Dealing with the best way to handle growth in certain parts of Clutha, including the imposition of financial contributions on developers, are just some of the issues being raised by the Clutha District Council as part of its extensive review of the district plan.
The initial plan, which became operative in June 1998, has been the subject of an extensive review by council staff since the start of last year.
It identified key issues and then began consulting a wide range of stakeholders.
This has led to several background reports on issues and now the council is ready to talk to the wider community about how the plan should take shape. Proposed changes and options will be publicly notified this weekend.
Public submissions on what is the first round of consultation will close on December 12.
An initial report on the issues has been prepared and was approved by the full council last week.
In its summary, the council said the existing plan had, for the most part, been successful but, since 1998, there was more pressure on its resources with much more industrial development and subdivision happening.
"[The plan] has provided relatively little direction on how that development should be integrated with other development. Over the same period of time, there has also been an increase in people and organisations taking an active interest in how the district's resources are used and developed, which increases the likelihood of conflict."
It also said it was important to be aware of the risk of "regulatory creep" which was the tendency for more rules and regulations to be developed over time.
The public had an important say in how the plan would be developed.
The discussion document on the plan review looks at key issues and options and then makes recommendations on its preferred option for each.
These include:
• Content of the district plan. Preferred option: Keeping the plan as brief as possible is considered the most appropriate and efficient approach
• Rural subdivision and development. Some scope could be given to recognise development areas and reduce or even remove the 200m separation distance rule.
• Rural industry. The Milton-Milburn area, which has proved popular for industrial development in recent years, may become a separate specific zone while the future growth in the area would have take a long-term view, considering state highway bypass options, high density residential growth areas, lifestyle development areas and flood management issues.
The review also delves into issues like coastal resource areas, landscapes, natural coastal characters, heritage and biodiversity.
The issue of financial contributions is expected to attract comment.
The plan recognises development can have adverse effects and for now, developers are asked to contribute a proportionate share towards the provision, upgrading and maintenance of infrastructure and facilities. Whether that should continue is open to debate.
