Mayor Reviews Urban Farm Land Hearing

Chronicle (Levin), 21 December 1949, Page 2

Mayor Reviews Urban Farm Land Hearing

— » ; — - Reporting to the ;Otaki Borough Oouncil 'at at meeting last week on the result of the recent sitting at Otaki of the Urban Farm Land Cpurt; comprising Messrs A. A. McLachlan, S.M., J. T. Strand and .S. T. O'Rourke, the Mayor, Mr. C. F. Atmore, said that the court had given most patient and sym.pathetic hearing to the 13 objectors and he hoped that the decisions would give satisfaciion to all concerned. . Urban farm land was defined as land, whether ' situated within a borough or not, which for the time being (a.) is siibject to any generai, special or separate rates made - and. .levied by a borough cduncil; (b) "is used exclusively or,'; - principally ; for agricultural, hofticultural, or pastoral purpos'es,; dF./fbr' the 'keeping of bees or of, poitltry or - other .. h ye-stock, by a, jier.sQn whose . income -or a sub--stantial part thereof is derived Irdm 'the.use'of land for any such;; pUrpose or - purposes; and (c) is, not, in the opiniori of the council, assessment cour.t, or magistrate. dedling;'. with any application or.; objection- uiider this Act,- fit for subdivision for building- purposes, pr.-.is not likely in such opinion tb be .-required for building purposes, withih a period _ of. five' years from the date on which such opinion is expressed. ( , A fresh Urban Farm Land list had to be made at the end of each flve year period or after a revaluation" of the borough. The court had to consider two lists— tfle one taking effect after the flve year period on March 31, 1946, and the second after the revaluation on March 31, 1949.

■ The councfl's difflculty in pre - paring the list was that there iyer.e. large areas of valuable fertile market- garden lands in the, borough and an estimate had to be made of ;what areas would berequired within the next flve year period, said the Mayor. Judging from the substantial increase in the number of building permits and value during the past flve years the council anticipated a sustained • demand for building Sections and which for the present Mrere not off ering. vThe flgures were:— 1945, 54 permits, . value '£24,662 ; 1946, 69, £35,429; 1947, 67, £47,490; 1948, 102, £77,123; 1949 (7 months), 75, £36,375. The above 'flgures did not include State houses. In the pre- t -yious flve1 -years- the yearly average of permits was 33, .valued at £13 410. . The comparison of the old and new valuations of the borough also showed a remarkable increase af.er making liberal allowance for th'e substantial depreciation in the value of the pound between 1938 and 1948. The flgures were:— Unimproved value: 1938, £91,190; 1949, £192,905; increase, £101,715. Improvements: 1938: £234,955; 1949, £584,090; increase, £349,135. Capital value: 1938, £326,145; 1949, £776,995; increase, £450,850. The Urban Farm Land Court had adopted a novel method in two cases to encourage the owners who held land, part of which was .subdivisable, to dispose of the subdividable portion by allowing a reduction of 10 per cent. in the unimproved value to be increased by flve- per cent. on the sale of each lot with a maximum reduction of 40 per cent. On the sale of each lot a fresh vaiuation would be made by the ValuerGeneral of the lot sold, which would no doubt -be substantially Increased and provide extra rating value, while the original owner would also benefit by. a flve per cent. reduction on the unimproved value of the unsold land. In the other cases the relief given was the retention on the list and a reduction of the unimproved value ranging from 25 per cent. down to n.o reduction. The report was fully discussed and the hope expressed that the giving of the graduated reductions would encourage the subdivision of buildings lots. Appreciation of the work done by the town clerk, Mr. Alex Wilson, m preparing the material required by the court and his assistance to the court received very favourable comment.