Evidence of Gaylene Linda Beattie

Environment Court

DRAFT

Introduction:

  1. My name is Gaylene Linda Beattie. I live in Blenheim. As a family we have had many holidays in Oyster Bay, Port Underwood . The Oyster Bay batch has been a treasured part of our family’s life. Our children now enjoy the lifestyle of the Port Underwood and are regular users.
  2. My parents (Ray and Marie Saul) purchased a section of land in Oyster Bay Port Underwood in 1986 from Jim and Lynette Marks. At this time sections were not readily available to anyone outside fishing and forestry interests. The section was made available due to the roading pattern being changed and a section of Jim’s land being cut off.
  3. I have not been an active member of the Port Underwood Association however I became involved in the Port Underwood Association when my parents asked me to represent them at a meeting. The family were concerned regarding the proposed development and I have followed this process since the first meeting (we knew about) held to discuss the proposal.
  4. I speak as a regular sounds user who spends many hours at Oyster Bay and the Port Underwood. I belief my views are moderate and are representative of other sounds users. As a family we have had many occasions to discuss the merits and concerns of the proposed land change with many other visitors.

In this statement I would talk about the specific effects on the local Oyster Bay community and environment. I will also try to describe life at Oyster Bay, in my opinion and explain where my opinion differs from others evidence and I will share my understanding of the issues and my opinion of the concerns

By allowing this plan change it is my opinion that there will be a raft of adverse effects on the intrinsic and amenity value to Oyster Bay and surrounding Port Underwood area.

I am not adverse to change where change benefits the community. The density of population proposed is greater than that could be successfully integrated into Oyster Bay without adversely changing the landscape forever.

At the time the section was purchased by the family and we regularily visited Oyster Bay, there was only one other dwelling in the Bay. Now there are 6 other buildings and 7 other sections available. These additional sections have had a manageable effect on the amenity value.

Life in Oyster Bay is generally quiet, slow paced and friendly.There are a range of outdoor activities and pastimes that residents and holiday makers enjoy. The bay has natural character although there has been an increase in residential properties there is a sense of space and distance. The view up the valley, and through the boats, provides aesthetically pleasing vistas. The evenings are generally quiet and peaceful.

Residents and holiday makers enjoy walking, biking, reading, and relaxing in the surroundings. In additional there are the obvious pastimes of fishing, swimming and boating. The beaches are often used to gather cockles and oysters.

Although the beach on the Northern side of the bay is not sandy at high tide it is a pleasant beach to swim from. During low tide it is muddy and rocky, at this time children walk around the rocks looking for crabs and rock fish.

The feeling of space and distance from others creates a relaxed environment. Oyster Bay from the sea has a rural appearance. The pockets of native bush are visible from the sea. Even though Oyster Bay is in transition future plantings of native bush would be more desirable than forestry or subdivision options.

Oyster Bay is 30 minutes drive from Picton. There are no shops, schools or services any closer. The sense of isolation is illustrated when emergency services are required. We have had two occasions to call an ambulance. It is a long wait for services to come to your aide. (as you would expect from a rural environment, not what you expect in a residential area)

Oyster Bay is a chance to escape from the busyness of city or town lives. It is a chance to relax, wear old clothes and have a sense that you are truly in a rural sea side community. The population of Oyster Bay over the summer is busier than any other. From Boxing Day to just after New Year most of the residents occupy their batches. Many of the residents have a raft of guests and visitors coming and going. There are some occasions to socialise with the others in the bay and many of the residents take this opportunity. Port Underwood sounds users appreciate the lack of population density.

Mr Thompson stated: That he does not go to his batch during the holidays because there are too many people there. If this is the case, approving the subdivision will make this situation worse.

Tourists and visitors often stop as they drive around the Picton to Blenheim to admire the views and to stretch their legs. Some of the tourists find the drive difficult while others do not.

Most of the Oyster Bay residents and visitors do not have pets however a recent problem has been the introduction of domestic cats to the area. Some of these cats appear to have breed with feral cats. The keeping of pets in a residential area is appropriate however as Oyster Bay is a rural sea side environment cats and dogs are a nuisance. Native birds are at risk with the introduction of cats and dogs.

