Development of green belt sought

Press, 6 July 1983, Page 4

Development of green belt sought

Provision for rual residential development and part-time farming in the green belt round Christchurch would enhance and strengthen the area, the Planning Tribunal was told in Christchurch yesterday.

The county planner for the Paparua County Council, Mr K. G. Lawn, was giving evidence on behalf of the council which, with the Eyre County Council, has sought changes to a regional scheme prepared by the Canterbury United Council.

Earlier in the hearing, evidence had been given on behalf of the United Council that the rural residential development would not be allowed in the green belt under the scheme. Mr Lawn said that while Paparua County Council accepted the need for the Christchurch urban area to be contained, it considered the sections of the scheme which excluded rural residential development to be “too rigid and inflexible.” The provisions of rural residential zones in the scheme would enhance the green belt and strengthen rather than detract from the aims of the scheme, he said.

A significant percentage

of the population had “a desire for rural living. These ranged from those who wanted to live in a house in the country on a small piece of land, with a vegetable garden and a pony paddock to those who ran a farm while holding down another job.

Mr Lawn said there was a strong demand for small holdings in the green belt area. By making specific provision for part-time farming and rural residential zones, the demand would be satisfied and the pressure would be taken off the rest of the green belt area.

The rural area within the green belt was not merely a farming area, it fulfilled many functions and needed to satisfy a wide range of demands, Mr Lawn said. He told the tribunal that most of those catered for by rural residential and parttime farming zones worked in the urban area. Therefore, although wanting to live in the country, they needed a home not too far from the urban area. Such people could be catered for in selected parts of the green belt. The zones could apply only to chosen and appropriate areas, so that properties

could be grouped and their size controlled, he said. Mr Lawn suggested that local bodies should be permitted to make provision for rural residential and part-time farming zones within green belt areas if they thought it necessary. Mr Lawn disagreed with the suggestion that the regional scheme should be altered to accommodate any rural residential developments that the United Council thought should be provided for. He said that to create “holes” in fhe green belt in such a way would involve a “cumbersome and time-con-suming” procedure. This would also exclude any area chosen as a “hole” from green belt control. Rural residential zones contained the characteristics of rural areas and, if they contained a limited number of lots, would not conflict with other uses in the area.

Mr Lawn said that the proposed changes to the scheme would make the green belt continue to be “an effective planning tool.” The hearing, before Judge Treadwell and Messrs H. L. Riley, H. M. Dodd, and J. J. McKenzie, will continue today.