Proposed District Plan changes were sent to all ratepayers recently. The Ratepayers Association has made the following submission concerning this proposed plan.
The Association was involved in submissions and in discussions with the Council concerning the Development Plan. A strong message was received from the community during the consultation process that no further development was welcomed at Waikawa.
Subsequently the Association met with the Council and a compromise position was reached. This position was not viewed favourably by some members.
The proposed plan changes 20/21 are not what the Association agreed with and consequently the Association objects to the proposed changes.
There are several points that should be addressed:
It is agreed that this environment is unique and fragile and must be guarded from undue development that would spoil this character.
The Association asks that the Coastal Environment be increased in area to include all of the Waikawa district, namely to include the land up to Waikawa Heights. The dune system extends to at least that area and it seems only logical for it to be zoned that same. During negotiations with both NZ Wise and Waikawa Lakes all this area was considered to be part of the Coastal Environment in reports tabled by Council and is also referred to as Coastal Environment in the Development Plan.
The Association requests that this area be renamed. While it is acknowledged that there are lakes of significant importance in this region, much of it is in significant wetlands as well and this would seem to a logical naming.
It must be stated that the name Coastal lakes implies manmade lakes are acceptable and the Association is strongly opposed to such a suggestion.
Structure Plan 10
This land was originally included in the draft development plan and later removed. At the time of discussions between Council and the Association the land was not included and the Association suggested that 5 ( 2 hectares) of greenbelt residential land would have a minor impact on Waikawa, and would help achieve the Council’s goals.
At no time during the discussions with the Council did the Association ever agree to 7.5 hectares. Five acres was the area of land agreed to. (Please forgive the differing measures.)
The Association only agreed to the five acres as options 4 and 5 were removed from the original draft plan.
The Association is pleased to see the inclusion of Reserve land fronting the river to allow public access should this area ever be developed.
Structure Plan 11
The Association agreed to this being included if public access, both pedestrian and vehicular access was guaranteed.
Structure Plan 11 and the amended District Plan does not allow for this.
This map shows the inclusion of a local road continuing on from the southern end of Manga Pirau St. It must be pointed out that the area adjacent to Manga Pirau St which is currently used for vehicular access, is subject to the effects of high tides and is often covered in debris Predicted rises in sea levels would have a significant effect. The prevailing wind also effects access due to sand movements. A road would require much repair and upkeep and be a waste of ratepayers money. The track is currently kept clear and usable by the community. Vehicle access could remain as it is now with the added benefit of the link road from Sarah St, using the existing access.
The designated Reserve land is less than what was agreed to at the meetings with Council. This was to have included the area directly to the seaward side of the end of Manga Pirau St, continuing on the Reserves that currently exist.
The pedestrian connection from the Reserve land to Reay Mackay Grove is through private property as is the greenbelt local road from Strathnaver Drive south. Have these been discussed with the landowners?
The Association is disturbed to see that alterations to the Development Plan agreed to with Council have been changed with no further consultation. What does this say about consultation?
As these plans stand at the present the Association has no alternative to oppose the proposed changes.
The Association would welcome meeting with the Council to discuss these concerns. If development was to take place in these areas and the developers met the Council’s criteria public notification would appear to not be needed. It is imperative that all concerns are addressed.