District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006
(Notified version 2006)
Street index |
Planning maps |
Text |
Appendices |
Annexures |
Section 32 material |
Plan modifications |
Help |
Notified - Home |
Decision - Home
Hearing reports index
Summary report on submissions to the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf
Islands Section - Proposed 2006
| Topic: |
Landforms 1 - 7 (General) |
| Report to: |
The Hearing Panel |
| Author: |
Deborah Kissick |
| Date: |
27 August 2008 |
| Group file: |
314/274014-008
|
1.0 Introduction
This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that
were received by the council in relation to landforms 1-7 (General) of the Auckland
City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006 ('the Plan'). The
Plan was publicly notified on 18 September 2006. The closing date for lodging submissions
was 11 December 2006. The submissions and summary of decisions requested were publicly
notified for further submission on 29 April 2007. The closing date for lodging further
submissions was 28 May 2007.
This report has been prepared under section 42A of the Resource Management Act
1991 ('the RMA'), to assist the hearings panel to consider the submissions on landforms
1-7 (General). The submissions considered are those which relate generally to Landforms
1 - 7 but which cannot be allocated to any specific land unit. Also considered are
submissions which seek to reclassify land from one landform to another.This report
discusses the submissions (grouped by subject matter or individually) and includes
recommendations from the planner who prepared this report. The recommendations identify
whether each submission should be accepted or rejected (in full or in part) and
what amendments (if any) should be made to the Plan to address matters raised in
submissions. Further submissions are not specifically addressed but are dealt with
in conjunction with the submissions to which they relate.
The recommendations contained in this report are not decisions of the council.
The council will issue its decisions following consideration of the submissions,
further submissions, any supporting evidence presented at the hearing, and this
report. The council's decisions will be released after all the hearings to the Plan
have been completed.
2.0 Statutory framework
This section of the report briefly sets out the statutory framework within which
the council must consider the submissions. In preparing this report the submissions
and, in particular, the decisions requested in the submissions, have been considered
in light of the relevant statutory matters. These were summarised by the Environment
Court in Eldamos Investments Limited v Gisborne District Council W
047/05
where the court set out the following measures for evaluating objectives, policies,
rules and other methods in district plans:
1. The objectives of the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:
a. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s32(3)(a));
and
b. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose
of the RMA (s72); and
c. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)).
2. The policies, rules, or other methods in the Plan are to be evaluated by the
extent to which they:
a. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan (s32(3)(b));
and
b. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose
of the RMA (s72); and
c. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and
d. (If a rule) achieve the objectives and policies of the Plan (s76(1)(b)).
The purpose of the RMA is "to promote the sustainable management of natural and
physical resources", and "sustainable management" is defined in section 5(2) as
meaning:
"... managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources
in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their
social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while—
(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals)
to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and
(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems;
and
(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the
environment."
Along with section 5, part 2 of the RMA includes sections 6 (matters of national
importance), 7 (other matters) and 8 (Treaty of Waitangi), which set out a range
of matters that the council needs to recognise and provide for in achieving the
purpose of the RMA. Those matters are also relevant when considering submissions.
The Plan must assist the council to carry out its functions under section 31
of the RMA. These functions are:
"(a) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies,
and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development,
or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district:
(b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or
protection of land, including for the purpose of—
(i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and
(ii) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use,
disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and
(iia) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development,
subdivision, or use of contaminated land:
(iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:
(c) ...
(d) The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:
(e) The control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to
the surface of water in rivers and lakes."
In addition to the matters listed above from the Eldamos decision:
1. The Plan must "give effect to" any national policy statement and any New Zealand
coastal policy statement (s75(3)(a) and (b)).
2. The Plan must "give effect to" the regional policy statement (made operative
after 10 August 2005) (s75(3)(c)).
3. The Plan must be "not inconsistent with" any regional plan (s75(4)).
4. The council must ensure that that the Plan does not conflict with sections 7
and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 ("the HGMPA"). Section 10 of
the HGMPA requires that sections 7 and 8 of that Act be treated as a New Zealand
coastal policy statement under the RMA.
3.0 Background
This section of the report sets out background information about the topic under
consideration. It identifies how the Plan deals with landforms 1-7 (General).
Landforms 1-7 apply to particular types of landform, ranging from coastal cliffs
and slopes, to forest and bush. The landform land units apply on Waiheke, Great
Barrier, Ponui, Pakihi, and Rakino.
4.0 Analysis of submissions
4.1 Introduction
This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about
landforms 1-7 (General) and recommends how the panel could respond to the matters
raised and decisions requested in submissions. The submissions are addressed under
subject headings. While the relevant statutory matters (identified in section 2.0
of this report) will not necessarily be referred to directly, the discussion and
recommendations have given appropriate consideration to these and any other relevant
matters.
A list of the submissions which raise issues about landforms 1-7 (General) together
with the related further submissions is contained in appendix 1. Appendix
2 contains the summary of the decisions requested by the submissions considered
in this report. Any amendments to the Plan recommended in response to submissions
are identified in this section of the report and are further detailed in appendix
3.
The list of submissions contained in appendix 1 may include some submissions
and further submissions which were received 'late', i.e. they were received after
the closing date for lodging submissions (11 December 2006) or further submissions
(28 May 2007). All late submissions were considered by the hearing panel at
the start of the hearing process and the panel has already waived the failure to
comply with the time limit for any late submissions or further submissions listed
in appendix 1. This has been done in accordance with sections 37 and 37A of the
RMA.
4.2 Submissions about the introduction of density controls
Submissions dealt with in this section:
526/4,
526/5,
527/4,
527/5,
528/4,
528/5,
529/4,
529/5,
539/4,
539/5,
1091/6,
1091/7,
1091/8
4.2.1 Decisions requested
Submissions
526/4,
527/4,
528/4,
529/4,
539/4,
1091/6,
1091/7 seek to establish density limits commensurate with the purpose of the
landforms, for residential dwellings. The density limits should be the same as the
provisions for subdivision in each relevant landform. It should be a permitted activity
or at worst a controlled activity to establish residential dwellings that are consistent
with a density limit, thereby avoiding subdivision or application for multiple dwellings.
Submissions
526/5,
527/5,
528/5,
529/5,
1091/8 seek that there should be a provision as a discretionary activity to
increase density using clusters of dwellings or similar which should be measured
against appropriate assessment criteria related to the land capability of the relevant
catchment.
4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
The submitters seek that a density provision be included in each landform, as
either a permitted, controlled or discretionary activity, to provide for the same
number of dwellings as is currently provided for within Part 12 - subdivision. The
submitters state that the current provisions of one dwelling per site are too restrictive
and that a density provision provides an alternative for landowners who do not wish
to subdivide their properties.
As defined in part 14 of the Plan, 'multiple dwellings means more than one dwelling
on a site'. The table below sets out the way in which multiple dwellings are provided
for in the landform land units:
The approach taken in the Plan is that, with the exception of papakainga housing
and land communally owned prior to 29 September 1991, the multiple dwelling provisions
should not allow the construction of any more dwellings than would be permitted
if the site were subdivided in accordance with the rules in part 12 of the Plan.
As set out in clause 12.10(3), any subdivision, which does not meet the minimum
site sizes, specified in tables 12:1, 12:2 and 12:3, is a non-complying activity.
Providing for more than one dwelling per site in the landforms is likely to lead
to subsequent pressure for subdivision as separate titles are sought for each dwelling.
It is for this reason that, in general, the multiple dwelling provisions seek to
ensure that no more dwellings are provided for than would occur if the site were
subdivided in accordance with the minimum site areas set out in table 12.1 and one
dwelling was located on each site.
It is considered that the Plan makes suitable allowance for multiple dwellings
within the landforms as a discretionary activity. This activity status allows the
Council to control the types of development being undertaken to ensure that the
natural characteristics of each landform are maintained and any adverse effects
are avoided, remedied or mitigated.
It is therefore not considered necessary to include a density provision for residential
dwellings into the landforms and it is recommended that the submissions be rejected.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to density
controls
That submissions
526/4,
526/5,
527/4,
527/5,
528/4,
528/5,
529/4,
529/5,
539/4,
539/5,
1091/6,
1091/7,
1091/8 be rejected.
|
4.3 Submissions relating to activities
Submissions dealt with in this section:
284/3,
526/6,
527/6,
528/6,
529/6,
539/6,
526/9,
527/9,
528/9,
529/9,
539/9,
1288/135,
1288/136,
1288/137,
1288/138,
1288/140
4.3.1 Decisions requested
Submission
284/3
seeks that the provisions for landform 5 (productive land) and landform 6 (regenerating
slopes), in relation to land use activities, be amended so that a more proactive
approach to sustainable development is encouraged and facilitated.
Submissions
526/6,
527/6,
528/6,
529/6,
539/6 seek to extend the new winery activity, which has been introduced to the
Plan in other landforms. This activity is only provided in landform 3 (alluvial
flats) and landform 5 (productive land) and commercial 5 (industrial). Allow this
activity as a restricted discretionary activity in other non-residential landforms.
Submissions
526/9,
527/9,
528/9,
529/9,
539/9 seeks to extend the rural property management plan provision to additional
landforms including landforms 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes), 2 (dune systems and
sand flats) and 4 (wetland systems) to recognise large lots which cover multiple
landforms and which require an integrated and cohesive management plan for the entire
property.
Submission
1288/135
seeks that the activity table be amended to provide for rural activities and buildings
such as farm buildings and drainage activities within specified thresholds.
Submission
1288/136
seeks to include outdoor adventure activities as a restricted discretionary activity
where they involve buildings or structures.
