ARANUI RESIDENTS’ APPEAL AGAINST ZONING

Press, Volume C, Issue 29506, 6 May 1961, Page 9

ARANUI RESIDENTS’ APPEAL AGAINST ZONING

An appeal by the Aranui Progress League against the City Council’s zoning of an area of land east of Bickerton street for industrial purposes was heard by the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board in the Provincial Council Chambers yesterday. The board, with Mr F. F. Reid, S.M., as chairman, reserved its decision. Mr K. A. Gough appeared for the league, and Mr W. R. Lascelles for the council. Mr A. C. Rattray appeared for Millers Worsted, Ltd., and Wilfrid Owen, Ltd., objectors to the appeal. Mr B. G. Dingwall appeared for other objectors to the appeal —Mr H. R. Alford, Vinell Shoes, Ltd., Mr and Mrs K. H. Fulford, and Windsor Products, Ltd. Mr Gough said that the case had now resolved into the single aspect of the appropriate zoning of certain land lying east of Bickerton street. Bickerton street had been settled by rgsidents who bought their properties on special terms and under special obligations laid down by the council, which had subdivided the land, and the street was' laid out with underground wiring to make it a street of special attractions. Zone Extension Because the residents felt industrial zoning of the land in the rear of their houses would detract from the amenities of those homes, it was considered that the residential zoning should extend back three chains east of Bickerton street, said Mr Gough. In other words, the residents sought the setting back of the industrial zone which lay to the east of the street. Originally, the Wai-, noni road, Bickerton street. Pages road and Breezes road block was publicly notified as an industrial area apart from certain street frontages. But the result of the council’s decision, by its objection committee, had left the inner area industrial to an extent that called for modification. Accordingly, the league submitted a limited scheme of subdivision, as embodied in a plan prepared by Mr J. G. McClelland. The residents felt that the zoning at present meant inconveniences and uncongenial use. and that there was a prospect of industrial infiltration into the street. The league thought some more permanent barrier was necessary to protect the Bickerton street residents from elements which sprang from the existing admixture of land use. which served to depreciate their properties. Mr Gough explained that under the present zoning the industrial zone went right up to the rear boundaries o' residents on the east side of Bickerton street. Evidence for the league was then given bv Messrs R G. Booth. J. G. McClelland. W C. Clarkson. W. A. Seymour. M. S. Haxel. and J. F. Hutchinson and Mrs Betty Mcllroy. For the council, Mr Lascelles said that the problem

created in the locality was in large measure the outcome of historical development. There had been pressure for both industrial and residential usage in the locality, and an earlier concept of the suitability of the area for both uses had influenced the council. There was also an element of somewhat uncontrolled development before the more select control which came from the later development of town-planning machinery and principles. Mr Lascelles said the council’s decision had sought to strike a balance by compromise between the competing claims of the resident and industrialist. He said that the plan prepared for the appellant proposed a new road to the east and parallel to Bickerton street. This would create problems of implementing the proposal in practice, and would make a traffic problem by creating another road intersection in a main road. Pages road. It would diminish the industrial land reserved for the city in the council’s scheme, and the new residential sections would be facing industrial sites. Alternative Plan The existing rear yards of the present residences on the east side of Bickerton street already provided a minor buffer area between the residents and industry, said Mr Lascelles. He said an alternative proposal to the appellant’s plan might be considered; namely the fixing of the building line 50ft to the east of Bickerton street residential eastern boundary, with appropriate tree planting to minimise the effects of industry. Mr J. E. Foster, city coun-

cil town planning officer, in evidence outlined the history of the locality and said that a sizeable industrial area had resulted because substantial industries had become established in good faith. There had been industrial development before the Bickerton street residences had been established, said Mr Foster. The council’s decision was a reasonable compromise, reconciling practice with principle and past history with future requirements. Mr Foster said he felt i 1 was fair to suggest an alternative proposal to that proposed by Mr McClelland for the appellant. A 50ft building line extension into the industrial zone would provide the buffer for severance between houses and the indsutrial area to the east. Objectors’ Views ■Mr Dingwall said that the objectors he appeared for were mainly concerned with the Shortland street part of the block. The matter before the board appeared to be mainly dealing with the Bickerton street area, and would really only affect Bickerton street. In the circumstances, he would abide by the decision of the board. Mr Rattray, for the two major industrial objectors, said that his clients had been established in the area for some time and had become established at much expense. They had built industry in the area in good faith in the designation of the block for industrial purposes. Mr Dingwall said that Wilfrid Owen, Ltd., would be particularly affected by the new road plan proposed, and some modification of this proposal was desirable in the interest of his two clients. In measure, he could support both the new road plan and building line proposal.