Deer plant case ends

Press, 12 May 1984, Page 9

Deer plant case ends

It was “unrealistic” to say that a deer antler processing plant could not be sited in Paparua County Council’s industrial zones instead of a rural zone, said the county planner, Mr K. G. Lawn, at a hearing of the Planning Tribunal in Christchurch yesterday. Mr Lawn was giving evidence for the council in an appeal case brought by Mr I. E. Gray against the council, which has twice refused to grant a conditional use application to allow Mr Gray to establish his business on rural land fronting the Old West Coast Road. The hearing began on Thursday and ended yesterday, when the tribunal reserved decision. Mr Lawn said that the council had about 640 ha of land zoned for industrial use, of which about half was undeveloped. Mr Gray bad said earlier that his business was too clean to be in the industrial zones, but Mr Lawn said he found that hard to accept. Mr Lawn said that Mr Gray also wanted his business in the rural zone so that he could .use helicopters to transport the deer antlers from farms to the packing house. There appeared to be no real need for the helicopters to take off and land from Mr Gray’s property, said Mr Lawn. They could land and w

take off safely from a site on the fringes of the industrial zone. Variation No. 21 of the council’s District Scheme provided for a range of rural processing industries, but the council had been careful to set down specific conditions in order to limit such industries. If the application was granted, the scheme could not remain without change or variation, said Mr Lawn. After speaking to a number of people in the deer velvet industry, he had considerable reservations about the viability of Mr Gray’s proposals. Mr Lawn said that he had been told by the Development Finance Corporation that it would not be involved with Mr Gray’s venture. Mr J. M. Chamberlain, a semi-retired farmer whose farm is on the eastern boundary of Mr Gray’s property, said that he and his wife objected to the application by Mr Gray. He said that if the clarity of air was important to Mr Gray he was surprised that he had chosen a site which received some dust from the quarry across the road and from the riverbed when northwesterly winds were blowing. Mr Jack Andrew, a senior planning officer with the Canterbury United Council, said that both the operative and the proposed

Planning Schemes sought to provide for industry either in urban areas or in special rural industrial areas. Mr Gray’s land was in the special rural area of the operative scheme and in the green belt area of the proposed scheme. Mr Andrew said that the use of a helicopter during the deer velvet season was the main reason why a green belt site had been sought, but there was no substantive reason why the applicant could not establish in an industrial zone near Christchurch Airport. Cross-examined by counsel for Mr Gray, Mr A. Hearn, Q.C., Mr Andrew said that variation 21, which allowed for agricultural processing plants as conditional uses, was not intended to allow for anything but small-scale establishments. Mr Hearn asked if a winery or honey factory of the size of Mr Gray’s packing house would come within variation 21. Mr Andrew replied that it would not necessarily do so. In reply to a question from Judge Skelton, Mr Andrew said that the deer antler processing plant would probably be a conditional use in terms of the variation if it processed only from 40 deer on Mr Gray’s farm. Mr Gray had said in evidence on Thursday that he proposed to rear 40 deer within a year.

Judge Skelton asked what would happen if the applicant got consent for processing from 40 deer then started processing more antlers from further afield. Mr Andrew replied that the County Council would probably indicate the sort of scale it thought appropriate in terms of the variation, if it granted consent. The applicant would then have to apply to the council again if he wanted to expand. Judge Skelton: So it is not the nature of the use but its scale that the United Council objected to? Mr Andrew: Yes, as long as it’s associated with local agriculture and is smallscale in terms of the variation. Asked by the tribunal to give more evidence on the cost of using helicopters. Mr Gray said that he had been quoted $530 an hour or if on contract rates, $430 an hour. This cost had been taken into account and could be accommodated. Asked by Judge Skelton whether he would continue the business if the use of helicopters was no longer a proposition, Mr Gray said that he would continue, but would have to pick up antlers in refrigerated trucks to take them to assembly points in the South Island such as Timaru and bring them from there by helicopter, thereby reducing the number of hours a helicopter would be needed.