TCDC wins Environment Court Appeal protecting Tairua coastal headland
Saturday 13 December 2008, 9:18AM
By Thames Coromandel District Council
404 views
An Environment Court judge has ruled in favour of Thames-Coromandel District Council over its decision to not allow a six-lot subdivision in a coastal zone at the northern end of Tairua.
The council’s Judicial Committee declined the consent for the subdivision on and around a coastal ridgeline between Tairua and Isles Estate off Pumpkin Hill Rd, near Sailors Grave.
The developers of Te Whakaruru stage two appealed the decision and it went before the Environment Court in June, with the decision just released ruling overwhelmingly in the council’s favour. The council was supported by Tairua Environment Society Inc and the Tairua Residents and Ratepayers Association, which attended the court hearing.
“This decision signals the importance of protecting the natural character of the coastal environment,” says Judicial Committee chairman Adrian Catran. “In making our decision we listened carefully to the evidence before us and that decision was confirmed to be the correct one by the Environment Court.”
TCDC Development Planning Manager Mark White said the Environment Court judge agreed the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the natural character of the site among other concerns. “The decision is very comprehensive and overwhelmingly support council’s original decision,” he said.
Judge Brian Dwyer found the following:
The ridgeline development would have a significant adverse effect on the natural character of the site, its landscape and amenity values notwithstanding the mitigation proposed;
The proposal constitutes a sprawling development in the coastal environment, expanding the existing residential developments and domesticating the landscape contrary to the NZ coastal policy statement;
The proposal directly challenged the Objectives and Policies of the District Plan which seek to protect landscape values and natural character.
The proposal was contrary to section 6(a) of the RMA as it constitutes inappropriate subdivision and development due to the adverse effects on the natural character of the coastal environment.
The proposal was contrary to section 6(b) of the RMA because of the effect on the outstanding natural landscape incorporating the rocky coastline.
Mr White says the judgement clearly acknowledged that the environmental benefits and enhancements proposed did not offset the significant adverse effects.