A dispute over Gore’s district plan will be played out in court, after lobby group Groundswell filed an appeal against the council in the Environment Court.
In a statement released earlier this month, Groundswell NZ said it had filed the appeal due to a failure by the Gore District Council to make decisions on Section 5 and Section 32 of the Resource Management Act, being the purposes of the Act and the analysis of the chosen option as the most effective, efficient and appropriate.
The group said in their statement the proposed district plan was "one of the worst cases we’ve ever seen” and "local iwi interests are given a say on anything someone might do”.
When the district plan was released in 2024, groups including Groundswell and Federated Farmers took issue with the Māori Cultural Values portion of the plan.
The council’s annual district plan states objectives and policies to direct the "ways the Gore District Plan recognises and protects the historic and contemporary relationship of Māori with the natural environment and places where cultural practices are undertaken within the Gore district”.
Groundswell said these were "very broad and vague bureaucratic speak under Māori headings” but were "worded to mean that the cultural values are affected by everything".
In its appeal, the group asks the Environment Court to remove all parts of the proposed plan from RMA Section 6 regarding land classifications, and bring in an alternative approach which "properly aligns with how the legislation was intended to work”, to stop the "land grab”.
In its statement, Groundswell claimed the proposed plan failed to meet the goals of the RMA for reasons including it turned natural, cultural and historical values into a liability rather than an asset, penalised environmental endeavour, impacted property values and forced councils into conflict with their communities.
Gore Mayor Ben Bell said, as the matter was now before the courts, he was unable to publicly discuss his comments on the appeal, but would try to work with the parties to come to an agreement where appropriate and "hopefully resolve this”.
Mr Bell said those appealing were able to behave in whatever way they wanted and "ask for whatever they see fit”, whereas councils could only "remedy that with things that are actually within the legislation”.
Hokonui Runanga was approached, but declined to comment.
