PROPERTY SUBDIVISION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23350, 16 November 1937, Page 15

PROPERTY SUBDIVISION

COUNCIL’S APPROVAL WITHHELD APPEAL AGAINST DECISION HEARING BY SPECIAL BOARD An appeal under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1933, against the decision of the Dunedin City Council in disapproving of a plan of a subdivision in respect of land owned by Roland Mancefield Bennet, at Waverley, was heard by a special board consisting of Messrs J. R. Bartholomew, S.M. (chairman), H. L. Paterson (nominated by the appelant), and Mr J. McG. Wilkie nominated by the City Council) in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. 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: — (1) 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 comprising this land was too large for the requirements of the average suburban resident, and it was desired to resubdivide the land so that the allotments would meet the requirements of tire suburban public; (5) that the residential area of the city was extending to all the suburbs and suitable allotments made available for building purposes. Opening the case for the appellant, Mr King said that no reason for refusing to approve of the plan had been 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 in the course of erection, in this district; (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 meaning of the words “ that the land is not suitable for subdivsion.” He submitted that it was the interpretation of these words which the board would require to determine in this case. The principal objection of the council to the subdivision of the land was based on the sewerage difficulties that would be 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 Stabb and Louis Deans Ritchie (land agents), Henry McDowell Smith (architect), Pastor W. D. More (a resident of Waverley), and Eric Geoffrey McGeorge (registered surveyor). Mr Haggitt, who stated that this was the first case of its kind to 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 drainage or sewerage facilities at present in existence in that portion of Waverloy. 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 £4185 to provide proper facilities for his property. If the appellant waited untU such a drainage scheme had been brought into the district no objection to the proposed subdivision 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 £4185 to serve Bennet’s property immediately. He had inspected the property, and in the absence of a suitable drainage scheme he did not think it was suitablb for subdivision. To Mr King, Mr Alexander said that a system of septic tanks would not be suitable for the 20 allotments in question, as it would be impossible to quarantee that a nuisance would not be created. Dr T. M’Kibbin, medical officer of health, said that the soil on the property in question was not porous, ard was therefore not suitable for the installation of septic tanks. He anticipated that if the 20 subdivisions of the property were built upon, and high pressure water was introduced, into the dwellings, a nuisance would be 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.