‘Port Hills quarry not suitable for housing’

Press, 3 September 1981, Page 8

‘Port Hills quarry not suitable for housing’

It was “obvious” that the Isaac Construction company’s Port Hills quarry, which was nearing the end of its life, was an unsuitable site for residential development, the managing director, Mr Neil Isaac, has said. The company was appealing against the Heathcote County Council’s proposed development area, in the district scheme review, before the Planning Tribunal. There are 21 appeals against the scheme, 13 of them by the Canterbury United Council. In evidence, Mr Isaac said that the company had owned the quarry, in Port Hills Road, since 1963. It was expected that quarrying at the site would cease completely within two years. The rear portion of the site, which was mostly exposed rock, was unsuitable for development, but the floor of the quarry was a flat platform, which would be ideal for building. A freight depot was envisaged.

As early as 1966. the company considered that residential development would be suitable, but "with the passage of time,” its thinking had changed, said Mr Isaac. “We have sought advice from a number of sources, and we have concluded that the best use for the land is for industrial purposes,” he said.

The Heathcote County Council had recognised the changed thinking by comtemplating industrial zoning, but that wouid be "unacceptable,”’ Mr Isaac said. There would be substantial practical difficulties in preparing a plan, getting the agreement of individual landowners, and committing the landowners to a plan.

“That is because of a requirement that development shall only be in accordance with the complete development of the whole zone,” said Mr Isaac.

His company would be prepared to cope with any

problems, and improve the , quarry. The improvement and landscaping would take about two years. Mr Isaac's submissions . were supported by Mr Peter • Yeoman, an engineer re- ’ tained by the Isaac Construction Company to advise on ’ future development of the 1 quarry. • “The end use of the quarry • should be light industrial. 2 with one owner, or as few owners as possible. The fin- ' ancial viability of a residen- ; tial subdivision would be in ’■ doubt." he said. Because of the site's proximity to Lyttelton, it would ‘j be advantageous for Indus- ; trial use. • There were “unlimited ■ possibilities" for the stoiage ; of wool or grain, said Mr ?• Isaac. ; "I believe that the adjoining owners will be better -• served by a landscaped in- £ dustrial area than leaving the site in its present slate." ‘ said Mr Yeoman.