Property separation opposed

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33959, 27 September 1975, Page 20

Property separation opposed

Segregation of a halfacre section from a fiveacre block in the Marshland area would mean more likelihood of future farming activities on both properties, the No. 2 Town and Country Planning Appeals Board was told But Waimairi County Council and Canterbury Regional Planning Authority officials disputed that claim by the appellant, Mr J. W. Duncan. They said the subdivision would be unwise and might cause pressure for more urban-type subdivisions in the market gardening area. The appellant’s counsel, Mr J. H. M. Dawson, said the subdivision “would improve, rather than reduce” the likelihood of future agricultural use of the land since the property contained two houses, and”the cost of buying two houses would be too high for any future purchaser who wanted to use the land for intensive farming. Currently, Mr Duncan’s widowed father was living in

the second house at the 21 Selkirk Place property and was in ill health. It was difficult for him to maintain the second house and surroundings, and it was desired to sell the house separately from the rest of the property. Mr Duncan said he believed that the land could not be used as a farm for two families, but it could be farmed intensively without the capital cost of the second house. The County Council, represented by Mr J. E. Ryan, had permitted construction of the second house in 1966. Mr Ryan said the council’s denial of the subdivision had been based on a strict approach to criteria for the rural zone. If the subdivision

i was permitted, it could be a precedent for similar situations which came to hand. Although there had been no pressure for urban development in the area, “the; | potential is perhaps the more worrying factor,” Mr Ryan said. The County Council’s town [planning officer (Mr R. M. Parker) said he was aware of at least five properties in the county which contained more [than one dwelling house. 'Three were dairy farms.

I Both Mr Parker and the; regional authority’s planning; officer (Mr F. S. Robinson)’ agreed that the second house 1 could be leased to an urban dweller under the district [ scheme, but it could not be sold separately. The appeals; board chairman (Mr W. J. M. Treadwell, S.M.)had asked ■about the lease possibility. Mr Robinson said the second house could be used for some rural purpose, and there had been “frequent attempts” to extend the

>1 urban fence for residential ; I purposes. i; The appellant's property '•was located adjacent to the turban fence. He admitted hthat the proposed northern h motorway would travel along '■the urban fence boundary ■ and would “certainly reinl force” that boundary as a protection against homes leaking into the market I garden area. The appeals board reserved ■ its decision.