In winter, there are limited visitors to the Oyster Bay area. It is generally very damp, cold and largely shaded. The ground is boggy and mowing lawns and upkeep of property, outside is difficult. The streams are often swollen.

There have been three occasions that I can recall where the river on the Northern side has flooded causing damage to the property now owned by the Fitzgeralds.

On Waitangi Day 1989 river had risen to flood the house and garages and the water lapped up to the road side, with the paddock totally submerged. Jim Marks was the owner at the time and he had completed flood mitigation work prior to the flooding, however due to the large volume of water this had been with limited success.

Some of the traditional issues in Oyster Bay will be multiplied by this subdivision.

The first is water quality and supply:

Mr Fitzgerald states:

26 d i: We have the resources of roof water, bore water and water from streams.

26 d ii: We envisage roof water and onsite storage and approved water treatment facilities, and land covenants will ensure proper water use reduction facilities are installed in houses.

We have access to water taken from the stream west of the proposed subdivision. To my knowledge there has been no study, on the flow volumes of water. We have not had an issue with water in the past but are concerned that if the stream was to be used to supply, even in part, the houses of the proposed subdivision there will be water shortages. I am not an expect on tank water storage but know that there are inconsistencies regarding water supply as the application talks about tank waters while Mr Fitzgerald mentions stream water in his notes. There have already been issues in Oyster Bay regarding water rights and access with other residence.

When one house over summer left hoses running on the section to water their property, this affected water pressure of another property. This demonstrates the balance needed to protect water for all users.

There seems to be no allocation for the water required for boat wash down.

The visual pollution of the buildings will detract from the rural environment and result in a loss of privacy. Lighting at night will be out of character for the area and also cause visual pollution.

From reading, the appellant has described the stages of possible development. They have not however indicated how the sewerage disposal for each stage will operate. e.g. will the sewerage scheme be functioning and ready for the first stage of development?

After staying at Oyster Bay on many occasions and witnessing heavy falls of rain, causing flooding and slips, we are concerned that the effluent and storm water run off, will enter the water ways and subsequently into the sea. I acknowledge that this concern may not be founded on anything other than personal observation.

Traffic and Wharf congestion.

I disagree with

I have seen congestion at the wharf and the parking leading up to and from the wharf. There may have been some reduction when petrol prices were high in the numbers using the wharf however this is in my opinion now not the case.

Over summer there was an increase in boat users who had not used the Port Underwood area before this was due to the cod ban that had been introduced at the Queen Charlotte Sound. I spoke to boat users who stated this was their first trip to the Port Underwood.

The number of boats varied depending on the weather. Over the summer months we recorded for small amounts of time usage of the wharf and facilities. On many occasions there were 14 or more boats and trailers parked.

An example is recorded below: On the 7 January 2009 therewere 13 boats and trailers parked while the mussel trucks were working. During a three hour period on the 7th January 18 boats were launched from the boat ramp. Although there were no more than 13 boat trailers, boaties were launching and retrieving there boats during this time.

Over summer during peak hours(and off peak hours), there were many occasions where a larger number of boats and trailers were parked on the roadsideapproach to the wharf area.

Most days (from Boxing Day on until we left the batch), we launched and retrieved our boat at least three times per day. This is the pattern of a large number of the boaties who have batches. Although the net ban has reduced the number of boats involved in multiple launches there are still a large number who continue this practice. Prior to the net ban, it was not common for a boatie to launch and retrieve their boat morning and evenings to put out and retrieve nets. They would also launch during the day for other recreational activity.

We did witness a conflict on 6.1.09 between two boat owners, when a boat was left at the ramp, and other boaties were waiting to retrieve their boat. This is a rare occurrence as generally people are patient when waiting for others. On this day there were mussel trucks working at wharf, boats launching and retrieving and longer delays. At times we observed that mussel trucks had limited room to get trucks past.

Another occasion there were 14 boat trailers parked, none of the boats were the residence.

