SUBDIVISION OF LAND

Evening Star, Issue 22810, 19 November 1937, Page 1

SUBDIVISION OF LAND

CITY COUNCIL'S REFUSAL UPHELD BY SPECIAL BOARD The reserved decision in the appeal against the refusal of the Cfty Council to approve of a plan of subdivision'in. respect of land owned in Waverley was delivered yesterday afternoon. The appeal was lodged by Roland Mancefield Rennet, and was heard on Monday by a special board set up under .the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1933, and consisting of Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M. (chairman), Mr H. L. Paterson (nominated by the appellant), and Mi- J. M‘G. Wilkie (nominated by tho City Council). This was the first case of its kind to be heard in. Dunedin. The appellant was represented by Mr R. King, and the City Council by Mr A. N. Haggitt. Delivering the decision of the board, Mr Bartholomew said: “Appellant is the owner of an area of land at Waverley, and proposed to subdivide it into 20 sections. Ho prepared a plan and submitted it to the City Council for approval. After being furnished with reports by tho city engineer _ and the Health Department, the council refused to approve the plan on the ground that tho land was not suitable for subdivision as there wore’ no drainage facilities. Counsel for appellant contended that the expression ‘ suitable for subdivision ’ related only to the physical configuration of the land. This contention would lead to the following absurdity:— The council must approve of the plan —that is, decide that the land is suitable for subdivision, although it was advised that the carrying out of the plan would create a nuisance, while at the same time it was charged with a duty under the Municipal Corporations Act and the Health Act of safeguarding the public health and of preventing and abating such nuisances. Wo cannot accept this contention. In our view tho expression ‘ suitable ’ has a wider connotation, and includes such matters as health and other amenities. The laud is not served by a sewerage system, and it was stated that the cost of extending tho sewerage system to servo this area would he £4,185, and tho evidence of the city engineer, Dr M'Kibbin, and Inspector Craighead, of tho Health Department, was that owing to tho nature of tho soil, tho comparatively small size of tho sections, and the contour of the land, drainage could not be provided by a. system of septic tanks, and that no other satisfactory provision could bo made for disposal of household drainage and waste water, and a nuisance would bo created. It was in view of these considerations that the council decided the area was not suitable for subdivision, and refused to approve tho plan. In our view of tho law, the council’s decision was correct. Tho appeal is accordingly dismissed.”

Mr Haggitt asked for costs. The Magistrate stated that the action of the appellant was quite reasonable. In > view of the fact that there wore no precedents or authorities on the subject, it was to the advantage of the corporation to secure such an opinion as bad been given. For that reason the hoard did not consider that the appellant should be loaded with costs, and would direct that each party should pay its own costs.