The Environment Court last week released a decision rejecting Dr Cossens’ claim the council had not consulted properly on its landscape schedules as a variation to the proposed district plan.
Following the court decision on Friday, council planning and development general manager Tony Avery said the council would now hold public hearings on the matter.
Dr Cossens told the Otago Daily Times yesterday his plan was to make a submission to the hearings panel and seek the right to be heard.
The council had only sent out a questionnaire, which was "short" and "meaningless" and he wanted the council to "do it properly", he said.
He contested whether the council had acted in the community’s interests and did not think the council should claim, as it did on Friday, that the court decision "vindicates" the council’s process.
"The Environment Court has decided and I have to live with that but what the council released on Friday was just nonsense . . . I strongly support the landscape schedules but it has to be based on fair and representative community consultation rather than be decided by two outside-the-community consultants. My challenge to the council will be — show us how your consultation is fair and representative," Dr Cossens said.
He said it was possible the court could order costs, but they had not been assessed and he believed they should lie where they fell, given the community benefited from his application.
He had not been arguing about his own development rights.
The point of his application was that the community should identify where future potential for development existed and not consultants.
Mr Avery confirmed on Friday anyone who made a submission during the eight-week consultation period would be able to have input into the hearing.
"Landscape schedules set out the various values of different areas including those classified as outstanding natural features, outstanding natural landscapes and rural character landscapes.
"They establish the elements which people care about most. These could be how the landscape looks, the quality and quantity of its vegetation and wildlife, the impact it has on your sense of wellbeing, its historic or cultural significance, and the recreational benefits we enjoy from it.
"The court’s decision vindicates our approach and allows us to continue with the confidence that we are acting for the long-term good of our community and the environment in which we live."
"It unequivocally rejects the application and also refutes a number of accusations, made in the media and in private correspondence with various parties, that the council’s approach has been flawed or that it was not acting in the community’s best interests," Mr Avery said.
The submission period closed on August 26 with 203 submissions received.
