The Dunedin City Council's proposed rules aimed at protecting the environment go too far, Federated Farmers says.
Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan (2GP) commissioners are set to hear arguments next week about a new set of rules to protect the city's environment.
The hearings, set down for four days starting next Wednesday, are among the last 2GP hearings as the mammoth process of developing the rules that govern Dunedin's development comes close to an end.
Federated Farmers is set to argue some of the proposed rules go too far, including when it comes to protecting native bush and wildlife on farms.
On the opposing side, Forest & Bird and Save The Otago Peninsula (Stop) are calling for more restrictions.
They believe significant areas of native habitat should be added to a schedule and protected by restricting development and vegetation clearance with or without the landowner's permission.
In the draft plan, such areas would be added to the schedule only if landowners gave permission.
The arguments of both sides of the debate are included in a more than 700 page planner's report, which makes recommendations on whether changes should be made as a result of submissions.
The commissioners have final say on what gets into the plan.
In a written submission, Federated Farmers senior policy adviser David Cooper said environmental impact needed to be properly balanced against other considerations.
``Federated Farmers believes that when undertaking a district plan review it is essential that council take into account and balances the economic, social, cultural and environmental considerations of any particular policy or provision.
``We consider that the emphasis often sways disproportionately towards environmental considerations and does not sufficiently account for the likely costs to plan users,'' Mr Cooper said.
The submission said the criteria for setting aside an area of native habitat for protection were too broad.
``These provisions ... are so broad as to effectively enable for council to protect any areas of indigenous vegetation or indigenous fauna.''
The three criteria it wanted removed related to the protection of areas that provided an ``ecological buffer'', areas with a high biodiversity and areas that were large enough to be significant.
The planner's report recommended Federated Farmers' request be declined.
The planner cited evidence by ecologist Dr Kelvin Lloyd, who said removing such criteria would have a ``significant negative effect on the recognition of important habitats for indigenous fauna, and sites that are more likely to have strong ecological functioning''.
Both Stop and Forest & Bird believed the plan should go further and make protection of significant areas mandatory instead of voluntary as proposed.
The planner stopped short of recommending commissioners retain the voluntary system, instead outlining the pros and cons of each approach and deferring discussion to the hearings.
Voluntary scheduling would cost less and landowner willingness would be more likely to result in better stewardship of significant areas.
However, it would be less effective at protecting the environment.
Mandatory scheduling would be more effective at protecting the environment but would cost more through staff time, more ecological assessments and potential legal challenges.
Dissatisfied landowners could also be less likely to properly manage areas of native flora and fauna on their land.
A number of other policies will be discussed at next week's hearings, including rules around the clearing of native vegetation.
