Authority disagrees on section supply

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33370, 31 October 1973, Page 14

Authority disagrees on section supply

The Christchurch Regional Planning \uthorit\ cannot ? be coerced into agreeing to more rural land being rezoned for | urban purposes, because it cannot agree that there is not enough 1 land available for housing in the city’s urban zones.

g This view was put bx F the chairman (Mr D. B. Rich) at a meeting of I the authority yesterday. I i when argument develIjoped on the merits of a I proposal by the Heath- • cote County Council to | rezone 1$) acres of rural | land at Heathcote A alley I to enable it to be used I • for housing. I The authority was reconi- | mended by its executive to Loppose the change, as it J J would be premature, and because there was no known evidence of the urgent need for more residential zoning in the locality. It was suggested that the block might become (urban, as part of a 61-acre (block now zoned deferred urban, when the regional (scheme is reviewed in 1976. The recommendation was 'challenged by Mr D. B. Dallas. “Is it urgent when .the price becomes exorbitant?” he asked. “Is it premature because this is not 1976?” LOW LYING It was said that the land was low-lying and would have to be filled, but that could be done now, said Mr Dallas, There were no realreasons for holding up urban zoning. If it was a question of services, nothing was said | about them. Mr M. R. Carter said that i he thought reference to “no .evidence of urgent need” (should be deleted. The Town (and Country Planning Apipeal Board had made it quite (clear that it accepted that • there was a shortage of housing land in Christchurch. “We must abide by that 1 decision,” he said. “The authority may not agree, but if itcontinues to question it, we will undermine the whole structure. If we feel strongly .enough, we should ask for a 'revision.” “POPULAR GAME” Mr Rich said it had become a popular game, wherever iti suited speculators, to try to break the zoning. The Appeal ( i Board had made unfortunate 1; (decisions, not based on the;, (evidence available. “It is most unfortunate that .

y in the last few months wc • have seen concerted effort.' to break urban zoning rounc 11 the fence when, in fact, there are more housing sections I- available inside the fenct a than there were six years ago.” said Mr Rich. “There is adequate lane O available. Two reasons conilTribute to the high cost oi 'sections, and to the shortd- term lack of availabilitv ol land. “One of the largest land owners tells me that there is '■ difficulty in getting contrac ,° tors to install services, anc d he cannot, in consequence ■' get his land on the market H It wouldn’t matter how rnucl d land he had—he couldn't gel ” it on the market mud 0 1 quicker. f PRICE “CONTROLLED" cl “The other thing is that i most urban land is held by speculators, who thus consi trol the price. It is a ludi- . Icrous situation to hat e specuijlators holding land contesting - Izoning in further efforts to - get land outside the urban t fence. “It doesn’t suit, them to develop the urban land they 1 have, but it does suit them 1 to develop outside the fence. t'F am distressed to hear Mr -Carter’s remarks, because [They don’t tally with the i authority’s information.” i Mr Dallas said that the I reasons Mr Rich gave for deferment of the Heathcote request did not appear in the > report. Broadly, he agreed ’ with Mr Rich, but a problem 11 arose about the use of the •'word “available.” FREE MARKET I “Land is available if there ;is a willing buyer and a willing seller, or where land is available in such quantity as a buyer can buy at a satisfacitory price,” Mr Dallas said. “If a speculator is holding land, it is not available. There can only be a free market if the land is available.” Mr Rich agreed that land zoned urban was one matter, I ’and land available another,' i but even allowing that, I ■enough urban land could bel |available. The worst thing' jthat could be done was to make more urban land available, as those who were holding urban land now were the ones who would get it. The Appeal Board had made it obvious that there•: was insufficient urban land ini Christchurch, said Mr A. Y. Shuker. “It is available. The Appeal Board has made mistakes before.” said Mr W. Massey. POLICY STATEMENT Mr M. Warren said that a policy statement on the authority’s views should be available, and Mr Rich said that this would be done. Mr R. H. T. Thompson, re-

e| presenting Heathcote Countj tsldiscussed urgency, and sail id’that a 52-section subdivisioi e near the Heathcote Valle.' is land had been opened it ;e September. 1972. and nov rs was at least half built-up am occupied, with only a hand idiful of sections where build t- lug was not in progress, if The land was going to ge t- urban zoning in two years >f and. practically, it could no be made available tor hotis .1- mg until then, said the Dis is trict Commissioner of Work; c- (Mr P. F. Reynolds) l'h< id authority could only make . e, pro forma objection, as th< t.'change related to its owi h scheme. et. Ihe Director of Planning :h (Mr C. B. Millar) said tha the Appeal Board had not de cided l here was a land short age. It was only an opinior * expressed by the board ■ v The authority decided t< 1" object to the proposed change *' in terms of the objections ‘" given in the executive’s te k port. ° The land in question lic« 11 between the Lyttelton rail way line. Scruttons Road, and Laing Crescent, n