Green belt policies too rigid — tribunal

Press, 21 October 1983, Page 16

Green belt policies too rigid — tribunal

Proposed green belt policies for rural land surrounding Christchurch are “too rigid” in some respects, according to a Planning Tribunal decision.

Housing restrictions sought by the Canterbury United Council in its regional planning scheme should be flexible enough to cater for some part-time farming and rural-residen-tial zones. This recommendation comes after a Planning Tribunal inquiry sought by the Paparua and Eyre County Councils on certain provisions of the proposed regional scheme. The Paparua County Council sought the provision of zoning pockets that would “supplement and strengthen” green belt objectives. The size and location of such zones — with planning controls for them — should ensure that they did not create a nucleus for further expansion, or the expansion of other existing settlements outside metropolitan Christchurch.

Eyre County said that part-time farming and rural-residential zones should be recognised as necessary and desirable rural land uses in areas “relatively close to major settlements.”

The Planning Tribunal’s recommendations, which must now be discussed by parties to the longstanding green belt dispute, said that all factions agreed that the greater Christchurch urban area “should be contained more or less within its present boundaries.” But both counties wanted some “limited flexibility” within the wide green belt area. That could be achieved without a challenge to the regional planning scheme’s general objectives. The tribunal said that rural-residential zones would generally contain up to 20 allotments which would be “too small for any purposeful farming enterprise.” They would be “basically designed for the person who wishes to live in a rural atmosphere but does not wish to be burdened with a land area which would require a great deal of time devoted to it,” said the tribunal.

Part-time farming zones would generally include allotments with a minimum size of Bha. Then could allow “a significant intensive farming unit” that would generally not be selfsupporting. Part-time farming zones were not urban settlements. Areas which the councils intended to use were already substantially subdivided into allotments with sizes appropriate to the zones.

The United council feared that the land would not be used to its full potential without strict planning controls, and that would mean

a waste of land resources. “We have concluded that they are clearly not settlements as defined in the proposed regional scheme,” the tribunal said of parttime farming zones, “but are groups of agricultural holdings of modest size.” The regional scheme had identified the green belt area as one deserving preservation, and was trying to restrict settlement within it.

Although the tribunal said the United Council should not be prevented from defining a precise green belt boundary on a map, it said that the over-all object of regional planning — with its general approach — should not be overlooked.

A flexible approach to land uses should be adopted near the boundary of any area identified for preservation.

“It is quite apparent to us, however, that the prime objective of the United Council in respect of the green belt area is to prevent a proliferation of houses,” said the tribunal.

“The fact that the United Council has taken no exception to part-time farming ■allotments beyond the green belt indicates clearly to us that its prime motivation within the green belt is to prevent further houses from being erected within those part-time farming zones.” The Paparua County Council was “obviously well aware of the danger of permitting persons disinterested in farming from occupying land of higher value within part-time farming zones,” said the tribunal.

Even though a house was permitted as a predominant use in those zones, it had .to be accompanied by farming which would lead to maintaining or increasing the land’s productivity.

The council, in its District Scheme, was “therefore clearly following the objectives of the United Council,” said the tribunal. “We can see no element of urban expansion in the part-time farming concept provided the zones are sufficiently removed from the Christchurch urban area, as is the case with those presently suggested,” said the tribunal.

The planning policy should clearly express a preference for such farming zones closer to the outer perimeter of the green belt. It could not be sugggested that about 40 rural-residen-tial allotments in two Paparua County blocks could be regarded as urban development, said the tribunal. “We concede that it is a matter of degree,” said the decision, “and if there were a proliferation of such zones, then a degree ol urbanisation might eventuate.”

There were some “limited areas” within the green belt that were appropriate for rural-residential use.

Zones chosen by Paparua Counta were generally in the west melton area, but

were “sufficiently removed from that township to prevent any further infilling,” said the tribunal. They were also “some distance from the inner circle of the green belt, which could be expected to be the area subject to pressure for urban expansion.” The tribunal agreed with the United Council that local bodies should be dissuaded from locating ruralresidential zones near “the true urban area of greater Christchurch.”

Any green belt policy should emphasise the objective of creating isolated pockets of rural-residential land, rather than a transitional zone between the urban and rural areas. The tribunal also recognised the existence of some unplanned settlements in the green belt which could still be built up within their present areas.

The number of houses which could be created by “rationalising” those settlements “would be so minimal as to have no regional significance whatsoever,” said the tribunal.

But such building-up of unplanned settlements should only be allowed when it could be done without any outward extension of the settlement or significant increase in housing.

If local bodies and the United Council could not agree on a policy suggested by the Planning Tribunal’s recommendations, the green belt issue would be referred to the tribunal for a decision.