Submission
1288/137
seeks to include management and enhancement activities that facilitate wetland management
Submission
1288/138
seeks that farming related buildings be included as a controlled activity.
Submission
1288/140
seeks to include the following activities in all rural land units on Great Barrier:
Activity
|
Status
|
|
Cafes/restaurants
|
RD
|
|
Outdoor recreation/adventure activities
|
RD
|
|
Residential use
|
P
|
|
Wineries
|
RD
|
|
Farm buildings
|
C
|
|
Art galleries and museums
|
RD
|
|
Care centres
|
RD
|
|
Educational facilities
|
D
|
|
Function facilities
|
D
|
|
Integrated visitor development
|
D
|
|
Open air markets
|
RD
|
|
Comprehensive management plans
|
D
|
|
Tourist complexes
|
D
|
|
Helipads
|
D
|
|
Windmill towers to 15m for generation of electricity
|
RD
|
|
Churches and places of worship, and church towers
|
RD
|
|
Disposal of treated wastewater
|
RD
|
|
Clustered residential developments
|
RD
|
|
Minor dwellings
|
RD
|
|
Forest harvesting
|
D
|
|
Management and enhancement activities that facilitate wetland management.
|
RD
|
|
Sustainable farming and land management#
|
P
|
4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
4.3.2.1 Submission
284/3
– proactive approach to sustainable development
The submissions seek that the land unit take a more proactive approach to sustainable
development through amendments to the land use activities. The submissions state
that the land unit does not allow a sustainable approach to the management and enhancement
of the land and it is suggested that a comprehensive management plan could be adopted.
It should be noted that the purpose of the RMA is to promote sustainable management
of natural and physical resources. Sustainable management is a complex concept,
which involves a range of considerations, including the following;
- Managing the adverse effects of human activities on the environment
- Considering the natural environment
- Enabling people to meet their needs
- Considering future generations
The Plan is one of the tools, which the council uses to promote sustainable management,
and is most effective when used together with other council regulatory and non-regulatory
methods and initiatives.
The Plan encourages, and in some cases requires that particular methods be used
as part of development to promote sustainable management. One example of this, in
relation to landform 5 (productive land) and landform 6 (regenerating slopes) is
the controlling of the type, scale and location of activities and development in
order to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on the environment.
The submitter suggests that a comprehensive management plan could be adopted
as a way of achieving a more proactive approach to sustainable development. A comprehensive
management plan is a means of providing for integrated land use and subdivision
proposals that relate to the whole of a property and include land management, enhancement
and environmental protection outcomes.
The topic of comprehensive management plans has been addressed in the hearing
report for text – general and land units and settlement areas – general, and part
12 subdivision. As a result of the hearing of these reports, the council is looking
to provide for rural property management plans in all land units where the activity
is not currently provided for although this will require further investigation to
be undertaken.
Rural property management plans are provided for as a permitted activity within
the land unit. Provision of these management plans within the land unit allows property
owners to plan the land use of their property is a holistic way.
It is considered that part 12 - Subdivision, of the Plan already appropriately
recognises the relationship between subdivision and the effects on landscape character
from built forms (such as dwellings) that may arise from subsequent land use activities
on any new sites created.
As discussed in the above mentioned hearing reports, comprehensive management
plan type provisions are sometimes used in district plans to secure replanting or
protection of existing bush or other features in return for allowing smaller site
sizes than would otherwise be permitted. However it is considered that the Plan
already provides appropriately for this by means of the subdivision provisions (in
clauses 12.9.3 and 12.9.4) relating to the protection of significant environmental
features, and associated cluster subdivision.
It is considered that rural property management plans provide a holistic approach
to land use which promotes sustainable development. Therefore it is recommended
that the submission be rejected.
Winery is defined in Part 14 of the Plan as:
" Winery means land or buildings used for the processing, and fermentation
of grapes into wine, and may include bottling facilities, wine-tasting and ancillary
wine retailing.
It does not include any of the following:
- visitor accommodation
- restaurants, cafes or other eating places
- function facilities."
As acknowledged by the submitter, winery is currently provided for as a discretionary
activity in landforms 3 and 5 and Commercial 5. The Plan also provides for wineries
as a discretionary activity within the 'Onetangi Road' area of Rural 1.The submission
seeks that the activity be included in non-residential landforms and particularly
mentions landforms 6 and 7.
It is considered that landform 6 (regenerating slopes) would not be a suitable
location to provide for wineries as the area has high ecological values and high
visual amenity due to its visual prominence in both coastal locations and as a backdrop
to settlement areas. There are generally few, small scattered buildings within the
land unit. The Plan currently limits activities that can occur within the land unit
to avoid activities which could adversely effect the important natural features
of the land unit.
Similarly, landform 7 (forest and bush areas) is another landform which make
a significant contribution to the natural character, conservation, ecological and
visual amenity values of the islands. Landform 7 includes areas of extensive podocarp
and broadleaf forest areas, along with areas of secondary regenerating forest and
some isolated areas of manuka and kanuka. These areas are recognised to have survived
or significantly recovered from milling activity in the past and there is generally
an absence of built structures.
The resource management strategy for landform 7 is to limit activities to those
of a low intensity and to require any new buildings to be assessed to ensure that
there will be no adverse effects on the natural character and conservation, ecological
and visual amenity value of the land unit.
It is considered that the Plan adequately provides for wineries in the landforms
where the activity is appropriate. It is recommended that the submissions be rejected.
4.3.2.3 Submissions
526/9,
527/9,
528/9,
529/9,
539/9 – rural property management plan
Rural property management plan is defined in part 14 of the Plan as follows:
" Rural property management plan means a long term management plan which
comprehensively details all land use activities proposed to be undertaken on a
site, including the location of buildings and activities, and the mitigation of
effects proposed to manage adverse effects from those buildings and activities."
The Plan provides for rural property management plans as a separately listed
activity in the following land units:
Land unit
|
Activity status for rural property management plans
|
|
Landform 2 (dune systems and sand flats) - sand flats area only
Landform 3 (alluvial flats)
Landform 5 (productive land)
Landform 6 (regenerating slopes)
Landform 7 (forest and bush areas)
|
Discretionary
|
Rural property management plans are intended to provide a means by which a landowner
or occupier can plan comprehensively, and on a long term basis, for the use of a
site, and obtain a consent for a range of buildings and activities which may otherwise
require a succession of separate consents on an ad hoc basis.
Rural property management plans are not provided for in landform 1 (coastal cliffs
and slopes), landform 4 (wetland systems) or in the dune systems area within landform
2 (dune systems and sand flats). Land with these classifications is environmentally
sensitive and the only permitted activity listed within the Plan is ecosourced planting.
It is recognised that rural property management plans provide landowners with
the opportunity to plan holistically for development on their properties and it
is therefore considered that inclusion of the activity in landforms 1, 2 and 4 could
facilitate protection and restoration of these environmentally sensitive areas.
It is noted however that the Plan would need to incorporate criteria to ensure that
protection and restoration occurs and that these sensitive landforms benefit from
rural property management plans.
This issue has been raised in previous hearings and officers area still considering
the implications of their inclusion in Landforms 1, 2 & 4. It is considered that
further work is required on this topic and therefore, no recommendation is made
in relation to the submissions at this time.
The submitter seeks that a number of new activities be included in the activity
tables for all the rural land units on Great Barrier as follows:
Activity
|
Status sought
|
|
Cafés/restaurants
|
RD
|
|
Outdoor recreation/adventure activities
|
RD
|
|
Residential use
|
P
|
|
Wineries
|
RD
|
|
Farm buildings
|
C
|
|
Art galleries and museums
|
RD
|
|
Care centres
|
RD
|
|
Educational facilities
|
D
|
|
Function facilities
|
D
|
|
Integrated visitor development
|
D
|
|
Open air markets
|
RD
|
|
Comprehensive management plans
|
D
|
|
Tourist complexes
|
D
|
|
Helipads
|
D
|
|
Windmill towers to 15m for generation of electricity
|
RD
|
|
Churches and places of worship, and church towers
|
RD
|
|
Disposal of treated wastewater
|
RD
|
|
Clustered residential developments
|
RD
|
|
Minor dwellings
|
RD
|
|
Forest harvesting
|
D
|
|
Management and enhancement activities that facilitate wetland management.
|
RD
|
|
Sustainable farming and land management
|
P
|
It is assumed that the rural land units that the submitter is referring to are
the landform land units as these are the only 'rural' type land units on Great Barrier.
Each landform land unit contains an individual activity table indicating the activities
that could be appropriate for inclusion within that land unit. The landform land
units are reflective of the natural character and environment contained in that
land unit and the intention of the land units is to protect this natural character,
while allowing some activities that are considered not to result in adverse effects.
In order to manage growth on Great Barrier, settlement areas have been established.
The settlement areas are areas of historic settlement and are important centres
for the community on the island. It is intended that growth and development on Great
Barrier be focussed in the settlement areas in order for the community to undertake
activities that assist with the economy of the island, while also recognising the
key asset to the island is the natural environment.
Several of the activities requested by the submitter have been provided for (to
some extent) within these designated settlement areas including:
- Cafés/Restaurants
- Residential Use (provided for as dwellings (one per site)) (this activity is
also provided for in the landforms)
- Art galleries and museums
- Care centres
- Educational facilities
- Function facilities
- Open air markets
- Tourist complexes
- Churches and places of worship, and church towers (provided for as community
facilities)
As discussed above, it is intended that growth and development on Great Barrier
be focussed within the settlement areas. It is considered that the above activities
are more intensive in nature and therefore are appropriately included in the settlement
areas for the island. It is not considered appropriate to include such activities
in the landform land units.
