Tony Silvester-Clark: Waitakere Ranges subdivision fears based on a myth

The myths in John Edgar's Perspectives article, which exhorted the Waitakere City Council to initiate speedily a law to sustain the values of the Waitakere Ranges, will serve only to confuse the community about the real issues.

It will also further polarise opinions. And that means the meaningful dialogue and inquiry that could lead to a common vision and consensus on appropriate action has become increasingly difficult.

Opponents and proponents of legislation share the desire to sustain the values and landscape of the ranges for future generations. I would even say that everyone supports the concept of ensuring the ranges are protected for future generations. The disagreement is over what is appropriate to achieve that goal.

The pressure of a growing metropolis is real for cities across the whole of the Auckland isthmus. But are there plans to urbanise the foothills of the ranges?

The northern and western sector agreement between the members of the Regional Growth Forum assessed how growth and development would be addressed in Waitakere, North Shore and Rodney. The direction of development is to be out through Massey and Westgate. Urban density subdivision in the ranges and foothills is simply not on the agenda.

As Mr Edgar said, the core of the ranges is publicly owned and cannot be touched. In the foothills, structure plans are widely accepted as a mechanism to both guide and prohibit development beyond the level determined appropriate for the area.

The myth of a risk from subdivision is propagated by the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society and the Environmental Defence Society as they fan the fires of uncertainty and create fear in people's minds. Who are the major developers and "landowners who want to make a fast buck and run" they talk about?

All those I know who might get development rights under the Swanson structure plan are committed long-term residents who practise active husbandry of what is a degraded and highly fragmented landscape.

Mr Edgar, in quoting the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's phrase "death by a thousand cuts" from the preface of the 2001 report Managing Change in Paradise, takes it out of the context of the report, in which it was applied to the concept of cumulative effects.

While these effects are referred to in the preface, the paragraph in which the quotation appears speaks specifically of planning processes and their application. The commissioner's words point to the District Plan processes undertaken by the Waitakere City Council and its officers, and perhaps related Environment Court appeal processes.

The "thousand cuts" might be a metaphor for subdivision or refer to the cutting down of trees. The words chosen appear to be a dramatic turn of phrase that skilfully combines both the idea of subdivision and tree removal to make a point.

The "death by a thousand cuts" is quite clearly seen in the report as an action stemming from the application of planning processes, with the possible feared outcome described as: "One hundred years from now the freehold parts of the Waitakere Ranges would look like Remuera today."

While this potential outcome might be considered a cumulative effect, it needs to be contrasted with the description of the reality of subdivision in the ranges as seen by the commissioner and described later in the body of the same report: "Human influence and built environment have not severely detracted from the Waitakere Ranges as a landscape; nowhere else in New Zealand has the type and scale of residential development in a bush environment occurred."

From this one might conclude that, despite the difficulties, the city council has done a good job in managing development in the ranges.

As the report points out, cumulative effects are "a critical issue - and a key failure". But the "death by a thousand cuts" is clearly expressed as both a potential and feared outcome of the planning processes applied before publication of the 2001 report. It is not a description of what is happening.

The commissioner also calls for a "visioning process" to achieve "a consensus on the goals and targets by agreeing on what people could live with", rather than aiming to achieve the precise outcome each person wants.

This approach is obviously difficult for an organisation such as the protection society, which wants no development in the ranges and foothills and appears unwilling to compromise. To do so would appear to represent an unacceptable loss of face.

The society's position was clearly rejected by the residents of the ranges and foothills in last year's local body elections. Both Mr Edgar and his running partner under the Protect the Ranges banner, along with a supporter, former ward councillor Denise Yates, failed to win seats.

* Tony Silvester-Clark is a resident of the Swanson foothills. He is responding to the view of John Edgar, president of the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society, that it is time to enact strong legislation to protect the ranges.