Transcript of statement to a meeting of the Wellington City Council on District Plan Change 68

Wednesday 27 May 2009

David Lee, Chairman of Action for Environment Inc.

 Firstly, I would just like to express appreciation to your Worship for allowing me to speak at such short notice.

Thank you.

 Your Worship the Mayor and Councillors, Action for Environment is opposed to District Plan Change 68  to change an area of regenerating native forest from Open Space B to residential for development.

 We draw your Worship and Councillor's attention to some of the council's action plans and strategies and ask whether this plan change is consistent with them.

 The Open Space Strategy (1998) for example identified this land as Inner Green Belt/ Urban Coastline and refers to the "protection of its landforms and indigenous vegetation".(the strategy’s open space concept map shown to the council)

The Biodiversity Action plan (2007) has as one of its outcomes "protecting Wellington's indigenous biodiversity on both public and private land". It also states that the District Plan (Open Space B) would provide the objectives to do this.

This action plan describes the historical and current forest habitat in the Wellington peninsular, stating that less than 5% remains. In view of such loss the plan emphasises the importance of what it describes as: "regenerating forest dominated by ever-present mahoe. These new forests are growing through the gorse that colonised Wellington's retired farmland and are now a valued part of Wellington's open space". A description, exactly, of the land to be rezoned.

The action plan promises "the Council will protect Wellington's biodiversity from further fragmentation..". This plan change will fragment a part of the green belt and land identified as an ecological corridor by the Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society.

 These documents have been drawn up with the best intentions but general ideals don't mean much if they are not applied to the particular.

This land was designated Open Space B as a result of a long and very thorough process in drawing up the District Plan. Public submissions were made and analysed. Submissions on submissions were called for. After all this open space designation for the land in question was deemed appropriate. Should the council now go back on its long process of designation? The developer bought this land fully  knowing it was open space and no doubt paid the price for the land commiserate with its zoning. It is not as if the zoning was imposed on him.

Finally I would ask you to consider the wider context of this issue, The Council's Biodiversity Action Plan refers to Global biodiversity issues.

The New Scientist, a publication not given to sensationalism, warns us we are facing an environmental catastrophe. It is not just referring to climate change. Look at these lines (display chart of graph lines showing rises in: species extinctions, loss of rain forest, fisheries exploited, ozone depletion, population etc). Clearly we can't go on growing endlessly.

The councils Biodiversity Plan refers to our international obligations and while we are signing conventions to protect biodiversity we are allowing it to be nibbled away at home. Please retain the Open Space B protection for this land by rejecting Plan Change 68.

Back>>