Of the activities requested by the submitter, the following activities are not
provided for within the settlement areas:
- Comprehensive management plans
- Clustered residential development
- Disposal of treated wastewater
- Farm buildings
- Forest harvesting
- Helipads
- Integrated visitor development
- Management and enhancement activities that facilitate wetland management.
- Minor dwellings
- Outdoor recreation/adventure activities
- Sustainable farming and land management
- Windmill towers
- Wineries
Comprehensive management plans
As described in other subparts of the submission, a comprehensive management
plan is a means of providing for integrated land use and subdivision proposals that
relate to the whole of a property and include land management, enhancement, and
environmental protection outcomes. The submissions suggest that comprehensive management
plans should be provided for as a discretionary activity in the landform land units
(with the exception of landforms 1-4). The submitter suggests that the Plan should
also be amended to include allied assessment criteria and an appendix containing
environmental and design principles.
The topic of comprehensive management plans has been addressed in the hearing
report for text – general, land units and settlement areas – general, part 10 and
10a - general and part 12 subdivision.
It is considered that part 12 – Subdivision, of the Plan already appropriately
recognises the relationship between subdivision and the effects on landscape character
from built forms (such as dwellings) that may arise from subsequent land use activities
on any new sites created.
As discussed in the above mentioned hearing reports, comprehensive management
plan type provisions are sometimes used in district plans to secure replanting or
protection of existing bush or other features in return for allowing smaller site
sizes than would otherwise be permitted. However it is considered that the Plan
already provides appropriately for this by means of the subdivision provisions (in
clauses 12.9.3 and 12.9.4) relating to the protection of significant environmental
features, and associated cluster subdivision.
It is not recommended that comprehensive management plans be included in all
the landform land unit.
Disposal of treated wastewater
It is not clear from the submission what relief the submitter is seeking with
respect to this matter. The submitter is therefore encouraged to attend the hearing
to provide further information on this topic. A recommendation with respect to this
part of the submission will be reserved until further information is received.
Farm buildings
The submitter seeks that farm buildings be provided for as a controlled activity
within the landform land units. It is recognised that farm buildings could be more
adequately provided for within the Plan. This matter has been addressed in part
14 under the definition of pastoral farming where the following amendment to the
definition has been recommended:
" Pastoral farming means the growing of grass and fodder crops on which
stock are grazed. It includes the associated use of land and buildings.
It does not include the grazing of deer or goats."
Pastoral farming is provided for as a permitted activity in landform 2 (sand
flats area), landform 3 (alluvial flats) and landform 5 (productive land) and it
is considered that these land units adequately provide for farming activities, and
with the amended definition, farming buildings within the landform land units.
It is not considered that there is a need for farm buildings outside of the land
units that provide for pastoral farming and therefore it is not considered necessary
to include farm buildings as a separate activity. It is considered that farm buildings
are adequately provided for in the landform land units.
Forest harvesting
The submitter seeks that forest harvesting be provided for as a discretionary
activity within the landform land units. Forestry is currently provided for as a
discretionary activity in landform 3 (alluvial flats) and landform 5 (productive
land). It is considered that these two land units are the most appropriate location
for forestry to be provided as the impacts on indigenous vegetation, such as that
contained in landforms 6 and 7, and sensitive natural environments, such as landforms
1, 2 and 4 are the most limited.
It is noted that "continuous canopy native forestry" is likely to be provided
for, through the decision report for landforms and settlement areas (general) is
likely to provide for this in landforms 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7.
It is considered that there is adequate provision within the landform land units
for forestry and no additional provisions are recommended.
Helipads
The submitter seeks that helipads be provided for as a restricted discretionary
activity in all landform land units. Helipads are dealt with in part 13 of the Plan
and in particular, clause 13.8 refers to the rules in relation to helipads and airstrips.
Clause 13.8.2 – permitted activities includes the following rule:
"For Great Barrier only, helipads and airstrips are permitted in landform 1-7,
where:
1. No more than three inward and three outward movements occur in a seven day
period; and
2. The noise from any landing area does not exceed an L max of 85dBA
measured at any adjacent notional boundary with a residential use on an adjacent
site."
If the helipad does not comply with the criteria above, it is classed as a discretionary
activity in landforms 1-7.
Other submissions on helipads were considered in the hearing report on part 13
and it is therefore considered that helipads are adequately provided for in the
landform land units and there is no requirement to include them as a separate activity
in the activity tables.
Integrated visitor development
The submitter seeks that integrated visitor development be provided for as a
discretionary activity within the land unit.
Integrated visitor development is defined in part 14 of the Plan as:
"Integrated visitor development means a comprehensive proposal for all
buildings and activities associated with a visitor development. It may include
one or more of the following:
- visitor accommodation
- restaurants, café and other eating places
- tourist complex
- visitor information centre
- dairy
- management and maintenance facilities and service infrastructure."
Currently this activity is only provided in visitor areas A and B within the
Rotoroa land unit, as a discretionary activity.
The activities included in the integrated visitor development definition are
not considered appropriate for inclusion in the landform land units. This is because
the Plan aims to focus growth and development on Great Barrier to the settlement
areas and most of the activities, which make up integrated visitor development are
already provided for within the settlement areas.
Management and enhancement activities that facilitate wetland management
The submitter seeks that management and enhancement activities that facilitate
wetland management be included as a restricted discretionary activity within the
landform land units. Landform 4 (wetland systems) is a land unit devoted to the
protection of the natural character and the ecological and hydrological value of
wetland systems.
As stated in the introductory paragraph of the land unit, landform 4 is applied
to fresh water wetlands that drain to rivers, streams or estuaries and to areas
of land that support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. It is not practicable for the council to map and identify all watercourses
and wetlands or to attempt to show on the planning maps all the minor stream and
wetland systems and major ephemeral watercourses that feed into them. This would
require a considerable amount of additional mapping work and would affect the legibility
of the maps.
It is considered that wetlands of particular ecological significance are protected
through the SES provisions. SES provisions are provided for within part 7 – Heritage
of the Plan and reference to this relationship is stated in clause 10a.5.7 Relationship
with rules in other parts of the Plan, as it is done so for all parts of the Plan
where a specific relationship is identified. The Plan also specifies protection
yards for wetland and water bodies which protects streams and wetlands which are
not identified as landform 4 or as being a site of ecological significance.
Planning maps are another important reference which allows users to clearly identify
the relevant land unit/s (Map 1) and any scheduled items, natural hazards, roading
and other additional limitations (Map 2) which could apply to a property.
It is not clear from the submission what management and enhancement activities
the submitter seeks to be included in the land units. The submitter is encouraged
to attend the hearing to discuss this matter further. At this time it is not recommended
that any alterations be made to the landform land units.
Minor dwellings
This term is not defined in the Plan or provided for in any other land units
or settlement areas. The topic of minor dwellings is addressed in the hearings report
for the island residential land units. The report considers that the rationale for
providing minor dwellings or 'granny flats' is that the family member can lead an
independent life while being close to family for support. Usually these 'granny
flats' are situated on a site in addition to the main dwelling.
It is considered in the report that the following issues are associated with
providing for this type of accommodation in the past include:
- How is the council able to determine that this type of accommodation will be
used for the purpose it is intended (e.g. not rented out privately)?
- What should happen to the accommodation when the family member does not require
the unit anymore?
- What relationship should this type of accommodation have to the main dwelling
in terms of size, proximity to main dwelling and parking provision?
- What will be the potential effects of providing for this type of accommodation
in these locations?
The recommendation in the island residential hearing report is to decline requests
for the inclusion of minor dwellings in the Plan due to the issues identified above
and this recommendation is also adopted for the above submissions which request
that minor dwellings be provided for within the landform land units on Great Barrier.
Outdoor recreation/adventure activities
Part 14 of the Plan provides:
" Outdoor adventure activities means an adventure sport undertaken outdoors.
It includes paintball, mountain biking and associated tracks, bungyjumping, kayaking,
and other outdoor pursuits. It does not include motorised activities such as motorcross
or go-karting."
Outdoor adventure activities are currently provided for as a discretionary activity
within landform 3 (alluvial flats). The submitter seeks a restricted discretionary
status for the activity in all landform land units. It is considered that this activity
could be provided for in other landform land units such as landforms 5 and 6. However,
in the most sensitive landforms (landforms 1, 2, 4 and 7) it is considered that
such activities could result in significant adverse effects on the natural character
and high amenity value of these areas.
Landform 5 (productive land) could be a suitable location for outdoor adventure
activities. The land unit provides for large scale rural activities on the islands
and it is recognised that outdoor adventure activities could provide an additional
source of income to landowners, therefore contributing to their social and economic
wellbeing, while maintaining the rural character of the land unit. This is in line
with the objectives and policies for the land unit.
A restricted discretionary activity status for outdoor adventure activities could
be appropriate in this land unit if the matters for discretion can be narrowed down
to a few key issues. Matters such as noise, hours of operation, scale of activity
and buildings, parking and traffic generation are all factors, which would need
to be considered to ensure that the activity will not detract from the rural character
of the land unit.
It is also considered that a discretionary activity status could be applied in
the landform 5 land unit and to landform 2 (sand flats area only), as there could
be a number of factors, depending on the nature of the activity, that could result
in adverse effects on the natural environment.
Landform 6 (regenerating slopes) could also be a suitable location for outdoor
adventure activities. It is considered however that the activity could result in
adverse effects on the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of
the land unit, which would be contrary to the objectives and policies of the land
unit. On balance, the activity should be included in the land unit as a discretionary
activity to ensure that a resource consent application can be assessed for any potential
adverse effects on the surrounding environment.
