Riding school decision reserved

Press, 31 October 1981, Page 23

Riding school decision reserved

Residential building in Waimairi County’s rural < areas was not sufficiently < controlled by the wording of the County Council’s district y scheme, a planning hearing has been told. :* ■ Under the scheme new 'accessory buildings were 3 permitted on rural land, but in many cases the definition J-of “accessory" included ,*■' dwellinghouses, said Mr H. -* 'R. Versteegh. the assistant £ county planner, at a hearing -V'for the establishment of a '-'riding school and house at t;the corner of Prestons Road •’•and Hawkins Road. > ’Mairehau.

•.*' The non-provision of £. houses unnecessary for farmx Z ing in rural zones was a *<• deliberate policy of the coun- >; cil, and the total housing in ■■■?’. the rural area was more s .than enough for the people <. productively employed in ■ rural zones, he said. ’ However, there were suffi- < ■ cient grounds under the dis- .’•»; trict scheme for the council Aii to approve the building of a house by the applicants, Mr ? ‘ G. D. and Mrs Y. A. Clark, •4 * said Mr Versteegh. >* Mr and Mrs Clark wish to establish a riding school with gr’, a dressage arena, a crossip’, country course, and stables. ~i r Such facilities were few in S'; Christchurch, and there were waiting lists at many of the

pony clubs, said Mr Clark. Consequently, young children were riding on the roads. This was dangerous. His family wanted to live on the 2.4 ha that he and his wife had bought for the school and horticultural farming for reasons of safety and security. The costs of running the school would be far greater if they had to commute, he said. Part of the land proposed for the riding school, however. is Class II land, and a specified departure is necessary for this. Mr B. D. Watson, a neighbour, objected to the proposed site of the cross-coun-liry track. Because of prevailing winds there would be dust, noise, and privacy problems from the area of the track which would pass his house and swimming pool. The track should' be moved 100 metres from the boundary fence, he said. Mr A. E. Green, a neighbour, objected to the proposed entrance to the school on the grounds that horse dung would mix with the dust raised by cars and would blow on his strawberries. .He asked that the entrance be moved.

Mr Clark’s solicitor. Mr A. Hearn, said that objections raised were applicable to any normal rural practices.

He did not think that Mr Clark should agree to bending the cross-country track away from the fence near Mr Watson’s house because this would use more Class II land.

Mr Clark said that he was happy to lay sawdust on the track past the house to reduce the dust.

The planning sub-commit-tee reserved its decision. The chairman, Cr I. Calvert, said that the sub-committee members would inspect the site and might reopen the hearing. Garage business The sub-committee also reserved decision on an application by Mr R. W. and Mrs S. E. Nicholl to erect a house and a vehicle repair garage and workshop on the former McVlcaf sawmill site in Grassmere Street, Papanui.

The site is 2.43 ha, and has not been used as a sawmill since a fire in 1968. It is zoned Rural H under the reviewed district scheme. Mr Nicholl, who has a conditional agreement to buy the property, said that his present garage and workshop nearby was too small and had limited off-street parking.

The front part of the proposed site was a mixture of

hardfill, old stone or metal driveway, shingle, metal.objects, and a variety of waste materials. Towards the back of the property was a big area devoid of growth and covered in bark.

These two areas might be sterile because of the rubbish, and the land was not suitable for horticulture. The remaining land was undulating and would have to be filled for this, he said. He and his family planned to live on the same property as his business for security reasons and the convenience of the public. Fruit trees would be planted on the undulating land and perhaps a few sheep grazed. The property, an eyesore at present, would be greatly improved, Mr Nicholl said. Mr R. A. Proctor, a horticulturist, assessed the property as unsuitable for horticulture.

Eight local residents objected to the application. Most were concerned that the industrial use sought for the land would later intensify and sought an assurance that if the application was granted it would be the last development of the site. The Canterbury United Council objected to the proposal on the grounds that it was against the objectives and policies for the Green

Belt and might be contrary to the Town and Country Planning Act. Mr D. D. Hinman, the county planner, said that he did hot think the applicants had satisfied the strict criteria of section 75 of the Town and Country Planning Act and consent must be refused.

This was in spite of the fact that the proposal would improve the locality, he said. He doubted whether the council had the power to consent to the application, and this might be an instance for the Planning Tribunal to exercise its special powers, Mr Hinman said.