District plan challenge discounted

Ruapehu Bulletin, Volume 14, Issue 679, 25 March 1997, Page 3

District plan challenge discounted

Anyone who made submissions on the Ruapehu District Plan had the right to refer any matter in the Hearings Committee's decisions they were not satisfied with to the Environment Court, said council chief executive Cliff Houston last week. This opportunity had now passed said Mr Houstpn. The comment followed the public notice in the Ruapehu Bulletin on 1 8 March 1 997 entitled "Open Letter to the Ruapehu District Council". Mr Houston noted that the writer, Jerry Creedmore, had chosen not to exercise this right. Mr Houston said he fourid this surprising givea Mr Creedmore' s concerns. "He has not chosen to pursue his concerns through the correct legal avenue," Mr Houston said. In his advertisement, Mr Creedmore claimed that a "group of concemed citizens have rejected the whole District Plan owing to its blatant infringements of the common law rights of property owners".

He claims it contradicts common law rights under the Magna Carta 1297, Bill of Rights 168889, Treaty of Waitangi 1 840 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1 990. 'The Council had a duty to investigate fully all information supplied by ratepayers in their submissions to the Hearings Committee. The Hearings Committee and Council, after being supplied with full information (at great cost and effort to the . submitters) regarding citizens' Common Law Rights, have blatantly ignored the most important laws of this country. This can hardly be called consultation," claimed Mr Creedmore in his advertisement. At their February meeting, councillors were given an outline of progress on the development of the district plan. Mr Houston told councillors that in response to the decisions of the council' s hearings committee on the submissions received, 12 (possibly 13) references have been made to the Environment Court. 'The number and content of the references posi-

tively reflects on the work of the Hearings Committee, given that it made approximately a thousand decisions, and a number of those decisions related to controversial subject areas," stated Mr Houston. Mr Houston explained that a number of the appellants have indicated a willingness to explore resolving their concerns prior to the Environment Court considering the matters at a substantive hearing. He said in his view, given the nature of the references, it may be possible to find solutions to many of them without requiring such a hearing. He explained that if agreements can be reached, these would be brought back to the council for ratification prior to being lodged with the Environment Court in the form of applications for Consent Orders. "In the event that the matters are contested in front of the Environment Court, the Council will need to vigorously defend its decisions, and this may involve the calling of expert evidence." He said they expect the matters to be heard at the Environment Court, if necessary, in 1998.

He said now that the cut-off time for appeals to the court had passed, the parts of the plan that are not subject to references "can be given significant weight, and all the permitted acti vity rules are to be treated as if they were operative". "This represents a major advancement for the district and considerably simplifies the application of the planning provisions with respect of any development. This is the first time that this has been able to occur as there were a number of submissions that could have affected the plan in its entirety," said Mr Houston.