Appeal over farm house proposal

Press, 26 March 1980, Page 10

Appeal over farm house proposal

A Kaiapoi farmer’s intention to build a second home on his property could weaken the protection of productive farm land against residential encroachment, a planning tribunal has been told. Mr E. C. Storer was appealing against a requirement by the Eyre County Council that the title of his proposed building site, on Giles Road, should be tied to the titles of the rest of his farm.

Subject to this condition, Mr Storer had been granted a specified departure to build the house, while his son and family occupied the existing homestead. The tribunal, of Mr A. R. Turner, S.M.. Mr G. J. Broker, and Mr G. W. Ensor, reserved its decision.

Mr B. W. Thompson, a consultant planner to the council, said the titles condition was imposed to prevent the new house being dealt with separately from the farm block. The building of a house on a small parcel of farmland tended to lead to the loss of that land to effective farming, he said. Mr Storer’s farm was vulnerable to demand for rural residential living.

Mr Thompson said failure to ensure that the new house remained part of the farm would be contrary to provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, relating to the wise use and management of New Zealand’s resources, and protection of land with a high value for food production. Questioned by Mr A. A.P. Willy, for Mr Storer, Mr Thompson said that if the house was not tied to the farm it would be a “very significant step along the way” towards “the urbanisation of farmland.” This had been his experience, and was the subject of ongoing studies.

Mr Thompson accepted Mr Storer’s assurance that the farming pattern, of the property as a whole could continue in his lifetime. It was with after that time he was concerned. To Mr Turner. Mr Thompson said he did not know what was commonly accepted in the Kaiapoi area as the size of an economic farm unit.

Mr G. C. Miller, a planner with the Canterbury Regional Planning Authority, said the farm was in a special rural area under the operative regional scheme. This prevented the building of houses on farms unless they were required for the efficient working of the property. The proposed house site was in an area of ‘‘high actual or potential productivity.” The issue was whether the new house was essential to the farm, said Mr Miller. •

The possibility of the house’s being acquired in the future as a residence alone was “not remote” and should be avoided, he said. Mr Miller said the requirement by the County’ Council was the minimum necessary tb comply with the aims of the regional scheme.

To Mr Willy, he said the land in question was vulnerable to future urbanisation because it was close to urban Kaiapoi and attractive to people seeking “rural-residential lifestyles.” However, as far as Mr Miller knew, the Regional Planning Authority had never made a survey of the numbers of urban dwellers moving into farming areas.

Mr Storer gave evidence that he and his wife had been living in a caravan on the proposed house site since family conflict had made it difficult to continue living with his son, daughter-in-law, and their

baby in the existing home- • stead. ’ > . ’ The son and Mr. Storer ran the farm on a share- < milking. • arrangement. It 1 was intended that, in time. ‘ the farm would be trans- , ferred to the son. except a * nine-acre block which was covered by a separate title and on ' which he new« house was to be built. ‘ His main reason for re- » fusing to combine . that Z title with others on the 1 farm was a wish to “deal fairly” with the son al- : ready on the property and ; his three other sons. I Mr Storer wanted the second house and the main farm block to be J dealt with separately on his death. i If the titles were linked. » he said, the son working ’ the farm could not. afford j tn purchase the whole unit a and it would have to be sold in order that the total ; estate could be shared« equally among the four ‘ sons. ’ 1 Mr Storer said he ; wanted the farm to stay in the family as long as ■ possible and he intended •; to continue living on it ? until his death. For the Eyre County | Council, Mr J. R. Milligan said the suggestion that ! the second house might be i split from the main farm j and sold separately 7 in the h future underlined what the ; planners had told the • hearing. “The planners are pre- < dominantly concerned with | what might happen in the; future: xhat is what plan-, ning is all about,” Mr Mil-1 ligan said. ; ’