The Chief Executive
Porirua City Council
PO Box 50–218
PORIRUA
26 April 2007
Dear Sir
Guardians of Pauatahanui Inlet give their considered support to this application.
The proposal is innovative (at least in this region) in that it seeks to satisfy a perceived market for people wanting to live a ‘rural lifestyle’ without the responsibility for a substantial block of land. Subdivision of the property using natural contours and environmental features; retiring and revegetation of land unsuitable for agriculture; protection of riparian edges and the formation of wetlands that will serve as natural stormwater filters; a more economic supply of services and a more sustainable system of waste water treatment – all these features of the proposed development serve environmental objectives that your Council currently is promulgating through the Harbour and Catchment Plan.
The Guardians' main purpose is to protect, foster and promote the values of the Inlet; especially its ecological values. The main impact of development (urban and rural) in the catchment has been to increase the amount of sediment and other water borne contaminants reaching the Inlet. If this development works as well as the applicants claim, it will be the first local scheme that we know off that will actually improve the quality of the water draining from it over that which exists now.
On these grounds Guardians support the application, though we reserve our final opinion on the development until we see the application for resource consents.
However, we are anxious that Council consider this application also in the context of where the concept fits into their long term plan – the Porirua Development Framework – which must have concern for the health of the Inlet and Harbour over the long term. We envisage at least one aspect that may be of concern.
If the applicants are correct in their assessment of the market, this plan change could trigger requests for similar developments throughout the harbour catchment. There is a subsequent danger that the economics of the mixed land use will not prove viable, or sufficiently profitable, and requests will come to convert the zone to fully residential by ‘infilling’. Indeed, we are not sure whether the applicants are foreseeing this possibility by drafting a rule for future subdivision in the Primary Production Areas (draft plan, p. 28, section D4A.5).
We are not convinced that this would be in the interests of the ecological health of the Inlet, let alone other considerations of concern to the Council such as the cost of servicing these areas with utilities and roads,and the public transport required to minimise carbon emissions in a new age of awareness of global warming and the need for energy conservation.
Guardians do not wish to be heard in support of our submission.
John Wells
Chairperson
