Regional planning costs up

Press, 13 February 1981, Page 4

Regional planning costs up

Regional planning expenditure for 1981-82 will increase more than 32 per cent if the Canterbury United Council approves estimates recommended by its planning committee.

The estimates recommended by the Regional Planning Committee yesterday provided for an increase of about $211,000 in planning spending. Mr J. H. Grey told the committee that salaries and staff superannuation accounted for about 80 per cent of regional planning expenditure. Public salary adjustments last year amounted to 21.5 per cent, which resulted in over-expenditure on last year’s estimates.- The November, 1980, Public Service increase was announced several months earlier than corresponding increases in previous years. The provision of $47,000 for consultants’- fees con-

cerned a number of committee members. This money accounts for two big projects — $27,000 for a rural resources study and $20,000 for part of a Canterbury Regional Energy Study commissioned by the New Zealand Energy Research and Development Council. Some committee members felt that the United Council should withdraw its funding for the energy study. Cr T. J. Brocherie, said that the energy study had been forced on the council and that it should not accept it. Cr D. B. Rich said that the United Council had been asked to participate because it was one of the few bodies around with sufficient money. The committee deferred a decision on giving the rural resources study to special consultants. Some members felt that the council could draw on “in-house” expertise. Council staff said that at present Lincoln College

could not provide the expertise, as had been suggested by .one member. A sub-committee will investigate whether resources are available . elsewhere or whether consultant’s fees would have to be provided for-ip the estimates.. The sincerity of people building houses on small rural holdings was questioned by some regional planning members. The committee was considering an application to build a temporary dwelling in the Paparua County. Under the United Council's proposed regional scheme review the dwelling would be in a Green Belt. Council staff said that the application came from a “young couple with very little farming experience and limited capital.” They planned to plant four hectare sin asparagus, and less than one hectare in corn and tomatoes; The remaining five hectares would be grazed.. The couple wanted to build a bam to live in until

they could afford a house on the property. The committee recommended that the United Council object to the application as it went against the objectives and policies for the Green Belt area in the proposed regional planning scheme review. Cr T. M. Inch said that many people who built on a small holding were prepared to give it a go, but only as far as the building permit. Often-their intentions of farming the property vanished. The council had no way of ascertaining the true intention oL applicants. Some people were honest but others would try anything to achieve their ends, ne said. However, Cr E. C. Britnell, Paparua County's representative, said that his council was not being “taken for a ride.” Paparua had recently checked building permits issued for small holdings and had found only one case where the applicants had not carried out their intention of farming.