Court stops Matakana subdivision

A plan by developers Blakely Pacific Ltd to subdivide and sell its forestry land at the northern end of Matakana Island has been stopped by the Environment Court.

The proposal was to create forty-eight 40ha lots out of the almost 2000ha of Matakana Island forest Blakely Pacific owns.

Matakana Island. Download a subdivision plan here: Proposed_Matakana_Subdivision.pdf

The subdivision was approved by independent hearing commissioners for the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, but appealed by Te Rununga O Ngait Te Rangi, and Donna Poka on behalf of Nga Hapu O Te Moutere O Matakana.

The district council consent was also appealed by Blakely Pacific as to conditions.

In his judgement, Judge Jeff Smith questioned many aspects of the proposed development including how Blakely Pacific will be able to retain $40 million already paid in carbon credits if the land is no longer forestry.

The lot size is governed by the operative district plan which stipulates 40ha as the minimum size.

The judge considers the whole development discretionary because of its coastal proximity.

He finds the Blakely Pacific proposal lacks detail in many important areas given the nature of the island’s geology, its history and its ecology.

Infrastructure details are also blurry. Power supply, sewage treatment, and water supply would be each individual property’s responsibility.

Inserting the properties into an operating forest raises issues relating to the management of the forest fire safety and water supply for fire fighting.

There is no rain water survey.

The island is said to have a high water table, but there was no suggestion how the supply will be allocated for drinking or fire fighting.

There are no roads apart from private forestry roads.

Maintaining the roads will be largely the property owners’ responsibility even though the forestry operator will have the bigger impact.

The court did not receive any final structure on how the various land holdings were to be held or how arrangements with the forestry manager would be dealt with.

A mechanism for the maintenance of the island’s various cultural and ecological features including Tupaea’s Pa was unclear to the court.

The court was advised there will be a form of management contract between individual land owners and the forestry operator.

It was unclear whether this will cover the entire period of forestry growth and harvesting and how issues such as fire defence access for pruning and felling, and  usage of land beneath the forest are all to be managed.

“Although we were told that these were matters that could be addressed in due course, they do have a significant bearing upon the type of application before the court,” says the Judge.

Blakely Pacific would particularly need to deal with issues relating to utilities and sewage disposal and how the forest and Maori access and taonga would be managed on an on going basis.

In the numerous references to rights of access to Maori cultural land within the blocks, the Judge says it is not made clear how access is to be provided and on what basis.

This also applies to other customary uses including hunting, and going to the beach or harbour for kaimoana.

“It is difficult to understand how such provisions would be passed through to eventual owners who may have gated or fenced their entire property to keep out intruders or for instance to control rabbits,” says the Judge.

If Blakely Pacific changes the land use from forestry, Judge Smith says the developer will be up for about $40 million it will have to repay the government in carbon credits.

“The requirement to keep the site in pine trees does seem to constitute a significant constraint on both the current use of the site and its future development potential,” says the Judge.

Suggestions the land could also be used for horticulture and farming are now fanciful in light of the emissions trading legislation.

“We conclude the ongoing use of this land is for forestry and that any other activity including residential would be secondary,” says the Judge.

“Accordingly the structuring of ownership and of the titles would be of paramount importance.”

Blakely Pacific didn’t provide any real detail of this, nor how issues such as the maintenance of the ecological and pa areas will be undertaken, who will be responsible for operating the management plans and tree replanting envisaged in terms of the ecological areas, and how the numerous and complex rules of consent will be enforced.

“There is no doubt in our minds that the subject site is significant in a number of different ways including matters of national, regional and local district significance,” says Judge Smith.

“The complex layering of these features including the landscape, natural and cultural values are the very matters which are key to the proposed subdivision. They are of a significant order.”

He says the matter is best dealt with under a proposed ‘Whole of Island Plan’ under which another application could be made.