Sustainable farming and land management
It is not clear from the submission exactly what is sought by the submitter.
The Plan addresses sustainable management in part 2. It recognises that the purpose
of the RMA is 'to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources'
and that the Plan is one of the tools used by the Council to promote sustainable
management
Sustainable management is a complex matter that involves a range of considerations
including the following:
- managing the adverse effects of human activities on the environment
- considering the natural environment
- enabling people to meet their needs
- considering future generations
All of these factors have been considered with respect to farming and land uses
on the islands. It is considered that farming activities are most sustainable on
landforms 3 (alluvial flats) and 5 (productive land). Therefore, pastoral farming
is a permitted activity in landform 3 (alluvial flats), landform 5 (productive land)
and landform 2 (sand flats area only). It is also recognised that farming sometimes
requires ancillary activities in order to make the use of the whole property sustainable.
This is why a number of non-rural activities have been provided for in landforms
3 and 5.
It is therefore considered that the Plan makes adequate provision for sustainable
farming and land management.
Windmill towers (to 15m)
Windmills are not currently provided for as a specified activity within the Plan.
A windmill falls within the definition of a building in the Plan and therefore each
application will be subject to any controls within the individual land unit and
any development control s in part 10c. The standard height limit for landforms 1-7
is 6m however it is recognised that extra height may be warranted for some types
of windmill. Additional height can be considered as a development control modification
under clause 10c.3.
The submitter is seeking a restricted discretionary status for this activity
in all landform land units and it is considered that this status is appropriate
for those land units where the construction and relocation of buildings is currently
provided for as a restricted discretionary activity. It is not considered appropriate
however, to alter the activity status for this activity, in any of the land units
where the construction and relocation of buildings is either a permitted or non-complying
activity.
Wineries
Currently the Plan provides for wineries as a discretionary activity within landforms
3 (alluvial flats) and 5 (productive land) however, it has been recommended in the
hearing reports for these land units that this status be amended to a permitted
activity. It is considered that a permitted status more adequately represents the
objectives and policies of the land unit and recognises that wineries provide for
the economic and social wellbeing of the community by encouraging tourists and visitors
to the island.
It is not considered appropriate to provide for wineries in other landform land
units as it is recognised that wineries can result in substantial modification and
adverse effects on the natural environment. It is also for this reason that it is
not considered appropriate to alter the status of the activity to restricted discretionary
as suggested by the submitter.
It is considered that wineries are adequately provided for in the landform land
units.
It is therefore recommended that that submissions
1288/135,
1288/136
and
1288/140
be accepted in part with the amendments recommended above being included in the
Plan and it is recommended that submissions
1288/137
and
1288/138
be rejected.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to activities
At this time it is not considered that a recommendation can be made with respect
to submissions
526/9,
527/9,
528/9,
529/9,
539/9
That submissions
1288/135,
1288/136,
1288/140 be accepted in part and that amendments to the Plan be made according
to Appendix 3.
That submissions
284/3,
526/6,
527/6,
528/6,
529/6,
539/6,
288/137,
1288/137,
1288/138 be rejected.
|
4.4 Submissions about the Waiheke Airfield, 171 Carsons Road.
Submissions dealt with in this section:
1100/2,
1100/3
4.4.1 Decisions requested
Submission
1100/2 seeks that a separate special purpose zone or landform for Waiheke Airfield
at 171 Carsons Road should incorporate the relevant conditions of the original consent
as set out in Appendix H of the Operative Plan.
Submission
1100/3 seeks that the separate special purpose zone or landform for Waiheke
Airfield at 171 Carsons Road should provide for visitor accommodation, dwellings,
offices workshops, and hangars (which are associated with the airfield and which
support the airfield activity), as controlled activities or restricted discretionary
activities. Criteria should include the visibility and visual appearance of the
buildings, materials and colour, noise attenuation, vegetation management, earthworks,
stormwater management and effluent treatment and disposal.
4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
Most of the property at 171 Carsons Road is classified landform 5 (productive
land) with the rest of the property being made up of small areas of both landform
7 (forest and bush areas) and landform 6 (regenerating slopes). The property contains
a site of ecological significance (SES) containing complex regenerating kanuka with
mature forest remnants.
The submitter, Waiheke Island Airpark Resort Ltd, seeks that several activities
be included in the special purpose zone proposed. It is noted that dwellings and
visitor accommodation have already been provided for within landform 5. Offices,
workshops and hangars are not generally considered appropriate for inclusion within
this land unit, however it is noted that resource consent has been previously granted
for a hangar at the address.
Existing activities being undertaken on the property are covered by current resource
consents and it is therefore not considered necessary to create a unique land unit
for these activities. Currently a resource consent to expand the operations at the
property is being processed and this application has raised issues in relation to
adverse effects from the expansion of the activity.
The submitter has not provided sufficient analysis of the effects that this special
purpose zone would have on the surrounding environment and it is therefore recommended
that the submission be rejected.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to the
Waiheke Airfield
That submissions
1100/2 and
1100/3 be rejected.
|
4.5 Submissions about forestry, firewood harvesting and vegetation clearance
Submissions dealt with in this section:
22/1,
129/4,
130/4,
132/4,
172/4,
176/2,
237/4,
241/4,
242/4,
243/4,
244/4,
270/4,
271/4,
272/4,
274/4,
275/4,
1528/4,
1543/4,
1967/1,
2380/1,
3036/1,
3425/4,
3426/4,
3427/4,
3428/4,
3429/4,
3430/4,
3431/4,
3432/4,
3433/4,
3434/4,
3435/4,
3436/4,
3437/4,
3438/4,
3439/4,
3440/4,
3441/4,
3442/4,
3443/4,
3444/4,
3445/4,
3446/4,
3447/4,
3448/4,
3449/4,
3450/4,
3451/4,
3452/4,
3453/4,
3454/4,
3455/4,
3456/4,
3457/4,
3458/4,
3459/4,
3460/4,
3461/4,
3462/4,
3463/4,
3464/4,
3465/4,
3466/4,
3467/4,
3468/4,
3469/4,
3470/4,
3471/4,
3472/4,
3473/4,
3474/4,
3475/4,
3476/4,
3477/4,
3478/4,
3479/4,
3480/4,
3481/4,
3482/4,
3483/4,
3484/4,
3485/4,
3486/4,
3487/2,
3488/4,
3488/6,
3489/4,
3490/4,
3491/4,
3492/4,
3493/4, 3494/4,
3495/4,
3496/4,
3497/4,
3498/4,
3499/4,
3500/4,
3501/4,
3502/4,
3503/4,
3504/4,
3505/4,
3507/4,
3511/4,
3581/5,
3851/4,
3852/2,
3857/4
4.5.1 Decisions requested
Submission
22/1 seeks
the farming of kanuka and manuka up to any height and size for firewood, oil or
bio-fuel production on Great Barrier.
Submissions
129/4,
130/4,
132/4,
172/4,
237/4,
241/4,
242/4,
243/4,
244/4,
270/4,
271/4,
272/4,
274/4,
275/4,
3425/4,
3426/4,
3427/4,
3428/4,
3429/4,
3430/4,
3431/4,
3432/4,
3433/4,
3434/4,
3435/4,
3436/4,
3437/4,
3438/4,
3439/4,
3440/4,
3441/4,
3442/4,
3443/4,
3444/4,
3445/4,
3446/4,
3447/4,
3448/4,
3449/4,
3450/4,
3451/4,
3452/4,
3453/4,
3454/4,
3455/4,
3456/4,
3457/4,
3458/4,
3459/4,
3460/4,
3461/4,
3462/4,
3463/4,
3464/4,
3465/4,
3466/4,
3467/4,
3468/4,
3469/4,
3470/4,
3471/4,
3472/4,
3473/4,
3474/4,
3475/4,
3476/4,
3477/4,
3478/4,
3479/4,
3480/4,
3481/4,
3482/4,
3483/4,
3484/4,
3485/4,
3486/4,
3487/2,
3488/4,
3489/4,
3490/4,
3491/4,
3492/4,
3493/4, 3494/4,
3495/4,
3496/4,
3497/4,
3498/4,
3499/4,
3500/4,
3501/4,
3502/4,
3503/4,
3504/4,
3505/4,
3507/4,
3511/4,
3581/5,
3851/4,
3852/2,
3857/4 would like to see a sensible, practical solution to clearance of vegetation/bush
and selected firewood harvesting on Great Barrier and provision for commercial/personal
domestic firewood harvesting and provision for sustainable foresting and firewood
harvesting as a discretionary activity on certain block sizes throughout the island
subject to owners signing up to one range of management plans which would be included
in the Plan.
Submission
176/2 seeks the addition of firewood harvesting of manuka and kanuka on landform
3, 5, 6, 7.
Submission
1967/1
seeks that the private or commercial harvesting of kanuka/manuka for firewood be
permitted activity in any area..
Submission
2380/1 seeks that provision be made for cutting firewood commercially as a permitted
activity.
Submission
3036/1
seeks to provide for the sustainable harvesting of firewood (manuka, kanuka) as
a permitted activity.
Submission
3488/6
seeks provision to be made for areas specifically identified for the tree cropping
of kanuka/manuka. These areas to be cleared, as in rotational grazing, and reseeded
from the spreading of the cut canopy over the cleared areas from which it was obtained.
4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
4.5.2.1 Submission
22/1 –
farming of kanuka and manuka
The submitter seeks the farming of kanuka and manuka up to any height and size
for firewood, oil or bio-fuel production on Great Barrier.
