1500 rural owners will fight Paparua County proposals

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34123, 8 April 1976, Page 1

1500 rural owners will fight Paparua County proposals

(By

PHILIP WORTHINGTON

The Paparua County Council has got quite a fight on its hands: some 1500 of its rural ratepayers — about 80 per cent- — have pledged support for moves to oppose the council’s proposals on subdivision and building on rural land.

I'he ratepayers are convinced that the proposals are retrogressive. They are perturbed by the apparent about-face on prex ious council policy and decisions, and are angered by what they feel are harshly punitive aspects of the proposals.

The degree of unanimity among the ratepayers has surprised exen the instigators of the opposition campaign, who now feel the 500seat hall for tonight’s meeting of ratepayers will be far too small.

At the root of it all is the council’s “proposed change No. 4” to the 20-month-old district scheme. Under this, the minimum subdivisional areas are increased from the present 20 acres to 300 acres for Class TT land, 150 acres for irrigated land, and 100 acres for Class 1 land. Present holders of subdivisions smaller than the proposed minimums will be entitled to one building permit each. Most of the rural areas of the county are already in titles under these sizes, 20acre lots being predominant, and the ratepayers say undue hardship will result if none of these can be built on except by the existing owner. Particularly hard hit are the half dozen or so farmers who have subdivided their properties into small lots specifically for sale, and who have installed reading for these subdivisions on the council’s instruction.

These subdivisions go back several years and follow a trail of council approvals and decisions before the first surveyor’s peg was driven. Council requirements have been met, particular!}' that of roading, and now the lots are ready for sale.

But. the fanners say. the restriction on building permits will cut by half the value of the lots. They argue that prospective purchasers, will be deterred from taking up a 20-acre holding if there is no chance of their living on it.

Tlie farmers also point to the many successful 20-acre holdings—with bouses —already in the county and say that' these are being farmed more intensively and produce more than when they were part of a larger blockThese smallholders, too, are upset by the proposed change. Those who have already built on their smallholding feel that the improvements they expected on the unsold smallholdings around will not now take place, leaving them with a bigger lump of the rate burden than they had expected. Others bought two small lots, one on which to build and farm, the other as an investment or as mortgage collateral. For them the investment has turned sour. Several people have bought lots and have plans to build on them, but some of this group are upset that they would have to sell at a de-

preciated value if. for reasons beyond their control, they were forced to sei] before their house was built. One of the ironies of the sudden arrival of the proposed change is • that, although it is effective from its first date of publication (March 2, this year), council rulings were made only weeks before then in apparent ignorance of it. A development company with 240 acres near Rolleston has been subdividing the land into 12 lots in accordance with council approval on the 20-acre minimum. The necessary road has been formed, but not tarsealed to the council’s requirements. Just before the proposed change was announced, the company was given an extension of time until May 15 to tarseal the road. Yet another group of upset ratepayers includes some farmers who had intended to retain a small block of their farms on retirement—rhe house and immediate surroundings—and sell the rest.

In error In a letter to this week’s meeting of the council, 12 of the ratepayers listed their objections to the proposed scheme change, tn it they said that if such a major change as that proposed were necessary, then the 20-month-old scheme, which took five years to prepare, must have been gravely in error. “This is an error for which the council and its planning staff are responsible,” the letter said.

“Since the county’s scheme became operative, and during the period of its preparation, all ratepayers of the council have acted on the provisions of the scheme on the assumption that they were entitled to rely on it, and on the assumption that

it was firm council policy to promote the district in the manner formulated by the scheme.” it said. “The question the council should be asking itself is how it comes about that small rural allotments have become so attractive for purposes of building, and why there is thus the encouragement to subdivide in rural areas instead of the city. Failure “We suggest that the answer is the failure of those in charge of planning, both in Paparua and in other counties adjoining Christchurch, to provide for a tvpe of rural-residential allotment which would answer the need for this type of use without the necessity of having to acquire 20 acres. “If this requirement had been properly provided for in the first place, the pressure on the rural environment would never have occurred. Tn the meantime it seems to us wrong that we should now be obliged to suffer because of a blunder made by the planning committee,” the letter said.

Considerable pressure has been exerted on the council in the past to make a move to prevent undue fragmentation of rural land, but it was always thought that any minimum size imposed for subdivision would align Paparua with its neighbouring counties which have a 50acre limit.

When the satellite cityscheme for Rolleston was still a live issue, the pressure became greater, in order that Christchurch and Rolleston be distinctly separated by a rural buffer zone. Just before the General Election, last year, the council and the Ministry of Works met to discuss a rural buffer and comments made then by the District

Commissioner of W’orks (Mr P. F. Reynolds) showed just how split up the land in the county already is. Mi- Reynolds said that in i the rural part of the county i south of the Old West Coast Road and west of Ellesmere and Sabys Roads, there were 2200 separate lots. If the council allowed subdivision of the larger lots into 50-acre blocks, the number of separate lots would increase by only 200. The logic behind the proposed change is that if building permits were issued for each separate lot, there would be between 1800 and 2000 extra houses scattered over 100 square miles. Added to the populations of Templeton and Prebbleton, this would bring the total population to about 10,000, or two-thirds of the population of Ashburton. As a suburb, however, this, population would occupy only a square mile and a half, support three large primary schools, an intermediate school and a high school, as well as other urban f eatures. But whatever the reasoning, the ratepayers feel that the planning move might; have come too late; too much has already been done to split the land in the county into small titles. They are antagonised by what they regard as a retrospective ruling which nullifies previous decisions of the council.

It is these aspects which have brought about the concerted effort by ratepayers. A handful of" them have worked name by name through the roll, telephoning each ratepayer and seeking his support. In four out of five instances the support has neen forthcoming. All ratepayers have the right of objection to the proposal, first to the council’s own hearing committee and then to the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board. (Council’s reply, Page 18)