Greater freedom urged in rural land use

Press, 19 September 1980, Page 14

Greater freedom urged in rural land use

In its attitude to rural land use Ruth Richardson, legal adviser to Federated Farmers of New Zealand, believes that the Waimairi County Council is out of step with national thinking on the subject as indicated by recent seminars held around the country under the auspices of the Land Use Advisory Council, and also with the attitudes of rural people in its own area.

She expressed this view last week after presenting the case of North Canterb u r y - Federated Farmers, the Waimairi Potato Growers’ Association and Canterbury Growers Society, Ltd, who have objected to changes in the county’s district scheme relating to rural land use. A planning hearing was held last week. Ruth Richardson said that the county council and the objectors had similar objectives in mind — the most productive use of the land — but it was in their methods and techniques of achieving that objective that their attitudes varied quite markedly. The county, she said, took a paternalistic attitude involving the use of controls to obtain best land use. The view of the interests she represented was that for most farmers the incentive to produce flourished in a relatively free climate but was frustrated in a relatively .controlled environment.

The gist of their case against the council’s proposal was that it seemed to have failed to give adequate Weight to market forces. If the council was concerned, to see the best use made of the land resource, it failed to under j stand that the imposition of a lot of red tape on fanners would be counter productive. She had made the rather facetious comment that it was a' pity that red tape was not as easy , to sell as red beets and cabbages. In submissions on behalf of the three objecting parties last week it was recalled that in a position paper to a recent land use seminar -at Massey University the Ministry of Works and Development had said, among other things,- that “the challenge facing local authorities is to ; ensure that district schemes fa- ■ cilitate rather than frust- ; rate change in the rural area.”' This,was precisely the perspective in which the farming groups.yiewed - planning. But this message didnot seem • .been

received by the county council, Ruth Richardson said.

The land use seminars, she said, had generated a lot of excellent material and trends, but it was recognised that a good talk shop was one thing and carrying these concepts into the contents of a district scheme was another, and their concern was that the work done by these seminars could be lost unless they and like people carried the cause to individual councils. “Planning for rural land use is currently in a dynamic state,” said the submission. “Your council will be aware that the Land' Use Advisory Council is conducting a series of seminars around the country designed to ultimately produce a set of guidelines to govern planning decisions for rural use.

“The five seminars held to date have been notable for their insistence upon reversing the trend towards detailed planning control. The views expressed are reflecting a long-held attitude of Federated Fanners in particular and the rural community in general that New Zealand has steadily become an over-governed and ov e r-regulated society. While many controls may have their origin in the most honourable of intentions, • the cumulative impact of planning controls' is stifling of innovation, -!■ productivity and freedom.”

; To . achieve its objectives Ruth Richardson said that the county insisted on management or development plans or bonds to ensure that pro-* duction. objectives were met where people wished to erect a house on .their land. . ■ ■ i It was a matter of concern, she said, that in a case brought against the

Rangiora County Council by the Woodend and Districts branch of Federated Farmers, Mr R. Keating, a farm consultant, when employed by the farmers, had persuaded the Planning Tribunal that use of bonds was totally inappropriate and had given five reasons why management or development plans should not be used, but now as a consultant to the county he and his colleagues, both professional planners and the councillors themselves, seemed to be of the view that for every so-called mischief that might be perpetrated by land owners there needed to be some sort of planning remedy. In the case against, the Rangiora , county Ruth Richardson said that Mr Keating had questioned the ability of planners and planning committees, including councils to judge such plans, had said that any detailed plan carried with it an element of inflexibility which could create problems where there was a change in circumstances, and. that a management plan even when executed with the greatest skill and good intention did not ensure that the land would be used successfully. As far as Mr Keating was concerned there appeared to be some confusion — he could not have it both ways. Of concern also, she said, was the attempt of the county to duplicate powers in drainage and soil and water management when there was already drainage and catchment boards in the area, whose existence they did not object to being included in the scheme to deal with these matters. Ruth Richardson said that they opposed the use of land being related to zones for particular activities. This concept meant that there was no allow-, ance for changes : . in markets and for technological changes, which opened up new_ possibilities for production. After the hearing Ruth Richardson said she believed that the council’s representatives had not changed their views fundamentally. She did not think that they were prepared to accept that if they dispensed with controls some massive great mischief would not occur.‘ If the objections were not- given a favourable hearing by the council, she said ' that the case would be taken on to the Tribunal,