Planners writing new regulations to protect native bush on private land are suggesting one set of rules for Grey district and another for Buller and Westland.
Greymouth Mayor Tania Gibson says new rules would mean going back on the SNA deals made with the farmers years ago in good faith. Photo: Supplied
Councils and iwi have been working together to roll the region's three district plans into one cohesive document, as directed by the Local Government Commission.
By law, and under the West Coast regional policy statement, the plan must recognise and protect significant natural areas (SNAs) and indigenous habitat.
The Tai o Poutini Plan Committee has resisted the idea of mapping SNAs on individual properties and was hoping to get around that by writing general rules for vegetation clearance.
That would mean someone wanting to clear native trees on their land would generally need resource consent and the bush would be assessed for its SNA qualities only at that point.
But Grey district representatives dropped a bombshell at last month's meeting, when they said they could no longer support that approach. Their council had gone through the SNA process 15 years ago, and identified 37 across the district (previously stated incorrectly by councillors as 72).
"At that time the Grey District Council negotiated agreements with the affected landowners, who agreed to the areas being identified as SNAs," the planner reported.
"Detailed site visits and ecological assessments were undertaken to confirm values and boundaries. In some cases, this led to offers of land purchase by the Department of Conservation, or areas were covered by QEII National Trust covenants."
As a result of that deal, the Grey district has no general rules on felling bush: all native vegetation clearance is permitted outside of SNAs, riparian areas and outstanding landscapes.
If general vegetation clearance rules like those now in force in Buller and Westland, as the TTPP committee proposed, Grey landowners would be dealing with much tougher rules than at present.
And as Greymouth Mayor Tania Gibson pointed out, that would mean going back on the SNA deals made with the farmers years ago in good faith. The TTPP planners took legal advice on the conundrum from environmental lawyers, Wynn Williams, they reported.
"The initial view from Wynn Williams is that having different approaches within the plan could serve to bring more attention to the differences, and may make any unlawfulness in terms of giving effect to the regional policy statement more apparent, if for instance, no map of potential SNAs in Buller and Westland district is included," the lawyers said.
A different approach for the Grey district could also undermine the general vegetation clearance approach across the rest of TTPP, they warned.
The planners told the committee there were pros and cons to the dual approach.
"But the staff view is that, given the considerable work undertaken in Grey district to identify, assess and map the SNAs, as well as gain agreement from affected landowners for their inclusion, the approach has merit."
The planners have now amended the indigenous vegetation clearance rules, to include the Grey SNAs were in the draft plan along with a new permitted activity rule for that district.
For Buller and Westland areas of significant indigenous vegetation and fauna habitat would be identified as people applied for resource consents over time; added to the plan as they came up.
That would mean that all three districts would eventually have SNAs on their books but Buller and Westland would have additional vegetation clearance rules, the planners confirmed.
Both proposals will be included in the draft plan due out in January for community feedback.
Maps of potential SNAs commissioned earlier this year will not be included in the draft after the committee rejected them, objecting that they identified 25 percent of private land on the Coast.
Local Democracy Reporting is a public interest news service supported by RNZ, the News Publishers' Association and NZ On Air.