Rural versus urban Akaroa tale of separate titles

Press, 30 April 1981, Page 12

Rural versus urban Akaroa tale of separate titles

In Residence

Bronwen Jones

PROPERTY. REPORTER

Akaroa County Council's deferred urban designation for three rural land blocks has become an issue for the. first time since its inception last March. Mr Alfred Reese, of Takamatua, has sold his farm, with two exceptions. These

are an airstrip that has been used for top-dressing planes, and 6.7 ha near the bay front which is zoned Rural 1 but has been designated deferred urban by the council. The designation, which also applies to blocks in Wainui and Duvauchelle, means that the council may, some day, investigate the possibility of sub-dividing the land for housing. But the land may never be needed for this, and the subdivision may never occur.

Mr Reese’s problem is that because the 6.7 ha that he wishes to hold on to does not have a separate title, it has, technically, been sold along with the rest of his farm. A transfer back to Mr Reese on a separate title has been executed, but the transfer can be completed and registered only with the approval of the council. And the council frowns exceedingly deeply upon the carving up of rural land. Mr Reese wrongly thought that because the council placed the designation on this block of their own initiative (and without consulting him, incidentally,) that the councillors regarded the land as a separate block and that

a certificate of title could be obtained easily when necessary. He had not applied for separate title when the designation was first placed on his land because he had continued to graze it as part of a larger block, Mr Reese said in his statement to the council. After applying to the council to split the title, however, he found this would not be easy. In fact, it required a planning hearing. Being aware of the council’s extreme reluctance to carve up rurally zoned land, and now being aware of the hurdles in his path, Mr Reese told the council that he would get the new owner to amalgamate two of the several titles into which the farm was divided. This would prevent the over-all number of titles being incrpaspd But Mr K. P. G. Mears, of Clayton Hill Company, Limited, the owning company, had, of course, seen the advantage of keeping the land in several titles, and refused. So, without the strategic advantage of having this con-

dition for the council to enforce, thereby not seeming to give in too easily, Mr Reese’s case was placed before the council by his solicitor last Friday. It was heard along with objections from the Takamatua Residents and Ratepayers’ Association. The council reserved its decision. One conditin that Mr Reese was able to accept was that his 6.7 ha would not be fenced off, but would be farmed along with the rest of the block it originally belonged to until the council approved another use for it. Another was that he would continue to be responsible for the upkeep of an access road to the land and sections that he had subdivided in previous years. The objections from the Takamatua Residents and Ratepayers’ Association were not presented clearly at the hearing. But it seemed that they did not want more subdivison, which meant more people living near them, or the fragmentation of farm land in the area.

They were concerned that subdivision would mean a strain on the facilities there.

The reply on behalf of Mr Reese was that there were no facilities except the access road he had built and had been responsible for maintaing; if Mr Reese did not.retain the 6.7 ha the responsibility for the road’s maintenance would pass to the section owners; and that members of the association had not .objected to the district scheme containing the deferred urban designation, before the scheme had become operative. In addition, it was stated that the 6.7 ha would not include sea frontage. Originally, the area designated deferred urban was judged to be 9.5 ha by Reese’s surveyor, but in February, after, the sale of the farm to Clayton Hill was completed, the council reduced the area to 6.7 ha.

The reasons given were that some of the land near the sea was too exposed, and would have given access problems. Mr Reese lost 2.Bha to Clayton Hill on the spot, and negotiations for this are continuing between the two parties and their solicitors.

Mr Robert Batty, the council’s town planning consultant, spoke in Mr Reese’s favour at the hearing. He said that going by current supply and demand, it mght be many years, if at all, before subdivision was considered. Even if it was, the council still had the

power to decide whether to allow the necessarj' changes in the planning scheme. In the meantime, it seemed unreasonable and unnecessary to delay or stop Mr Reese retaining his 6.7 ha. especially as there was no proposed change of use for the land at present. Mr Batty said.

He recommended that the council allow a separate title so long as the 6.7 ha was not fenced off and was farmed as a whole with the rest of the block. He said, however, that Mr Meat’s refusal to amalgamate two of his titles to prevent an increase in the total number might make the council’s decision more difficult.

It will probably be a week or so before a decision on Mr Reese’s case is officially announced.

It is hard to imagine that the council’s answer will be unfavourable to Mr Reese. The Takamatua Residents and Ratepayers’ Asociation did not make a strong case, and the council is probably at least partly responsible for the classic planning pickle in which Mr Reese has found himself. The lesson to be learned from this case is not to presume local body approval for departures from planning provisions. Never take local body schemes and decisions for granted and check with your local council before making any moves.