the new scheme review to stop significant new developments from scattering over the shopping centre. According to the city Traffic Engineer (Mr M. L. Gadd), the intersection of Linwood Avenue, Buckleys Road and Aidwins Road was one of the busiest suburban crossings in Christchurch. Traffic flows had increased about 80 per cent in the last 10 years, until today’s flow was similar to traffic through the Riccarton roundabout.

“The need for further improvements is still very real,” Mr Gadd said. Traffic would naturally increase through the crowded system with a project such as “Linwood City” in the area. There was even the possibility that a Linwood Avenue traffic overbridge might someday be built over the intersection, but even the relief from such a structure would be limited. The G.U.S. proposal “virtually doubles the flow through an important regional arterial intersection,” he added, and “would justify the council in asking for a very high standard of traffic service for access and parking serving the proposed shopping centre.” Other street changes in the neighbourhood, including some possible street closings were “absolutely essential” if the proposal were to go ahead, Mr Gadd said. The Canterbury Regional Planning Authority’s traffic engineer (Mr J. L. Robb) said the application should be turned down without consent in principle because even that would be premature. With present roads and zoning, the indoor mall project would be “a traffic and environmental disaster,” he said. “It is too much and too soon for the roads to cope with, and the construction programme is already in arrears.” The proposal would create three busy intersections close to the main one, and quiet back streets would become busy even with some structural changes. Mr J. R. Milligan, representing G.U.S., said the indoor mall would include space for a public library, creche, and Plunket rooms

in addition to a supermarket, variety store, and many shops. The development company did not want to wait for an operative review of the district scheme, which could be two years away, before getting under way. A two-tier parking building attached to the mall, with access from Cranley Street, would be joined by a ground-level car-park between Cuba and Russell streets. Together, they would hold 754 cars. Mr Milligan said the proposed mall was “not so large as significantly to siphon trade either from other district centres, or from the central business district.” The building had been sited to permit the kind of road widening that was likely. “The only real effect that this proposal can have on traffic in Buckleys Road and

Linwood Avenue is to hasten improvements which are already planned in relation to an intersection which is already critically overloaded,” he added. The managing director of G.U.S. Wholesalers, Ltd (Mr E. G. Stonestreet) said the indoor mall was Resigned along the lines of the best overseas complexes. It would be air conditioned and centrally heated. “We already have sufficient applicants for space in the mall to be confident that it will be open fully tenanted,” Mr Stonestreet said. Apart from traffic problems, the proposed Linwood supermarket would have a bad financial effect on the existing market and one further along the New Brighton route, at the corner of Pages and Breezes roads, according to an objection by Foodstuffs (Christchurch), Ltd, the parent company of Four Square and New World marThe Brighton Mall, supported by public money, could be “at risk” if its support was eroded by a large mall located nearby, according to submissions from the New Brighton Businessmen’s Association. It would be better to locate such a mall in an undeveloped area, perhaps south-east of the present site, in order to avoid traffic, residential and other problems, said Mr K. J. Reid, of Russell Street, who represented about 30 neighbours of the proposed shopping centre. The indoor mall would be attracting business from many areas outside Linwood. The town-planning committee reserved a decision on the application.