Some thoughts on the proposed changes to the District Plan
(By Glenda Bell)
1. Scenic Resource Area
I find it a curious and disturbing thing that in the Councils promotional brochure titled: Our Future Footprint
– Proposed Southland District Plan 1012; it states:
In the Te Anau area, the current “Scenic Resource Area” will be expanded and becomes a visual amenity
landscape.
And the public are supposed to be duped by this: when what is currently considered by Council to be “an
outstanding landscape and significant natural resource of the District in terms of Section 6 of the act
(RMA); is to be devalued to a mere amenity!!!!!!
What a f___ing joke, and indictment on the whole resource industry and legal process, and slap in the face
for the public who in the past have taken this matter seriously and so it seems wasted countless personal
time, money and resources dealing with such matters; only to have these matters conveniently expunged by
the Council.
In my view, the Council should be consistent; and retain the SRA and its special significance, otherwise
none of this can be taken seriously, and the Council looses all credibility and the Public‟s faith in its
integrity.
Because in removing these section 6 matters, the Council signals that it no longer cares about: the
preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment …; the protection of outstanding natural
features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision , use and development; the maintenance and
enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes and rivers; etc., etc..
These matters are crucially important, especially for the land to be located in the Lake Side Protection Area.
2. Lake Side Protection Area
Again, what a joke this label is.
“Protection”: from what / how / why / to benefit whom?
I can understand imposing a 12m height restriction in the commercial area of the Te Anau Township; but
why for the land that exists between the Golf Course Road, SH95, Lakefront Drive, Te Anau Terrace, and
the Lake; and including the land surrounding the walkway that extends from the boat harbour round to the
mouth of the Upukeroa River. Who, in their right mind, decided 12m high structures should be allowed
here, and why, when the majority of the public who use this land would be mortified. Have they been
consulted / randomly interviewed to find out what value they place on this land and how they would like it
developed or not? NO!!!!! And, why the heck not when it should be the Council‟s policy and practice to do
so. Otherwise whose view and agenda does the Council actually represent - evidently not the publics, but its
own.
1
As for the land that lies round the bottom of the lake, as it regenerates, it is forming a natural corridor and
connection between the national park and the township. It is conveniently located where the locals and
uncountable thousands of annual visitors to the township can without impediment regularly walk or jog for
exercise; to get away from daily cares and the urban area, to relax and reenergize and reconnect with nature
and to drink in the beauty of the lake and mountains of the National Park. This land should never be further
built upon, save to replace and upgrade existing facilities. Accordingly, it should be included in the
Fiordland / Rakiura Zone.
3. Preservation of High Value Soils
I am heartened that the Council intends paying much more heed to section 7b of the RMA re the efficient
use and development of natural resources, particularly as it applies to soils.
But, although it has signaled in the provisions for the rural resource area that high value soils should be
protected, it then undermines that proviso in the provisions for subdivision by stating that high value soils
may still be subdivided although in a consolidated manner [just like the Marshland Soils in CHCH which
were highly prized for market gardening, and were none the less entirely lost to housing!!!!!!!] Soils are an
invaluable resource which are essentially non renewable, because they take eons to form. Either the Council
is serious about preserving these, or it is not. In my view, IT SHOULD BE, because their loss is tantamount
to rape of our children‟s, children‟s heritage. So saying, in my opinion, Urban settlement of any kind should
not be permitted on these lands.
Furthermore, there is a danger that by permitting urban development to occur in keeping with the
surrounding „rural character‟, it will allow large sprawling non productive development to continue to erode
farmland. And although much of this development may occur on lower value soils, the cumulative effect
over time could potentially be profound.
4. Change in designation for land ear marked for disposal of Te Anau townships waste water
I note in the Advocate, p2, dated 14 February 2013, “Te Anau sewerage plan progress” – Also included in
the plan review is a proposal for the disposal land to be covered by a special designation stating that the
land has been identified as being used for the purpose of dealing with wastewater……this would negate the
need for further consents under the Southland District Plan.
As confirmed on Map 9; D81 – pink stripe area identifying the land surrounding the airport to be used for
“Te Anau Manapouri Wastewater Treatment Area”.
What kind of a democracy does the Council think we live in when it has the temerity to pervert the course of
justice by pre writing rules to serve its own agenda and to thwart the public. This land has not gone before
the Environment Court to determine if indeed it is suitable for wastewater disposal - so should not be
earmarked for such on the new map!!!!!
5. Development levies
I think that it is absolutely imperative that development levies / financial contributions are appropriately
charged although not just to the nearest connection, but as a portion right back to the source (treatment
plant, water supply etc); so that existing residents are not unfairly burdened in the future with having to pay
for the upgrade of services to cope with the extra flow / demand generated. I do not think that this has been
adequately taken into account with the new proposed plan.
6. Contaminated Land
2
I note in the introduction for section 2.8 – waste, Hazardous substances and Contaminated Land that:
Prior to change in land sue, subdivision or development on land suspected or known to be contaminated
that will result in any potential to cause exposure of that contaminant in a way that will impact on human
health, it should be demonstrated that the land is suitable for that activity by undertaking investigations and
adopting appropriate mitigation measures where necessary.
Fair enough, but demonstrated by whom: the Council or the land owner? I think that it is entirely
unreasonable to make new land owners pay for testing etc in areas for instance that have formerly been used
as a public tip. This potential problem is a public one in nature, and should not therefore be unfairly
deferred and burdened on any would be new owners. Thus who was responsible for creating the mess /
potential hazard, should be held directly accountable.
7. Subdivision
Policy SUB 8
I do not think that this policy goes far enough re the proviso for alternate energy. People should be
encouraged and supported for installing their own independent alternate energy systems, like small wind
turbines, so long as they do not unduly impinge on their neighbours in any way.
Policy SUB 9
What about horses??? Are they to be forgotten and entirely overlooked? Consideration needs to be given
for their access as more and more people are using this healthy form of transport / recreation.
Policy SUB 5
I am concerned with this provision concerning Rural Residential Subdivision because it has been written
without a thorough investigation and evaluation and debate about life style blocks in general - which needs
and should be done.
Personally, I think there is scope for a max size of 1 acre for large spacious entirely urban sections in or on
the outskirts of towns; with 20 acres set as the min size for small farms. The former would slow much of
the rampant urban sprawl in the rural environment and discourage willy nilly satellite settlements from
occurring; while the later would discourage a lot of speculative ownership and ensure the financial viability
of the small farms.
8. Monitoring and Enforcement
In all practicality, how are all of the proposed new policies, rules etc to be monitored and enforced, when
they are not adequately done so now; and to make matters worse, the Environment Court has no posers of
enforcement!
One my cry: What is the point of it all?
3