BUILDING IN TAHUNANUI

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 19 September 1945, Page 2

BUILDING IN TAHUNANUI

(To the Editor) Sir—ln Thursday’s "Mail” you have seen fit to publish a sub-leader taking the Tahunanui Town Board to task for its stand in regard to town planning. 1 am astonished Sir, that, in the first place, you reported the discussion in the manner you did, for your article in Wednesday’s paper under the heading "Answer Still No,” gives an entirely false impression of the application before the board, of the discussion that followed, and of the conclusions reached unanimously by the board. The impression you give both in the report of the meeting, and in your editorial, is that the board is simply stifling any progressive movement without due consideration. The board did not refuse to grant a permit to build ten shops with dwellings. We had before us a« application to reclassify a portion of a residential area as a business area, so that these shops could be built outside the classified commercial area. Under the Town Planning Scheme, a considerable amount of time and planning was directed towards the most effective definition ot the various areas, and it has taken some years to eventually get the scheme gazetted and in operation. The only method the Town Board has of altering the classification, is contained in section 9 clauses 1 and 2 of the Town Planning Scheme, which reads: — 1. The Town Board may, subject to the approval of the Town Planning Board, consent to the use of any land or building for a purpose not hereby authorised. 2. Such consent shall be granted only on the grounds of public convenience or to avoid undue hardship. Now. Sir, the question before the board was whether public convenience or undue hardship was in any way affected. The commercial area is that area bounded on the north-west by Beach road, on the east by the main highway, on the south-east by Muritai street and the south-west by Moana street or its new name Waikare street. The proposed site of the new shops is« just south of the Hut corner, or on the opposite side of the main highway to the properly defined area; consequently the question of public convenience does not apply. The avoidance of undue hardship cannot be taken into account, for a syndicate of business men who are prepared to spend £IB,OOO on buildings, would not claim hardship in relation to the difference in ths cost of the sections. May I point out that at the previous meeting of the board, a permit was granted for the erection of four shops which are to be built within the proper area. Strangely enough, these shops are also to contain a tobacconist’s and hairdresser’s, a fish shop, and a cake shop. It is a pity that you had not acquainted yourselves with your reporter’s previous notes before making comments in an editorial as to the board’s rebuff to th~t kind of enterprise, or had not studied the Town Planning Act before stating “The really important point was not formal violation of a town plan.’’ The area concerned has a static water level close to the surface, and, with the seepage from the hill, it is impracticable to dispose of the sewerage satisfactorily. The concentration of approximately 40 people on this small lowlying area, was no doubt the determining factor with the Health Department, when they stated they could not guarantee satisfactory drainage. Much as all members of the board are desirous to see the maximum amount of building in the town, particularly in encouraging business that will give service to the people, we would be very unwise indeed to act contrary to the ad vice the Health Department, and what we, ourselves, consider would become a menace to public health. It is regretted that the Press has published such an abbreviated account of the discussion at the board’s meeting, and has stressed the purely negative view only. Had as much prominence been given to the hoard’s reasons for not reclassifying the area as to ‘The Answer Still, No,” your paper would have been doing a much oetter service lu the public—l am, etc., F. E. LEHNDORF. Tahunanui. 9th September. IThe correspondent is misinterpreting our comment if he suggests that we advised against accepting the advice of the Health Department which did not veto the building scheme on the score of drainage but merely said it could not guarantee that i* would be satisf;r t p. y. Complaint about stressing the negative point of view should be directed against the board rathei than against us since the net result of all the negotiations up to date (and it was not sug gested that a careful examination ol the project had not been made) is that the way is not clear for proceeding with any of the buildings mentioned by the correspondent.—Editor, “1 he Mail/’J