Seems this issue is a problem in Hawkes Bay and BayBuzz have raised the issue of large areas being monitored.
As an aside, I don’t agree with the first letter in the Southland Times today. I agree with the need to have resource consent for changing from sheep farming to dairy. While a farmer may well still be ‘farming’, the environmental impact of his type of ‘farming’ has changed and therefore it is a change in ‘activity’ – resource consent required.
Can’t say I agree with this but I knew it would happen. The Bluff Community Charitable Trust and Bluff Community Board relationship is so close that I knew it would happen. The chairperson is always trying to keep councils happy that I even made the prediction when I saw it on the agenda last year. From the BCB Chairperson’s report:
I believe that if John Key wants to build a cycleway, HE should find the funding. This great idea of his has put pressure on towns all over the country. I think it’s a nice idea but Bluff has a pool that is still in need of funding and an upcoming Urban Renewal along with the losses being made on the Town Hall (as it sits idle) even though the ratepayers of Bluff contribute about $8k per annum.
The Bluff Community Charitable Trust was set up ‘as a vehicle to obtain funding’ but it is only helping with certain pet projects. I find it offensive to use the Bluff Community name without including or providing any benefit to the community.
We have a hill that has been vandalised by the council and even DOC say it will be 20+ years before it looks good (or even halfway decent) but ‘our’ Trust with three of ‘our’ Board members appointed to it are going to take take funding from other worthy, more immediate causes to help tourism. How about helping the Bluffies?
We have a minimum of three groups putting time, effort and funding into ensuring Bluff Hill has a better future than what council planned (or didn’t plan). St Teresa’s, Bluff School and Bluff Hill/Motupohue Environment Trust are all working away at what looks to be a daunting task and BCCT are off building tracks for ES.
Better ways to help our town without starting another project to entice people to a rundown town. Of course that’s just my view. It seems I’m still talking to myself and Bluffies, it seems, are just voyeurs (100+ a day watching but not getting involved).
Feel free to make comment:-)
Usually I love Environment Southland but am a little disheartened after reading Part 1 of the FHWF Hearing report. ES did NOT comment on the Outstanding Natural Feature and Landscape (that was highlighted in the report!) and choose to ask for an advice note.
Environment Southland requested that an advice note be recorded alerting the applicant and
the landholder that unfenced stock access to the coastal marine area is contrary to rule 53.3
of the Regional Coastal Plan for Southland.
This is a Resource Consent for a wind farm. Why do you choose to raise stock control? Are you saving on postage or couldn’t be bothered sending them a letter directly? The stock are not part of the wind farm, they are part of the farming activity. A serious F for ES on this one!
I am curious what instigated this retrospective resource consent? Are the having a paperwork tidy up? That hazchem is over on the wharf, not easily accessed by the general population. For me the big question is, will they be taking the blinders off and making Ravensdown’s activities on our main street get resource consent?
There are no resource consents for a change of activity or the breach of the District Plan rules for storing over 5,000kg of Hazchem. Without considering the non compliance with regards to the condition of the Shaw Savill building and the leakage of product from the other two sheds and the impact of the activity on our streets, Ravensdown are non compliant with the District Plan, resource consent is required!
I received this statement from Rodney Green, CEO of Ravensdown
In all the communities with a Ravensdown presence, we comply with the stated relevant zoning regulations and, as a farmer-owned co-operative, we work hard to make a positive contribution to those neighbourhoods.
Well, that statement is easily dis-spelled (what a crock).
Our community board chairperson has met with and has been involved with the shipping gangs pre-unload meetings (BTW, do Ravensdown provide funding to any of the groups she’s involved in? Yes, I’m told. Any other groups? Not to my knowledge).
The community board has been informed of plans to replace the Shaw Savill building (and include the two residential properties they purchased). Have we been informed? No, but the chairperson has said “everyone is excited about the new build”. The general population haven’t been informed so how can they be excited?
When I discuss it with people, the response is usually “suppose it would be better than what they’ve got”. That conversation needs to be continued though, the increased storage space (three times more Urea – and trucks), the access way, possibly off Liffey Street) WTF? Not ‘excited’ once the actual facts and impacts are expressed, more half truths from the chairperson I would say.