Firewood is considered in later sections of this report as it is recognised that
the Plan could make more adequate provision for the firewood needs of residents,
especially those on Great Barrier.
Currently the Plan allows for kanuka up to 6m to be removed as a permitted activity
(with manuka removal being permitted up to 3m in height). Other than this, the felling
of kanuka and manuka, other than for domestic firewood (within the criteria detailed
in sections of the report below) or for commercial firewood harvesting (with the
relevant resource consent) the activity would be considered as forestry.
It is therefore recommended that the submission be rejected.
Forestry
Forestry is defined in Part 14 of the Plan as:
"Forestry means the management of land for commercial wood production
including the extraction of timber.
It does not include any of the following:
- the milling or processing of timber
- commercial firewood harvesting."
Forestry is currently provided for as a discretionary activity within landform
3 (alluvial flats) and landform 5 (productive land). As discussed in section 4.3.2.4above, these two land units are considered the most appropriate land
units to provide for forestry. Landforms 3 and 5 are both, in the majority, covered
in pasture and therefore there is limited interference with indigenous vegetation
such as the vegetation found on landforms 6 and 7. It is also considered that in
land units made up of sensitive natural areas, such as landforms 1, 2, and 4, it
is not appropriate to include such activities as the potential for adverse effects
on the natural environment is high.
Forestry activities are not expected to comply with any other vegetation clearance
controls set out in part 10c of the Plan. It is considered that the discretionary
status of the activity allows the Council to assess the suitability of each application
for forestry on a case by case basis.
It is therefore not recommended that forestry be included anywhere else in the
Plan.
Firewood harvesting
It is recognised that the Plan could better acknowledge the needs of residents
in relation to the harvesting of firewood.
Currently commercial firewood harvesting is defined in part 14 of the Plan as:
" Commercial firewood harvesting means the harvesting of manuka, kanuka
or any exotic species for the production and sale of firewood. It does not include
other activities associated with the milling or processing of trees."
Commercial firewood harvesting is provided for as a discretionary activity in
landform 3 (alluvial flats) and landform 5 (productive land). It is noted that commercial
firewood harvesting is not required to comply with any other vegetation controls
contained in part 10c of the Plan.
It is considered that a management plan should be required with each application
for commercial firewood harvesting so that matters such as the phasing and amounts
of felling are addressed and can be considered by the council. Further work is required
to incorporate the need for a management plan into the provisions for commercial
firewood harvesting.
It is considered that commercial firewood harvesting could be provided for within
landform 6 (regenerating slopes). This land unit contains extensive areas of bush
in varying rates of regeneration. It is considered suitable to include commercial
firewood harvesting in this land unit, as this is where vegetation is most abundant
and therefore the impacts of managed vegetation removal would be less.
It is recommended that commercial firewood harvesting be included in landform
6 (regenerating slopes) as a discretionary activity.
The discretionary status of the activity allows the Council to assess each application
for commercial firewood harvesting on a case by case basis. It is considered that
the most efficient way of ensuring that firewood harvesting is sustainable is to
ensure that all commercial operations are required to obtain resource consent. This
way, the Council is able to monitor the total quantity of firewood being harvested
and ensure that harvesting is kept to a sustainable level..
It is recognised that the Plan does not currently make specific allowance for
domestic firewood harvesting and it is considered that this activity could be more
appropriately provided for. It is noted however that the Plan does permit the removal
of Kanuka of up to 6m in height on Great Barrier.
It is considered important to include a definition of the activity to outline
what is intended by domestic firewood harvesting. The following definition could
be appropriate:
"Domestic firewood harvesting
Means the harvesting of any species of vegetation for the purpose of domestic
firewood.
It does not include other activities associated with the milling or processing
of trees or the sale of firewood."
This definition should be included in part 14 – Definitions, of the Plan.
It is considered that both Waiheke and Great Barrier have needs for domestic
firewood harvesting, although it is recognised that the residents on Great Barrier
are more reliant on firewood as a source of home heating, water heating and cooking.
It is recognised that the vegetation controls on Waiheke and Great Barrier are
also different. There are no exotic species vegetation controls on Great Barrier,
while on Waiheke, any exotic tree over 8m in height or 800mm girth is protected.
Indigenous vegetation is also treated differently on the two islands. On Great Barrier
it is a permitted activity to remove kanuka of up to 6m while it is only permitted
to remove kanuka and manuka of up to 3m on Waiheke. It is therefore considered that
separate provisions must be made for domestic firewood harvesting on each island.
It is considered that domestic firewood harvesting should be included in all
the landform land units where dwellings are provided for to ensure that all landowner
can meet their domestic firewood needs. It is therefore necessary to provide for
domestic firewood harvesting as a permitted activity in the following land units:
- landform 2 (sand flats area only)
- andform 3 (alluvial flats)
- landform 5 (productive land)
- landform 6 (regenerating slopes)
- landform 7 (forest and bush areas)
It is also considered important to ensure that only the required amount of firewood
is obtained by landowners each year. It is considered that 5m 3 of firewood
will adequately provide for the domestic firewood needs of any dwelling. It is therefore
recommended that this amount be provided as a permitted activity, per site, over
a 12 month (January to December) period.
It is suggested that the following standards and terms be inserted into each
land unit where domestic harvesting will be provided for:
Rules – standards and terms for domestic firewood harvesting
Domestic firewood harvesting will only be considered as a permitted activity
where all of the following standards are met.
1. No more than 5m 3 of firewood is harvested per site, per 12
month (January to December) period is generated.
2. For Waiheke, indigenous vegetation up to 3m in height and exotic vegetation
up to 8m in height is used.
3. For Great Barrier, indigenous vegetation up to 6m in height is used. Exotic
vegetation can be used for domestic firewood on an 'unlimited basis' (i.e. there
are no restrictions on height or volume)
Proposals which do not meet these standards are a discretionary activity.
It is also suggested that a note be included below the activity tables for landforms
2 (sand flats area only), 3 (alluvial flats), 5 (productive land), 6 (regenerating
slopes) and 7 (forest and bush areas) to confirm that domestic firewood harvesting
"is not expected to comply with the vegetation clearance controls set out in part
10c – Development controls for land units and settlement areas".
Assessment criteria will be required in part 11, in particular, under clause
11.3.2. This criteria will be used for assessing proposals which are discretionary
because they do not meet the standards and terms listed above. It is recommended
that the following assessment criteria be applied to an application for domestic
firewood harvesting:
- The extent to which the proposed activity will adversely effect the natural
environment
- Whether the proposed activity affects natural habitats and ecological values
- Whether the proposed activity affects visual and amenity values
- Whether any mitigation measures have been included in the application such
as replanting elsewhere on the property
- Whether there are species listed in appendix 6 – list of threatened and unusual
plant and animal species located within or adjacent to the area subject to the
activity
- Whether the proposed activity is likely to result in subsidence or erosion
- Whether the applicant can display a need for the quantity proposed
Vegetation clearance
It is recognised that the rules relating to vegetation clearance in the Plan
could be amended to be made clearer and easier to interpret for Plan users. This
topic is addressed in more detail in the hearing report for part 10c and therefore
no recommendations on this matter will be made in this report.
It is therefore recommended that the submissions be accepted in part and that
the recommended amendments above be adopted in the relevant land units.
4.5.2.3 Submission
3488/6
– cropping of kanuka/manuka
The submission seeks provision to be made for areas specifically identified for
the tree cropping of kanuka/manuka. These areas to be cleared, as in rotational
grazing, and reseeded from the spreading of the cut canopy over the cleared areas
from which it was obtained.
It is not clear from the submission where in the Plan the submitter seeks for
the requested activity to be included.
It is considered that the activity described by the submitter would fall within
the definition of forestry and forestry is currently provided in landforms 3 (alluvial
flats) and 5 (productive land) as discussed in section 4.5.2.2above.
It is considered that forestry activity is appropriately provided for within
the Plan and therefore it is recommended that this submission be accepted in part
in that it appears to support the inclusion of forestry in the Plan.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to forestry,
firewood harvesting and vegetation clearance.
That submissions
22/1,
129/4,
130/4,
132/4,
172/4,
176/2,
237/4,
241/4,
242/4,
243/4,
244/4,
270/4,
271/4,
272/4,
274/4,
275/4,
1528/4,
1543/4,
1967/1,
2380/1,
3036/1,
3425/4,
3426/4,
3427/4,
3428/4,
3429/4,
3430/4,
3431/4,
3432/4,
3433/4,
3434/4,
3435/4,
3436/4,
3437/4,
3438/4,
3439/4,
3440/4,
3441/4,
3442/4,
3443/4,
3444/4,
3445/4,
3446/4,
3447/4,
3448/4,
3449/4,
3450/4,
3451/4,
3452/4,
3453/4,
3454/4,
3455/4,
3456/4,
3457/4,
3458/4,
3459/4,
3460/4,
3461/4,
3462/4,
3463/4,
3464/4,
3465/4,
3466/4,
3467/4,
3468/4,
3469/4,
3470/4,
3471/4,
3472/4,
3473/4,
3474/4,
3475/4,
3476/4,
3477/4,
3478/4,
3479/4,
3480/4,
3481/4,
3482/4,
3483/4,
3484/4,
3485/4,
3486/4,
3487/2,
3488/4,
3489/4,
3490/4,
3491/4,
3492/4,
3493/4,
3494/4,
3495/4,
3496/4,
3497/4,
3498/4,
3499/4,
3500/4,
3501/4,
3502/4,
3503/4,
3504/4,
3505/4,
3507/4,
3511/4,
3581/5,
3851/4,
3852/2,
3857/4,
3488/6
be accepted in part and the Plan be amended in accordance with Appendix 3.
|
4.6 Submissions about the inclusion of a new land unit
Submissions dealt with in this section:
1340/1,
1584/1,
1588/1,
2146/1,
2152/1,
2177/4,
2214/1,
2216/1
4.6.1 Decisions requested
Submissions
1340/1,
1584/1,
1588/1,
2146/1,
2152/1,
2177/4,
2214/1,
2216/1
seek to include a new land unit, "Land Unit – Landform 20 (farming and agriculture)"
to the Plan.
