Farmers and ECan clash over plan

Farmers and Environment Canterbury (ECan) are divided over a contentious Mackenzie District plan change.

Plan change 13 will impose more defined control over development in the Mackenzie Basin. Under the proposal, the change will separate various areas of the Mackenzie Basin into "nodes", and place restrictions on consent.

Farm buildings, including staff accommodation and retirement homes for family members would be permitted activities.

However, at the final public hearing, Environment Canterbury and Federated Farmers disagreed over the definition of an "activity" under the new rulings, and what buildings should be permitted.

ECan planner Bob Willis was worried about the plan's "vague" definitions of buildings and activity.

"Under the current regulations, there could be the potential for several retirement homes to appear all over the landscape, and be sold off to other property owners," Mr Willis said.

"There is a fundamental difference between a holiday home and a worker's accommodation. Structurally, they could look the same from the outside, but both serve a different purpose."

Plan change 13 suggests parts of the Mackenzie Basin should be defined as Outstanding Natural Landscapes, and have very limited allowances for consent.

Mr Willis suggested the Mackenzie Basin as a whole should be considered an Outstanding Natural Landscape, but the resource consent process could enable development in certain areas.

"The Mackenzie Basin is such a special area. But in the past we saw a lot of ad hoc development. Manuka Terrace is a good example: there was land put aside for 20 separate properties, now there's 200 there."

"We are supportive of farming on the Mackenzie Basin. But there is a risk that reducing controls on farming activity could have adverse effects on the environment."

Federated Farmers representatives said the plan change was restrictive.

"If the plan change continues in its current form we will be left with no option but to challenge it at the Environment Court," Mackenzie chairman John Murray said.

He said he was opposed to the current height restriction of 15m for farm buildings. He did not agree the farm buildings would significantly blot the landscape views.

"The problem is with subdivisions, not with the farm buildings. It is the activity on the land which matters," he said.

"Once you move about 100m away from the area, the height of the building is less of an issue.

"There are times when the farmer only has one place to put their building if they want access to electricity or irrigation. The Basin will change for the worse if we don't have a viable farming industry."

Bob Douglas of Federated Farmers South Canterbury said :"We may have had a very liberal approach to planning in the past, but I think this plan is like crushing a peanut with a steamhammer."

- © Fairfax NZ News