Council Opposes Taking Of Summit Road Land

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29269, 29 July 1960, Page 15

Council Opposes Taking Of Summit Road Land

Members of the Heathcote County Council are not in favour of the taking of farmers’ land along the Summit road as a means of protecting the road against subdivision and building.

Support for the view expressed by the county chairman (Mr R. A. Young) at a recent meeting between landowners and the Regional Planning Authority, when he said he did hot favour the taking of farmers’ land, was given by the council last evening. The whole matter of protecting the Summit road had first been brought into the public eye when the Heathcote County Council had refused a subdivision west of the Sign of the Kiwi. Cr. J. C. Holliss pointed out. “It was our move to protect the road.” Mr Young said. Subsequent to the meeting of landowners who had opposed a suggestion to take their land, a leading article had appeared in “The Press” newspaper, suggesting the Heathcote County Council, in siding with the landowners' views, did not wish to risk irritating some of its ratepayers. Mr Young said. “It was not really a risk of irritating our ratepayers,” said Mr Young. “For myself, our attitude

would be that it would not matter if the ratepayers were irritated —the main thing would be the preservation of the road.

“It did not seem to me that there need be virtual confiscation of their land. I am still convinced that the proper course is to ensure that there is legislation if it does not exist now, to protect the road from houses that might obstruct the view.

“In view of the leading article, I am wondering if councillors have any views to express upon it?” asked Mr Young. "I think you are quite right, sir,” said Cr. M. J. W. Davis. “The fact that there may be building below, the road must be of detriment to the general outlook from the road. I thifik also the question of amenties is another one to consider—the question of water supplies. As the local authority, we would have to supply those amenities. I think we should protect our own interests, if nothing else.” Cr. C. D. Le Comte said that he very much supported the chairman’s views. He did not agree with the taking of farmers’ land.

“It is their own land. This Is a free country, and we have no right to take their land,” Cr. Le Comte said. "If there is to be legislation, no doubt it will come in time. But I would not support the taking of their land just for the sake of taking it.” “I don’t want to disagree altogether, but we have had the case of Patchett’s subdivision west of the Sign of the Kiwi, and that was virtually flat land of half an acre,” said Cr. Hollis. “It was right on the road. Admittedly, the view was down into Lyttelton Harbour, but there was half an acre or more of land, land that would make an ideal subdivision —and that goes for a lot of places.” There were areas below Sugarloaf Hill running down off the hill for half a mile of beautiful undulating country. The land was good. It would make excellent cropping land—“and the danger is there,” Cr. Hollis said. “Sooner or later, this council will have to come out in the open and make a statement, or define its policy, on the question,” Cr. Hollis said. "I am against the taking of land. I think every man should be allowed to work his land as he wishes, and not have constraint put upon him. “I disagree strongly with the idea of someone rushing in and taking someone else's land, because he thinks that someone else is going to build on it and spoil someorte’s view. We will have to treat this very delicately,” Cr. Hollis said. “One thing we will all be uniform on—to protect the Summit road,” said Mr Young. "We will have to have a look at the legislation, and if it is not sufficient to protect the road, ask that there should be such legislation. Is not that the real gist of it?” he said.