4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
The submissions seek to include a new 'farming' land unit to the Plan specifically
for small lots (up to 4ha) on Great Barrier. The submitters are concerned that the
controls on land use activities within the Plan are too restrictive for small blocks
of land.
Pastoral farming is defined in Part 14 of the Plan as:
" Pastoral farming means the
growing of grass and fodder crops on which stock are grazed. It does not include
the grazing of deer or goats ."
Currently the plan provides for pastoral farming in the following land units:
Land Unit
|
Status
|
|
Landform 2 (sand flats area only)
|
P
|
|
Landform 3 (alluvial flats)
|
P
|
|
Landform 5 (productive land)
|
P
|
|
Rural 1 (rural amenity)
|
P
|
|
Rural 2 (western landscape)
|
P
|
Farming activities do not always provide completely for the economic and social
wellbeing of landowners, especially on small scale land holdings. In recognition
of this, the appropriate land units provide for alternative activities to pastoral
farming to be undertaken within the land unit. These activities include provisions
for horticulture, visitor accommodation, wineries.
It is therefore considered that farming is adequately provided for within the
Plan through its inclusion as a permitted activity in all appropriate land units
and the provision for a range of activities which could be run in conjunction with
the farm in order to provide additional income to landowners. A new land unit is
not considered necessary.
It is therefore recommended that the submission be rejected.
Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to the inclusion of a new
land unit
That submissions
1340/1,
1584/1,
1588/1,
2146/1,
2152/1,
2177/4,
2214/1,
2216/1
be rejected.
4.7 Submissions about visitor facilities
Submission dealt with in this section:
1596/13
4.7.1 Decisions requested
Submission
1596/13
seeks that all visitor facilities (other than those established within a visitor-specific
land unit) should be discretionary, and those for more than 10 persons should be
non-complying.
4.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
Currently the Plan provides for visitor accommodation in the following land units:
Land unit
|
Activity status for the construction and relocation of buildings
|
Activity status for visitor accommodation for up to 10 people
|
Activity status for visitor accommodation for over 10 people
|
|
Commercial 1 (Oneroa Village)
|
RD
|
D
|
D
|
|
Commercial 2 (Ostend Village)
|
RD
|
D
|
D
|
|
Matiatia
|
RD
|
P
|
P
|
|
Landform 3 (alluvial flats)
|
P
|
P
|
D
|
|
Landform 5 (productive land)
|
P
|
P
|
D
|
|
Landform 6 (regenerating slopes)
|
RD
|
P
|
D
|
|
Landform 7 (forest and bush areas)
|
RD
|
P
|
D
|
|
Settlement Areas (residential amenity areas)
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
|
Settlement Areas (local retailing areas)
|
RD
|
P
|
P
|
|
Settlement Areas (local retailing areas)
|
RD
|
D
|
D
|
|
Rural 1 (rural amenity)
|
RD
|
P
|
D
|
|
Rural 2 (western landscape)
|
RD
|
P
|
D
|
Where visitor accommodation (for up to 10 people) is provided within the landforms,
it is given a permitted activity status. In most cases, with the exception of landforms
3 and 5, a restricted discretionary resource consent is still required if a new
building is proposed to be constructed.
It is considered that the effects of the use of a dwelling compared with a visitor
accommodation facility (for up to 10 people) are barely distinguishable and therefore
it is considered that these activities are relatively interchangeable between one
another.
It is considered that the permitted activity status of visitor accommodation
(for up to 10 people) is appropriate for inclusion within the above land units.
Visitor accommodation (for more than 10 people) is provided for as a discretionary
activity in the landforms, where appropriate. A discretionary status means that
a resource consent must be obtained prior to the establishment of the activity and
it provide the Council with the option to impose conditions on the consent, or to
decline the consent completely should it be found inappropriate. The discretionary
activity status indicates that while it is not considered that the activity would
be suitable for all sites within the particular land unit, it is considered that
there may be some cases where the activity is appropriate.
A non-complying activity, whilst still requiring a resource consent, indicates
that the Council general believes that the activity is not really suitable anywhere
within the land unit. Whilst the submitter may take this view, it is considered
that with growth in visitor and tourist numbers to the island, provision should
be made, where appropriate, to provide for larger scale accommodation facilities.
It is therefore considered that the activity status for both visitor accommodation
(for up to 10 people) and visitor accommodation (for more than 10 people) are appropriate
within the landform land units and it is recommended that the submission be rejected.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking alteration
to the status of visitor accommodation.
That submission
1596/13
be rejected.
|
4.8 Submissions about designation of land at 29 Maungatawhiri Road, Great Barrier
Submission dealt with in this section:
2355/1
4.8.1 Decisions requested
Submission
2355/1 seeks
that the land comprising the northeastern corner of 29 Maungatawhiri Road, Great
Barrier be designated for the establishment of a synagogue and yeshiva with associated
facilities – the land area occupying approximately one hectare.
4.8.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
Currently the property which is subject to the submission is classified as landform
6 (regenerating slopes) and it is considered that this landform accurately represents
the natural character and vegetation cover of the property.
In order to designate land a requiring authority must apply for the designation.
Ministries of the Crown, local authorities and approved network utility operators
can all be requiring authorities, but the general public cannot. It is therefore
not possible for the submitters, the owners of the property, to request that this
land be designated. The submitter can instead apply for resource consent or private
plan change to establish both the synagogue and yeshiva. It is noted however that
neither community facilities nor educational facilities are provided for within
the activity table for landform 6, which means that both are considered non-complying
activities.
It considered that community facilities and educational facilities are not appropriate
on all sites within landform 6 and this is represented by the exclusion of these
activities from the activity table. An application for resource consent for these
activities would be assessed on a case-by-case basis and the individual characteristics
of the property would be assessed for the suitability of the activity requested.
It is therefore recommended that the submission be rejected.
| Planner's recommendations about the submission relating to designation
of 29 Maungatawhiri Road.
That submission
2355/1
be rejected.
|
4.9 Submissions about a blanket 'farm zone'
Submissions dealt with in this section:
2510/1,
2728/1
4.9.1 Decisions requested
Submission
2510/1 seeks
that all farms be given a blanket zone that specifically deals with farming activities.
Submission
2728/1 seeks
a farm zone (land unit) which relates to all pasture land or grazing land like open
space.
4.9.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
The submitters seeks that farms be given a blanket zone, rather than the way
the classification of the property is done currently where each separate landform
is represented.
It is recognised that it could be more simple for landowners and particularly
farmers to have a 'farm zone' to cover their entire farm. However this approach
would not take into account significant natural landscapes which need protection.
Without the necessary protection, natural features such as vegetation, wetlands,
coastal cliffs could be sacrificed, resulting in a potential loss of valuable habitats,
natural character and amenity.
It is therefore considered that the landforms are the most accurate way to represent
the composition of land on the islands. Landform 5 (productive land) and landform
3 (alluvial flats) are two areas where it is recognised that farming practices are
suitable and pastoral farming has been provided for as a permitted activity. It
is considered however that in other landforms, farming practices may not be appropriate
as they may result in significant adverse effects on the environment and as a result,
farming has not been provided for as a permitted activity.
It is therefore recommended that the submissions be rejected.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to a blanket
'farm zone'
That submissions
2510/1
and 2728/1
be rejected.
|
4.10 Submissions about the provision of multiple dwellings at 255 & 230 Gray
Road, Great Barrier.
Submission dealt with in this section:
2555/6
4.10.1 Decisions requested
Submission
2555/6 seeks that provision be made on the submitter's land (Lots 1 (#255) and
3 (#320) Gray Road, Palmers Beach, Great Barrier) for multiple dwellings as a controlled
activity.
4.10.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
As noted by the submitter, currently the properties subject to the submission
are classified as:
Lot 1 - #255 landform 2 (sand flats), landform 5 (productive land), landform
6 (regenerating slopes) and landform 7 (forest and bush areas)
Lot 2 - #320 landform 3 (alluvial flats), landform 4 (wetland systems), landform
5 (productive land), landform 6 (regenerating slopes) and landform 7 (forest and
bush areas).
It is not appropriate to provide an exemption from the landform rules for certain
activities on specific properties as the classification of the land carries with
it the activity status which outlines the suitability of each activity on that land.
It is not stated in the submission where on the submitter's properties the multiple
dwellings would be located. The following table identifies the status of multiple
dwellings on each of the land units.
Land Unit
|
Activity Status of Multiple Dwellings
|
|
Landform 2 (sand flats)
|
D
|
|
Landform 3 (alluvial flats)
|
D
|
|
Landform 4 (wetland systems)
|
NC
|
|
Landform 5 (productive land)
|
D
|
|
Landform 6 (regenerating slopes)
|
D
|
|
Landform 7 (forest and bush areas)
|
D
|
The majority of the land units hold a discretionary activity status however
this discretionary status is only considered where one or more of the following
criteria are met:
"1. The resulting number of dwellings on the site will be no more than that
which would occur if the site were subdivided in accordance with the rules in
part 12 -
Subdivision applying to this land unit (with one dwelling per site).
