See also our oral submission
In our submission on the draft Long Term Council Community Plan 2004-2014 we drew attention to the apparent gap between Council’s fine strategic intentions for the welfare of the natural environment and the paucity of funding allocated to achieving them. It is a sad commentary on Council's lack of commitment to its stated priorities that we feel obliged in this submission to repeat earlier criticisms.
These noble intentions are clearly set out in the LTCCP (and reiterated in the 2005-2006 Annual Plan); for example –
·
The City Development Strategy will be “underpinned by a commitment to sustainable development that maintains environmental quality”.
·
Council Priorities include statements that the quality of life for residents will be “enhanced by the lifestyle opportunities provided by our beautiful natural environment, stunning harbour and coastal views” (Priority 2) and that “Maintenance of environmental quality is an important part of city development. Our unique harbour, bush and stream environments are a key attraction for residents and visitors” (Priority 4).
·
Community Outcome 4 is an acknowledgement that the community requires that “The natural and physical environment is valued, clean, safe, attractive and sustainable”.
Unfortunately there is only a very limited attempt in the LTCCP to implement these intentions on a scale that will have a major impact in the foreseeable future. This failure not only continues in the draft 2005-2006 Annual Plan, but the situation actually is made worse by the failure to include a simple and inexpensive new project.
Comment follows on three proposed amendments to the Draft Annual Plan, supporting initial moves that would signal the commitment of Council to at least halt current degradation of the Inlet.
1.
In our oral submission on the draft LTCCP we asked Council to reconsider their exclusion of the strategic project “Biodiversity work throughout the city”. Adequate funding of this type of project is vital to the implementation of the Council’s vision and each year that passes without it being addressed compounds the severity of the environmental problems the Council seeks to resolve. The programme has several components and we are distressed that the opportunity has not been taken to consider these independently for inclusion as discretionary projects for the draft Annual Plan.
In our particular concern as Guardians of the Pauatahanui Inlet we ask that consideration be given to including that portion of the biodiversity programme that would commit the Council to “riparian enhancement along stream edges”. Erosion of stream banks is a primary source of sediment input to the Inlet (and to the Harbour as a whole) and the Council should constantly be looking to prevent it. In urban areas stream edges provide filtering for stormwater for both sediment and pollutants and slow down its flow into the streams and thus reduce the stormwater’s capacity to erode stream banks. This critical element of the programme was costed at only $30,000 per annum.
2.
We also request that similar consideration be given to including funds for supporting “community based initiatives associated with biodiversity” - another portion of the Biodiversity programme. From long experience we know the value economically and socially of community-based initiatives whereby much of the practical work is done by volunteers. Motivation of communities to contribute to the welfare of their own environment should be a high priority of the Council; it is certainly in line with the “villages” concept of the city.
3.
We are very disturbed that the new discretionary project “Molyneux Close Reserve bank hydromulch” has not been included in the draft Annual Plan. Erosion of this bank during the heavy rain events in 2004 and early 2005 deposited a thick layer of fine clay on James Cook Drive and SH 58 that was flushed off into Duck Creek and into Pauatahanui Inlet. Even the short and not particularly heavy rain event of 2 May 2005 has filled the road gutter below the Reserve with eroded clay. Research clearly identifies uncontrolled input of clay and silt as the major environmental hazard for the biological and physical environment of the Inlet. Council should make every endeavour to control erosion of vulnerable areas. In this case there is an easy and cheap ($20,000) solution and we are astounded that it has been given such low priority status.
Summary - We have highlighted three modest proposals by which Council could signify commitment to making a start on halting degradation of the Inlet. Council shortly will be in possession of hard data on rates of sedimentation of the Inlet from the study it commissioned jointly with Greater Wellington.
These data will support such commitment. For our part we will continue to be committed to our ongoing voluntary activities - in quarterly stream monitoring, in triennial cockle counts, and in sharing with Council in the annual shoreline clean up, convinced that 'maintenance of environmental quality' is an important part of Porirua City's sustainable development so that our children will be able enjoy the Inlet with their children.
John Wells
Chairperson
5 May 2005
