7 days ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Farmer to have case considered
Invercargill city councillors will next week consider whether a Tisbury poultry farmer will be compensated for the loss of income and distress caused by a nearby housing development.
In May, during the public forum of the council's community wellbeing and regulatory committee McNeill's Poultry Farm owner Nigel Hewitson outlined his troubles with a new housing development near his farm.
He said since September last year the vibrations and noise from the housing development had stressed the 5000 hens on his Tisbury poultry farm.
The hens lost their appetite, their condition, became more aggressive towards each other and egg production dropped.
Mr Hewitson said he did not know how the development had gained planning consent without him being identified as an affected party and thought the council was at fault.
Council consenting and environment general manager Jonathan Shaw was asked to prepare a report.
In his report tabled at Tuesday's community wellbeing and regulatory committee meeting, Mr Shaw said while Mr Hewitson believed he should have been identified as an affected party, the application did not breach the district plan and therefore he was not an affected party.
While it was obvious Mr Hewitson had been affected by the development, for the purpose of the consent he was not.
Mr Hewitson sought a High Court injunction against the developer to mitigate the impacts to his operation which was issued in January.
In his findings High Court Justice Jonathan Eaton noted the council consents and the work was being carried out according to the consent conditions.
The council was not a party to the injunction and no concerns were raised by Justice Eaton about the actions of the council, the report said.
The High Court ruling imposed stricter limits on noise and vibration than those set in the District Plan and the council had no authority to monitor or enforce the injunction.
Mr Shaw had reviewed the conversations Mr Hewitson had with staff and concluded record keeping could be improved.
There was also a delay in Mr Shaw being updated by staff about the situation.
There were now protocols in place to ensure interactions with the public are recorded and matters are brought before senior management as required.
Cr Ian Pottinger said it was clear that Mr Hewitson was an affected party and asked what staff had done to help when he approached them.
Mr Shaw said the district plan did not not have any provisions to deal with the issues.
Mr Pottinger said section 17 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) stated there was a duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment arising from an activity and asked who in this case was responsible to do this.
Mr Shaw said his understanding was the applicant and the local authority was responsible.
However, at the time the resource consent was approved, those effects were seen to be less than minor.
Mr Hewitson attended the meeting and afterwards said he thought the system was "unjust".
It seemed getting the consent conditions right on paper was more important than the real impact it had on people, he said.
Legislation was there to protect people and their properties.
"Where's my protection?"
After the meeting, council chief executive Michael Day said the question of compensation was discussed in committee, behind closed doors.
