LAND SUBDIVISION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19239, 1 August 1924, Page 5

LAND SUBDIVISION.

AREAS IN CITIES. DEDUCTIONS FOR RESERVES. (Feom Ook Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, July 31. This morning a Ohristchuorh deputation waited upon the Minister of Lands (the Hon. A. D. M'Lood) on a matter that has a dominion as well as a local significance. The subject was the area of land taken for reserves in connection with the subdivision of city properties. The deputation was representative of the Dominion Institute of Surveyors and the Canterbury Law Society, which urged an alteration in the provision which compels people who are subdividing land to give 5 per cent, for the purpose of public reserves. Mr C. Hastings Bridge (representing the Dominion Institute of Surveyors) said bo understood the matter was likely to be reviewed this session. The Prime Minister some time ago told a deputation that he was in favour of a 5 per cent.- reserve in town subdivisions, and he had further stated that ho intended to have the Act amended. Mr Bridge said it was not the Act that required amendment so much as the administration of it. Quoting the clause of the Act which he said came into the measure in 1892 with an amendment that made no material alteration in 1912, Mr Bridge said there was nothing in the clause to require any reserve at all. There was no statutory enactment compelling the setting apart of any portion as a reserve, but, the Minister really made a law to himself by his own regulations that in all proposed subdivisions above four acres there should bo a reserve or reserves equal to 5 per cent, of the gross area. The Christchurch City Council, following the lead of the Minister of Lands, demanded 5 per cent, in all areas over three acres which were being divided (there was no reference in the clause itself to any percentage or any area). The council even went further than this, and in the case of an owner of, say, 10 acres, one acre of which he wished to subdivide, demanded 5 per cent, of the whole 10 acres. In such a case under the Land Act the Minister accepted an underbaking from the owner that he would, when subdividing the balance, give a reserve of 5 por cent, in respect of the whole. This the Christchurch City Council refused to do. Mr Bridge said they wore not opposed to reserves made in suitable cases, nut when the land amounted to nothing more than a “building site” his institute was not in favour of the operation of the Act. When large areas were being subdivided it was readily admitted that adequate provision should be made for recreation grounds and breathing spaces, but they wore up against the manner in which these reserves wore being demanded all round. The regulation was pressing heavily on the small landowner, and was preventing subdivision. He was not in favour of pressing for tho abolition of the 5 per cent, in all cases. He considered it would be a fairer thing to give 5 per cent, in mone- in lieu of land, but if that wore going to bo done everyone who subdivided land should pay. Ho pointed out that tho Christchurch City Council was the only council in the dominion that was taking the extreme view of the matter Mr H. J. Berwick said it waa recognised that the arbitrary 5 per cent, might spoil subdivisions, and ho referred to three instances in Waimari County where useless pieces of land had been taken in that way. These pieces of land wore not wanted by the local body, which would rather have had a sum in money. Such small pieces of land were really no good as breathing spaces and wore not of the kind contemplated by tho Act Tho present system was only spoiling subdivision in cases where it meant cutting out a piece of land that was no good for recreation. Tliero was such a piece of land not far from where ho lived, and it was simply a dumping ground for rubbish and a resort for people who had no right to be there Mr G. Witty, M.P.. agreed that in some instances land was taken and reserved that was no good to anyone, and there should be an option so that in such cases a sum in money might bo given. The arbitrary system often meant that only a little piece of land was left to collect rubbish and grow weeds Mr J. M‘Combe, M.P., said ho was heartily in accord'with what this deputation had stated. It was perfectly reasonable that in tho cutting up of large pieces of land the owners should give land for roads and recreation. In fact, in such cases a reserve was a definite asset to the owner in the disposal of hits property, and owners tiliemselves would offer ‘inch ’•omrves, bn tin Slioh oases if ; had been instanced, where the land taken was (oo small to be of any value aa reserve, a monetary value ought to be agreed to. He said the Government was to be congratulated in regard to the general , principle of the law it had passed. Mr 11. T. Armstrong, M.P., said fiat as fax aa the Christchurch City Council woo concerned they did not claim the 5 par cent, of land or any parcel of land less than three aorce, and at tho present stage of lire city’s progress anyone who had three acres unsubdividod could not object to that. In the great majority of cases such areas liad been simply held for speculative purposes, and considering the great amount that had been spent on city improvements it was a fair thing that .some return contribution should bo made. So far as the Christchurch City Council was concerned it had never claimed any area insufficient for a public utility. Even in the case of an old couple of 80 whose caf» had been cited, he did not think there could bo any hardship if they held 10 acres of land still unsubdivided. In some cases the owners would prefer to give five per cent, in money when the municipality would prefer tho land. Therefore he would not like to see a hard and fast rule made. There was a ease recently hi whioh the land was of more value to the city titan the money would have been. It was a place whore it would be necessary in time to come to have a reserve. P -■ did not want tile impression to go abroad that anything of an absurd nature had been done in Christchurch. Mr D. G. Sullivan, M.P., said he would like to see some arrangement made whereby something mutually satisfactory cotdd bo arrived at—money in tho one case and land in the other, whichever was best-. The Hon. Mr M‘Leod, in reply, said that any amendment of the law would have to he dealt with by Mr Bollard’s department. Mr Bollard, however, had another deputation at that moment end was not able to be present. Ho (Mr M‘Leod) did not profess to have any special knowledge m regard to city properties, but ho d>know that in country subdivisions the strict carrying out of the law in regard to roads, etc,, was hampering subdivision. It was quite possible that the same might be taking place in the cities. Anything that was hampering subdivision could not bo for the eood of the community. However, the position would bo fully considered. If any amendment were made it should be under a general town planning Bill.