We will not appeal ruling, says Peters

A controversial Environment Court ruling that made it harder to subdivide along Whangarei's coast will not be appealed by the Whangarei District Council.
Earlier this month, the court ruled that anybody wanting to subdivide land in Whangarei's coastal or countryside environments needs at least 20ha before a subdivision could proceed as of right.
The decision means higher costs for the council, which has to put greater scrutiny on subdivision applications, and on developers who will have to justify their plans.
The court upheld an appeal by the Department of Conservation and raised the minimum lot-size in coastal and countryside zones from 4 and 6 ha respectively to 20ha. The court found the council's subdivision rules in the two environments to be defective and said the interim 20ha minimum would protect the environment while the council rewrites them.
At a meeting last week the council voted not to appeal the decision, concentrating instead on getting its district plan operational.
Whangarei mayor Pamela Peters said the decision not to appeal was the right one.
"We need to focus on getting our district plan operative. That will establish some certainty for ratepayers and developers," Mrs Peters said.
"If we had followed through with an appeal it would have added months to our district plan process, would have involved significant cost and created uncertainty for people considering development in the area. That would not be a good for anyone."
She said council staff, councillors and legal advisers had considered the issue thoroughly before making the decision.
"We looked into the time-frames, the costs and the effect an appeal would have on the ratepayers and we have had preliminary discussions with the Department of Conservation" Mrs Peters said.
"In the meantime we will follow the instructions of the court. Once the plan is operative there are a number of areas which will need to be reviewed and some changes will need to be made."
But outspoken councillor Frank Newman was disappointed at least part of the decision would not be appealed, despite the additional costs of doing so.
"The 20ha rule in the countryside area is particularly onerous and was a surprise to all parties, including DOC who had argued for a lesser threshold level of 10ha in the countryside area," Mr Newman said.
"This part of the decision was vulnerable in my view. Appealing would have sent a message to DOC and green lobby groups that it did not accept the court's decision and send a signal that it would initiate a plan change if the appeal did not succeed."
* THE FACTS:
• Visual intrusion from the building
• Colour and design
• Landscaping
• Effects on landscape values
• Size and shape of the site
• Alternative building locations
• Effects on the character of the coastal environment
• Location
• Visibility from roads and public places
• The effect on skylines and ridgelines