Paparua decision upset

Press, 17 October 1986, Page 5

Paparua decision upset

The Planning Tribunal has allowed an appeal by Mr T. K. M. Williams against a Paparua County Council decision to refuse planning consent for a dwelling in Old Tai Tapu Road in conjunction with Angora goat farming. But the tribunal, comprising Judge Skelton and Mesdames N. J. Johnson and M. McG. Clark, has warned the council that it should give urgent attention to the relevant provisions of its District Scheme to avoid pressure from other small landowners in the county for similar approval. The tribunal said its decision was an interim one, which would be finalised when the appellant and the respondent agreed on conditions the

tribunal suggested should be imposed. The property is in Old Tai Tapu Road about Ikm from State highway 75 and comprises about 2.5 hectares of land zoned Rural 2. It is known locally as the “gum tree block” or “the reserve”, and was bought by Mr Williams, a stock and station agent for Pyne, Gould, Guinness Ltd, early last year. The council’s District Scheme allows for dwellings in the zone to be a predominant use on titles of more than 40 hectares and conditional on titles of less than 40 hectares, where certain conditions are met. The ordinance prescribes about 19 predominant uses, and 10 conditional uses.

The council’s hearing committee had refused consent to Mr Williams’s application on the ground that his proposal did not fulfil the criteria of the scheme for the application to be considered a conditional use, and refused to allow a specified departure because there would be planning significance beyond the immediate vicinity and the integrity of the scheme would be challenged. The tribunal granted consent in the exercise of its discretion under section 69(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act. “We have decided to do this largely because of the difficulties of the District Scheme, and consequently the hardship which may

flow so far as this appellant is concerned, if consent is refused. We think he has been misled by the scheme. “We do not say he has been misled intentionally. But he was advise'd that there should be no difficulty obtaining a building permit, and we think a reasonably intelligent lay reading of the scheme as it stands could lead a person such as the appellant to rely on this advice,” said the tribunal. It also took into account evidence from the County Planner, Mr K. G. Lawn, that the site was unique, and the fact that there was no opposition from any third party.