Regional planners question Sheffield urban proposal

Press, 9 December 1981, Page 12

Regional planners question Sheffield urban proposal

The Malvern County Council should think hard about allowing Sheffield urban development to spread beyond land already zoned for housing. the Canterbury United Council regional planning committee has said. But committee members at their meeting this week stopped short of calling for a formal objection to a proposal seeking subdivision ot 4.7 ha of land west of the township into 28 residential sections. The land, at the corner of Tramway Road and Wrights Road and north of the railway line, is in a rural zone. Councillors said the Malvern council should be advised that the proposal was not sound planning. Development of new sections reduced the chance that vacant land within the urban zones of Sheffield and Waddington would be developed. Regional planning councillors made it clear that they hoped the county council would reject the proposal. Although the sections would not be alongside State highway 72, Cr I. G. Clark said that councils had to be wary of allowing ribbon development along main roads. He said that the South Canterbury town of Temuka was “one of the classic examples of the worst type of development,” with buildings spreading a long distance along the highway when there was room back from the road for expansion. Cr W. E. Walker said that approval of the application would be “really a complete reversal of Malvern's original scheme. They were going to house everybody in Darfield. By reaching out, are they going to let the horse bolt?” Cr Clark said if this was allowed “there will be a lot of pressure to let the reins go in other areas." Sir Terence McCombs said that since the proposed development would not conflict with the regional planning scheme, it should remain a district scheme matter. The regional planning director, Mr G. C. Miller, said the case for a regional objection would be “relatively weak.” But committee members said there was a case for advising the countv council

that the application should be turned down. Rakaia River use The United Council wanted to be represented at any hearing concerning the use of Rakaia River water for irrigation, recreation, or salmon farming, councillors said. It was imperative to have comprehensive information before large allocations were made. They said the irrigation applications already before the North Canterbury Catchment Board were probably premature. Having the applications heard soon would place eve r - y body in a difficult position, said the regional planning committee chairman (Cr D. B. Rich). Golf course Councillors said the United Council should . appeal against the Christchurch City Council's decision to allow future residential zoning over Richmond Hill Golf Course land. The City Council had decided that the land, now zoned rural, was generally suitable for urban use. However, the United Council has said that the land should be retained in the non-urban Green Belt. Rubber industry The United Council has told the Industries Development Commission that it is concerned over part of its draft report on the New Zealand tyre, tube, and retreading industry. If efforts to improve the industry's efficiency at the national level meant closure or reduction of existing manufacturing facilities, such as the local Firestone plant, that would hurt the region. Submissions to the I.D.C. said that on-site job losses were likely to be accompanied by losses of up to 2 1 /z times as many jobs in the regional economy. Relocation allowances and other provisions for displaced workers were not an adequate substitute for a more socially responsible and regionally-balanced approach to the industry, United Council submissions said. •

Computers Facilities for storage and retrieval of regional planning and urban transport -information may be tied to the City Council's traffic control computer system.

Councillors were told that that method would have a capital cost of $20,000, soread over two years, and a running cost of about $5OOO a year.