Land confiscation claims as councils grapple with biodiversity challenge
Wednesday, 21 November 2018
Protecting Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) is proving a challenge for councils wanting to protect biodiversity.
In some parts of the country, the process has resulted in accusations councils are trying to confiscate land by stealth.
SNAs are areas of significant native vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna. They can be anything from a stand of nikau palms, to habitat for lizards or kiwi, and native bush.
The need to have SNAs comes from a Resource Management Act requirement that councils must protect biodiversity.
**READ MORE:
* Lawyers called in over Eastbourne SNA stoush
* Man threatens to get his gun after drop-in session turns nasty
* Marlborough biodiversity examined
* New Plymouth ratepayers stressed over protecting trees**
The problem facing councils is that much of the biodiversity needing protection is on private land.
Some landowners are happy to allow councils to use the District Plan to protect native flora and fauna but others see it as a threat.
That was the case in Taranaki, where the New Plymouth District Council decided to take a 'soft' approach to SNAs so it could work with farmers.
Forest and Bird took the council to the Environment Court, which ruled the council was wrong not to include SNAs in its District Plan.
That resulted in farmers claiming the council was 'confiscating their land rights' by including pockets of native push in the District Plan.
It left farmers potentially needing resource consent to build tracks or put in fencing.
Most councils have taken the approach of identifying potential SNAs and then working with landowners to include the areas in their District Plan.
In Lower Hutt that approach has not gone well. A group calling itself Lower Hutt Landowners has hired lawyers and a PR firm, and has been outspoken in criticising the council.
It wrote to the council in April with a wide range of concerns including a 'refusal to speak' to land owners, supplying inaccurate maps of where potential SNAs would be and proposing SNAs that would stop landowners subdividing their land.
The group argued that the council's 'coercive approach' had been highly stressful resulting in some Eastbourne residents needing to visit a GP. The landowners also urged the council to look at other options, including the use of covenants, as alternatives to SNAs.
In reply, a senior officer said officers were reluctant to meet with Eastbourne residents due to the level of 'abuse' and 'threatening behaviour' by some that made discussion difficult.
The council preferred to 'engage directly' with landowners to address their concerns, as each landowner's situation was unique. he said.
He noted that the Environment Court decision regarding New Plymouth reinforced the view that councils had to include SNAs in their District Plan and said the voluntary approach suggested was not an option.
Forest and BIrd conservation advocate Jen Miller said biodiversity was in crisis nationwide.
The organisation had been part of a working group that included Federated Farmers, Forest Owners Association and the Environmental Defence Society. There was general agreement that a proactive approach was needed. t
The resulting draft National Policy Statement (NPS) for Indigenous Biodiversity is currently being considered by Associate Minister for the Environment Nanaia Mahuta.
Miller said getting such wide ranging groups as Federated Farmers and forest owners to agree there was a crisis was significant.
The NPS would eventually become the overriding policy document for councils.
Mahuta said some councils were doing a good job but the NPS would provide the framework to significantly improve what was being done to protect the environment.