Regional planners strongly criticise Heathcote scheme

Press, 5 July 1978, Page 6

Regional planners strongly criticise Heathcote scheme

Heathcote County’s dis-. Iricl scheme came under, s.rong criticism at yester-l day s meeting of the Canter-' bury Regional PlanningAuthority, one member ter-i ming it "an affront to the authority and its regional *. heme.” A member of the authorin. Mr 1. G. Clark, of Wai-; riain County. >aid he con- > cered the Heathcote scheme amiss in “-howing He said he had read the. a i hority’s staff report on, the scheme review with* amazement” and added that he was “anpalled that a local author. y would spend! ratepayers’ money on such a' “The best intentions of; t”- s authority were over-J Talked.” Mr Clark said.' “This review completely ig-j Bores or overrides all wehave been trying to do in: The recently released I s heme review was prepared b- a iocal firm of planning consultants and subsequently* adopted by the Heathcote; tna! since rhe council had, a ep’ed the scheme review, anv fault should lie with it* rnrher than the consultant The authority plans to. object to the Heathcote'

scheme on several points,, the first being that it makes) no reference to the existence; of an operative regional) planning scheme contrary to, the provisions of the Town; and Country Planning Act,}, 1977. I The authority will also;; object to the scheme on the basis of the extent of land zoned for residential pur-; poses, much of it on the Port Hills. The amount of land listed, by Heathcote as vacant but ' 'zoned residential was also questioned as incorrect. The proposed scheme) notes "due to the fact that there is a marked shortage; of residential land in urban. Christchurch; that hill sec-; tions enjoy a greater level ; of amenity, that significant areas of new land will be available following this review- the county’s growth, over the planning period; will be considerably fasterj than at anv previous time. The authority objected to) this premise on the vrounos; that it was unfounded and unrelated to anv of rate of demand, or the extent of oroposais tn ■ district schemes. The authority cited the scheme for a “lack.of any explicit regard to *ne .eia ; 'tionship between the propo-J

I sals contained in the district! scheme and neighbouring; 'areas.” There was a need, said the {authority, for firmer control | of land uses in the rural ! area, so as to avoid its sporadic subdivision and urban development and to ensure jits proper continuing man- • agement. As an example, the) authority cited a section of) {the scheme which would expend residential zoning on to j j soils which have actual or) ‘potential value for the pro-): ■duction of food. A need also existed in the' scheme, it said, for “approipriate policies and ordinances concerning roads, access and transport.” i A proposed "neighbourhood tavern zone” was at i fault in that under the re-j Igionai scheme such a facility! | could not be located near, qri ] on a regional road. Such a (zone was “perhaps from aj ibrewery viewpoint, a good) I idea,” the authority noted,! ibut would pose considerable ton-street parking problems, j Another objection was to, .•the proposed extension of, the Summit Road Protection: Ac area ' The authority’s meeting , started late because a quo-; rum of 12 was not present.; • .An additional member was 'summoned late in the meet-;! jin« to make it official. J: I *he chairman fMr D. B. ;

| Rich) said: "This is a most {unsatisfactory situation. This lis the second or third time we have been embarrassed in this way in the last year.” In other business, the authority agreed to prepare I’ a public notice of intent to prepare a regional scheme! ■review as required under rejeent legislation. The matter! of uplifting the northern motorway designation would jbe considered when the sec- ' ond section of the regional 1 {scheme was reviewed. ) The authority also agreed)! ito object to the establish-) ment of four shops and a, neighbourhood tavern at the corner of Linwood Avenue ! and Kidbrooke Street as part of a new subdivision off ' Dyers Road. 1 j The authority declined to{ 'make any comment on the 1 ; proposed Hurunui River ' {power scheme proposed by {the North Canterbury Elec- ! tric-Power Board, but noted ’ ! that it wished to be kept l , advised of progress so far as ' ! feasibility studies were con-|! icerned. it was noted that : this did not imply tacit ap-j ■prova! of the scheme. I 1 A presentation was made, ar rhe end of the meeting to; Mr M. von Tunzelmann, who has been secretary of the authority since its inception. )■ ;He has been succeeded as), {secretary by Mr E- P. Ma-; iguire.