Plan change hearing wraps up

The seven-day hearing into the Kākā Valley private plan change application wrapped up yesterday, with the final day mostly dedicated to planning experts to give their professional opinions on the proposal.

The commissioner chairing the hearing, Greg Hill, took pains to clarify that while the planning experts may consult with or work for the Nelson City Council, they were presenting evidence independently, based on their professional opinion, and were not representing the council’s perspective as an organisation.

The plan change would allow a housing development in Nelson’s Kākā Valley and Atawhai hills.

Planning experts presented information on various aspects of the request, including the heritage value of a woolshed in the valley, water quality and management and geotechnical aspects.

In her written report submitted to the panel, consultant planner Gina Sweetman said she believed the plan change would do more than just change the zones that apply to the site – it enabled urban development of land with a ‘‘sensitive receiving environment with topographical constraints’’.

‘‘Quite simply, in my view, the panel needs to be assured that the rezoning is appropriate for urban development, and that the resultant effects of such development are able to be accommodated in that environment, or appropriately managed through the planning framework.’’

She said in her report that there was a ‘‘fine line’’, as resource consents subject to the Nelson Regional Management Plan would still need to be sought if the plan change went through, but ‘‘if it cannot be demonstrated at a conceptual level that the resultant effects can be appropriately managed and addressed, then the rezoning sought may be considered not to be appropriate’’.

‘‘In summary, at this point and with the information provided as to 20 May 2022, I do not consider the applicant has demonstrated that PPC28 is the most appropriate means of achieving the purpose of the RMA.’’

At the hearing yesterday, she said that she was ‘‘very mindful’’ that if the plan change was approved, it could not be presumed that whoever implemented it would be the same party as the one who applied for it, or that the people processing resource consents currently would be the same ones processing the resource consents for the proposed development.

She said that in the meantime she had met the applicants and ‘‘made good progress’’, but ‘‘in the absence of the revised version of the plan change, I cannot confirm to the panel that my concerns have been addressed’’.

The applicants then had the opportunity to reply to concerns raised in the hearing process. Lawyer for the plan change applicant John Maassen thanked all submitters to the hearing so far, which he said enabled the applicants to put together ‘‘the best possible version of plan change 28’’.

He said in response to concerns about the river health that the involvement of Ngāti Koata was a ‘‘significant insurance policy’’, because ‘‘fundamentally iwi views and concerns will be foremost in the ultimate design’’.

‘‘As Ms [Ngāti Koata Trust chair Melanie] McGregor explained, for Ngāti Koata to put their label on this plan change is to place their mana on the line.’’

He said there was a ‘‘somewhat a-historical and not appropriate’’ expectation put on the development ‘‘to say well now that Ngāti Koata are involved, it has to be something close to a conservation standard’’.

The applicants will make a full response in writing to be provided to the panel of commissioners on Friday next week.