Castle Hill village ‘a council matter’

Press, 4 May 1984, Page 3

Castle Hill village ‘a council matter’

Developments in the Castle Hill village area should remain the responsibility of the Malvern County Council, councillors were told yesterday. The council should retain co-ordination and direction in what was a “district” matter, the council’s consultant planner, Mr D. A. Bryce, told a town planning hearing. Assistance in development in the area had been offered in general terms by the Canterbury United Council and the Ministry of Works and Development. The simplest form of assistance would be financial, Mr Bryce said.

If financial assistance was not available a staff member from the United Council or the Ministry could be used or those bodies asked to do specific tasks.

Planning should be coordinated with other councils but the responsibility for the management, wise use, direction, and control of the resources of the district was Malvern County under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, Mr Bryce said.

The hearing, which had been reconvened from April ’9 when objections and submissions were heard, was held on Change 11 to the council’s District Scheme.

Under the change, land north of Castle Hill village would lose its Rural D zoning. Land to the east of State highway 73 would be zoned Rural D to provide industrial and recreational use.

Objectors had said that a development straddling the highway would cause crosstraffic which would be hazardous to taffic using the highway. The councillors decided to further study the use of land

east of the highway, traffic problems, and the placing of facilities for the village. Separate resolutions relating to objections made at the hearing were passed which retained 1400 people as the village guideline capacity population and lifting the Rural D zone proposed for land on the west of the highway owned by the Brittain family.

Development and landscape plans will be submitted with each proposed Rural D or DI zone including site selection, analysis, planting, and maintenance, uses and access. The area to the north was the preferred option for industrial and recreational development, Mr Bryce said. The zoning for the eastern side of the highway could be shelved until a later date as there was no urgent need for further development there, he said. The uncontentious parts of the change could become operative as soon as possible if the objections made were now accepted, Mr Bryce said. That would allow building controls to be clarified at Castle Hill.

A decision on using land on the east side of the road whould be made seperately from any over-all study he said.

Investigations into inter-

nal reading in the village and access on to the highway were also needed. The area was one with “enormous potential in some respects but already overtaxed in other respects,” Mr Bryce said. More than 100 studies on the area had already been made so caution was needed before starting another. A promotional role, perhaps with an information centre in Darfield, the “Gateway to the High Country,” should be considered. Existing information should be collated rather than further studies done. “We don’t want 101 studies but assimilation of what is already there,” Cr G. E. J. Hutton said.

He suggested that the Canterbury United Council call a meeting to “get this off the ground.” Control by the County Council should be retained, but the services and resources of the United Council used, he said. The county chairman, Mr G. E. Wright and Cr Hutton will suggest a meeting to the Canterbury United Council when it meets on May 18, the councillors decided.

The County Clerk, Mr B. W. Perrin, also asked for investigation into implications of Mr Bryce’s recommendations.