Gondola project faces red tape, petition

Press, 10 January 1986, Page 5

Gondola project faces red tape, petition

The group proposing the Port Hills gondola project will face a mountain of red tape and a maze of planning steps before a decision on approval is made. The group, Project Consultants, will have to deal with at least five local authorities and one Government department before a single sod of earth is turned. A planner for the group, Mr Bruce Alexander, said the proposal would have to go through a multitude of procedures. Town planning steps alone could take up to a year, depending on the strength of opposition to it While no applications had yet been made with the authorities concerned, formal approaches would be made within the next two months. Efforts were being made to coordinate planning applications and have them

lodged concurrently to cut down on delays, he said. “We’re fully aware of all the problems,” said Mr Alexander. Town planning responsibility for the area lies with the Heathcote County Council and Lyttelton Borough Council, where the land for the proposed project is. The Christchurch City Council is involved as administrator of the reserve area of Mount Cavendish, on which the gondola terminal and restaurant will be built. The Canterbury United Council is involved as administrator of the Summit* Road (Canterbury) Protection Act. Approval is also required from the North Canterbury Catchment Board for earthworks on the hills. The project would include a tourist gondola from the Heathcote tunnel portal to the top of Mount Cavendish, or to a point 50;$jnetres

below the summit. Both routes would include a restaurant. Two artificial bobsleigh runs and an artificial ski slope would be built on land facing the Lyttelton Road tunnel buildings. Planning applications to the Heathcote and Lyttelton councils are necessary because the project is not a predominant use on land zoned rural by both councils. Opportunity exists for public submissions and objections, and for appeals to the Planning Tribunal. The United Council is trying to arrange one set of planning hearings for both councils to deal with all aspects. The hearings would be by a joint committee of both councils. The United Council is directly involved as administrator of the Summit Road act. The council must give permissionn for any building in the area under the

act’s jurisdiction. The City Council will publicly notify the change in the reserve’s status, that would be required for the project, and call for public submissions. It would advise and inform the Commissioner of Crown Lands, who would then report to the Minister of Lands for approval. A petition opposing the project has already been circulated by a Heathcote Village resident, Mr John Marsh. While some of the residents in the area favoured the proposal or were indifferent, up to 80 per cent opposed it, he said. Any top-heavy recreational development would threaten the rural character of Heathcote, said Mr Marsh. “We’re also worried that st more development ill Sfollow,” he said. '3/