That will improve traffic flow! Not.
Rodney Green continues
The Board of Directors did indeed conduct a scheduled review of the situation at its last Board meeting on 6 December. There are several options for our operations in Bluff which are currently under consideration by the leadership team.
As we have done successfully for many years, please be assured we will be working with the Bluff Community Board, Invercargill Council and Environment Southland as we evaluate these options. We will do our part to try and ensure this collaboration can take place at speed. If all those interactions go to schedule, we expect to be in a position to communicate with residents about the preferred options by March 2012.
This will provide greater long-term certainty for all parties, so we can all move forward with confidence.
Yeah right! Whatever…
As we have done successfully for many years, please be assured we will be working with the Bluff Community Board, Invercargill Council and Environment Southland.
The only effective (and transparent) group out of those three is ES. The only successes from working with ICC and BCB are successes for Ravensdown as those groups either ignore Ravensdown’s breaches or be part of walking all over the needs of the Bluff residents. Our council and board are obviously patsies to big business, forgot who elected you AGAIN?
I doubt that Ravensdown will be asking for feedback from residents in March 2012 for the new build but being as it’s on a state highway, Transit will be involved…there will be consultation from them I’d say. Transit are blessed with not only the responsibility to oversee State Highways but also intersections adjoining State Highways:-)
Unless they are building an identical building, our council may have to go through the resource consent process for some part of the build, if so, I suggest they ensure it is publicly notified…otherwise…ever heard of civil disobedience?
And my message for Ravensdown, if this statement is true “we work hard to make a positive contribution to those neighbourhoods.“ How about working hard on siting your activities either on the Island Harbour, Ocean Beach or Awarua?
It’s interesting the number of people who are becoming more vocal about the mess Ravensdown’s cause with the shipping of Urea and/or Super Phosphate. I don’t know if people are aware that I blog or because Charlie’s on the Board or what but more and more people raise the subject with me. Comments come from varying groups in the community. With summer now upon us the gripes range from the main street mess, to the dust in the environment, increased lichen growth on footpaths, roads and buildings and more often now I am hearing about the concerns of the mess on the Island Harbour. Someone commented to me that they were up the hill and could see the white on the roof. I’m not sure what it is and if it’s from Ravensdown activity but if the community you operate within are blaming you, it would be wise to protect your reputation and branding (and the interests of your shareholders) and make sure your not to blame and the community knows your not to blame. This statement from the upper echelon of Ravensdown
In all the communities with a Ravensdown presence ….. we work hard to make a positive contribution to those neighbourhoods.
Yeah right, those that see it first hand here in Bluff know there is a lot of spin and very little truth in that statement.
One of the “10 valid issues outlined in the submission” is
Another serious concern is that of visual pollution.
Here’s some visual pollution for you
As I said earlier, Environment Southland provide far more transparency (sunlight as Robert would call it) than ICC.
The Environment Southland documentation at least provides the event name and some insight but ICC (in this case Bluff Community Board) has Public Excluded for ‘a sporting event’. Well that was a waste of time because we already know it’s the A2B Yacht Race (A being Auckland and B being Bluff). Earlier in the year we had the same Bluff resident in PE with ICC for ‘Bluff Events’. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist does it?
I hope ICC remember the new Sensitive Expenditure Policy and lest we forget, Americana.
Good old diligent transparent bastards!
When ICC claimed bird and dog poo were fouling Morrison’s Beach it was Environment Southland that called them to task. ICC pulled the ‘we don’t acknowledge the test you use’, Bluff Community Board were too busy worrying about the impression the signs gave to tourists (bugger the health and safety of residents). ES and the Public Health Officer sorted it!
Environment Southland’s CEO submits six monthly reports to their meetings outlining what Local Government Official Information And Meetings Act requests they have had. Those reports can be an interesting read and provide some insight of what’s going on.
Now we have the Chairperson’s Report showing a meeting between ICC, a Bluff resident and ES with regards to the A2B Yacht Race. So why would a resident go to Council regarding an event in Bluff and not go to their representatives in the first instance?
I know why but a virtual pat on the back for the correct guess?
