Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
« Reihana's Petition | Main | Proposed Regional Policy Statement »

SNA's In, or Out?

There is a major row brewing on the SNA letter debacle - many is the councilor who has had vigourous input from constituents about this issue since the letters (inadvertently , it would seem!) went out.

There are thousands of irate landowners who have been stirred up as never before, and I would not be surprised if the District Plan Review (Rural and Coastal Provisions - a paper that goes to Council on Wednesday causes some raised temperatures around the table.

For starters, there are many references to the SNA's and the Overlay Maps which are an anathema to those who oppose the whole process - particularly through Attachment A -  Summary of Suggested Changes for District Plan Review Committtee Consideration.

The contents will further inflame the situation already stirred up by the likes of Sandra Goudie and will lead to demands for totally un-affordable compensation as landowners determine that their 'rights' have been stolen through this process.  It is nonsense in my opinion, but I will probably be in the minority on that score. Either we have a Peninsula in which we can all live in harmony with the land, or we accept the demands for totally inappropriate development engendered by blatant greed. 

Further, it appears to me that there is a contradiction between the demands for unlimited development rights, and very often the same people demanding that mining be excluded from the District in all its forms. The Environment Court has already made it clear that our Council may not execute blanket bans on mining on the basis of the need to preserve the significant natural areas without defining those areas, and applying appropriate restrictions on what may take place there.
I truly believe that this Council has neither the wit nor the will to adopt these changes to the District Plan, and that this imbroglio will drift on for years, or until the mining industry seeks to apply the past rulings of the Environment Court, and commence activities on a wide scale. There appears to be evidence that this is happening as we speak, and there is nothing to stop it. Sorry, but DPC Chair Peter French is totally out of his depth, and the sooner he is replaced the better. And while we are at it, the question needs to be asked as to why on earth have we allowed Leach to get away with placing his right hand man - Morrie Dunwoodie on this Committee?

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (1)

yip Bill you are right- just read comment by New Chum in RIP SNA's - how come a 'newbie' Councillor like French got the task of Chairing the District Plan committee - especially as New Chum noted, Cr. Hoadley with her experince as an enviromental barrister and Local Govt. Commissioner sits in the wings.
Couldn't agree more, French should step aside along with Dunwoodie
The District Plan is far too important to be messed around with- and now Hammond/Leach are giving it the kiss of death with their game of musical chairs in the Planning group - as Minoque indicated 'utu' at it's sublime best.
When will commonsense come into play- hopefully very soon---

February 26, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterEt Tu Brute

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>