Tribunal backs quarry development

Press, 16 November 1981, Page 7

Tribunal backs quarry development

Isaac’s quarry and other land on the south-western side of Port Hills Road near the junction with Avoca Valley Road should be mainly zoned rural, with the quarry floor zoned light industrial, says the No. 3 Division of the Planning Tribunal, in an interim reserved decision.

The tribunal, chaired by Judge Skelton, heard two appeals together on September 1 in Christchurch.

The Canterbury United Council appealed against a decision of the Heathcote County Council to zone the SI site as a special de- . uent and land management zone, because the United Council wanted the provisions of the operative district scheme upheld. It was opposed to industrial development of the site. The second appellant, Isaac Construction Company, Ltd, appealed against the Heathcote County Council decision to create a special zone because it did not wish

to be involved in any proposals for a comprehensive development. The land involved is owned by Isaac Construction, R. G. Scott, G. F. and D. F. Scott, and G. F. Scott alone. In its interim decision the Tribunal said that the quarry site was unsuitable for residential development. “It is visually unattractive; located on a busy road; difficult to establish, from a drainage point of view; and located below an area of land which is unstable.” • The land above the quarry site was unsuitable for any form of development involving buildings, said the Tribunal.

Some limited form of light industrial development could be accommodated on the quarry floor. “In our judgment the residents will not be adversely affected by such development and if landscaping and protective planting is carried out as envisaged by Mr

Isaac, the amenities of the area should be enhanced. If the quarry floor is‘left •in its • present state, as it could be once quarrying work has finished, it will remaift. a blot on the landscape" • said the Tribunal. The Tribunal said that any development of the quarry floor must be subject to control by the Heathcote County Council. The appeal site was a difficult area in land use planning terms. “On the other hand, if the amenities of the area are to be improved, some encouragement must be given to redevelopment of the quarry site.” The Tribunal said that the Heathcote council’s special zoning of the site should be deleted from the council’s

review of its district scheme. “The bulk of the appeal site should be zoned rural, with the quarry floor ... being zoned for light industrial purposes- but confined to development and continued

responsibility therefore by one owner. This will involve a special zoning." The decision was an interim one because the Tribunal had insufficient information before it to settle the details of the zoning. The Tribunal said that although its decision meant that some industrial development would be allowed on the quarry site, the County Council still had to comply with its obligations under the Local Government Act when issuing building permits and be careful that any buildings were not imperilled by the unstable nature of the land above the quarry site. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by Isaac Construction, but dismissed the appeal by the United Council.