LAND SUBDIVISION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23353, 19 November 1937, Page 3

LAND SUBDIVISION

oCOUNCIL’S APPROVAL REFUSED APPEAL BOARD UPHOLDS DECISION The reserved decision of a special board set up under the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1933, and comprising Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M. (chairman), Mr H. L. Paterson (nominated by the appellant) and Mr J. McG. Wilkie (nominated by the City Council) was delivered yesterday in the appeal of Ronald Mancefield Rennet (Mr R. King) against the decision of the Dunedin City Council (Mr A. N, Haggitt) to refuse to approve a plan submitted by the appellant for the subdivision of a property at Waverley. Delivering the decision of the board, Mr Batholomew said: Appellant is the owner of an area of land at Waverley, and he proposed to subdivide it into 20 sections. He prepared a plan and submitted it to the City Council for approval. After being furnished with reports by the city engineer and the Health Department, the council refused to approve the plan on the ground that the land was not suitable for subdivision as there were 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 the council is 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. We cannot accept this contention. In our view the expression ‘ suitable ’ has a wider connotation, and includes such > matters as health and other amenities. “The land is not served by a sewerage system, and it was stated that the cost of extending the sewerage system to serve this area would be £4185, and the evidence of the city engineer and Dr McKibbin, and Inspector Craighead, of the Health Department, was that owing to the

nature of the soil, the comparatively small size of the 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 be made for the disposal of household drainage and waste water, and a nuisance would be created. It was in view of these considerations that the council decided the area was not suitable for subdivision, and refused to approve the plan. In our view of the law, the council’s decision was correct. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” . .. Mr Haggitt asked for costs, the chairman stating that the action of the appellant was quite reasonable in prosecuting the appeal. In view of the fact that there were no precedehts or authorities on the subject, it was to the advantage of the corporation to secure such an opinion as had been given. For that reason the board did consider that the appellant should be loaded with costs, and would direct that each party should pay its own costs.