Missing the point

Regional Council, which is responsible for implementing it.

In a case taken by Fish and Game and the Environmental Defence Society, the Environment Court emphatically ruled Horizons officials were taking it too easy on some farmers.

Horizons ‘‘accepts that as a result of the court decision it will need to change its approach’’.

That it took a court ruling to bring about this road-to-damascus conversion raises some troubling questions, ones former prime minister and Resource Management Act architect Sir Geoffrey Palmer noted in a withering criticism of the council.

Was the council’s approach the result of wilful ignorance and incompetence? Or was it deliberately going soft?

Dr Nic Peet, a senior manager at Horizons, has tried to explain this by saying the council ‘‘worked through a practical approach to implementing the rules that has seen significant buy-in from local communities’’.

Clearly, this so-called ‘‘practical approach’’ paid little heed to the One Plan’s prescriptions about intensive farming and granting resource consents.

Palmer says local bodies charged with protecting the environment ought to enforce the law and he wondered what legal advice the council was acting upon in operating the way it was.

Horizons somewhat defended its record and pointed out that Palmer provides legal advice to Fish and Game, as if to say his criticisms aren’t valid.

Michael Mccartney, Horizons’ chief executive, said the council stood by its record in ‘‘driving improvement in the state of our regional environment’’.

He’s right. Some improvements have been made, some as a direct result of the One Plan.

But if Horizons is driving, it’s asleep at the wheel. The only other explanation for its softly-softly approach was political – that it tried to keep farmers happy.

There’s no point in developing such a comprehensive plan if it’s not being followed.

Thanks to the Environment Court, it seems Horizons has little choice but to change its ways.