Grey Power

We strongly think kiwifruit canopies should not be allowed to proceed around the Waipā district. We live and farm directly across the road from the 383 Parallel Road development. This is the entire length of their northern boundary. This development when completed is planning to cover 70 hectares of land.

The development so far has obliterated all views across formerly pleasant rural land to Mount Pirongia. The canopies are ugly, invasive and of immense size and scale. All existing vegetation including hedges and large old significant trees will be destroyed. All biodiversity is erased. This is a hugely significant land use change that is being allowed to happen with seemingly little consultation to Waipā residents.

The Waipā district is known for its beautiful landscapes, green grass pastures and trees. It is part of its much admired rural character and charm. Protection of its rural character and scenic vistas is outlined in the district plan. These immense invasive structures do not fit in the Waipā rural landscape, and definitely should not be allowed to proceed.

They seriously affect the enjoyment of our locality for us and neighbouring homes of other long-time residents.

The Searle family and Scott Mathieson

Call

In regard to “Getting a taste of kiwi “ (The News, January 26), I am also in dispute with kiwifruit growers that bound my property. I have employed a barrister to handle my grievances also and to ensure that Waipā District Council must enforce their district plan which they have completely ignored or disregarded to this time.

I bought my property 11 years ago for the awesome views. They span extensive views that encompassed the Bombay hills and over to Mt Te Aroha, Cambridge hills, Kakepuku and Mt Pirongia. The view included extensive farmland and we could watch aeroplanes coming and going from Rukuhia and trains passing through the main trunk line.

Now with the screen netting and shelter belt trees, I have lost about 50 per cent of my beautiful views and they have informed me that they intend growing shelterbelts to 10 metres, which will completely obliterate the rest of the views I still have.

Because the council appears quite unwilling to enforce council laws, expensive lawyers seem to be the only alternative.

I believe the owners of the kiwifruit orchard, that bounds my property, believe they will win any dispute involving us as they have more money. And I believe that the other kiwifruit orchardists believe the same and that they are able to disregard any neighbours’ disruptions or objections or abide by council laws.

The council appears to have a very large too-hard basket.

Thank you for allowing me to express my feelings - and those of many of my neighbours.

Brian Larsen Ngāhinapōuri

Questions need to be asked - like who checks the conditions of a resource consent?

If conditions are not met, who is responsible for rectifying this? Is it the person who objects to the conditions or the people who are not keeping to the conditions or is it council?

A big example is the poles being put five metres from the boundary where the conditions clearly state that they have to be 25 metres from the boundary. Also, the height would be a matter to be looked at, is the level too high.

Was there an under arm bowl being delivered with the planner leaving council and now being employed by the kiwifruit people?

Is it that easy to “not keep to the consent rules” by just asking or doing a retrospective resource consent application? If so, this will open a big can of worms as a precedent will be set by allowing “breaking” the rules.

Council should have declared a ‘conflict of interest’ with the consent, as the planner’s position with the applicant has now created a conflict, and an audit and review of such should have been undertaken immediately . Just where is regulatory governance?

Please council, be transparent. (Abridged)

Bernard Westerbaan

Te Awamutu