As always, I’m playing catch up with all the scanning. Amongst the pile I got scanned and uploaded yesterday is Environment Southland’s ‘Notes to Bluff Community Board meeting – 31 October‘ regarding the Invercargill to Bluff Walking and Cycling Track. Last week’s Bluff Beacon, I just found the 11 October one that I’d mis-layed and will scan when I get a chance along with more historical ones. A heap of Letters to the Editor but still have some missing. I know Evan Harding reads this, could you please pass on that it would be a lot easier if they put letters on their website like most other papers do!
I still have the Flat Hill Wind Farm Limited Public Open Day – 10 October 2011 documentation to scan in. It’s big and colour and therefore takes ages to convert the scanned image but I’ll work on getting it done today. That seems to be, apart from the people searching for my blog because of recent media, the most commonly searched issue that brings people to my blog. The good thing is that people are then clicking the links and reading the information they may not have been able to in the past unless they knew to request it from council or picked it up themselves. That is my game:-)
PLEASE REMEMBER THE COMMENTS FEATURE IS AVAILABLE TO ALL
I can’t remember council lauding this upcoming District Plan Rural Review and it seems that submissions close on November 21, it’s going to take that long to read it. I was also unaware that ICC had chosen to do a rolling District Plan review and according to this map the urban areas are to be reviewed 2012-2013.
At least Bluff Community Board’s fob off of the petition will mean the Spatial Plan will be relevant for about a year (or more) instead of 6 months. I hope the Board members note all the comments throughout the consultation documents that refer to the link between the Big Picture and the District Plan, here’s one:
Council has embodied its vision in The Big Picture
– the Spatial Plan for Invercargill. The review of
the District Plan gives us the opportunity to create
objectives, policies and rules that work to achieve
this vision.
Pity the board aren’t good lateral thinkers, they may have realised Linda Bell’s haste….get it in the Big Picture and the District Plan will be changed to support the ideas in the Spatial Plan…a lot easier to change a Spatial Plan and actively consult on the change in the District Plan under the Resource Management Act. The Board’s inept idea means the Spatial Plan will be outdated but worse still if ICC do not include the rezone ideals in the DP documents and then change it after consultation they open themselves up to opposition under the RMA, which is a time consuming expensive exercise. Being transparent at the start would prevent wasted time and money.
Here’s a hypothetical scenario for those who are slow on the uptake
I oppose the rezoning of Gore Street from Enterprise because I want to run a scrap yard (or fish meal plant or transfer station) on the main street on one of the cheap sections (or bulldoze a house or two).
ICC’s Big Picture (30 year vision) has it as Enterprise. Great no problem! ICC are reviewing the District Plan. I check the District Plan consultation documents, no problems, it’s still listed as Enterprise. I’ll carry on saving for or planning my industrial empire on Gore Street, Bluff and buying up properties.ICC aren’t planning any changes so I don’t make a submission. Council have decided, after 728 people submit on it, to rezone Gore Street as Suburban Service. Oh no, my fish meal plant isn’t allowed in a Suburban Service area, that zoning means ICC will consider whether my activity will suit the wider ‘amenity values’. Should a fish meal plant be next door to a house? Should trucks be loading at any hour and crossing a well utilised public footpath where children walk?
Don’t worry, I’ll fight it!!! Oh dear, it seems only people that submitted on the initial District Plan documents are entitled to ‘Further Submissions’ under the Resource Management Act. I’m stymied! I can’t fight it!
If only ICC’s 30 year vision had included the possible change. If only I knew that 728 people wanted a change and it had been documented somewhere so I knew the Big Picture thinking. Who is to blame for this poor planning and communication?
Too late, I’m stuck with all these properties that I now have to sell so I can build my industrial empire somewhere else! Oh, the travesty!
I digress, back to the Rural Review. Get reading because believe it or not the Bluff ward has a lot of rural areas, Greenpoint, Greenhills, Bluff Hill, parts of Gunpit Road. For those thinking about wind towers in rural areas, check out the Noise document (pg 7) and I’ll leave you with this comment from the Brochure, very un-PC ICC…tut, tut, tut.
Oops, forgot the comment from the Heritage Summary
Iwi heritage values will impinge on a majority of
the significant resource management issues.
