The deadline for content and advertisements for the December 2023 Herald is Wednesday November 29 (Note: 5th Wednesday)
Non-commercial classifieds are free to those paying their Herald sub
Contact: Ron Dubin 329 3032 or email dhherald@gmail.com
Web Issues
Web Issues are around 3Mb so may load slowly on a slow internet connection.
Hello
In regard to the lead story, please note that I am no longer at Lincoln University but I am still writing on economic development.
Also the artists impression was done by Fulton Ross who gave me great service.
Regards
Greg Clydesdale
The article in the December 2017 Harbour News written by Jill Rice gave the impression that plans for a land purchase on Mt Evans for conservation and walking access are underway. In fact, a small group of conservationists are still in early discussions with the landowner. Also, there are multiple legal access impediments to walking access. Access needs to this private land needs to be arranged with the landowner. Please note that permission to visit the western slopes of Mt Evans does not cover access to the peak, which sits on an adjacent property.
A couple of things to consider while debating this issue:
This land is privately owned, commercially zoned (for several decades) property, so the owners have every right to implement their plan as long as it is approved by the Council. Any objections should be directed there, not in the form of personal attack on the people involved. The land is not public property, so no one should expect to be consulted over its use. Instead this company paid us the courtesy of giving local residents an opportunity to be informed of their plans and to have a chance air any concerns. They did not need to do this , having done their own research in detail, but did so I believe, out of respect.
Secondly, if this group were to pull out, what might come in its place ? Because inevitably there will be other proposals as commerce here has always been the plan. Would people prefer a boat repair yard, a firewood business, MacDonalds?? Who decides? Be careful what you wish for… I for one am excited at the prospect being offered, a small village centre with user friendly facilities that will allow me to shop local, live local , stay here longer.
It is disappointing that the voices of a small minority (the “anti everything” group) are being given precedence over the voices of the majority in the Diamond Harbour/Church Bay community. As a new resident in Church Bay, I welcome this development so that I can look forward to retiring in the area. Without these facilities I will likely need to consider a move back to the city, which I do not want to do.
Apparently, the developer has been receiving abusive calls from this small minority. Part of the responsibility for such behaviour lies squarely with articles such as the one published here and the negativity they encourage.
Following my previous comments on the report on Page 2 of the Herald.
The height of the buildings will not shade either gardens or houses. The buildings are situated 6 metres from the boundary and do not have the height to affect either gardens or houses. It is also part of CCC requirements that new constructions do not do this. Equally it is not possible for the buildings to block sunlight from the residential buildings. Also, as an aside, the comments regarding concerns about childrens’ safety across the carpark. Actually the carpark, like the development is be privately owned, and it will not be the childrens’ automatic right to use it as a short cut. This “report” also said that many people were concerned about the size…. There were no more than 30 people at this meeting plus the team from the project. All the new businesses will total 6 plus the supermarket which is moving from the ON THE SPOT position. Hardly too many really I think
Hello,
Based on recent articles in the Diamond Harbour website, the Diamond Harbour Herald and other regional publications people might get the impression that people in the local community are generally not in favour of the proposed development on the commercially zoned property behind the On the Spot store on Marine Drive.
As I attended the two meetings, that were initiated and organised by the development team to discuss the proposal and answer any questions, I can say that these articles are not an accurate reflection of community feelings. At both meetings, one for the residents bordering the site and the other for the community at large, there were many questions and a few issues (one home was visited by the developers to assess an objection, and after questions from the meetings, the design aspects of the development are under review). The development team had a cooperative and open attitude to the discussions. At both meetings and my talks with many people since then, there is wide community support for this development.
One topic only briefly mentioned at the meetings was the financial and time related benefits to the community. More of the local money spend elsewhere will stay in the community and provide employment opportunities. Less cost for petrol and wear on a car by not having to drive to Lyttelton or Christchurch to go grocery shopping, to the movies, or other shopping (shops in development to be determined) is important. Hours of personal time and pollution would also be lowered by not having to drive outside the local community. All people from young families with children to retired people on a limited income would benefit.
I hope the development goes forward and with the consultation being done by the development team and its wide support, it should be a success and valued by the community.
Regards, Bill
The Herald invited 3 people who attended the Oct 10 meeting (one of them is in favour of the project) to submit reports. Anna’s was the only response. I think it was obvious that it is her opinion.
The Herald received no response to a request for an invitation for a reporter to attend, so we have no way of verifying the veracity of Anna’s report. We were not offered (or have seen) Claire Brown’s report – please post a link to it as it looks like the discussion has been removed).
If you attended the meeting you are welcome to dispute anything in Anna’s report either here/and or by writing a Letter to the Herald.
The front page article was my opinion, which I think is obvious. I did check with both DHCA and CBNA if they had received prior consultation/warning or been invited to engage in the project design by the developer – neither have, to date, which I hope will change. Again, you are welcome to dispute any matter of fact (either here/and or by writing a Letter to the Herald) you believe is untrue.
The Herald Issue 217. The article on page 2 headed as a “Report of the Church Bay Development meeting held October 10” should not have been given this heading. It is an opinion piece written by a disgruntled neighbour. An appropriate and unbiased report of the meeting was offered by Claire Brown who administers the local Facebook page. Many of the points in the article are inaccurate or just plain untrue. Maybe it could have been accepted by the Herald as a letter but it is disappointing that it was accepted for publication without checking its veracity. I would also like to hope that the front page is an opinion piece and not intended as a factual,open and widely researched piece from the editor