‘No growth’ from zoning

Press, 17 July 1982, Page 5

‘No growth’ from zoning

review has been told. ? Under the proposed scheme, some areas previously zoned for commercial use will be re-zoned as mixed residential.

A proposed new zoning of land at Hornby would not sufficiently allow for commercial growth in the area, a hearing into the Paparua County district scheme

Mr J. W. Muir, who owns three properties in Tower Street affected by the change, said in his objection that the planned commercial area would not bh adequate or acceptable to the public in 20 years. Restricting the commercial 2 zone to the immediate vicinity of the Hornby Mall would not encouarge growth, he said.

wise planning to extend the proposed commercial area. Mr N. R. Hampton, a spokesman for a syndicate of shopowners' who own the Branston Buildings, said that syndicate members were shocked by the “about face” of the county council in deciding to exclude the, block of shops from the main commercial zone. Under the proposed scheme the block will be zoned commercial services 1, under which major retail services are not a predominant use. Mr Hampton -said the shopowners were concerned that they could lose their existing use rights and be put out of business if the buildings were destroyed by fire or earthquake. He said the syndicate had bought the block in February, 1981, but had been given no notice that the council was contemplating a zone change. Woolworths, Ltd, lodged an objection to the proposal to change the zoning of its. property on the Main South Road from commercial 2 to commercial 1. A commercial 1 zone limited the floor space to 750 sq. m. At present the Woolworths building had a floor space of 1314 sq. m and although it was protected by existinguse rights, a planned extension was no longer possible. Mr R. W. Batty, a town planning consultant appearing for Woolworths, suggested changing the definition of a commercial 1 zone

Properties previously zoned for commercial use in Tower Street would lose value by being zoned mixed residential and this would be unfair, said Mr Muir.

Mr J. E. Cullens, representing Mr B. C. Brunt, told the hearing that Mr Brunt had bought land in Brynley Street in 1968 when it had been zoned commercial B. He had hoped to develop the land as a high rise commercial and shopping block.

During the last 2% years, Mr Brunt had been trying to sell the land but prospective buyers had been put off when they learned it carried a proposed mixed residential zoning. The land would become more difficult to sell if the scheme took affect, he said.

In a cross-objection by the Canterbury United Council, Mr J. L. Robb told the hearing that large potential for developing could be made available for development by rezoning, some of the proposed mixed residential as commercial services 1, but that this would undermine the whole scheme.

• . to allow an expansion of up “You have to decide to 50 per cent of existing whether you want the area floor space.to be residential or commer- The hearing sub-commit-cial and then tell the people." tee of the council reservec He said he did not think it its decision.