2. An application is made at the same time for subdivision resulting in the
amalgamation of sites such that the number of dwellings on the new site created
would be no greater than that which could be achieved through locating a dwelling
on each of the original sites.
3. The dwellings are for papakainga housing.
4. The land has been owned co-operatively by a number of individuals since prior
to 29 September 1992.
Proposals which do not meet these standards are a non-complying activity."
Controlled activities do require a resource consent, however the Council must
grant the consent and may only impose conditions on the aspects to which it has
reserved control in the Plan.
Altering the activity status of multiple dwellings to a controlled activity would
mean that the Council would be required to grant all resource consent application
for multiple dwellings. It is recognised that multiple dwellings may not be appropriate
for every property and as such the discretionary status has been applied.
It is therefore recommended that the submission be rejected.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to the
provision of multiple dwellings and 255 and 320 Gray Road, Great Barrier.
That submission
2555/6 be rejected.
|
4.11 Submission about the inclusion of mechanisms for restoration and enhancement
Submission dealt with in this section:
3521/84
4.11.1 Decisions requested
Submission
3521/84 seeks to amend the objectives and policies for landforms 1-7 to include
mechanisms for restoration and enhancement.
4.11.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
The submitter, Auckland Regional Council, generally supports the objectives and
policies relating to the landform land units but suggests that mechanisms for the
restoration and enhancement of these landform areas also be developed. ARC seeks
that the objectives and policies for landforms 1 to 7 be amended to include mechanisms
for restoration and enhancement.
The activities provided for in each individual landform have been considered
for their suitability and with any potential adverse effects on the character and
amenity of the landform in mind. The activities provided for in each land take into
account the sensitive and unique characteristics of each of the land units and this
encourages the preservation of those characteristics.
The thrust of the controls seek to allow for development while maintaining or
protecting the natural environment. The Plan generally does not require enhancement
or restoration, although this may be achieved through individual developments.
It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to enhancement
and restoration.
That submission
3521/84 be rejected.
|
4.12 Submission about the reclassification of 32 Man O'War Bay Road, Waiheke
Submission dealt with in this section:
1324/1,
1324/2,
1324/3,
1324/4
4.12.1 Decisions requested
Submission
1324/1 seeks to reclassify Ngati Paoa Station (32 Man O'War Bay Road, eastern
Waiheke) from various landform land units to a Special Purposes/Papakainga zoning.
Submission
1324/2 seeks that the Special Purposes/Papakainga zoning requested for Ngati
Paoa Station (32 Man O' War Bay Road, eastern Waiheke) has at its foundation the
existing rural style land uses but provides for community housing, a marae complex,
cultural and educational facilities and visitor and tourist facilities as permitted
activities.
Submission
1324/3 seeks that the content and details of this special purposes/Papakainga
zoning and its structuring be agreed and finalised with Ngati Paoa. That an indicative
model that might be applied for this purpose is that applied to Ngati Whatua lands
at Orakei, and that in this regard specific reference should be had to Section 34
of the Orakei Act 1991
Submission
1324/4 seeks that in designing the special purposes/Papakainga zoning package
specific regard be had to the intent by Mana Whenua that these lands will ultimately
become self governed via Section 33 RMA or like mechanism.
4.12.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
Currently the property at 32 Man O'War Bay Road, which is approximately 966ha,
consists of landform 4 (wetland systems), landform 5 (productive land), landform
6 (regenerating slopes) and landform 7 (forest and bush areas). The intention of
the landform land units is to represent the natural character and amenity of the
land.
The submitter seeks that a special purpose/papakainga be established for the
property. It is suggested that this would be based on the existing rural use of
the land and would incorporate provision for community housing, a marae complex,
cultural and educational facilities and visitor and tourist facilities.
Many of the activities sought by the submitter are already provided for in some
of the land units on the property as detailed in the table below:
|
|
Activities
|
|
Multiple dwellings (papakainga/ community housing)
|
Visitor Accommodation (up to 10 people)
|
Visitor Accommodation (more than 10 people)
|
Community facilities (marae complex and cultural facilities)
|
Educational facilities
|
|
Land Units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Landform 4 (wetland systems)
|
NC
|
NC
|
NC
|
NC
|
NC
|
|
Landform 5 (productive land)
|
D
|
P
|
D
|
NC
|
NC
|
|
Landform 6 (regenerating slopes)
|
D
|
P
|
D
|
NC
|
NC
|
|
Landform 7 (forest and bush areas)
|
D
|
P
|
D
|
NC
|
NC
|
Papakainga housing has been specifically provided for within the Plan and it
allows more dwellings per site, as a discretionary activity in landforms 5-7 because
they are not required to meet the subdivision requirements like standard multiple
dwellings.
It is recognised that community and educational facilities are not provided for
in any of the land units, and it is also noted that the use of land classified as
landform 4 (wetland systems) restricted to all activities except eco-sourced planting
due to the sensitive nature of this land unit.
It is noted that a rural property management plan could be used to holistically
plan for land use activities in landforms 5-7 on the property (the inclusion of
this activity within landform 4 is currently being considered).
The submitter also seeks specific reference to section 34 of the Orakei Act 1991,
which states:
"34. Exemption from payment of rates and other charges
The whenua rangatira, the hapu reservation, and, to the extent that it remains
undeveloped, the balance of the development land shall—
(a) not be rateable under the
Local Government (Rating) Act 2002; and
(b) Be exempt from all other taxes and charges from time to time imposed by the
Auckland City Council or the Auckland Regional Council."
It should be noted that this is not an issue which can be addressed through the
Plan.
It is noted that the Piritahi Marae has been discussed as part of the recreation
2 (community facilities and sports parks). Submissions for this land unit request
that the marae be provided with its own land unit. Due to the sensitive nature of
some of the land units contained on the property at 32 Man O' War Bay Road, it is
not considered appropriate that a 'blanket' land unit be applied to the whole property.
It is recognised however that the Panel may wish to reclassify a part of the site
to a marae-type classification, similar to that which is proposed for Piritahi Marae.
The property is located on the eastern end of the island, where the emphasis
is on low intensity development, compared with the high intensity of the western
end. It is recognised that further work would need to be done to determine what
level of marae development would be appropriate on the site and where the location
of this would be best suited.
The submitter is encouraged to attend the hearing and bring further information
in relation to the above matter. It is considered that this matter would need more
information and time before an accurate recommendation could be made.
| Planner's recommendations about the submission seeking reclassification
of 32 Man O'War Bay Road, Waiheke
At this time it is not considered that a recommendation can be made with respect
to the above submissions.
|
4.13 Submissions about the miscellaneous matters
Submissions dealt with in this section:
62/1,
93/1,
97/2,
2846/2,
3574/12,
3574/14
4.13.1 Decisions requested
Submission
3574/12 supports the proposal to retain the foothills of Great Barrier Island
as farms.
Submission
3574/14 supports the proposal to allow tourism development on larger blocks
for up to 10 people, with consent required for larger numbers.
Submission
62/1 seeks
to allow the continuation of the Kaitoke Links course at 67B Gray Road, Kaitoke
by including the land unit
Submission
97/2 seeks
that the Plan recognise the workshop and engineering shop at the front of 29 Maungatawhiri
Road (Block M112), Tryphena as a commercial entity.
Submission
2846/2 seeks that the Orama Christian Fellowship Trust complex at 300 Karaka
Bay Rd be listed as a scheduled activity.
Submission
93/1 seeks
a total rethink on wetland systems and dune systems and a more practical commonsense
approach to the rules governing private titles.
4.13.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
4.13.2.1 Submissions
3574/12 and
3574/14 – supportive of the Plan
It is recommended that the submissions be accepted in that they are supportive
of specific areas of the Plan in relation to the landforms.
4.13.2.2 Submissions
62/1 – Kaitoke
Links – 67B Gray Road, Kaitoke
The submitter seeks that the provision be made within the Plan for the continuation
of the links golf course at the above address.
Subdivision consent was granted for the subdivision of 67 Gray Road, Kaitoke
in July 2005. The golf course was present on the property at the time of subdivision
and the consent was granted to allow the golf course to be retained on Lot 2 of
the subdivision.
Currently the property contains landform 2 (sand flats), landform 4 (wetland
systems) and landform 6 (regenerating slopes). This is equivalent to the land units
on the property in the Operative Plan. It is considered that these landforms accurately
represent the composition of the land at the property.
Under the Operative Plan, the permitted activity rules would apply to the golf
course activity, as it is not specifically listed as a listed discretionary activity.
The activity would only be permitted under the Operative Plan if it complied with
part 6B standards and terms, if it did not meet this, it would be discretionary.
In the Proposed Plan, a golf course has not been provided for within the landform
activity tables and therefore it would default to a non-complying activity. This
would therefore mean that any alterations to the existing golf course not covered
by existing use rights would require a resource consent. The Proposed Plan does
not take away any existing use rights that may apply.
The Plan does not remove any rights to continue to use the land as a golf course.
However, neither is it considered appropriate to allow a blanket provision for golf
courses in all landform 2, 4 and 6 land units. Given that the Plan does not affect
the use of the golf course it is recommended that the submission be rejected.
4.13.2.3 Submissions
97/2 – 29
Maungatawhiri Road, Tryphena
The submitter seeks recognition for a commercial workshop and engineering shop
contained on the property. Currently the property is made up of landform 6 (regenerating
slopes) and landform 7 (forest and bush areas).
