It is hoped a ''long, complicated and tortuous'' series of cases seeking to establish a camping ground at Kakanui may have reached its final hurdle in an Environment Court hearing in Dunedin yesterday.
Allan and Christine Jones have been trying to get resource consent to establish and operate visitor accommodation on a 1.23ha Waianakarua Rd site, 15km south of Oamaru, for more than 15 years.
Last June, independent commissioner Robert Nixon, on behalf of the Waitaki District Council, granted consent for up to 30 camp sites, to Mr Jones' wife and daughter's company, Equipment and Support Ltd, subject to conditions.
However, immediate neighbours Robert and Linda Hilderman appealed the council's decision on the grounds the conditions imposed did not adequately address actual and potential adverse effects of the activity on them and their property.
Environment Court mediation followed and three of the five appeal issues were resolved.
A hearing was held yesterday in front of Judge Craig Thompson and commissioners Kathryn Edmonds and Ian Buchanan to determine the remaining issues.
Len Andersen, counsel for the Joneses, said still to be determined was whether a boundary fence and an internal fence alongside buffer plantings were required. Also at issue was where the entrance should be located.
A 10m buffer zone had been designated between the Hildermans' property and the camping ground, which was to continue to be planted according to a landscape plan with species which would keep campers off the area.
''The buffer zone will be dense, therefore there is no need for a permanent fence.''
The Hildermans wanted a solid 1.8m-high boundary fence on their side of the buffer zone, where there is no acoustic fence, but there was no environmental reason for such a fence as the buffer zone created physical separation, he said.
They also requested a 1.5m chain-link fence be built around the buffer zone on the camping ground side, which again there was no environmental justification for, he said.
Mr Jones had offered to put up a temporary 900mm sheet netting fence around the plants until they matured.
The most contentious issue was the siting of the camping ground's vehicle entrance, which in a previous court decision had been directed to be moved 20m north to achieve acceptable sight distances.
However, it had since been agreed the sight distances were acceptable in its present site and Mr Jones sought for that condition to be dropped.
Mr Jones, called as a witness, said there were already extensive plantings in the buffer zone and older trees. He also had about 100 plants ready to go in during winter.
Pru Steven, counsel for the Hildermans, said they shared northern and western boundaries with the camping ground and had opposed the previous consent application, which ended in the Environment Court.
The Hildermans had offered to pay for the cost of the timber to construct the boundary fence on the basis Mr Jones paid for the cost of nails and labour.
They were concerned campers, mostly children and dogs, might access their property unless there was a solid fence as they had in the past,The Hildermans were also worried about noise, given their home was 0.7m from the boundary, and a loss of privacy.
The internal fence, which the Hildermans had also offered to pay most of the cost of materials for, would restrict access to the buffer area while not obscuring the planting, she said.
It could take up to 10 years before the plantings were sufficiently mature to prevent access.
There was no practical way Mr Jones could ensure campers did not use the buffer area as a shortcut to and from the ground.
The court did not have jurisdiction to change the condition relating the access way as it was not the basis of the appeal, Ms Steven said.
Mr Hilderman said, when called as a witness, without an internal fence as ''additional enforcement'' the buffer zone would be more appealing for campers to use, adding to noise issues.
Waitaki District Council lawyer Michael Garbett said the council was essentially caught in the middle of a dispute between neighbours.
It considered a permanent fence was unnecessary and wanted enforceable and clear conditions, he said.
Mr Andersen said the case had been a ''long complicated, tortuous series of cases'', which he, and he believed his colleagues, would like to see ''finally put to bed''.
The commissioners reserved their decision.
