Kākā Valley hearing summarised
Most independent submitters to the process were against any potential urban development in the Kākā Valley, but there were also arguments in favour. Skara Bohny reports.
Independent commissioners have a significant job set out for them determining whether to grant a plan-change application to allow urban development in Kākā Valley.
The applicants, their opponents, and neutral planning experts have spent the last week and a half outlining their hopes, concerns, and professional opinions on the potential development of up to 750 houses from the Atawhai hills into the valley.
Kākā Valley is home to a few semi-rural properties on Ralphine Way and a dairy farm, nestled into the side of the lower Maitai Valley.
Concerns about the development have been raised by both laypeople and experts in fields such as water ecology and landscape architecture, over issues ranging from concerns about the impact of increased traffic on the surrounding area, through to the historic value of a shearing shed.
First up in the hearing, the development team, which includes the commercial arm of local iwi Ngāti Koata along with development partners making up CCKVMaitahi Development Co LP, and Bayview Nelson Ltd, put their case.
Experts for the development team argued in favour of parts of the proposal relevant to their expertise.
Landscape architect Tony Milne said that while the development would ‘‘no doubt’’ change the character of the landscape, ‘‘change itself is not an [adverse] effect’’.
He said the development could ‘‘sympathetically respond to the key features and values of the site’’, and would not ‘‘compromise ... the sense of place of Nelson city as a whole’’.
Gary Clark of Traffic Concepts discussed the provision of walking and cycling ways, and said that while the route would provide resilience in the transport network in an emergency, and could be an alternate route for a few commuters, it would not likely ever be used as an ‘‘alternative state highway’’.
From day three of the hearing onwards, two of the four independent commissioners on the hearing panel came down with Covid, and spent the remainder of the hearing calling in via Zoom to hear the rest of the submissions.
Nearly all the independent submitters speaking at the hearing were against the plan change, though a handful spoke in favour.
Representatives from Ngāti Koata also spoke in favour of the development, explaining the cultural value of the area to the iwi, the historic and ongoing alienation and disenfranchisement of Ngāti Koata from its ancestral lands, and how that alienation and disenfranchisement affected the daily lives of tangata whenua to this day.
Bayleys representative Doug McKee also spoke in favour of the development, arguing against the push for intensification by opponents to the plan change. He explained a cost break-down of apartment-style housing versus traditional freestanding or duplex houses, which he said essentially came down to $10,000 per m2 for apartments, compared to $6000 per m2 (including land).
He said intensification needed ‘‘a massive shift in buyer preferences’’,
‘‘When mostly European opponents are saying ‘not here, because we prefer open green space’, I say, ‘paid for by someone else’.’’
Doug McKee
Bayleys
and there was little evidence of that happening. He also spoke in favour of Ngāti Koata’s rights as a partner in the potential development.
‘‘Respecting [Kākā Valley] as part of their ancestral lands [and] the desire of Ngāti Koata to express connection, and to provide needed housing, is very significant and should be respected,’’ he said.
‘‘When mostly European opponents are saying ‘not here, because we prefer open green space’, I say, ‘paid for by someone else’.’’
However, the vast majority of individual submitters, numbering in the dozens, were opposed to the plan change in its entirety. A notable theme was the loss of recreational amenity value in Maitai Valley and swimming holes downstream from where the Kākā stream feeds into Maitai River. The Kākā Valley connects into the first 2km of Maitai Valley from the city’s edge.
As well as the sentimental, wellness, and recreational values of the surrounding area, development opponents cited the impact of both the construction and the long-term urban runoff into Kākā stream, and from there into Maitai River.
Amajor sticking point for opposition group Save the Maitai, some independent planning experts, and conservation group Friends of the Maitai was that there was not enough detail in the application to make a judgement on the impact the development would have.
Counsel for Save the Maitai Sally Gepp said the applicants’ case appeared to rely on the future requirement for resource consents and that ‘‘everything can be dealt with at that stage’’.
‘‘In my submission, that’s not a good enough position. You need to be confident at this stage that the activities that are anticipated ... are appropriate and sufficient to protect the environment,’’ she said on day four of the hearing.
‘‘That approach begs the question [of] why we zone at all. If everything can be left to the consenting stage then all we would need is to have a clear discretion to consider matters at the decision stage, but that’s not how planning works.’’
The applicants made brief closing statements on Thursday, with a more thorough written statement to be made to the commissioners on Friday, August 5.
The independent panel will deliberate before giving a recommendation to Nelson City Council to either accept or reject the plan-change application.