Farmer’s appeal fails

Press, 7 April 1978, Page 18

Farmer’s appeal fails

A Belfast pig farmer has again been refused per mission to sell pig meat from his property Mr W. E. Blake, of 195 Belfast Road, appealed to the Special Town and Country Planning Appeal Board after his first application was declined by the Waimafri County Council. He wanted to sell pig meat produced from animals grown on his farm, killed at an abattoir, and returned tc the farm. Mr Blake appealed against the decision on the grounds that it was contrary to town-planning principles, contrary to the public interest, and that it was wrong in law. The appeal board said that Mr Blake had asserted thai the selling of pigmeat at the market had Droved un-

is economical and that if he r- was not permitted to sei it the meat as fresh meat on the farm he would lose his 15 equity in it. o That evidence had beer j. supported by Mr P. Powtj lesland, an advisory officer n of the Pork Industry Couni- cil. Mr J. R. Fox, counsel for Mr Blake, had contended B that the selling of the pig ' meat would not detract from 11 the existing and foreseeable future amenities of the neighbourhood, nor affect t the health. safety, confs venience. and the economic o and general welfare of the >• people in the district. Mr Fox had also said that g there were no objections to Mr Blake’s application. it Mr ,1. E. Ryan, counsel for t the Waimairi County Coune cil, had said that Mr Blake was endeavouring to establ-

le'ish a retail activity under ill'the conditional-use procen dure, and that even if it was is ' considered as a specified deI parture application, the selln' ing of the pig meat did not ‘ (-(comply with the appropriate | t criteria. Mr M. Douglass, an ex-| perienced town planner andi engineer, had said! “ that the sale of pig meat didi " not fall within the scheme! 11 ordinances, as did the sale ( e of other produce such as I e vegetables, fruit, eggs, and! ;t poultry which were sold in ■ ’■ the unprocessed form. p After hearing evidence j e from both sides, the appeal ! . board decided that the appli-j cation was not appropriate • either for the granting of a! conditional use or for a! 1 specified departure from the! e provisions of the district I I-1 scheme.