Regional council `should stick to advocacy role' | Hawkes Bay News | Local News in Hawkes Bay

REBECCA HARPER

Proposed land use rules to control coastal hazards may not be the best use of Hawke's Bay Regional Council (HBRC) money and should be withdrawn.

At yesterday's Regional Coastal Environment Plan hearing Hastings District Council (HDC) deputy chief executive Mike Maguire told the hearings committee he doubted whether it was necessary for the regional council to implement the rules. He said it should stick to an advocacy role.

"This is about spending money wisely - would this be a wise use of community resources, is it necessary?" he said.

He also pointed out most of the areas in question already had houses on them, so development was limited.

While the council was supportive of the need for an integrated management approach to the coastal environment, the land use rules were not the most effective way of achieving consistent regulation, he said.

The current approach was likely to cause duplication, as landowners sought building and subdivision consents from Territorial Local Authorities (TLAs) and the separate resource consent from the HBRC.

"The proposed changes could cause confusion and possible conflicts with the administration of the Building Act," Mr Maguire said.

It would be more sensible and easier for the public to have a "one-stop shop" in obtaining both building and land use consents.

He said the proposed rules were likely to case increased costs to the community by promoting a disjointed approach to the issue.

While HDC had refused building consents before due to other natural hazards, he was not aware of any consents refused because of coastal hazards. "I'm just concerned these rules impose another layer on our community and create issues for both councils in terms of a consistent approach," Mr Maguire said.

Should the HBRC reject the proposal, HDC sought a number of amendments to the rules, particularly changes to allow the upkeep of roads and the provision for emergency repair work to be done without resource consent in event of a natural disaster.

Counsel for Haumoana resident John Bridgeman, Martin Williams submitted that the council had taken a draconian and arrogant approach to the issue of coastal hazards. He said the proposed policy did not take into account the sustainable management of existing buildings on the coast.

While Mr Bridgeman acknowledged the sea would eventually claim his beachfront properties, he wanted the opportunity to spend his own money on mitigation in order to enjoy the buildings for as long as possible.

Once again the accuracy of the coastal hazard lines provided by the Tonkin and Taylor report, commissioned by HBRC, were called into question. Submitters all felt the lines were inaccurate and the report was intended as a broad brush stroke study only.