REFERRED BACK

Evening Star, Issue 21077, 14 April 1932, Page 14

REFERRED BACK

WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION OVER SHOP FRONTAGE At last night’s meeting of the City Council a recommendation of the Works Committee regarding a building permit for a shop at the corner of Hope and High streets was referred back to the committee. The clause read;—“The committee has given consideration to an application by Messrs O’Driscoll Bros, for a building permit to convert a building at the corner of Hope and High streets to a shop. Objection has been shown to the proposal by some of the residents in the locality on the ground that the area is strictly residential, and that the introduction of a shop would be likely to depreciate property. The committee therefore recommends that the application bo not granted on the ground that, pursuant to section 34 of The Town Planning Act, 1926, as amended by the 1929 Act, the existence of a shop premises at the site in question would be out of harmony with its surroundings and would be likely to contravene the town planning scheme for the area when completed and approved.” Cr Shacklock: “I don’t think it matters very much if the clause is adopted or sent back, but it seems to me that the council should have some definite policy when questions of this sort are raised.” He went on to say that they had a system of zoning in Christchurch, and there was no reason why a similar system should not work hero. At any rate, it was time the council adopted a policy. The public should be notified that on a certain date certain factors would come into operation. He was opposed to anything being done in this case without notice being given. Cr Scott said he thought it would be better if the council made definite zones regarding shopping and residential areas. He knew the locality, and ho understood that the objections came from people in High street. It might be considered whether the frontage could be given to Hope street. He would move as an amendment that the clause be referred back to the committee.

Cr MTndoe, in seconding the amendment, expressed the opinion that a frontage would improve the locality. The position was very unfair, because the man who had purchased the property had not known that he could not put in the frontage. The amendment was supported by Cr Marlow ? who said that the larger portion of the frontage was on Hope street. The applicant had seen him, and had said he was willing to accept a frontage in Hope street. That being the case, it should not be hard to get over the difficulty.

Cr Mitchell stated that he had no objection to the clause going back to tho committee, but he thought the council should adopt a policy of some sort.

Cr Wilson said he did not think it mattered much if the clause went back or not. The council had done nothing in regard to town planning, and no instructions bad been given to the city engineer, who had said he would require a special staff to deal with all aspects of the matter. The council had done nothing to further the Government’s town-planning scheme. The amendment was carried, the recommendation thus being referred back to the committee.