Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
« Michael Bassett Speaks Out! | Main | Roll On (and Over) the 20th! »

DP Hearing One Starts Tomorrow

Here is the Agenda for tomorrow's (Tuesday) meeting of the Proposed District Plan Hearings Panel.

Following the initial skirmishing (and replacement of Sandra Goudie on the Panel), the Hearings commence on Tuesday 16 September.

The following are the opening comments by District Planner Leigh Robcke regarding submissions:

(Note: attempts to prevent copying of this PDF document through the application of an additional security setting failed, and I am not about to disclose how that was accomplished. No doubt other measures will now be implemented. It begs the question - why would they wish to prevent public documents from being copied? Was this a mistake, or further evidence of paranoia within the Castle?) 

"A number of submitters made submissions that fall under the 'Plan approach' theme, where a broad range of matters that affect the whole of the Plan were raised. A handful of these submitters oppose the Plan in its entirety and seek either its withdrawal or a substantial re ‐ writing of the Plan.

12. Dal Minogue opposes the Plan in its entirety and has sought its withdrawal pending a professionally re ‐ written RMA section 32 analysis (consideration of alternatives, benefits and costs). Sue Edens and Others also oppose the whole Plan unless there are some changes to the overall thinking and outcomes as to what the Plan is to achieve ‐ particularly in relation to the section 32 analysis.

13. Te Runanga Ngati Porou ki Hauraki oppose the Plan in its entirety as they believe it is in breach of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, Te Ture Whenua Act 1992, the Human Rights Act 1993 and negotiations that are proceeding with the Crown in relation to the Hauraki Treaty of Waitangi settlement.

14. Coromandel Lobby Against Indiscriminate Mining (CLAIM) and Federated Farmers of New Zealand submit that the Hauraki Gulf should be better recognised in the Plan, with CLAIM submitting that the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 should be more fully referenced and quoted in the Plan.

15. Sue Edens and Others submit that parts of the Plan need to be restructured and the direction of the Plan changed because the RPS has been amended as a result of appeals regarding the Blueprint.

16. Several submitters, including Blackjack Protection Society, Surfbreak Protection Society, Hilary and Allan Calman and Ben Castelow submitted that the Plan needs to be amended to better give effect to the Coromandel Peninsula Blueprint. Specific outcomes from the Blueprint that were mentioned included:

  • ·        consolidate existing coastal settlements and urban areas;
  • ·        maintain and enhance the biodiversity values of the Coromandel Peninsula;
  • ·        identify areas of the coastal environment where particular land uses and subdivision are inappropriate;
  • ·        preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and protect natural features and landscapes of the coastal environment;
  • ·        concentrate development within Thames, Whitianga and Whangamata.

17. Hahei Limousin Ltd have submitted in opposition to the Plan saying it does not give policy direction for resource management outside of settlements. The submitter believes there is limited policy to seek economic objectives and that the Plan needs a new section to achieve economic growth in the District ‐ consistent with the Council’s adopted Economic Development Strategy. Alternatively, it is asked that the existing policy framework be amended to include enabling provisions that are specifically targeted at supporting economic growth, in particular, to ensure the Plan is supportive of tourism and recreation activities.

18. Ron Egan and Sue Dorrington have submitted that community plans need to be better recognised and incorporated into the Plan. They believe that local needs and desires have been lost in the Plan and that incorporation of community plan outcomes into the Plan will lead to better outcomes.

19. Peter and Rachel Garden oppose the use of 'overlays' in the Plan and ask that they be removed from the Plan. In the submission by Sue Edens and Others it is stated that there are too many overlays (i.e. coastal environment, amenity landscapes) and that the Plan needs to be restructured.

20. Gloria and Graeme Ready, along with Sue Edens and Others, oppose the use of the words "will" and "shall" throughout the Plan. They submit that the words "will" and "shall" should be replaced with less prescriptive language such as "should" and "could".

21. Two submissions were received on the public notification of resource consent applications. The Northern Land Property Group Ltd has asked for a rule to be inserted into the Plan providing for controlled and restricted discretionary activity resource consent applications to be processed on a non ‐ notified basis. The Tairua Environment Society has asked that the Council require public notification and limited notification for consents unless there are no adverse effects on the environment.

22. Dal Minogue has submitted that any District Plan Hearing Commissioner or member who has involved themselves in lobbying for/against significant natural areas in the Plan should stand aside from any hearings and or subsequent decision ‐ making on the Plan."

That should some idea of Submissions which the Panel will be dealing with - quite a range!





PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

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>