Zoning appeal based on rural land protection

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32450, 10 November 1970, Page 23

Zoning appeal based on rural land protection

Only 3 per cent of the •oils in Canterbury—and throughout New Zealand—were of the class having the highest potential for food production, but in Paparua County about 70 per cent of the area comprised such soils, the No. 2 Town and Country Planning Appeal Board was told in Christchurch yesterday.

The board (Mr J. H. Luxford, S. M. chairman, and Messrs R. R. Beaumont, L. P. Blunt and C. M. Turner) reserved its decision on an

appeal by the Regional Planning Authority (Mr J. N. Matson) seeking the addition of a sub-clause to the Paparua district scheme. The authority asked that where the Paparua council’s scheme specified a minimum area of 20 acres for sub-divi-sions in the rural zone, with a clause permitting the council to allow a sub-division of less than the minimum in

some cases, a proviso be added that no sub-division which tended to promote close settlement should be allowed.

*; The authority’s regional planning officer, Mr F. S. Robinson, said in evidence '*h?t the rapid growth of Christchurch in recent years had highlighted the need to control development so that consolidation, with consequent economy in the provision of urban services and the protection of good agricultural land, would result. Sub-divisions in areas , zoned rural could tend to - promote closer settlement, which could break down the purpose of rural zoning by taking land from rural production and causing demands on community services. Any reduction of sub-divi-sional standards permitted in special cases should ensure that close settlement did not result, Mr Robinson said. “Closer and closer” • The quality of the soils in . the region was regarded as a restraint against urban I. development, Mr Robinson said. In Paparua County, not ■ including the Halswell sec- ; tien, -about 70 per cent of The soil was of the two

highest classes, and the need to conserve such soils for agricultural purposes was obvious, he said. Mr J. R. Milligan, for the Paparua County, asked Mr Robinson to define “close settlement” The term was relative, Mr Robinson said, and “close settlement” would mean a very different thing in an urban area compared to a rural area. A prohibition on “close settlement”, added to the clause permitting the council to allow sub-divisions of less than the minimum could constitute a double negative, and destroy the exemption clause, the chairman of the board suggested. Mr Matson disagreed, emphasising the difference between “close” settlement, and the term “closer” settlement. He agreed the term “close settlement” was vague, but said it had been used for a long time. The chairman described the term as “indefinite.” Mr Matson said a clause prohibiting “close settlement” would be preferable to an arbitrary minimum figure, which would be inflexible. But Mr J. R. Milligan, for the Paparua County Council, said the provision of the district scheme under discussion did not permit the subdivider to use the land for residential or industrial purposes.

It was only a sub-division ordinance, he said, and the use of the land was governed by other parts of the scheme and would be subject to other applications. Shingle-pit appeal

The board also reserved its decision on an appeal by the Christchurch City Council (Mr J. G. Leggat, with him Mr D. M. Palmer) against refusal of the Paparua County Council (Mr J. R. Milligan) to designate special zoning for a shingle-pit near the intersection of Wilmers Road and Springs Road. The pit is owned by the City Council, and legal argument centred on the City Council’s jurisdiction in the area, which is part of Paparua County.