THE PRESS TUESDAY, JULY 5, 1977. Paving to protect good soil

Press, 5 July 1977, Page 16

THE PRESS TUESDAY, JULY 5, 1977. Paving to protect good soil

For a country which relies heavily on agricultural production for its livelihood, New Zealand has a remarkably small area of high-class soils. While our population is relatively small, many people continue to believe that rigid planning controls to protect farmland are unnecessary. An alarming encroachment by New Zealand cities on to productive land continues. One certain result will be higher domestic prices for fruit and vegetables and a need for a greater investment of effort and resources to provide the same volume of produce for export New Zealand's towns and cities are likely to continue to grow, even if some forecasts of population growth prove mistaken. Even if the problem is recognised as serious, protecting good farming land is administratively difficult because responsibility for planning is so fragmented An amendment to the Towm and Country Planning Act in 1973 required local planning authorities to provide in regional and district schemes against urban encroachment on land that has high value for food production. The Christchurch urban fence is one example of a conscientious effort to protect farming land. The restrictions on subdivisions in the rural zones of neighbouring counties provide other examples. In many other places, however, the pressures for growth are stronger than the will of local bodies and the readiness of the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board to restrain urban development on agricultural land.

Most of the larger centres of population sit squarely in the middle of areas of good soil. There are, therefore, only two main alternatives. One is to

increase the density of population within existing urban boundaries; the other is to build entirely new urban centres on areas of poorer soil. The first alternative will be acceptable only if more people are willing to forgo living in a single family house on its own section. So long as large numbers of new New Zealand families continue to prefer such homes, positive steps will have to be taken to develop entirely new towns on land where urban growth will not mean taking good soils away from those who grow food.

A preference for preserving the most productive soil is obvious. The cost of losing it is a cost to the whole community. The cost of directing urban growth to other land, however, is a cost that neither individuals nor local authorities want to face: for. while alternative land may not command a high price for agricultural purposes, its development for urban settlement may be many times more expensive than the cost of urban expansion on highquality soils. The extra cost of preserving good soil is not a cost that individuals or local authorities should have to bear; the preference in favour of protecting the best soils is logically a cost to be recognised, and paid, by all citizens.

The argument must lead to one conclusion: that when a national resource, such as the best soil, is threatened, the taxpayer must expect to pay to dispose of the threat. The problem of protecting the best soils is not solely a local problem; it is a problem that any Government should accept as part of a national policy on regional development and some of the cost must be borne by the whole country.