The Waitakere Ranges Project - Appendix 6 Comment Forms Summary

Waitakere City Council

Informations

• Publié par: Neveng
• Nombre de lectures: 109
• Langue: English

Extrait

5.6 APPENDIX 6

COMMENT FORMS

During the consultation process, people were invited to send in their
comments. A form was provided for those that wanted to use it. These were
available attached to the summary document, on the Council’s website or
from the Council.

thTotal comment forms (faxed/emailed/post) received numbered 102 (as at 24
December 2003).

Results
About a third of comments relate to means of attracting funding other than from
Waitakere City ratepayers alone, and resourcing. Comments focus on:
buying land as special reserve
weed and pest control
maintenance of reserve land
administrative, operational and enforcement resources.

About a quarter of comments relate to strengthening protection by better use
of existing methods. These relate to:
identifying areas suitable for development
communities deciding how the RMA should be implemented
ensuring that any policy is durable over time and not subject to
revision, challenge or uncertainty (with fine tuning through the District
Plan, Resource Management Act or Building Act)
the adverse effects of changing existing processes (increased
bureaucracy and associated costs, complexity of regulations catering
for different areas and associated costs, residents in the area possibly
facing more restrictions on their own land)

A similar number suggest strengthening protection through law changes, such
as the establishment of a Heritage Area, and preventing any further
subdivisions. They would like stronger controls that would bestow
conservation park status to incorporate both the foothills and bush living
environments, which could override the RMA, and so as to allow for
permanent protection.

One-sixth of comments relate to a need for a clear strategic plan, adequate
infrastructure, services and funding, with better co-ordination and partnerships
amongst all agencies (including Council the ARC, DOC, and residents) to
avoid duplication and promote efficient management and operations.

The main points may be extended as follows:

Development
About one-fifth of comments indicate that current management is working,
and that the Waitakere Ranges area should be governed under existing
regulations. While some comments relate to the need for Council to better
The Waitakere Ranges Project: Phase One Community Consultation Summary and Workshop Notes
5.6 Appendix 6 Comment forms summary -- Website Version
Page 118







maintain and enforce regulations, others propose some flexibility in how
regulations are managed, generally relating to permitting minor development
on existing occupied land. Most frequent mentions are:
No more housing or unreasonable development (Present restrictions
are sufficient if council continues to maintain and enforce them)
Permit minor development and upgrades to existing houses and
baches, using a managed approach, and while respecting existing use
rights of current residents
Maintain a liveable community - any moratorium on development is
unreasonable.

Another one-fifth of comments centre on the need to permanently conserve
the area, and to identify and deal with threats to the area, including
development, weeds, pests, and visitor traffic. These ideas are expressed as:
No more subdivision or building; maintain bush areas and prevent
urban encroachment and incremental degradation. Consider also the
foothills areas in this regard
Counter threats from weeds, pests, and visitor traffic

Around 10% of comments relate to the implementation of the Resource
Management Act (RMA), Structure Plans, and the District Plan. Residents
particularly wish to be consulted in matters that affect their property. Specific
issues that stand out are:
The Resource Management Act is inadequate, especially in dealing
with cumulative effects and long-term damage
Residents fear loss of control over their properties under the RMA, for
example, planting native trees that become large, and cannot be
removed
Recognition that requirements differ from one area to another, and this
should be reflected in regulations, e.g. some areas may be able to
accommodate more housing
The need to remain in touch with the community, and to consult
Consider private landowners. Provision of public amenity should not
be at the expense of private landowners, nor should they lose rights
existing at the time the land was purchased.

A similar number focus on management of the Foothills area, and how it could
serve as a buffer or transition area between urban and wilderness areas:
Create a buffer zone in the foothills area between urban area and the
Ranges, by maintaining low density housing which keeps a balance
between the two, while avoiding pressure on existing infrastructure
Some of the Foothills area may be able to be subdivisible into half or
one acre blocks (3 acres being too small anyway for farming)
Avoid any problems that development might bring, such as storm-water
runoff.

Just under 10% of comments relate to enforcement of rules (exceptions
create loopholes and problems), that the public should be made better aware
The Waitakere Ranges Project: Phase One Community Consultation Summary and Workshop Notes
5.6 Appendix 6 Comment forms summary -- Website Version
Page 119












of regulations and that there should be sufficient resources to properly enforce
them.

Visitor Impacts
There are a range of issues, expressed in 52 comments. These relate to
encouraging visits (and in particular the film industry) and catering for these
visits (paths, signage, facilities, etc.), although this should not be at the risk of
degrading the environment. Visitors should be informed about their
preservation and care. Specific issues to stand out include:
Visitors are attracted by the Ranges as they are now. Any
development would detract and discourage visits
Avoid degradation by keeping up with maintenance (e.g. cleaning
tracks and beaches) and accommodating visitors in ways to minimise
impact, e.g. park and ride (traffic reduction), provision of facilities such
as toilets, and fire protection (including provision of hydrants and
selective clearance)
Long term protection involves the joint activity of agencies and the
community
Visitors need to be informed about preservation and care of the
Ranges
Encourage visitors and job creation in the tourism and film industries
that harmonise with the natural environment and help to provide
funding for their preservation.

Summary
There is a general consensus on the need to protect and preserve the special
character of the Ranges.

Funding should be sufficient to maintain the Ranges and minimise the effects
of pests and noxious plants, and to maintain visitor numbers while minimising
impacts. There is concern that the amount of funding required might place
unfair burdens on Waitakere City ratepayers, and residents of the Ranges
areas in particular. Funding from a variety of sources is suggested, together
with well co-ordinated management from all agencies (Council, ARC and
DOC in particular) and residents.

Regulations to preserve the area should be well-resourced and actively
enforced. There is division between those who want no changes at all
(regulations aimed at total preservation, no further housing or subdivisions)
and those who see limited development with minimal impact, with clear
regulatory boundaries and guidelines. They argue for buffer zones,
subdivision in some areas, maintenance of property rights of existing
landowners, and for developments in industries such as tourism and film.

There is agreement that information needs to be provided to the public about
the special nature of the Ranges, and what can be done to contribute to their
protection.


The Waitakere Ranges Project: Phase One Community Consultation Summary and Workshop Notes
5.6 Appendix 6 Comment forms summary -- Website Version
Page 120