Make submissions on the Long-Term Plan and Growth Strategy by 26 March 2018 (tips)

The Horowhenua District Council are consulting on two important documents at the moment — the Long Term Plan 2018-38 – What’s our Future Horowhenua? and the Draft Horowhenua Growth Strategy 2040. Other items on this website discuss both documents in detail. This item aims to help you make submissions on both.

Submissions Close on 26 March 2018 at 05:00 PM.

The Council needs to hear from as many people as possible as the number of submissions carries weight. The Waikawa Beach Ratepayers Association will also make a submission, but locals need to make their own submissions too for the Council to really hear what we do and do not want at Waikawa Beach.

How to make a submission

Make submissions:

• by email to: whatsourfuture@horowhenua.govt.nz and growth@horowhenua.govt.nz
• online: Online Submission Form Long Term Plan 2018-2038 and Online Feedback Form – Draft Horowhenua Growth Strategy 2040.
• Download and print a form from the website, or pick a form up from the Council, then hand deliver or post it. See above for links.

Submitters may also opt to speak to their submission at a Hearing.

Remember that your submission can also offer comments on topics the Council haven’t specifically asked about.

The main points concerning Waikawa Beach have been all detailed for you on this website. You will find the draft plan, maps for future housing development, plans for water supply and sewage services and a discussion from your neighbours on their thoughts, including experiences of those at Himatangi Beach who had a sewage scheme implemented 6 years ago.

Individual feedback is very powerful for the Council when considering their future planning — so please add your voice.

It’s important your submission comes with your voice rather than a set of copied and pasted statements.

What Waikawa Beach folk are saying

Some people have made comments on the first item on this site about the plans. Others have emailed the Committee directly. Committee member Debra Betts has looked at what people have said and offers the following guidance.

Points that you may want to consider making in your submissions:

Growth and additional housing

• Current government has signalled support of rail recovery. Realistic to encourage growth close to railway stations so that people who want to live in a rural environment can commute to Wellington (or Palmerston North).
• Acceptable places for growth in the Horowhenua district are the settlements that were created by the railway such as Manakau, Ohau, Levin, Shannon, Tokomaru (and Foxton); not the beach settlements
• As a small beach settlement Waikawa unsuitable for large residential development due to the lack of infrastructure to support a larger community –No public transport, limited access through one small road.
• Growth should be encouraged primarily in places that can be reached by public transport, avoiding the use of the private car: that should be rail where it exists or can be restored.
• Rezoning proposed land for residential growth would change the beach character of our coastal settlement
• Rezoning proposed land for residential growth will negatively impact on the outstanding natural features of this area as identified in a report prepared for the council to ‘identify and protect the outstanding landscapes and natural features of the district against inappropriate subdivision and development.’ (Page 52 and 72 Assessment Of The Outstanding Landscapes & Natural Features Of The Horowhenua District prepared by Treadwell & Associates. August 2009)
• Previous development plans for land close to proposed development land failed to meet resource consent due to underground waterways and draining issues. These underground waterway issues exist in the new proposed land for development (Manaaki Taha Moana (MTM) Research Team report. (State of Ecological/Cultural Landscape Decline of the Horowhenua Coastline between Hokio and Waitohu Streams MTM Report No. 2. June 2011).
• Despite Council claims that the land chosen for rezoning does not get flooded or pond this is clearly not the case in recent years. The land identified is low lying land increasing has flooding issues and the appearance of small streams and semi-permanent swamps. Inappropriate use of ratepayers funds to develop this low lying coastal and swamp land.
• Inappropriate investment to develop low lying coastal land in view of climate change scenarios and the increased incidence of flooding that has already occurred
• Inappropriate investment to develop low lying coastal land in close proximity to coast, potential risk from tsunami. These low lying areas subject to ponding and erosion of sandy soils. (Page 141 Horowhenua Development Plan 2008)
• Inappropriate investment to develop ‘swamp’ land for residential development. Liquefaction in an earthquake would be an obvious risk factor that would prevent or make development too costly.
• Page 39 of the draft plan appears to state that over 80% of the expected expansion of 63 houses can be accommodated within the existing areas zoned residential or greenbelt residential. The proposed new areas totalling 44 hectares are ten times the area needed to provide for the small number of houses that can’t be fitted within the present zones. So why is so much land needed for rezoning?
• Additional residential areas should only be approved if new properties provide their own individual water supplies and sewage disposal systems and can do that without jeopardising the quality of (bore) water used by existing residents.
• Why increase the size of this settlement rather than developing a new settlement with its own character in another, more suitable location?

Drinking water and wastewater infrastructure

Possible points to consider:

• Waikawa beach is a self-sufficient settlement, does not require new water supply and sewage services
• Existing owners have installed water tanks or bores or both, at a substantial cost
• Due to climate change, self-sufficiency and self-reliance in water and sewage is being encouraged by other councils
• The Council already struggles to provide enough water to residents without summer-time restriction — the very time most holiday properties at Waikawa are occupied, and would be demanding water
• The Council already struggles to provide clean water throughout winter, without the need for boiling notices.
• Costs of providing water and sewage services for Waikawa which is a small community will be prohibitive for many current residents without any advantages for residents.
• Rates rises to meet costs of providing water and sewage services will make it unaffordable for many current residents: changing the nature of Waikawa as a place people retire to and a bach community.
• Why should current ratepayers subsidise developers rather than developers meeting the cost of water supply and sewage services to any new developments?
• Supplying water to more settlements would require finding a new water source at considerable additional cost. Water already falls from the sky for free onto each residence. Why not collect and use that water?

Any other comments you want to make

Ideas:

• Coastal Erosion must be properly addressed before contemplating water or sewage infrastructure.
• Additional housing is required in Horowhenua to meet anticipated population growth, but Waikawa Beach generally attracts holiday homes. Would more housing here necessarily meet the demands for permanent residences?