The Plan does not remove any rights that the submitter may have to operate the
engineering shop, regardless of the land unit in which it sits. It is not considered
necessary to amend the Plan in any way and therefore it is recommended that the
submission be rejected.
4.13.2.4 Submission
2846/2 – 300 Karaka Bay Road
The submitter has lodged a number of submission which relate to this property,
the majority of which have been addressed in the hearings report for settlement
areas. This report acknowledges that the existing landform land units that apply
to the Trust's property do not reflect the land uses that have been established
over a number of years and may inhibit sustainable land uses in the future.
It is suggested in the report that that council staff work with the Trust and
its representatives with a view to creating a concept plan for Orama that recognises
and provides for a range of existing and future land uses.
It is therefore recommended that the submission requesting that the activity
be listed as a scheduled activity be rejected.
4.13.2.5 Submission
93/1 – rethink
of wetland systems and dune systems
The submitter states that wetland systems and dune systems should not be applied
to private land as they are "anti private enterprise". It is not clear what is intended
from this submission however the relief sought by the submitter is for a total rethink
of both the wetland systems and dune systems.
Landform 4 (wetland systems) and landform 2 (dune systems and sand flats) both
comprise sensitive natural environments. Both land units require strong restrictions
on the use and development provided for within the land units in order to protect
the high natural character and amenity values of the land units.
It is noted that in both landform 4 (wetland systems) and landform 2 (dune systems
area only), the construction or relation of buildings and exterior additions and
alterations to buildings is a non-complying activity and the only activity specifically
provided for within the land units is ecosourced planting. The resource management
strategies for both land units is to specifically not provide for buildings or activities
to occur at all within the land units due to the high natural character and ecological
and amenity values.
It is recognised that these land units are restrictive on landowners but it is
considered essential to provide such strict control on these areas to ensure that
the sensitive character of the land units is maintained and protected. The submission
does not raise any specific areas where it is seen that these land units have been
incorrectly applied. It is noted however that there are a number of submissions
which request specific reclassification of land and these matters have been addressed
in the table in Appendix 4.
It is therefore recommended that the submission be rejected to the extent it
is recommended to retain both landform 2 (dune systems and sand flats) and landform
4 (wetland systems) in the Plan.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions relating miscellaneous
That submissions
3574/12 and
3574/14 be accepted. No amendments to the Plan are required to give effect
to these submissions.
That submissions
62/1,
93/1,
97/2 and
2846/2 be rejected.
|
4.14 Submissions relating to the reclassification of properties containing landform
land units
Submissions dealt with in this section:
Group 1 Inner Islands:
535/1,
919/1, 1013/1,
1013/2,
1100/1,
1041/1,
1230/1,
1273/1,
1273/2,
1278/1,
1278/2,
1279/1,
1279/2,
1324/1,
1331/2,
1331/4,
2103/8,
2103/11,
2649/4,
3221/2,
3221/4,
3593/1,
3657/1,
3380/1
Group 2 Outer Islands:
32/1,
32/2,
73/1,
74/1,
75/1,
75/2,
94/1,
97/1,
100/1,
109/1,
108/1,
108/2,
110/1,
110/2,
112/1,
135/1,
135/2,
135/3,
177/1,
259/1,
260/1,
266/1,
273/1, 276/1,
277/1,
332/1,
356/1,
357/1,
877/2,
1252/1,
1251/2,
1253/1,
1261/1,
1262/1,
1262/2,
1262/3,
1297/1,
1302/1,
1305/1,
1307/2,
1319/2,
1320/1,
1337/1,
1358/1,
1367/1,
1379/2,
1405/4,
1406/4,
1416/2,
1423/1,
1461/2,
1474/1,
1480/1,
1486/1,
1468/1,
1515/1,
1518/1,
1518/2,
1518/3,
1522/2,
1529/2,
1529/3,
1544/3,
1551/1,
1563/1,
1563/2,
1563/3,
1563/4,
1563/5,
1567/1,
1579/1,
1580/1,
1581/1,
1582/1,
1593/2,
1594/1,
1602/1,
1913/2,
1915/2,
1922/2,
1953/1,
1961/1,
1968/1,
1978/1,
1979/1,
1988/2,
1990/1,
2005/1,
2006/1,
2049/1,
2063/1,
2104/4,
2139/2,
2151/1,
2162/2,
2168/1,
2172/1,
2180/1,
2190/1,
2212/2,
2237/1,
2238/2,
2259/1,
2260/1,
2271/2,
2313/1, 2334/1,
2340/1,
2352/1,
2365/1,
2368/2,
2408/1,
2440/1,
2480/1,
2489/2,
2508/1,
2508/2,
2511/1,
2512/1,
2513/2,
2529/1,
2531/1,
2533/1,
2537/1,
2547/4,
2554/1,
2554/2,
2554/3,
2555/1,
2555/2,
2555/3,
2555/4,
2555/5,
2719/1,
2719/2,
2719/3,
2727/1,
2742/1,
3744/1,
2753/1,
2753/2,
2753/3,
2852/1,
2858/2,
2858/3,
2864/2,
2866/1,
2867/1,
2868/1,
2870/1,
2873/1,
3000/1,
3052/1,
3052/2,
3086/1,
3088/1,
3090/3,
3139/2,
3501/6,
3501/7,
3501/9,
3521/87,
3677/1,
3679/2,
3743/2,
3768/2,
3769/1,
3785/1,
3798/2,
3826/1,
3827/2,
3858/1
4.14.1 Decisions requested
The submissions request the reclassification of specific areas and properties
on the Islands. Details of the decision requested by each submission are contained
in Appendix 4.
4.14.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
The analysis and recommendations in relation to these submissions are detailed
in Appendix 4.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to reclassification of
properties containing landforms.
That submissions
135/1,
177/1,
266/1,
276/1,
277/1,
, 356/1,
357/1,
1230/1,
1253/1,
1262/2,
1279/2,
1486/1,
1468/1,
1529/3,
1551/1,
1563/1,
1563/4,
1563/5,
1579/1,
1602/1,
2049/1,
2103/8,
2103/11,
2104/4,
2259/1,
2719/3,
2866/1,
3052/1,
3086/1,
3593/1,
3657/1, be accepted and the planning maps be amended accordingly as described
in Appendix 4.
That submissions
74/1,
75/1,
75/2,
259/1,
273/1,
877/2,
919/1,
1013/1,
1013/2,
1331/2,
1331/4,
1041/1,
1237/1,
1237/2,
1252/1,
1251/2,
1261/1,
1262/1,
1262/3,
1273/1,
1273/2,
1278/1,
1278/2,
1279/1,
1302/1,
1305/1,
1307/2,
1319/2,
1320/1,
1337/1,
1358/1,
1367/1,
1379/2,
1416/2,
1423/1,
1461/2,
1474/1,
1480/1,
1515/1,
1518/1,
1518/2,
1518/3,
1522/2,
1567/1,
1581/1,
1913/2,
1915/2,
1922/2,
1953/1,
1961/1,
1968/1,
1978/1,
1988/2,
1990/1,
2063/1,
2139/2,
2151/1,
2162/2,
2168/1,
2172/1,
2180/1,
2190/1,
2212/2,
2237/1,
2238/2,
2260/1,
2271/2,
2313/1,
2334/1,
2340/1,
2365/1,
2368/2,
2408/1,
2480/1,
2489/2,
2508/1,
2508/2,
2511/1,
2512/1,
2529/1,
2531/1,
2649/4,
2719/1,
2719/2,
2727/1,
2742/1,
2864/2,
2873/1,
3088/1,
3090/3,
3221/2,
3221/4,
3380/1,
3677/1,
3679/2,
3743/2,
3744/1,
3768/2,
3769/1,
3785/1,
3798/2,
be accepted in part to the extent that they support the amendments to the planning
maps described in Appendix 4.
That submissions
32/1,
32/2,
73/1,
94/1,
97/1,
100/1,
109/1,
108/1,
108/2,
110/1,
110/2,
112/1,
135/2,
135/3,
260/1,
332/1,
535/1,
1100/1,
1297/1,
1405/4,
1406/4,
1529/2,
1544/3,
1563/2,
1563/3,
1580/1,
1582/1,
1593/2,
1594/1,
1979/1,
2005/1,
2006/1,
2352/1,
2440/1,
2513/2,
2533/1,
2537/1,
2547/4,
2554/1,
2554/2,
2554/3,
2555/1,
2555/2,
2555/3,
2555/4,
2555/5,
2753/1,
2753/2,
2753/3,
2852/1,
2858/2,
2858/3,
2867/1,
2868/1,
2870/1,
3000/1,
3052/2,
3139/2,
3501/6,
3501/7,
3501/9,
3521/87,
3826/1,
3827/2,
3858/1 be rejected.
|
5.0 Conclusion
This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding
landforms 1-7 (General) of the Proposed Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf
Islands Section 2006.
The report recommends whether submissions should be accepted or rejected and
how associated further submissions should be dealt with, and how the Plan should
be modified as a result. These recommendations are made prior to the hearing of
submissions and therefore without the benefit of evidence which may be presented
at that time. At this stage before the hearing, it is recommended that this part
of the Plan be approved, with amendments (as outlined in appendix 3), for
the reasons outlined in this report.
|
|
Name and title of signatories
|
Signature
|
|
Author
|
Deborah Kissick, Planner
|
|
|
Reviewer
|
Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands
|
|
|
Approver
|
Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning
|
|
Appendix 1
List of submissions and further submissions
Appendix 2
Summary of decisions requested
Appendix 3
Recommended amendments to the Plan
Appendix 4
Reclassification of properties containing landform land units.
