Development strategy 'lacks vision' in climate crisis, councillors say
Climate concerns were centre stage at a joint committee meeting between the Tasman District and Nelson City Councils. The joint committee met on Wednesday and accepted the policy decisions of the draft Future Development Strategy (FDS) the two councils are developing. However, Nelson city councillors Matt Lawrey, Rohan ONeill-Stevens, and Rachel Sanson expressed concern that the draft FDS lacks vision and wont meet climate targets. I do not believe that this FDS will deliver the level of change that our communities need, Lawrey said. This strategy lacks vision at a time when bold action is needed. READ MORE: * Submissions flow for draft Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy * Is it time for councils to be more active in shaping our cities? * Reimagining our future needs a radical rethink * Hira expansion dropped from 30-year development plan * Two new communities proposed as part of draft Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy The FDS guides the future of urban development in the Nelson Tasman region over the next 30 years. Currently, the draft strategy allows for 54 per cent of new developments to occur on greenfield sites with the remaining 46 per cent being allocated to intensification. The Future Development Strategy is required by central government for local councils to achieve well-functioning urban environments. I do not believe that a plan that relies on 54 per cent greenfield development is going to do that, Lawrey said, arguing greenfield developments lead to urban sprawl and a dependency on private motor vehicles. It will make parts of our districts less liveable. Both Lawrey and ONeill-Stevens called the current draft FDS a missed opportunity to change the way urban planning is approached by the councils. Weve missed the opportunity to truly change direction from the road weve been slowly trundling along for the past 50 years, ONeill-Stevens said. I believe that we can do better. He added that the climate change and the housing crisis were issues that could be addressed simultaneously. Weve lowballed our intensification, he said. Climate action and providing enough housing for our people are not contradictory. Sanson also opposed the large number of greenfield developments and thought that the underlying assumptions that informed the FDS were flawed. Should we be continuing to grow endlessly? she asked. To me it seems like a business as usual approach to an existential issue that were facing. However, these views were not shared by the majority of councillors across both districts. The lack of housing is acting as a constraint on the prosperity of our region, Nelson councillor Brian McGurk said. Thats what were talking about, housing. He highlighted that the FDS is a living document which is reviewed, and can be updated, by both councils every three years. McGurk also noted that the FDS doesnt limit growth to greenfield sites. Theres nothing in this FDS that prevents intensification and brownfield development. Tasman mayor Tim King agreed with McGurk and used examples of intensification projects in Richmond as well as the Meadows residential development to show that intensification and greenfield developments could be undertaken simultaneously. The two are not mutually exclusive, he said. With the right planning rules... you can get both. King acknowledged that not everyone in the district will be pleased by the FDS but stood by the work the committee has put into the FDSs development. Tasman deputy mayor Stuart Bryant also applauded the thorough work done by council staff and the dedicated subcommittee said their efforts had produced an effective strategy. I believe this was one of the most comprehensive processes Ive been involved with in my time in council, he said. Weve ended up... with a very positive FDS, in my view, for the future. However, Tasman council members werent unanimous in their support of the plan. Councillor Mark Greening voiced his opposition to greenfield development of some Rural 1 zoned land as the strategy outlines. Land zoned as Rural 1 comprises the most productive land in the Tasman District. Greening proposed an amendment to the committees policy decisions that the FDS wouldnt encroach on any Rural 1 land across Tasman. Its consistent with the community view which were supposed to strongly take into account, he said. They do not want the loss of Rural 1 land. He also said the Waimea Dam is being constructed under the understanding it would allow the continued working of highly productive land. If this Rural 1 land is to be consumed, it undermines the whole thesis of the dam. But TDC growth coordinator Jacqui Deans said that upholding Greenings amendment would have a negative impact on the FDS. By removing all Rural 1 land... amounted to about 3,000 dwellings, that would then mean we havent got sufficient capacity for 30 years for a higher growth scenario. She added that almost all highly productive land was immediately dismissed as a possible site for development with only three areas being selected for greenfield development. Council staff concluded that Greenings amendment would undermine the integrity of the FDS and on that basis committee chair and Nelson mayor Rachel Reese struck the amendment down. I dont think that would be a viable amendment in the context of the recommendation. The joint committee voted 18 to 6 in favour of accepting the subcommittees policy decision recommendations. Local Democracy Reporting is Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ On Air