He added that he believes if all the landowners across the nine proposed heritage areas knew what was planned for them in the (PDP), they would be equally up in arms.
“We are endeavouring to ascertain how many properties would be affected by the proposed 500mm rule across the district; we think in excess of 3000 – but not sure.”
He said the group hopes the action will force the FNDC to pull the entire Heritage Areas chapter from the PDP and revert to existing Heritage precincts and associated rules.
“Or rewrite that chapter after consulting landowners/ratepayers and other relevant stakeholders, and after taking advice only from reputable, locally based heritage experts. They might also consider suspending the whole expensive PDP process given it’s a process run according to an act of Parliament that is about to be repealed.”
Palmer added that the proposed 500mm rule runs contrary to archaeological science. He criticised John Brown, director of Plan.Heritage, the company the council consulted.
“It’s also an impractical and unreasonable impost on landowners, so he’s offended both sides of the Heritage protection ‘debate’.”
The group believes a local expert may better understand the area and advise differently.
Residents also recently found out that Plan.Heritage filed for liquidation in July, further losing confidence in their expertise.
Brown said they relocated to the UK for family reasons and the company was placed into voluntary liquidation.
“The contract with FNDC was completed prior to the decision to liquidate the company, which included reviewing all submissions, attending the hearing and responding to the matters raised by all submitters. Our professional obligations have therefore been fulfilled.”
FNDC group manager for planning and policy, Roger Ackers, said they were recently made aware of the liquidation by a member of the public and that the report the company provided would still be used as expert evidence in future PDP-related proceedings, including potential Environment Court challenges.
While residents said they were not directly informed of the earthworks rule implications – particularly the later shift from a 200cu m volume limit to a 500mm depth-based rule, FNDC hit back and said the council had informed landowners about the Proposed District Plan, and the need to carefully consider whether to participate in the review process.
“If a person had not made a submission, they could work with an existing submitter if they were invited by that party. Submitters at that meeting who have opposed the Proposed Heritage area invited others to join their submissions.”
Ackers said they have communicated extensively with landowners across multiple channels.
“We have published multiple news stories online and in our printed newsletters and newspaper adverts about the development of the new District Plan since 2016.”
He added that no decision has yet been made on the heritage area overlay as the matter is still with the hearing panel. Once a decision is made by the council after considering the hearing panel recommendations, submitters have the right to appeal through the Environment Court if they do not agree with decisions made.
“We do not know at this stage of the process what the outcome will be, as it is still under consideration by the panel, and a final decision has not yet been made by the council. We encourage those that have made submissions to continue engaging in the Schedule 1 RMA process as it moves forward.”
Those interested in following and joining the action can visit https://fairnorth.nz/
