| |
The Resource Management Subcommittee has been involved in several activities
over the year 2004:
Otahuna Farm
The owner of Otahuna Farm submitted an application to change the current resource consent for subdivision into 40 hectare blocks with one house unit on each (allowable under the draft Selwyn District Plan) to a group of six 4 hectare blocks with a house unit on each, be high on the hillside, in excess of the 200m contour, and below to the existing Bellbird Lodge. The proposal also provided for an open space covenant on 209 hectares, and design controls on the houses themselves. Whilst the Society welcomed the introduction of design controls, which we had pushed for at Mount Pleasant, and applauded the principle of an open space covenant, we objected to the application. Our grounds were basically that the houses would be visibly intrusive, and would introduce a semi-urban environment into a predominantly rural area. There were 12 submissions opposing the proposal, which were heard at a hearing before a Commissioner on the 5th March. The Commissioner has now made his decision, and has refused the application. The grounds for this are basically similar to our objection, and also that the development would be in contravention of a number of principles in the draft District Plan. Initially Otahuna Farm Limited appealed to the Environment Court, but has now withdrawn.
Kennedy’s Bush Road
In this proposal, Christchurch City Council had agreed to the extension of the residential development boundary and for a subdivision for 100 houses, with ‘environmental compensation’ of 190ha of land on the upper slopes coming into Council ownership. After lengthy discussions, the Society decided not to object because on balance it considered that the advantages of further land in public ownership outweighed the impact of further residential development. It is fair to say that all those who looked at the proposals were personally very concerned about the continued urban spread in this area, but recognised that in taking a Society position it is important to act within our aims and objectives. At the recent Environment Court hearing, the only objector was the Kennedy’s Bush Residents Association. In the event, the judge refused the application, concluding that the subdivision should not be considered in isolation, and that a comprehensive approach to the whole of the Landsdowne Valley is required. Clearly, this is a significant decision, but it does signal the need for the Society to keep a close watch on the future of this area.
Godley Head
Christchurch City Council and the Department of Conservation have invited submissions on a concept plan for the creation of an Awaroa/Godley Head Coastal Park, articles about which you may well have seen in the local press. Following a meeting, we submitted a detailed response on the proposal, which included;
• Our support for the overall concept, the refurbishment of the historic buildings, and the creation of a visitor centre.
• A strong recommendation for the removal of cattle, and the introduction of properly managed sheep grazing, as the best way of ensuring the ‘health’ of the flora.
• Some suggestions on tracks and access.
• Our opposition to a predator-proof fence, on the grounds of management difficulties and cost, particularly the poor cost-effectiveness for reintroducing species to the area.
The Council and DoC are currently considering the submissions, and there will be further meetings in the near future.
Community Plans
These plans are different to the past annual and long-term plans prepared by local authorities, and in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 set out to describe the outcomes that the community wants to achieve. We have made submissions so far to Christchurch City Council’s and Environment Canterbury’s Community Plans. In both we have put forward the view that the Port Hills are sufficiently different to other parks, reserves and land in general in the city and the region, to require specific ‘outcomes’ relating to the environment, landscape, conservation values and recreational use are appropriate for the Port Hills. In this way we feel that the importance and uniqueness of the hills will not be overlooked in future planning.
|
