SUBDIVISION OF LAND

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26159, 8 July 1950, Page 5

SUBDIVISION OF LAND

SECTIONS REQUIRED BY CROWN • I EXPLANATION BY SURVEYORS Many subdivisions were not being proceeded with because of the Land Subdivision in Counties Act. That was the reason for the shortage of sections, said Messrs D. Gilders, chairman of the Christchurch branch of the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, J. L. Davis, a counciilor of the New Zealand Institute, and F. L. Davie, a past presidents of the institute. They thought the public should know the conditions of the act and said they had been prompted by a letter in “The Press” on July 5 where a correspondent had said the Government would take seven building sections, without compensation, from a block of land which was being cut up into 58 sec tions. They emphasised they were not criticising the act, merely explaining it. The correspondent would be correct when he said the Government would take seven sections from the block, Mr Gilders said. The matter came under the act. The act said where an owner was subdividing land for building purposes it was necessary for him to give four perches of land to the Government for each section shown on that subdivision. Where there was a subdivision of one section of land the owner had to contribute the four perches from the area or pay that amount in. If the multiple of that four perches was sufficient to contribute a section part of the land must be given. That land then became Crown land which could be sold. The money was paid to the receiver of land revenue and went into a fund for the acquisition or maintenance of reserves.

There was no right of appeal. Mr Gilders said. Even if a man gave sections away he was still bound by the act. The chief surveyor could choose the sections he wanted. The owner of land which was bein'’’ subdivided had to give lai\d for a road and pay for a new road as well as giving the land under the act, he said. On a sellers’ market these costs were being passed on to the public and that was putting up the prices of sections. Christchurch was in the least favourable position regarding the act as most of the desirable sections were in counties.

Where sections fronted a main arterial road the Works Denartment took some of the land for the extra width of the road. In addition the owner still had to ?ive land under the act, Mr Gilders said.