Urban expansion opposed

Press, 5 July 1983, Page 15

Urban expansion opposed

Containment of urban areas remained a cornerstone of Canterbury regional planning, the Planning Tribunal heard in Christchurch yesterday. The Canterbury United Council’s director of regional planning, Mr G. C. Miller, was giving evidence

at a hearing in which the Paparua and Eyre County Councils sought changes to the regional scheme.

The two counties want provisions for rural residential development and parttime farming within the green belt. Mr J. N. Matson appears for the United Council, and Mr J. Milligan appears for the two counties. Mr Miller said that rural residential development would not be allowed in the green belt if the regional scheme was approved in its present form. He said that rural residential development would detract from, rather than strengthen, the objectives of the green belt. A considerable range of persons, in addition to farmers and farm workers, needed to live in the belt,

including people providing services. Mr Miller said that their needs could be met by existing housing.

A 1981 survey showed that of 5782 lots in the green belt, almost half contained one dwelling, and 28 per cent had an area of less than one hectare. The United Council did not want the number of residential units to increase. An amendment of the scheme’s policy statement as requested by the counties would fail to meet the basic planning objective of reducing uncertainty, said Mr Miller.

"The possibility of rural residential zoning’ anywhere in the green belt could only fuel speculation and raise expectations of development. This would undermine confidence in the continued protection of adjoining

areas, and reduce the incentive for farm investment.” The hearing, before Judge W. J. M. Treadwell and Messrs H. L. Riley’, H. M. Dodd and J. J. McKenzie, will continue today.