Lifestyle blocks chewup productive farmland
About 10 per cent of New Zealand’s most productive farmland is now occupied by lifestyle blocks, according to new research by Landcare.
The work by Landcare researchers Robbie Andrew and John Dymond shows lifestyle block numbers are now at 175,000, an increase of 75,000 over the past 13 years and cover an area of 873,000ha.
Lifestyle blocks occupy 148,000ha (17 per cent) of high-class land, which was defined as land that could be used intensively to produce a wide variety of crops. This is 10 per cent of New Zealand’s total area of high-class land.
Canterbury figures are in line with national figures, with 10.8 per cent (34,671ha) of the 284,868ha in lifestyle holdings graded as high-class land.
‘‘That’s too much in my view,’’ Mr Dymond said.
He said national guidelines were needed to help local government make more informed decisions over the rules for subdividing farmland into lifestyle blocks.
There were no effective, nationally consistent, preventive measures against the gradual whittling away of the same productive land by urbanisation and subdivision.
Lifestyle block development constituted a loss of productive land and he asked if high-quality lands were adequately protected.
‘‘The solution is more of a national perspective,’’ he said.
A national policy statement was needed, but it should come with the flexibility of allowing subdivisions where appropriate, while at the same time preventing quality farmland loss to lifestylers.
‘‘We need some sort of national planning rather than regional planning. Maybe we need a national policy statement on it rather than a local one,’’ he said.
New Zealanders needed to give more thought to the value and protection of productive farmland, particularly given the ongoing worldwide issues around the supply of food. Attempts by regional councils to protect quality farmland were not working, he said.
The research was submitted to the Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand in December.
However, Kate Brennan, who edits small farming website lifestyleblock.co.nz, said the research had made too many assumptions about lifestylers.
She took exception to the claim lifestylers did not use their land productively because their output did not contribute to the country’s GDP or contribute to the export sector.
‘‘It’s counted as nothing and that’s ridiculous.’’
Lifestylers grew their own meat and vegetables and provided their children with the opportunity to grow up in the country, she said.
‘‘People don’t put value on that. It might not be great for GDP but it’s great for the country.’’
Creating national guidelines around how councils should subdivide rural land was too difficult.
Rural subdivisions were usually created by farmers splitting up their farm because it was uneconomic and tightening the rules around subdivisions was undemocratic and could ruin these farmers financially, she said.
Federated Farmers local government spokesman David Rose doubted national guidelines would be flexible enough for district councils to form policies that were specific to their region.
‘‘They try and come up with a ‘one size fits all’, and what might work at the top of the North Island may not work elsewhere.
‘‘You struggle to come up with something that can handle all situations in the country,’’ he said.
A spokesman for the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Nick Smith, said it was up to local governments through their district plans to determine limits and boundaries around rural subdivision.
Councils around New Zealand have tried to introduce measures to curb farmland subdivision.
The New Plymouth District Council brought in new rules late last year that include restrictions on rural subdivision sizes, an increase in minimum setback distances for housing and restrictions on the number of houses per property.