The Press TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1976. Subdivision in Paparua

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34127, 13 April 1976, Page 20

The Press TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1976. Subdivision in Paparua

The Paparua County Council’s proposals to restrain further subdivision of rural land are likely to be in the best interests of the county and of the greater Christchurch area. The thought will not make the proposals any more palatable to landowners who have been preparing to sell their land in 20-acre blocks; the restrictions on bouse building by anyone except present owners obviously will not please people who have bought blocks in the county as an Investment, but who may not want to build there or live in the county themselves. The timing of the council’s decision, when large subdivision schemes are near completion and when many 20-acre blocks have been sold, is most unfortunate. The council is at fault for allowing subdivision of farm land to proceed so far before taking action, but had the council not acted now the* position would have become worse. Small blocks of rural land close to the city are undeniably attractive for those who can afford them. Some people can make profitable and intensive use of a small area of land. But many owners are unlikely to make good use of the land. If the owners decide to live there the result will be a widely scattered suburban population which exerts increasing pressure on the local authority for services including, perhaps, a sewerage system, water reticulation, and other amenities. Paparua County recently had to introduce a rural rubbish collection, and the costs of extra services have to be met by all county ratepayers. The whole community must pay for some results of rural subdivision. Amenities including schools and health services have to be provided by taxpayers for a considerable population scattered over an unduly wide area. The “ green belt ”, which is intended to contain Christchurch and protect productive land, is further eroded. Short-term benefits for those who own land now must be weighed against the long-term results of the proliferation of farmlets. These interests of future generations were recognised by the 1973 amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act which required local authorities to take account of matters of national importance in their planning and specifically included: “ The avoidance of encroachment of urban development on, and the protection of, land having a high actual or potential value for the production of food ” and “ the prevention of sporadic urban subdivision and development in rural areas ”. These are sensible provisions; the pity is that Panama County took more than two years to acknowledge them—and completed its district planning scheme in the meantime. While pressing ahead with its amendments to restrict building and subdivision, the County Council should be willing to consider special interests and examples of particular hardship. Owners or prospective owners of small blocks of land who believe they can farm them economically should not be discouraged. A farmer who wants to build a second house on his property for his retirement should .be permitted to do so, provided the land itself it not subdivided.

While insisting that rural land should remain in blocks of 100 acres or more, the council should be prepared to consider exceptional proposals on their merits. Some landowners in the county are still going to be penalised because they have gone ahead in good faith with subdivisions and have not been warned off by the council.-The council mdst accept the blame, and it may have to accommodate some exceptions. But it should not be deterred from the sensible course it has finally decided on in the interests of the whole community.