460 objectors to county land control proposal

Press, 21 July 1976, Page 2

460 objectors to county land control proposal

Town-planning restrictions proposed by the Paparua [County Council to stop small subdivisions and house-building on fanning land were challenged by 461 objectors when the council started a round of hearings yesterday.

The council, concerned at the growth of 5, 10 and 20acre subdivisions in its rural zones, wants, in general, to have new minimum subdi'vions of 100 acres on Class , I soils, of 300 acres on Class 2 and 3 soils, and of 150 acres on irrigated Class 2 and 3 land.

The hearing was told by the council’s town-planning officer (Mr D. D. Hinman) that the council would have to stop the “open slather” situation created by the present automatic right to build a house on the small sections and move to stop the fragmentation of productive land.

In the rural zones affected by the proposals, said Mr Hinman, there were 3096 separate lots, of which 2235 were of 20 acres or less. There were now 1030 houses built or authorised on these lots.

“Theoretically, 2066 houses could be built and this can only be regarded as the first step towards urbanisation,” he said. “In this 150 square miles of land, an additional population of 6000 could be expected. “It is apparent that the provision of services and facilities would be much more costly than in the suburban situation, where such a population could be accommodated in one and a half square miles." Mr Hinman said that the building of houses on the small lots had resulted in g r o s s 1 y-inflated property values, often causing loss of economic viability for unsubdivided farms and leading to their subdivision. With some exceptions, the small lots were for rural residential use, not for farming. The change would permit one house per title to be built on each section of the

new minimum size, but owners with titles to the 1 smaller lots at certain dates : would be able to build one house. if proof is given that new ■ allotments would be econ- 1 omic farming units, the council would permit subdi- I visions of not less than 50 I acres. Factory farming, stud ’ farms and training establishments would be prohibited 1 on Class 1 land. Mr G. H. Gould, himself an objector, appeared for 117 of those opposed to the proposed limitations on building. , He pointed out that the council’s minimum subdivisional standards in rural , zones had been a con- ; troversial issue for 10 years ; and agreed that there had been “an immense proliferation” of small lots over the last three years. Mr Gould' said that in proposing the changes, the council had to have not I vague ideas, but factual answers. The proposals postulated that the situation reduced production, but scientific analysis showed the reverse to be the case. Called by Mr Gould, Mr B. K. Chiu gave evidence of a ■ Massey University study he had carried out on urban encroachment on land round Palmerston North. He had found that part-time farming was not wasteful of farm land. He said rural subdivisions for part-time farming satis- ■ fied a need for a life-style associated with farming, and allowed some to pursue; farming without high costs. A positive approach would be to accommodate . this form of agriculture.

To the hearing chairman, Cr A. Y. Shuker, Mr Chiu said a house was not necessary’ to get high production from a small lot. He told Cr J. S. Bisphan that, with one exception, none of the farmlets he surveyed would support a family. Mr C. O. Bridgeman, a valuer and farm management consultant, gave evidence of a survey of two West Melton properties, sold into 20 and 41 lots varying from 10 to 20 acres, which, he said, showed that over-all production increased, especially where owners lived on the land. Production had changed from sheep or crop farming to horse breeding, race-horse training, market gardening and the production of berry fruit, hay, specimen trees, and broiler chickens. Given

, time for development, this i land could be pushed to a ■ productive level exceeding . eight stock units an acre. “The financial involvement i by the individual on a small ■ lot will force him to farm ■ the land for its maximum use,” said Mr Bridgeman. “I i am sure there is no lost pro- ■ duction, and, given time, substantial additional pro- ■ duction will flow.” Mr F. J. Shaw, in a subl mission for the Tara Lodge ■ bloodstock farm at Halswell, 1 said that conventional farming yield was $3OOO a year, 1 but bloodstock worth $22,000 was exported in > 1975-76 and sales could I reach $60,000 a year. It was ! in the national interest to I allow development. By restricting building for • staff quarters, the council : would prohibit progress and stagnate the earning capacity of the property, said Mr Shaw. Mr Shaw said the council’s “ping pong” chahgfes. of rural land use did nothing to inspire confidence in the planning scheme. Tn 1968, ' the minimum .rural section i was 10 acres, changed‘to 50 I acres, then to 20 and now to a proposed 100 • acres,. Mr J. S. Dalgety, Tempie- ■ ton, said he ana one .or two other breeders had last year ’ earned almost slrp in over- • seas funds by sales of thor- , oughbred horses or standard- [ bred pacers. There would be ( an increasing demand for 20acre sections for stud horse 1 farms, but there had to be , houses on each block. The hearings, covering objections to different asI pects of the proposals, will i continue today, and on July . 22, 27, 28 and 29.