COUNCIL’S LAND SUBDIVISION POLICY ATTACKED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18187, 21 June 1927, Page 10

COUNCIL’S LAND SUBDIVISION POLICY ATTACKED.

WARM DISCUSSION OCCURS AT MEETING. Mr Freeman: It comes to this: No matter how experienced in practice a surveyor is he cannot in these days give a clear subdivision to his clients. It amounts to this: He might as well put a notice on his door, “ Apply for advice re subdivision to the City Council.” The Mayor: Perhaps it would be a good deal cheaper for them. (Laughter.) This was part of warm criticism of the City Council’s policy in regard to Subdivisions of land for residential purposes. which was expressed at last night’s meeting of the council by Mr F. W. Freeman, a licensed surveyor practising in Christchurch. Mr Freeman was given permission to address the council on behalf of a number of landowners whom he represented. Before Mr Freeman arrived a lette* was received from him, in which he protested against the rapidly increasing requirements demanded by the council in respect to work passing through his hands and stating that the council’s engineering and surveying staff is practically usurping the initiative in all schemes under consideration and is creating a widespread suspicion and mistrust oT private by the general public and persons interested in land transactions and is certainly loading the land with expenses to a very serious extent. While perfectly aware that certain restrictions and rules were necessary, he submitted that the declaration that they -were required to extract from owners was quite an unnecessary piece of machinery in administering the Municipal Corporations Act. The letter also stated that as the Land Transfer Department was by law debarred from registering dealings not in accordance with the Municipal Corporations Act and Public Works Act, the wide range of requirements inposed by the council seemed to him to be to a very large extent unnecessary and superfluous and certainly were creating much hostile comment amongst all persons attempting to subdivide. Councillor D. G. Sullivan, M.P., said that if statements were to be made by Mr Freeman against the administration of the officers of the council in open meeting the officers should be given an opportunity of making their replies in open meeting. The Mayor said that his ruling was that he would not allow any criticism of the officers of the council. He would only allow criticism of the council. The officers were not responsible for the policy of the council, but only carried out instructions. Councillor Sullivan: That is quite satisfactory. When Mr Freeman arrived the Mayor said that the council could not that night listen to any criticism of its staff. If any member of the staff was exceeding his duties Mr Freeman should report the matter in writing, in w’hich case the complaints could be investigated. As far as criticising the policy of the council was concerned, Mr Freeman would be allowed a free hand. “Irritating Methods.” Mr Freeman said it was not his intention to criticise the staff but to show the members of the council the harassing effects of its subdivision conditions. The present policy of the council was proving harassing to solicitors, surveyors, land agents and the general public owing to the exasperating and irritating methods imposed. He had watched the city grow but never until recently had there been any trouble regarding subdivisions, lie considered that the Acts were all right; it was the interpretation and administration of those Acts that was wrong. The administration was over-administration; it was harassing, provocative and almost beyond human endurance. The procedure of signing the declaration before a Justice of the Peace was unnecessary, and the questions were of a Star Chamber order. The £1 fee was another objectionable thing. He considered that the officers of the council instead of merely administering the Act, were taking the initiative. Officers Defended. The Mayor said that he could not allow Mr Freeman to criticise the officers of the council. Every subdivision involving any matter of principle came before the committee and the committee’s decision, not the decision of the officers, was final. Mr Freeman: It comes to this: No matter how experienced in practice a surveyor is he cannot in these days give a clear subdivision to his clients. It amounts to this: He might as well put a notice on his door, “ Apply for advice re subdivisions to the City Council.” The Mayor: Perhaps it would be a good deal cheaper for them. (Laughter.) Mr Freeman exhibited a number of plans of proposed subdivisions in which he criticised the conditions imposed by the council. He said that it seemed to him that the ratepayer -was treated as a criminal because he owned land. The Mayor: We don’t look at it in that light, Mr FreeVian. When Mr Freeman expressed some criticism of the provision for setting aside 5 per cent of a subdivision as a reserve, the Mayor suggested that if the owner was not satisfied, he should test the matter in the Courts. 4 Mr Freeman: Why should a ratepayer have to go to that expense? Extra Burdens. Mr Freeman said that there was a „staff of forty officers in the Government Land Registrar’s office looking after subdivisions. The council was encouraging and creating in its officers a duplicate staff partly doing the same work and were overloading the landowners and placing an extra cost on the ratepayers. He showed a plan of the proposed Monica Park subdivision in connection with which the council Insisted on extra roads and a 5 per cent reserve. The Mayor remarked that a deputation from the Monica Park Board waited on the council and agreed to the council’s proposals. Mr Freeman: Why should they have to come here on their hands and knees? The Mayor: I assure you they didn’t come on their hands and knees. Mr Freeman said that if there were no ratepayers there would be no council and no town planning. If there were two city councils in business in Manchester Street the present one would go bankrupt. (Laughter.) He appealed for fair play for landowners. By its policy the council was increasing the cost of sections to the working men. If all the subdivisions he had referred to were gone on with a total of sixty-eight men could, be employed for six months. “ Only One Side of the Case.” The Mayor said that Mr Freeman ' had put only one side of the case before the council. The council was carrying out the law, and if any person I cared to test its actions it would have to defend itself. The council had to act in the interests, not of merely a

handful of ratepayers, but of the whole of the ratepayers. The people subdividing land were not philanthropists, but were out to make money. Previously people owning blocks of land evaded the law regarding setting aside reserves by selling a section at a time. Now, however, the law had been altered and that was no longer possible. So long as he was Mayor of the city it would also be his policy to take the 5 per cent reserve, and if he had to choose between 5 per cent and 10 per cent he would take the 10 per cent. The sooner the suheiividers made up their minds to accept the position and stop squealing the better it would be. Councillor M. E. Lyons said he agreed with the Mayor’s views regarding taking 5 per cent of the subdivision, but he thought that the council should be allowed to take 5 per cent of the value instead of always having to take the land. Councillor 11. T. Armstrong, M.P., said that to hear Mr Freeman speaking one\ would be inclined to think that the only poor people in Christchurch were those who owned the land. (Laughter.) It appeared to him that the whole cause of the trouble was the 5 per cent taken for reserves. Mr Freeman had suggested that they were taking something they were not entitled to. Mr Freeman said that that was the case. He declared that there was no mention of 5 per cent in the Act. Five of Fifteen Per Cent? The Mayor said that the Act did not specify the It could be 5 per cent or 15 per cent. The council had fixed it at 5 per cent, which he considered was very low. Councillor Armstrong: Don’t put it into our heads about the 15 per cent or we will get a very big deputation at the next meeting. The Mayor read the section of the Act dealing with subdivisions, and remarked to Mr Freeman that his clients bad the right of appeal to a board set up under the Act. They had a very hard proposition to deal with as far as the council was concerned. Councillor E. 11. Andrews expressed the opinion that the burden of the 5 per cent fell on the purchasers of the sections. He considered it should fall on the subdividers. Councillor G. Manning, chairman of the Town Planning and Subdivisions Committee, said he considered that Mr Freeman had justified the action of the committee. The committee stood by the 5 per cent and good roads. Before Mr Freeman retired the Mayor remarked: We are really pleased to see you, Mr Freeman. “ I knew what to expect, but that did not deter me,” was Mr Freeman’s reply.