However, both councils say they are trying to include the affected people in the process under way.
In December, the two councils made a joint application to the Environment Court to consult with the affected landowners, because both parties believed the landowners were unaware of the ORC’s appeal and its potential consequences.
In January, the Environment Court directed the DCC to consult with the affected landowners and report back.
However, the DCC did not take action until the middle of last month when it wrote to the landowners, informing them of a meeting on March 22.
Gordon Rd Spillway residents group co-ordinator Julie Struthers said the difference between Hazard 1 and Hazard 1A was not clearly communicated.
The group was aware of building restrictions under Hazard 1, but not how “hugely restrictive” a proposed change to Hazard 1A would be.
The letter inviting residents to a meeting on March 22 did not effectively convey the importance of the proposed change either, she said.
Consequently, only half-a-dozen of the 41 residents turned up, Struthers said.
After the meeting, the group had little time to get submissions in to the DCC on the proposed change.
The change could lead to a loss of value in their homes, and it could also potentially mean homes would be uninsurable, Struthers said.
Although there were restrictions under Hazard 1, owners still had the opportunity to submit resource consent applications to make changes to dwellings.
“It should be on an individual basis, as it is now, because if somebody is quite prepared to build something 3m or 4m [above] the ground it should be allowed.”
Hazard 1A essentially felt like being “red-zoned” similar to residential red zone areas in Christchurch after the earthquakes, she said.
“It is a very stressful situation for all of us at the moment.”
Mosgiel Taieri Community Board chairman Andrew Simms estimated the zone comprised about $25 million worth of property.
Of the affected properties, only about six houses had been affected by previous flooding, he said.
Due to the inaction of both councils, the affected landowners now only had days to prepare a submission to the DCC, he said.
Simms would be attending a meeting of affected residents today at 7pm at Twelve Oaks Golf Club to help ensure effective submissions were made ahead of the DCC’s April 6 deadline.
Simms said the ORC wanting to change the classification to Hazard 1A was shifting the risk from the council to the landowners instead of doing the maintenance it needed to on Silver Stream.
“The ORC are choosing to spend their money trying to get this area red-zoned rather than spending money maintaining the flood channel.”
ORC engineering manager Michelle Mifflin said gravel realignment and extraction was planned under the council’s 2021-31 long-term plan to address the channel capacity of Silver Stream and ensure the base profile of channel was maintained.
ORC policy and science general manager Anita Dawe said both councils asked the Environment Court to use its powers to enable landowners and affected parties to be aware of the appeal and be involved if they wished to.
“The number of landowners and the issue is quite narrow, however both councils understand the impacts will potentially be significant,” Dawe said.
Seeking to rezone the land from Hazard 1 to Hazard 1A was to prevent additional residential activities being located in the spillway area, which was a known hazard area.
To continue to construct or develop new houses in the area presented increased risk to people and property, she said.
An information pack was made available to affected landowners through a webpage on the DCC website and information was posted or hand delivered to them.
A DCC spokesman said the joint request of the councils to the Environment Court to provide landowners and occupiers in the Gordon Rd floodway area an opportunity to take part in an appeal process was the first time this process had been used in Dunedin.
Without this special process, landowners and occupiers would not have the ability to participate in the process, and the decision would be made by the Environment Court with evidence only from the two councils, he said.
The overall consultation timetable was determined by the Environment Court, requiring consultation with landowners and occupiers to be completed by April 28.
The initial submission period ended on Friday, April 7, with the further submission period from April 13 to April 20, he said.
After submissions closed, the councils would prepare a joint report to the Environment Court recommending how this appeal may be resolved by June 14.
At that time, landowners and occupiers would be given the opportunity to apply to formally join the appeal process, the spokesman said.
