On the slippery slopes

THE nonnotified resource consent agreed for an extension of the Remarkables Skifield learners’ slope raises serious issues.

These include two fundamental questions. First, should the application have been nonnotified? Second, should it have been granted at all?

The answer to the first is clear. The application, for several reasons, should have been notified and the public should have had a say. The rights and wrongs of the extension through a wetland should have been thoroughly and publicly tested.

Although the Otago Regional Council’s chief executive, Sarah Gardner, has come up with articulate and intriguing justifications for nonnotification, these fail on examination.

The answer to the second question depends on the point of view.

Arguments the Resource Management Act (RMA), taken in conjunction with the council’s water plan, mean the consent could not legally go ahead are strong. Regionally significant wetlands are protected, and alpine wetlands are regionally significant.

Ecologically, and this is why they are protected in the plan, each alpine wetland lost is a cumulative blow to the health of the environment.

On the other hand, sacrifices do take place for economic health and development. The area is designated for skiing in the Queenstown Lakes district plan and there are other wetlands in the area which skifield owner NZSki has said it wants to protect. The wetland is small and it is classified as ‘‘regionally sig nificant’’ only because it is at an altitude above 800m.

Both the Department of Conservation (the land owner) and iwi gave, we have been told, support. And, although the wetland would be destroyed, there would be no net loss of vegetation, Mrs Gardner has said.

Surely, though, at the very least there are matters of contention and the consent therefore had to be notified? Surely, the effects must be more than minor when, effectively, the wetland is destroyed? Surely, the water plan deemed wetlands above 800m as regionally significant for a reason? Surely, the advice from regional council and Doc reports that the consent should be notified should not have been ignored? Surely, too, the council’s science unit report, that the project would mean the wetland was lost forever and the effect was more than minor, should have been acted on?

How unusual it was that the council chief executive signed the consent after other council planners refused to do so. Mrs Gardner said improved community engagement would be a priority when she was interviewed in January. How does that tally with shutting the community out of this decision?

Mrs Gardner used the ‘‘nationally or regionally important infrastructure’’ clause in the water plan as a basis to grant consent. The RMA defines infrastructure to include ‘‘structures for transport on land by cycleways, rail, roads, walkways, or any other means’’. ‘‘Any other means’’, it would appear, is the learners’ slope as an access track, with two escalators so far. A conveyor lift to be added next summer. Really?

It is a long stretch to deem skifield facilities ‘‘regionally important infrastructure’’.

Council chairman Stephen Woodhead has said he is confident the process was handled appropriately and he was aware of the consent at the time. It would be interesting to know why he was involved when, it seems, other elected members had no idea what occurred until recent publicity in the ODT.

While planning matters are subject to policy, consents and hearings are semijudicial and must be handled with disinterest and the council must be seen to obey the rules.

Clearly, the destruction of an altitude wetland is a matter of public interest. For this to be handled on the quiet undermines faith in the council and its processes and is disturbing.