Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Rehearing likely on rubbish station

Hearings are likely to be reopened and the land designation reconsidered for the proposed Styx Mill Road site cf a rubbish transfer station. The town-planning committee of the Waimairi County Council yesterday received a letter from the Christchurch. Metropolitan Refuse Disposal Committee advising that its constituent members would serve reniiirements on the council to designate the land for the Northern Transfer Station /The council had earlier ruled that‘the legal requirement for _ a public work served on it by the committee' was invalid. The Refuse Disposal Committee did not dispute the council’s ruling. Instead, it asked that further requirements be served from the Christchurch City Council, Heathcote and Paparua County Councils, and Kaiapoi and Riccarton Boroughs. The chairman of the planning committee (Cr I. Calvert) said that a requirement was “in the process of being served’’ bv Riccarton Borough. Under the Town and Country Planning Regulations, there must be at least 21 days for submissions and objections to be made after the serving of a requirement. “Everybody is well aware of the situation. Now we should get on with the business of having a rehearing,” Cr. Calvert said. After a second hearing, Cr Calvert said, there were three options open' to the council. It could recommend that the Refuse Disposal Committee revoke its application for land redesignation, it could go along with the commit-, tee, or . it could recommend that it alter some of the conditions of its plan. It then had three months to advise the council of its response. “If the committee fails to

respond, the council and objectors can appeal to the Planning Tribunal,” Cr Calvert said.

Mr D. ,B. Rich suggested that the planning committee do everything possible to streamline the second hearing. Cr Calvert agreed that most evidence would be taken as read, but added that submissions could still be altered or added to. Cr Calvert said that under the regulations the council must notify those members of the public who would be affected by the subject of the requirements, when and if they were served. It was also bound to inform those people deemed to have a greater interest in the requirement than the public generally. The meeting decided to notify each of the previous 200 individual objectors as well as the Redwood Action Committee and other organisations which comprised another 600 objectors. An amendment by Cr W. T. Rice extended the period in which submissions would be allowed to 31 days; The advice from the Refuse Disposal Comimttee was formally received.

“As an additional safeguard,” Mr Rich then moved that the planning committee’s decisions be referred to the Refuse Disposal Committee’s solicitors for comment on their legality. Agreeing to the motion, Cr Calvert said, “We just want to make sure the hearing is in order. We don’t want to go through it all three times.”

Archery lawn A decision on whether to give permission for an international archery lawn to be built on land next to the Burwood Hospital in Mairehau Road was referred back to the council’s hearings committee.

Supporting , the application, Cr H. M. Tait said that the scheme was an excellent one, allowing use of the proposed facilities by two clubs and by hospital patients. A condition had been suggested that a proposed building be resited for greater safety.

“I am concerned that this area is used by a lot of other people on a casual basis and fe not quite as safe as Cr Tait thinks,” Mr Rich said. ‘lt is an unfortunate fact that the general public might find their way into the area.”

It was suggested to the meeting that security measures be made to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. Cr I. G. Clark said that a warning flag system might be used. The matter will be further considered before a decision is made. Pizza parlour The owner of a shop at the corner of Fendalton Road and Clyde Road has been given a three-month extension,of use rights, so that his shop may be reopened as a dairy. An original extension was granted to give time for a notified applipizza parlour on the premises.

The application, by Quality Pizzas, was declared by the council on February 7. The County Engineer (Mr A. J. W. Lamb) said that the owner had negotiated for the other party to take over, but this had fallen through. “The man now has a limited time to negotiate, which is not his fault. We have a moral obligation to grant his application,” Mr Lamb said. The committee noted that it was not in the council’s interests to allow shops at the comer because of the nature of the traffic in the area. However, it noted also its “moral obligations” and re-

commended that the exi-sting-use rights be extended. District scheme Most of the reports comprising the new district scheme review should be available to councillors by June, the meeting was told. However, the contents would not be ready for perusal by the public; nor would they be ready for general discussion by the council.

„ Cr Calvert said the next stage was for the reports to go before’ the review committee. It was recommended that the reports be passed on to councillors as they became available and they could make their comments known to the County Engineer or the County Planner (Mr D. D. Hinman). Peerswick Place

A letter was received from 12 residents of a private road, unofficially known as Peerswick Place, drawing attention to the confusion caused by its lack of official title. The right-of-way, extending from Waimairi Road to Reading Street, was properly addressed as 43 Waimairi Road.

However, 13 properties were either’ on the site or planned, each with their own letter-boxes. The residents asked that' their road be given a separate street name ■so that mail could reach them without confusion and taxi drivers could also find them.

The committee decided that the road was too narrow and too dangerous to be allowed to become a public place. A recommendation was accepted from Cr Tait that it be. suggested to each resident they name their houses “Peerswick Court” or the suitable names. “This will avoid the confusion of being lost off Waimari Road,” she said.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19800403.2.36

Bibliographic details

Press, 3 April 1980, Page 4

Word Count
1,041

Rehearing likely on rubbish station Press, 3 April 1980, Page 4

Rehearing likely on rubbish station Press, 3 April 1980, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert