Industrial frontage again under discussion

Press, 23 November 1983, Page 23

Industrial frontage again under discussion

The zoning of the Main South Road industrial frontage was again the subject of debate at a Paparua County Council District Scheme review committee hearing.

In a variation to its reviewed scheme, the council plans to reinstate the industrial 1 zone along the Main South Road frontage of the block bounded by Blenheim Road and Riccarton High School. This would include some properties zoned industrial 2 after objections to the scheme review in 1981.

The industrial 1 zone allows light industry and is a buffer between industrial and residential areas, whereas industrial 2 is regarded as an intermediate zone. The owners of four industrial properties objected to this proposal. Swimming Pool Construction and Equipment, Ltd, recently bought its property at 109 Main South Road, and was concerned that it might not be able to develop it as planned and it would decrease in value. The principal officer and shareholder, Mr H. P. Sweeney, said that at the time of purchase the company was not warned of a proposed change in zoning.

Mr G. M. Drinnan owned the property at 103 Main South Road and although he no longer ran his engineering business there, it was rented to a paint and panel business. His counsel, Mr G. C. Knight, submitted that the property was not suitable for the uses allowed under the industrial 1 zone, and suggested that noise and landscaping restrictions might help appease residential objectors. A.B. and L. M. Sayer, of Lumber Specialties, Ltd, objected to the proposed change on the ground that it would not allow pressure treating of timber using toxic chemicals. They wanted their property rezoned industrial 3. An objection had also been lodged by Tyre Sales

and Service, Ltd, but the company did not attend the hearing. Four submissions supporting the variation were received, three of them from residents and the other from Associated British Cables, Ltd, and Aluminium Conductors, Ltd.

Two cross-objections were also received, one supporting the above submissions and opposing the objections. and the other supporting an industrial 1 zone. Brief submissions were heard from the Ministry of Works, the Railways, and the Canterbury United Council against the council's proposal to reduce from 20 metres to five metres a road widening designation on the northern side of Buchanans Road, near Carmen Road.

The designation had originally been included in the District Scheme to provide sufficient land for an overbridge over the proposed Styx-Sockburn railway line. However, the council had never been served a requirement for this. The owner of a Bu-. chanan’s Road property, Mr R. J. Spicer, had approached the council asking it to reduce this designation as it ran through the middle of his house and he could not sell it.

The Ministry of Works and the Railways Corporation proposed a compromise of a 10m designation on the western boundary and a 6m designation on the eastern boundary. However, the Canterbury United Council wanted the 20m designation retained as a variation would prejudice the regional road network and the proposed railway line, and was likely to result in unnecessary public expenditure.

Cross-objecting, Mr Spicer thanked the Ministry of Works and the Railways Corporation for their comEromise, but dismissed the United Council’s objection as “a load of rubbish.”