Greystones likely to be taken under act

Press, 4 April 1985, Page 5

Greystones likely to be taken under act

Greystones, the historic house threatened by the Christchurch City Council’s Hoon Hay Road deviation, will probably be taken by the council under the Public Works Act. The council’s works and traffic committee last evening recommended taking the property under the act so that “the matter may be resolved as quickly as possible by the Planning Tribunal.” The committee’s intention in recommending the taking of the property was to pass the decision on to the Town and Country Planning Tribunal. It would have to decide whether to use the council staffs plan, which would mean the demolition of Greystones, or to use the tenants’ plan, which would save it. The matter had to go to the tribunal anyway because a change in the council’s District Scheme would be needed, the committee was told. Mr Peter McKenna, who lives in Greystones and whose family owns the house, said after yesterday’s meeting that he had been seeking a council resolution that the house would be

saved. He said he feared that the taking of the house by the council might mean that the tribunal would endorse the decision. At the meeting, Mr McKenna and his wife were represented by Mr Peter McCombes, a traffic design engineer, who proposed an alternative to the council officers’ scheme. Mr McCombes said the alternative would mean a tighter curve and the taking of some land opposite Greystones. More land would be gained than taken. No technical difficulties existed between the plans, Mr McCombes said. The essential issue was the saving of Greystones. That was what the committee and the council had to decide upon. Transferring the matter to the Planning Tribunal would give the McKennas further expense. Mr McCombes said he sought a resolution supporting the retention of the old house or an approval of the alternative plan. Mr Michael Gadd, the council’s traffic engineer, said the two plans did not differ greatly. He believed

that the council plan would be safer for cyclists and the landscaping potential of the council plan was greater. Access would not be as good under Mr McCombes’ plan and the corner would be tighter than was normal for council safety standards. Costs were similar so that the decision had to be made by balancing the saving of Greystones against poorer access, safety, and environmental standards. The committee’s chairman, Cr Maurice Carter, said the alternative would affect eight other houses whose owners had, for the 15 years the scheme had been drawn up, believed their properties would not be affected. The District Scheme, dating from 1968, could only be changed by the Planning Tribunal and the matter would best be discussed there by an independent authority, he said. Cr Mollie Clark disagreed, calling on the council to save the house. A petition of 250 signatures showed that the public supported its retention, she said. Cr Alister James said the

Planning Tribunal would involve the McKennas in “considerable expense.” Cr Carter said that that was the quickest means of having the matter heard by an independent body. Councillors who felt strongly enough could give evidence at the tribunal. Cr Clark said the officers would promote their scheme before the tribunal. Mr Gadd said there was no way of predicting an outcome, although in previous cases the tribunal had tended to favour the provision of an operative town-planning scheme.

Mr Gadd said if he had been given the brief to save Greystones, he would probably have devised a plan similar to that of Mr McCombes. But that was not his brief and he believed that his plan was better and safer.

The value of Greystones had only been pointed out this year, although the council’s Hoon Hay deviation had been planned for 15 years. The owner had twice negotiated with the council to buy the property but a deal had never been finalised.