Shopping plan ‘unlawful’

Press, 13 November 1982, Page 12

Shopping plan ‘unlawful’

The Waimairi District Council's plan to prevent commercial development of land already zoned commercial in the’ Church Corner shopping area has been called unlawful by an objector.

The Town and Country Planning Act did not give the council the power to decide that one person might be permitted to develop his land to its maximum potential while another must be forced to provide for the consequences of that development. Mr J. R. Milligan told a council planning hearing. Mr Milligan was representing Mr K. S. Stanbury. the owner of 13 Leslie Street, a property in the shopping centre block.- The block is bounded bv Leslie Street, Brake Street. Yaldhurst Road. Riccarton Road, and Waimairi Road. The Waimairi District Council wants to alter the zoning from commercial to commercial 3 to tighten control on the development of the block. Its plan is to prevent any further commercial building on the Leslie Street side of the block and to turn this area into carparking. However, Mr Stanbury hopes to turn his property into a garden centre. "There is no provision in the act which enables a concept plan of this kind to be imposed.” said Mr Milligan.

"It is certainly unreasonable. Even without looking at the history of the matter, to require Mr Stanbury to abandon his proposals for development and virtually to make a present of his land to the public for no better reason than that the council has been unable to achieve its desires by direct and lawful means is to make a mockery of any concept of reasonableness and justice," he said. Under the Public Works Act. 1981. it was now unlawful for a council to acquire land when the owner was unwilling to sell. It was a principle in New Zealand law that a person might not do indirectly what could not be done directly, and so the proposed change was an attempt by the council to do an unlawful act. Mr Milligan said. Mr Stanbury had tried to develop his property in conjunction with other property owners, but had been unsuccessful. In 1979 he had approached the council with plans for development on his own. Eight days later, the council began proceedings to take his land under the Public Works Act for car-park-ing. That chronology disclosed an unusual secretiveness, Mr Milligan said. Mr Stanbury had since been prevented from carrying out his plans by the delay the council had caused.

The council's proposal would totally destroy the value of Mr Stanbury’s land, and would mean that he could not establish his garden centre. “Who but the council would be interested in buying a piece of land in order to provide car-parking for existing shops'’ In any event, no purchaser would be prepared to pay anything but a fraction of its present value." he said.

The reports of council officers at the hearing further convinced him that they had the view that if Mr Stanbury could not be persuaded to sell, he should be compelled to sell. Mr Milligan said. Earlier in the hearing. Mr G. W. Main, the council’s deputy engineer, said that he would dearly love to see the council own the land. Mr Main said that Mr Stanbury’s property was needed for parking, and that building on areas of the objectors’ properties wanted for car-parking would divide the parking area and shops, and would interrupt the circulation of vehicles.

A report by Mr P. T. McCombs, a civil engineer, read by Mr Milligan, said however that access, parking, and landscaping needs of the shopping centre did not require the zoning change. Mr McCombs called the council’s wish for a large car-park old-fashioned, and

said that individual owners and occupiers should be encouraged to vary their parking. He also said that small parking areas should be allowed in the area proposed for buildings.

Mr D. D. Hinman, the council’s district planner, said that the council should continue to negotiate with Mr Stanbury to buy his property. He regretted that it was not possible for the land to be designated and if necessary taken under the Public Works Act, he said.

The change would better limit northward expansion of the shopping centre, and would consolidate development as well as switch the emphasis from Riccarton Road, which was very busy, he said.

Mr D. S. Johnston, a director of Jones Shoe Store, said that he and his wife also objected to the proposed change because they had wished to extend their buildings to the back of their site. They would be unable to do this if the change went ahead. The Church Corner Business Association, the Bank of New Zealand, and Upper Riccarton Hardware, Ltd, supported the council’s plans.

The submissions were heard bv Crs I. Calvert. F. S. Blogg. R. W. Skellerup. and H. M. Tait.

A recommendation will be made to the council.