Remote rural village proposed at Mt Lyford

Press, 3 February 1987, Page 9

Remote rural village proposed at Mt Lyford

Rangiora reporter

A multi-million dollar rural residential village may be developed in the remote Mount Lyford area, 23km north-west of Waiau and 3km off the Inland Kaikoura Road. Based on present costs, the development could have a value of about $l5 million when completed.

The owners of the Mount Lyford station, Mr Douglas Simpson and his wife, Jenny, have submitted proposals to the Amuri County Council to develop 110 building sites with an average area of 0.66 ha and with no section having an area of less than 4000 sq m (just under an acre).

The project has come before the council as change Nd. 1 to its District Planning Scheme. After hearing the application and objections and submissions on behalf of several organisations, including the Canterbury United Council, the Fire Service, Health Department, the North Canterbury Catchment Board, Ministry of Works, and a geology report, the council has ad-

jurned consideration sine die.

Some sites have been sold, subject to planning approval being granted.

A senior lecturer in engineering geology at the University of Canterbury, Mr David Bell, in the summary to his submissions, said that the Mount Lyford log village was a geotechnically feasible development This was subject to the geological constraints that had been identified including the Hope, fault which runs through the locality.

The proposal provides for the development of the sections over 10 years with log houses strategically placed over an area of undulating scrub and bush land, maintaining the feeling of privacy and spaciousness in keeping with the surroundings, according to submissions to the council. The houses would be completed by the developers to the lock-up stage from a choice of five exterior plans. The buyer would complete the interior lay-out to his own arrangement.

The general area will be beautified with several artificial ponds.

More than 600 ha of freehold land, belonging to the developers, would be associated with the village development for informaL recreation, such as tramping.

The site would provide what was described:- as excellent scope, for crosscountry ski-ing. Sited at between 5Mm and 800 m above sea level, the area is usually covered with snow for about eight to 10 weeks each winter. The general area rises to about 1740 m on the Mount Terako backdrop, reputed to be suitable for possible skifield development in the distant future. A ski-field development is not contemplated as part of the present application. The village would be serviced by underground electrical and telephone reticulation, high pressure water supply with fire hydrants, and the planning application provides for sewage disposal by septic tank.

The village would not include any shops or similar services, which would be available at the nearest township, Waiau. The application has a twofold purpose in providing an economic use of land, which the North Canterbury Catchment Board has recommended should be retired from farming, while giving people a “unique opportunity to acquire land in such an environment.”

Across: 1, Performance: 9, Resolve; 10, Minor; 11, Rodeo; 12, Undress; 13, Gashed; 15, Callow; 18, Transit; 20, Flair; 22, Vague; 23, Boorish; 24, Self-centred. Down: 2, Eased; 3, Fulsome; 4, Rhesus; 5, Aimed; 6, Congeal; 7, Prerogative; 8, Trustworthy; 14, Spangle; 16, Affront; 17, Stable; 19, Shelf; 21, Arise.

The subdivision is not intended to compete with tourist or other developments, such as those at Castle Hili or Hanmer Springs. It is suggested that the development would have a “downstream” advantage to local businesses, through employment, increased spending and rates, and the Waiau township would benefit

The developers intend having strict controls over development and the future of the village. No fencing of sites would be allowed, but increased plantings of suitable native trees would be encouraged.

No caravans or temporary sheds would be permitted except during building .work, but permanent log sheds with a maximum area of 40 sq m, would be allowed. No exterior painting of the log houses would be permitted; keeping of animals or pets, the use of firearms and riding .trail bikes would be forbidden. No subsequent subdivision of the allotments would be permitted. It is intended that a resident caretaker would be appointed for general management and maintenance.