unique landscape threatened

TO: CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL CHRISTCHURCH

Please click on link to Environment Canterbury in black box below to access this information on Waitaki consents and reports

SUBMISSION ON: Applications by various applicants for resource consents to authorise various diversions, takes, discharges, dams and uses of water, excavation and disturbance of river bed and all other associated activities within the Upper Waitaki River Catchment. The submissions relate to the identified applications in their entirety.

Pursuant to section 96(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, I make the following submission in respect of the above applications.

WE oppose the applications in so far as they result in potential adverse effects on the natural landscape values of the Mackenzie Basin and upper Waitaki catchment.

The relief I seek is that these consents be declined, reduced or confined so that their potential effects on natural character and natural landscape values, individually and cumulatively, are not significantly adverse on the outstanding landscape values of local, regional, national and international significance.

OUR SUBMISSION IS THAT:

1. The applications are deficient in their assessment of effects of the proposed activities on the environment. In particular the applications lack assessment of actual, potential and cumulative landscape effects of the proposed activities on the environment, including assessing the natural and natural landscape values the environment currently contains, and the potential direct and indirect landscape and visual effects, and effects on natural character, that may result from the various activities sought.

2. The effects of concern are from construction of infrastructure as well as from application of water resulting in changes to landscape and ecological character, and to amenity values.

3. As endorsed by Commissioner Skelton in requiring notification of these applications (22/06/07) the proposed use of the water in each of these applications needs to be considered with respect to potential adverse effects, including from:

Taking and diversion of water:
• Effects on instream ecosystems
• Effects on existing users
• Effect on recreational users
• Effect on natural character and amenity values

Use of water:
• Effects on groundwater quality and quantity through use of water for irrigation purposes.
• Effects on landscape values through intensification of land use as a result of irrigation

Damming of water:
• Effects on water quality.
• Effects on instream ecosystems
• Effects on bank and bed morphology through erosion or flooding

Disturbance of the river bed, construction of diversion, intake or discharge structures
• Effects on instream ecosystems
• Effect on existing users
• Effect on recreational users
• Effect on natural character and amenity values.

4. Whilst mostly far from pristine, the landscapes in which the applications propose to apply irrigation water are valued for their naturalness. In these regionally significant landscapes, the landscape effect of such use of water is required to be addressed in considering the applications. This has not been undertaken.

5. also …

Statutory context

6. The proposed activities do not promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources and are contrary to Part II of the Resource Management Act 1991, in particular sections 5, 6(a), 6 (b); 6(c), 6(f); 7(c), 7(d), 7(f) and 7(g).

7. The applications are contrary to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement, including the Objectives, Policies and other provisions of Chapters 8, 10 and 20.

8. The applications do not satisfy the intent of the Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy, the Mackenzie District Plan, or the Waitaki District Plan including Variation 2.

We seek the following decision from the Consent authority:

9. Unless landscape effects can be avoided, we seek that the applications be declined RE:
Group 599 CRC011987, CRC071649; CRC071650 Bellfield Land Co Limited
Group 600 CRC012290 CRC 012291 Birchwood Run Limited
Group 601 CRC063106; CRC070406 Classic Properties Limited
Group 603 CRC061154; 061155 Five Rivers Limited
Group 604 CRC052501; CRC052502 Glenmore Station Limited
Group 605 CRC071362 Glentanner Station Limited
Group 606 CRC042661 Grays Hills Station Limited
Group 607 CRC042561 Haldon Station (1991) Limited
Group 608 CRC 072233 High Country Rosehip Orchards Ltd
Group 609 CRC011845 Irishman Creek Station Limited
Group 610 CRC040181; CRC041331 Killermont Station Limited
Group 610 CRC041777; CRC041798 Killermont Station Limited
Group 611 CRCCRC031175; CRC073235 Godley Peaks Station
Group 613 CRC040994 M & A J Gloag
Group 614 CRC041542; CRC041543 A N Hope
Group 615 CRC011940 D W McAughtrie
Group 617 CRC050184 R J Aubrey
Group 619 CRC042011; CRC042015; CRC042017 Ohau Company Trust Limited
Group 619 CRC042018; CRC042020; CRC042033 Ohau Company Trust Limited
Group 619 CRC042025 Ohau Company Trust Limited
Group 620 CRC012047 Otamatapaio Station (1993) Limited
Group 621 CRC020355; CRC041032; CRC041033 Otematata Station Limited
Group 623 CRC021749; CRC072118 Rosehip Orchards NZ Limited
Group 624 CRC062842 Simons Hill Station Limited
Group 625 CRC062867 Simons Pass Station Limited
Group 626 CRC991473 The Glens, D W McAughtrie, T & J Cooke
Group 628 CRC062941; CRC063564 Twin Peaks Station Limited
Group 630 CRC040835; CRC041788; CRC073115 Williamson Holdings Limited

5 thoughts on “unique landscape threatened

  1. The natural significant landscape will be changed by the application of irrigation, and the tourism industry stands to diminish as this unique landscape disappears and is replaced by green pasture-land such as can be seen in many other parts of the country and the world. in the long term, the potential loss to New Zealand of income from tourism would outweigh the relatively short-term advantages brought by irrigation to a few.

