Company fined for 'unsightly’ section

Press, 11 July 1989, Page 14

Company fined for 'unsightly’ section

A company was fined $250 yesterday for failing to comply with a Paparua County Council order requiring an industrialzoned Hornby section to be either cleared of car wrecks and parts or screened. lan Giltrap, Ltd, pleaded guilty to the charge in the District Court at Christchurch through its counsel, Mr Nick Rout. Mr Murray Abbott, for the Paparua County Council, said the company owned and occupied land in Mountview Place zoned Industrial 4 under the District Scheme. The scheme sets requirements for industrial zones. One requirement is that outdoor storage areas visible from the road must be screened by either a solid fence or suitable landscaping, he said. In 1987 the council

received a complaint about the appearance of the property. “An inspection revealed that the property, which is a vacant section, was very unsightly, with vehicle wrecks, vehicle bodies, vehicle parts and other chattels lying about the property and visible from the street.” Mr Abbott said the county planner wrote twice to the company asking that the site be cleared or the frontage screened. An inspection on April 15 last year — more than five weeks after sending the second letter revealed the property was still in the same state. In August the council issued a notice requiring the company to either clear the section of the vehicle bodies and parts, or suitably screen its frontage. The notice was not

complied with by November 30, as required. The prosecution was undertaken in March this year. Mr Abbott said an inspection on July 4 showed the property remained unchanged. But three days later it was found to have been cleared, and the property now complied with council requirements. Mr Rout said the company found it difficult to allocate staff from more profitable work to clear the site. He said there were a number of other sections in the immediate locality which were in similar condition. “No action appears to have been taken about them.” He asked that the fine be moderate, given that the company had no previous convictions and the offence was a minor, regulatory matter.