Homes in the Hill Country

New Zealand Listener, Volume 18, Issue 465, 21 May 1948, Page 6

Homes in the Hill Country

Written for "The Listener" |

| by

NANCY

NORTHCROFT

WAS interested to an extraordinary extent to read, in The Listener of April‘9, what A. B. Duncan, of Scotland, had to say about hill-country farming in New Zealand. In his opinion, he said, there were two things which — more than anything else — would put hillcountry farming in New Zealand back on its feet: first, the freeing from direct taxation of all: moneys spent on re-es-tablishing land that has gone out of production, and secondly, the provision of adequate housing in outlying districts to encourage the settlement of married shepherds. Later in the article he was quoted as saying "... that although the agricultural industry had in the past relied to a great extent on single men, that day was now past, and if the labour problem was to be solved it must be along the lines of more families settled in the country. This meant more and better housing in the couritry, and more and better facilities for people in the coun- > ee ae : I must say it gave me very great pleasure indeed to read this, derived no doubt from that weakness known as human vanity, because I couldn’t agree with him more. In particular, I was interested in his remarks about settling married families in the country and giving them "better housing and better facilities than they know now in New Zealand. This is not because I think his other remarks were of less importance, but because I, as a town and country plannet, do not feel myself qualified to express a considered opinion about the technicdlities of farming. I do, however, consider myself qualified to express an opinion on settlement and the environment needed to provide the means of living a full and happy life. This is the job of the planner,

I have, myself, for some time thought that we needed to do a little re-think-ing on the development of our country areas, particularly the hill country areas, from the point of view of human settlement. Generally speaking the life in sheep farming districts is one of isolation. This, in the first place, is not a natural way of living, because the human animal is a gregarious one. In the second place, it is interesting to note that this isolated type of life, as expressed in the scattering over the land of individual houses, has no historical precedent. In the past all healthy and prosperous agricultural societies were based on a system of grouped settlements. Admittedly these originally grew up as a form of mutual protection, but when the need for this passed, the people of the older countries continued to live in their village communities. This gave them the comradeship they needed and provided the means for a free exchange of ideas, on which all progress depends. In addition, it is much easier and cheaper to provide services and amenities for a group of families living together in one community, than it is to provide them for individual houses scattered about all over the countryside. Community Advantages It appears then that the development of little communities throughout our sheep farming areas would have several advantages. (1) They would provide a pool of labour, both permanent end casual, for the farmer and for his wife. (2) They would make it possible to group and co-ordinate those services and facilities which are more easily providéd and more satisfactorily used by larger groups of people than by the single family unit.

(3) Ba A would serve as a focal point (4) for social activities. They would provide small oases, in scale with human conceptions, amongst the wilder and more remote areas of the countryside, and so help to mitigate the sense of loneliness and isolation, particularly for the women.

I know that there are objections, and reasonable objections, to this type of development and there are many difficulties to be overcome. But I do believe that, if the problems are tackled sincerely, tolerantly, and scientifically; they can in fact be overcome. I do not think that there can be any argument about the fact that life in the hill country areas, particularly for the women, is indeed a hard one and a lonely one. Admittedly it has its compensations, but I see no reason why we should let these blind us to the more is. soe pee facts. Houses are urgently needed. at the moment. Some are already building and many more, with the high priority placed on housing, will be going up within the next few years. Would it not be possible to see that when these .houses are built that they are of the right type and put in the right place? Could we not, for once, think first, and not scatter our houses haphazardly about

without thought to ‘other development which will be required in the future? No matter how dire our need is for houses, we should not lose sight of the fact that the provision of a house does not automatically mean the provision of a good life. We need other things too. To safeguard ourselves against this sort of thing, there is, in country, areas, a course of action which, I think, we should and could take now. That. is to carry out some experiment into the development of small settlements in rural areas. This could be done as follows: (1) By the co-ordination of all research work so far completed. (2) By the initiation of further research where necessary. (3) By the appreciation of the fact that if. the results of the research work are ever to’ mean anything, they must ultimately be translated into terms of physical development and land use. (4) And in particular by undertaking "sample surveys." These surveys should be undertaken by a.team of people representing the different interests and sciences of the job. The team might well consist of the following: a practising sheep farmer, a geographer, a civil engineer, a sociologist, an agricultural economist and a technical town and country planner. If such a team could carry out research work in three areas, representing three totally different aspects and types of sheep farming, analyse the results of their work and draw up sample schemes for development, much useful information would be gained. Such surveys should be able to establish the fact as (continued on next page)

(continued from previous page) to the practical possibility of developing rural settlements. They should also help to establish the development of a technique for future reference, There is no reason why these surveys should take a long time. Given willingness to co-operate and the facilities needed, the bulk of the work should be completed within a year. Then at the end of this period, if the results of the research work prove satisfactory, I believe some experiment should be made into the development of at least one little community as a test case. I am sure that Mr. Duncan is right when he says that the labour problem in the hill country areas will only be solved when it becomes possible for married couples to settle in the country. And I believe that we will not get married couples into our back country areas until we can give them better services and amenities than we do now. . There are certainly a number of social services in the country areas to-day, but too often they are scattered and lack any sense of co-ordination. The result is that even in one small area, say a valley containing some dozen farms, the hall

will be found in one place, three to five miles further along the road may be the post-office and a store; in yet another place the church, the school. Then in another place again the piece of land used for a football field, and so on. And what is the effect of all this? That what facilities do exist have a,struggle to carry on, because so few people use them. If, however, the school, the store, the post-office, and the garage and petrol station were all grouped together, it might then be worth-while taking the children to school in the car, because at the same time you could pick up the bread, the mail, the meat, that odd reel of cotton and perhaps even have a chat with some of the neighbours, These may seem small things, but in their total it is these things which just make the difference between carrying on or giving up. Our townspeople regard these sort of facilities as a necessity. They cannot conceive. how they could live without them. If, as a primary producing country, we consider our farming areas of importance, then we must see to it, and quickly, that the people who work the land for us have as good a life as we can possibly give them. If we don’t then I think the answer, an unpleasant one, is writ plain.