Letters to Editor: Bunnings decision

Sharp criticism of Bunnings decision

My question is how can the landowner opposite the block of land on Pakowhai Rd where Bunnings would like to build their retail outlet contest the right to a resource consent on the grounds the land is too good and it should be put back into horticultural land - when he has the right to have a large portion of his land (good for horticulture) taken up with two retail outlets, a large cafe and a large fruit and veg shop, plus much land made available for car parking for these commercial ventures.

I see this as two different rules - that it is all right for him to put his commercial ventures on his land but he opposes Bunnings Hardware's commercial venture on the other side of the road and on the same type of land.

The land Bunnings would like to use and is now lying unused has had glasshouses on it for many years and over the years there has been a lot of broken glass from the glasshouses ploughed into the land.

I would be very careful what type of food produce is planted in the land. Workers would have to wear good safety footwear and leather gloves when working the soil because of all the shards of broken glass.

This could be a real health and safety issue. Having a good hardware store over this side of the town would be welcomed I am sure by many home owners on the west side.

I feel Bunnings' application should be looked at again as the decision not to be given a resource consent has been very unfair.

Sue Hill, Hastings

Nothing personal

Initially I was amused by Chris Tremain's column in last Saturday's paper.

While I would like to congratulate Chris on his pyrrhic victory, I think his attempt to rewrite history was somewhat comical.

Mr Tremain seems to be implying that our campaign somehow unfairly tagged him as pro-amalgamation and that this was a "personal" attack. He seems to have forgotten the numerous occasions when he stated (in print) that he was in favour of council amalgamation.

For him to claim otherwise is clumsy at best and dishonest at worst.

Of course, it may be that our campaign has forced Chris to reconsider his position, in which case, be up front and honest Chris, the people of Napier would appreciate that.

What I suspect is that he is still pro-amalgamation, but realises that the majority of his electorate are not, so he hopes this subterfuge will distract his constituents from that reality.

As for the implication that we went "personal" on him (and repeated via text from GW on the December 6), all I can say to that is he is lucky he is standing for public office here in New Zealand and not in either the UK or US, where every aspect of a politician's life seems fair game. Thankfully we don't really accept that behaviour in NZ.

As a campaign we made a conscious decision to stick to policy and facts. At no point did we ever consider getting "personal".

Frankly I'm insulted that he is attempting to say anything to the contrary.

Chris Richardson, Campaign manager for Stuart Nash

Thanks to nurses

Having been given the "all-clear" today, I must publicly acknowledge and pay tribute to the District Nursing Service, whose care and attention I have received over the past three months.

Despite going from the Waikato, to Auckland, back to Waikato and finally home to Hastings, there has never been a hitch, and all the nurses have given me enormous encouragement, of which initially I was in real need.

My sincere and grateful thanks to all those involved in this service wherever you happen to be based.

Pamela Lockhart, Hastings