Currently there are 17 boats owned or used by Oyster Bay residents.

As there are 13 house holders (counting sections) the ratio is significantly more than 1 per household. (This excludes the camping ground which over summer had several boats operating)

Boat users generally park as close to the launching ramp as possible.

Few park their boat at their batches.

The congestion at the wharf would become potentially difficult with even 20 more boats operating. If all potential residents had one boat the number of extra boats could be over 40.

There is a lot of good will between the mussel farmers, fishermen and the casual users of the wharf. This relationship could change if delays and parking issues increase.

Cars and boats did park on the turning bay over summer even though it is clearlysignposted. On 6th January the mussel boats were working while vehicles were parked in the turning bay area.

Photo taken January 2009

I disagree with Mr Fitzgerald 20 d: excellent road typical of rural roads in many parts of New Zealand.

Travelling to and from Oyster Bay can be a challenge for many drivers. While driving along the road you often meet cars pulling trailers, mussel trucks and on occasions logging vehicles as well as cars and trucks. My family and I have had a raft of near misses while travelling along the road.

One way stretches are unlike one way bridges as they are not marked as such.

Normally travelling along the road in a car gives you enough time to pull over for oversized vehicles however towing a boat and trailer is a challenge. There are many parts where you cannot go around a corner without the trailer crossing on to the other side of the road. Over this summer there was an accident at the back of our batch on the corner coming into Oyster Bay when a trailer and car collected a car. Like many minor accidents this was not reported.

I do agree that the road from Oyster Bay to Picton, and Oyster Bay to Rarangi, are rural roads. As such are not designed for residential traffic.

I disagree with the Mr Fitzgeralds statement 10

In my opinion there is not a need for residential land development in the Port Underwood. I know of a large number of sections available to purchase. The sections that are well sort after are private bays that have a view of the sounds rather than sections in built up areas. The interest in the sale of Coles Bay was an example of this, with a large number of Port Underwood residents present at the auction. Having views over other houses is not the vista I would seek when purchasing a section. I agree in part to the fact that there is some demand for sections with beach access and some privacy I do not believe this subdivision fits either of these categories. Theviews of real estate agents can not be seen, in my opinion, as impartial as they have a vested interested in maintaining sections to sell.

The published downturn in the economy has led to similar although larger subdivision being undeveloped.

One of my concerns, is that the sections if allowed to be developed will remain particially developed and unsold for many years.

Below Kauama Subdivision Plans and Yealands articles.

11/12/08 Local Paper

More than 30 years bouncing around the world with Mr Caley's British Army career ended in September when they settled in to their new home in the Kaiuma Park Estate in Pelorus Sound's Kaiuma Bay.But the couple's dream has turned into a nightmare with news the multi-million dollar development is on hold because of the worldwide economic downturn.Their house is so far the only one built on the development,despite 64 of the 79 sections up for grabs in the first stage being sold, according to a website promoting the development. Some sections have been put back on the market by their owners.Mrs Caley said she and her husband had been caught in a marketing pitch and feared they had sunk their life savings into a "bloody big white elephant".

Entrepreneur Peter Yealands got the go ahead for the 222-section development, to be built in several stages, in March 2006.However, Mr Yealands told The Marlborough Express last month the market is "pretty dead" and plans to build a 95-berth marina and shortcut road for the development were now on hold.

13/01/2009 Marlborough Express

Mr Yealands got the go-ahead for the 222-section development, in Kaiuma Bay in Pelorus Sound, in March 2006. Sixty-four of 79 sections in the first stage have been sold, but only one house has been built. Some sections are back on the market. Mr Yealands told The Marlborough Express in November the market was "pretty dead" and his plans to build a 95-berth marina and shortcut road for the development were now on hold. He has told agent Bayleys not to market the development for now.

The impact on cultural and heritage values has not been fully investigated. Prior to the Fitzgeralds purchasing the land an area which could have significant cultural and historical value was covered during earth works. The heritage value of the site has not been fully investigated and residential development would adversely affect any further investigation.