Rezoning proposal poorly researched say landowners

Chris Gardner
Landowners look set to lose if the Hastings District Council rezones 67ha of land once used for orcharding and now contaminated by agricultural chemical spray for residential development, Derek Tonge has told the council's hearings committee.
Mr Tonge, of Nottingley Road, was one of three men from the Land Defence Group who on Wednesday appeared before the committee to have their say on the proposal, "The spreadsheet supplied by (the council's strategic development manager, Mark Clews) reveals a serious situation for small land-holders with a high lifestyle property premium," Mr Tonge said.
Mr Clews had said rezoning would be worthwhile for orchardists, even if some of their land was contaminated. The land would be worth between $15 and $31 a square metre after rezoning, compared to $6 or $7 for top-quality producing orchards.
Using a hypothetical 2ha orchard block as an example, if 23 lots were sold for $110,00 each, the block could fetch $614,398. If sections sold for $115,000 it could be worth $679,401 and, if sections sold for $120,000, it could be worth $744,403.
The cost of remediation on some land would be between $3 and $16 a square metre.
"According to the information given, the figures that I am presenting show considerable losses if a developer were to purchase my property," Mr Tonge said.
"If I was sell to a developer based on the council figures, I would have a loss of $30000-plus, based on the current Government Valuation."
He said he would seek compensation from the council if Mr Clews' figures were correct.
A new report from council consultant Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd, dated May 2, said between 23 percent and 38 percent of the development area would have surface arsenic concentrations in excess of the residential guidelines.
"Between 4 percent and 17 percent of the area potentially has arsenic contamination that is not readily remediable without significant larger earthworks than has been contemplated in this study."
Arbuckle Road resident Jack Thompson said cost of remediating soil contamination would make subdivision uneconomical.
"We disagree with the costs presented by Mr Clews to the hearings committee. The figures presented do not take into account the lifestyle premium value that properties in the Lyndhurst area attract," Mr Thompson said.
"We also disagree with the methodology used. The remediation costs must be included in the total outlay costs to get an accurate result."
He claimed subdividing a typical 2ha property with contaminated soil would mean a loss of between $12,722 and $32,706 per section, or between $292,606 and $752,238 on 23 sections.
"It is, therefore, not economically viable to subdivide land in the Lyndhurst area if the level of contamination is higher than the residential guidelines and remediation is required."
He asked that Mr Clews' report be withdrawn from the evidence, saying it was "incorrect and misleading".
The rezoning proposal "is poorly researched and council have failed to show that subdivision is viable and that it has meet its obligations under the Resource Management Act", he said.
Fellow Land Defence Group member John Thornburrow said there would be between three and 11 hectares of unremediable soil spread across a 35ha orcharding zone.
About 14ha of former orchard land remained untested.
"In other words, the full extent of contamination is unknown," he said.
"Too many questions remain unanswered for this hearing to find contaminated Lyndhurst soil suitable for economic subdivision." He wanted to know how council officers would manage the development of such areas, how the management strategy would impact on the subdivision plan, how the potential loss of up to 11ha would affect the proposal's viability, whether it was feasible to carry out large-scale earthworks and whether a staged development, as planned, was appropriate.
The hearing, which continued yesterday and is expected to finish today, began last month.