  2. TO: CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL CHRISTCHURCH
    E te Rakatira, tena koe,
    Ko Peter Anderson toku ikoa
    Ko Kati mamoe me Kai Tahu oku iwi,
    No Murihuku ahau
    Ko Aoraki toku mauka
    Ko Waitaki toku awa
    Tena koutou
    Tena koutou
    Tena koutou katoa.
    My ancestors utilized the natural values of this taoka wahi/whenua in a sustainable manner for nearly 1,000 years with out ever having to modify the ecological, natural and landscape values. To accept the below water take and irrigation proposals will destroy this taoka wahi where it has not been irrigated or ploughed before. There fore my submission is relevant to those taoka wahi areas that were not irrigated prior to 2000. These land scapes and ecological values need to be protected as does the water that will be taken from the tears of the Waitaki River. Two of my grand fathers were also run holders from the Otago high country so i do have an understanding of the high country and Mackenzie country from that point of view as well.

    SUBMISSION ON: Applications by various applicants for resource consents to authorise various diversions, takes, discharges, dams and uses of water, excavation and disturbance of river bed and all other associated activities within the Upper Waitaki River Catchment. The submissions relate to the identified applications in their entirety.

    Pursuant to section 96(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, I make the following submission in respect of the above applications.

    WE oppose the applications in so far as they result in potential adverse effects on the natural landscape values of the Mackenzie Basin and upper Waitaki catchment.

    The relief I seek is that these consents be declined, reduced or confined so that their potential effects on natural character and natural landscape values, individually and cumulatively, are not significantly adverse on the outstanding landscape values of local, regional, national and international significance.

    OUR SUBMISSION IS THAT:

    1. The applications are deficient in their assessment of effects of the proposed activities on the environment. In particular the applications lack assessment of actual, potential and cumulative landscape effects of the proposed activities on the environment, including assessing the natural and natural landscape values the environment currently contains, and the potential direct and indirect landscape and visual effects, and effects on natural character, that may result from the various activities sought.

    2. The effects of concern are from construction of infrastructure as well as from application of water resulting in changes to landscape and ecological character, and to amenity values.

    3. As endorsed by Commissioner Skelton in requiring notification of these applications (22/06/07) the proposed use of the water in each of these applications needs to be considered with respect to potential adverse effects, including from:

    Taking and diversion of water:
    • Effects on instream ecosystems
    • Effects on existing users
    • Effect on recreational users
    • Effect on natural character and amenity values

    Use of water:
    • Effects on groundwater quality and quantity through use of water for irrigation purposes.
    • Effects on landscape values through intensification of land use as a result of irrigation

    Damming of water:
    • Effects on water quality.
    • Effects on instream ecosystems
    • Effects on bank and bed morphology through erosion or flooding

    Disturbance of the river bed, construction of diversion, intake or discharge structures
    • Effects on instream ecosystems
    • Effect on existing users
    • Effect on recreational users
    • Effect on natural character and amenity values.

    4. Whilst mostly far from pristine, the landscapes in which the applications propose to apply irrigation water are valued for their naturalness. In these regionally significant landscapes, the landscape effect of such use of water is required to be addressed in considering the applications. This has not been undertaken.

    5. also …

    Statutory context

    6. The proposed activities do not promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources and are contrary to Part II of the Resource Management Act 1991, in particular sections 5, 6(a), 6 (b); 6(c), 6(f); 7(c), 7(d), 7(f) and 7(g).

    7. The applications are contrary to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement, including the Objectives, Policies and other provisions of Chapters 8, 10 and 20.

    8. The applications do not satisfy the intent of the Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy, the Mackenzie District Plan, or the Waitaki District Plan including Variation 2.

    We seek the following decision from the Consent authority:

    9. Unless landscape effects and takaka whenua considerations can be avoided on those taoka wahi land areas still remaining natural (not having been ploughed or irrigated) since 2000 (note, that my ancestors utilized these lands in a sustainable manner to harvest birds, fish and plants with out ever having the need to modify or change the ecological and landscape values for nearly 1,000 years), then we seek that the applications be declined
    Kia ora
    Naku noa, na,
    Peter Anderson.

  3. WE oppose the applications in so far as they result in potential adverse effects on the natural landscape values of the Mackenzie Basin and upper Waitaki catchment.

    The relief I seek is that these consents be declined, reduced or confined so that their potential effects on natural character and natural landscape values, individually and cumulatively, are not significantly adverse on the outstanding landscape values of local, regional, national and international significance.
    tim heath

  4. I feel I personally need to voice my opinion on this matter to add some mediation in between the comments I have been reading. Firsty these people who deem to be so committed to protecting the landscape in mention, need to understand the full facts of what irrigation is really about on this land. I for one have a great regard for this part of the country also, although as mentioned by one person” to make pastoristists rich” is totally out of context. If these people have so much regard for the land, then why don’t they purchase a property of their own, there has been several for sale in the last 5 years! Everyone wants to protect this very scenic and beautiful place, although at present it seems to be only the farmer actually preparing to invest money to “protect and look after it” They also need to make a living, although non farmers may never understand this.

Comments are closed.