Wednesday Write In: Land needed to derive income

Sue Hill's letter re Bunnings decision certainly demands a reply.

How can we contest the right to a resource consent on the grounds that the land is too good and should be kept for horticultural use, when we have similar land taken up with two retail outlets, opposite the Bunnings site?

Well, Sue, let's look at the differences.

Our income is derived from the very fact that the land is of high quality, we grow produce and we sell what we grow.

Bunnings, on the other hand, don't grow anything - they buy in and sell. Soil quality does not come into their equation.

The fruit shop, tourist and to a lesser extent the cafe side of our business relies on our ability to grow things.

In regard of the amount of land taken up with our retail complex and carparking, the area amounts to 3000sq m which includes a coolstore and orchard store shed, this on the back of 32ha of productive land.

So Sue, we believe we have every right to speak up for the preservation of plains zone soils, unlike some we know that believe the sooner they are built over the better.

The issue of broken glass on Bunnings site around the derelict glasshouses - there has been no cultivation against these buildings, so any broken glass can be retrieved.

Currently, the site is an eyesore - the blame for that lies squarely with Bunnings - they bought the land before gaining consents and encouraged the folk who sold it to take what they wanted and this is the result.

David Mardon, Hastings

Pathway dispute

Over the past few days my wife and I have been made aware of the proposal to lay a 3m-wide pathway along the western side of the Taipo stream.

Even though our property will not be directly affected by this work we were astonished and appalled that this monstrosity was even being considered by council.

Let's be quite clear about this.

This is not a pathway, this is a driveway.

Taking into account the fact that councils in general are always bragging - as councils are wont to do - about providing quiet passive green areas for the benefit of Joe Public, we are at a loss to understand why you would want to take one of these areas and smother a goodly part of it (ie. the stream's western border between Balmoral St and Willow Drive) with God knows how many square metres of ugly concrete is quite beyond us.

It would appear that the aesthetics factor has been completely left out of your calculations.

I know there are some people who are totally opposed to any sort of pathway along the stream, and there are also some who would be open to negotiation with your planners as to the design and the materials to be used in the construction of any proposed pathway.

I have been out and measured pathways in the Taradale area and found that there is a wide variation in widths.

For example:

Riverside Park at the back of the Pettigrew Green arena 1.4m

Green spaces in the Ascot Park area 1.2m

Prebensen Drive East 3.0m

Prebensen Drive West, (by the new timber footbridge) 3.6m

Anderson Park has 1.4, 1.5 1.7, and 2.0m respectively.

Now these measurements are all very nice providing they are surrounded with a good amount of clear space, but I think that the idea of wanting to shove an oversized lump of concrete into a narrow gutted urban stream border is a bit beyond the pale.

For those who would want to cycle between Balmoral St and Neeve Rd, they have a legitimate alternative, ie. Avondale Rd!

We trust that reason will prevail and you will see the logic in our opinion.

Heather and Robin Thompson, Taradale