SUBDIVISION OF LAND

Evening Star, Issue 22807, 16 November 1937, Page 7

SUBDIVISION OF LAND

CITY COUNCIL'S REFUSAL SEGTIBNS IN WAVERLEY DISTRICT OWNER APPEALS TO BOARD

The refusal of the City Council to approve of a plan of sub-division in respect of land owned by him at Waverley was the basis of an appeal brought by Roland Mancefield Bennet,. and heard by a special board yesterday in the Magistrate’s Court. The board, set up under the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1933, under ’ which the appeal was brought, comprised Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M. (chairman), Mr H. L. Paterson (nominated by the appellant) and Mr J. M‘G. Wilkie (nominated by the City Council). Mr R. King represented the appellant, and Mr A. N. Haggitt the City Council. > The appellant, a butcher,' submitted a plan to the council for the subdivision of the land, which was Over three acres in area, into 20 separate allotments or sections. The council refused to approve of the plan, and he appealed from this decision for the following reasons:—(l) That the land was suitable for subdivision; (2) that each of the sections complied in all respects with the by-laws of the City' Council; (3) that at the present time this’land comprised 14 sections or- allotments, each of about one rood in area, and able to be sold separately; (4) that the present

' area of each of the allotments compris- ; ing this land was too large for- the requirements of the average suburban I resident, and it was desired to resuhdivide the land so that the • allotments ’ would meet the requirements ’of the 1 suburban public; and_(s) that the residential area of the city was extending to all the suburbs and suitable allot- ; raents made available for building pur--1 poses. Opening the case for the appellant Mr King said that no reason for refusing to approve of the plan had been 1 given by the City Council. The, only reason to his mind for that decision was that the council considered that the land was not suitable for subdivision, Evidence would be given to prove that it was suitable for that purpose because (1) It was easily accessible; (2) there was a demand for sections in that. locality; (3) ,a, number of houses had been built, and were ip the course of erection, in this district 1 ; (4) the area of each section was more than 25 poles, and all complied in all respects with the by-laws; (5) that the present area of each of the 14 sections (quarter of an acre) was too large for the average suburban dweller; (6).that the block of land was regular, in shape, and was completely bounded by four legal roads. Its surface was even, and sloped slightly to the north-west, and ,it provided a natural and quick escape for surface water. Mr King,’ traversed the provisions of the Act, and. of the amendment that was made in 1933 when power was vested in the council to; refuse its approval to a plan of subdivision. It could exercise this power for one reason only—if it was of the opinion that the land was not suitable for subdivision. Mr King- contended that there was no decision in . New , Zealand which decided the exact weaning of the words “ that.the land is not suitable for subdivision.”. He submitted 1 that it was the interpretation, of these words which, the. hoard would require to determine im this, case. The principal objection of the council to the subdivision of the land was based on the sewerage difficulties that would he encountered, in ..the. cases ;of a number of houses, it being admitted in the course of evidence, that sewerage from properties on the. hillside’at Waverley went eventually into the harbour. Proper drainings, ’it was contended, would involve the Drainage Board in a great deal of expense. Further, there were difficulties so far as access was concerned, as there were only four allotments that had a formed street (Earl’s road) fronting the boundary. Evidence was given for the appellant by. Percy William Stahb and Louis Deans Ritchie (land agents), Henry M'Dowell Smith (architect), Pastor W; D. More (a resident of Waverley), and Eric Geoffrey M'George (registered surveyor). . '’ .; Mr Haggitt, who. stated that this was the first case of its kind to v be heard in Dunedin, contended that the onus lay with the appellant to prove’that the property was suitable for subdivision; The Dunedin City Council was charged* with the duty of general supervision of the public health of the district .under its control and for that reason it had refused appellant’s plan .for a subdivision as there were’no drajnage.or sewerage facilities at present in existence in that portion of Waverley, ,The appellant had paid £9OO for the'property as a speculation, and he- invited the council to. embark upon a drainage scheme which would cost £4,185 ,to provide proper facilities for his property. If the appellant waited until such a drainage scheme had been brought into the district no objection to the proposed subdmsion would be’raised. . ; Joseph George Alexander, city engineer, said that a report had been prepared on a drainage scheme' for the Waverley area. The major scheme would cost £16,680, and it would cost £4,185 to servo Bonnet’s property immediately. .He had inspected the. property, and in the absence of a suitable drainage scheme he did not think 'it was suitable for subdivision. To Mr King, Mr Alexander said that a system of septio tanks would, not be suitable for the 20 allotments in question, as it would-be impossible toguarantee that a nuisance would not' he created. Dr. T. M’Kibbin. medical officer of health, said that the soil on’the property in Question was not porous, and was therefore not suitable for the installation of septic tanks. He- anticipated that if the 20 subdivisions of the property were built upon, arid ’ high pressure water was introduced, into the dwellings,, a nuisance would he created. In his opinion a sensible subdivision of the property, would be into 10 sections. The Drainage Board had for some time debarred the use of the roads for carrying drainage water,, and he saw no feasible method of disposing of drainage, except by means: .of a Drainage Board scheme.

James Craighead, senior inspector in the Health Department, said that under present conditions the appellant’s property was not suitable for subdivision into 20 allotments, as there would be. a grave danger of a serious nuisance arising out of a lack of proper drainage and sewerage facilities. The board reserved its decision.