Lincoln subdivision ‘should be rejected’

Press, 26 January 1979, Page 4

Lincoln subdivision ‘should be rejected’

The Ellesmere County Council should decline an application by Christchurch Estates. Ltd. and a Lincoln resident, to change the use of 2ha of land from rural to residential, said the county planner (Mr 1. D. Dalton) last evening.

Speaking at a townplanning hearing held at the Lincoln Community Centre, Mr Dalton said that the council’s sewage-treatment plant would not be able to deal with the extra loading from the planned 13 new homes on I.sha.

The plant was alreadv being run at maximum capacity. It was also being used under a water right which was under appeal by both the council and the North Canterbury Acclimatisation Society.

Counsel for Christchurch ' Estates (Mr P. M. James) said that Mr Dalton had taken] into account legislation' which was not now relevant ] Furthermore, as the matter being decided was a change of use, the sewage issue, should not be considered until the council looked at a scheme plan for the subdivision. After hearing evidence'

from the applicants, object-,' ors, and the planner’s report,!

the Chairman of the Ellesmere County Council (Mr D. H. Goulden) said the council would consider the application, and the parties would be notified “in due course.”

Mr T. W. Lucas, the manager of Christchurch Estates, Ltd, which is in receivershin said that the proposed subdivision between West Belt and Wattle Grove was the natural culmination of surrounding residential areas. It {was noteworthy that neither the Canterbury Regional Planning Authority nor any I other Government departement objected. This showed {acquiescence by planning I authorities. ! He told the council that objectors had three main i concerns: the subdivision or 'destruction of “The Gables” the historic home adjoining {the subdivision; use of good {agricultural land: and lack of ' suitable sewage-treatment ' facilities.

Under a revised development plan before the council. Christchurch Estates had nothing to do with any proposal which endangered “The Gables” nor had the owner (Mr L. W. Gillett) any plan

.to subdivide, said Mr Lucas. I Fourteen of the 24 objections

had related to the future of “The Gables" and its trees. Six objectors considered sewage disposal a problem, he said. Sewage-disposal facilities and approvals

existed and could be provided for to the satisfaction of the appropriate authorities. The lack of opposition by the Catchment Board suggesed that no possible probSupporting the application, Mt A. Fazackerley, a registered surveyor, said that the improvement oi the existing sewage - treatment plant was not within the control of the applicants, but was a matter to be esolved (between the council and the {Regional Water Board. ' Five objections concerned the use of valuable agricultural land. Mr L. C. Hurndell, who represented objectors ftom the Institute of ricultural Science (Canterbury section), said the soil

was first-class soil for agricultural or horticultural purposes and should retain its rural zoning. Only about 3 per cent of the land area in New Zealand fell into class one of the soil categories.

! In reply, Mr James said that scale, practicality, and {viability all had to be taken ' into account. The land had never been used for the production of food and it was an isolated pocket surrounded on all sides by residential areas or deep drains, Mr Lucas had told the council.

Many of the objectors said that they accepted the second plan, which no longer made provision for the possible subdivision of the section occupied by “The Gables.” They had been concerned about its possible destruction and removal of big trees surrounding it. Some wanted existing facilities including the sewage-treatment plant, in the area improved, before the development was allowed to proceed. Mr James submitted that objections by 14 persons be disallowed because they did not live in Lincoln or represent a relevant aspect of the ' national interest.