Plans, policies and reports

YOU ARE IN: Your council > Plans, policies and reports

District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

(Notified version 2006)

Hearing reports index

Report on submissions to the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

Topic:	Natural hazards
Report to:	The Hearing Panel
Author:	Colin Craig
Date:	22 January 2008
Group file:	314/274011

1.0 Introduction

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to part 8 (natural hazards) 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 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 natural hazards. 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 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

2.1 General 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 W047/05 where the court set out the following measures for evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other methods in district plans:

The objectives of the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:
1. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s32(3)(a)); and
2. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and
3. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1).
The policies, rules, or other methods in the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:
1. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan (s32(3)(b)); and
2. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and
3. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and
4. (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—

Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

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:

The Plan must "give effect to" any national policy statement and any New Zealand coastal policy statement (s75(3)(a) and (b)).
The Plan must "give effect to" the regional policy statement (made operative after 10 August 2005) (s75(3)(c)).
The Plan must be "not inconsistent with" any regional plan (s75(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.

2.2 Specific statutory requirements for natural hazards.

As noted above, section 31 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) lists that one of the functions of territorial authorities is:

the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of—

the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards

Section 7 of the RMA also requires territorial authorities and others exercising functions and powers under the RMA to have particular regard to the effects of climate change.

The RMA deals with the sustainable management of natural and physical resources including avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects on the environment, whilst the Building Act regulates building work, to ensure buildings are safe and sanitary.

Section 71 of the Building Act 2004 requires building consent authorities (territorial local authorities) to refuse to grant a building consent for the construction of a building or major alterations to a building if :

the land on which the building work is to be carried out is subject to or is likely to be subject to 1 or more natural hazards ; or
the building work is likely to accelerate, worsen, or result in a natural hazard on that land or property.

Section 71 defines natural hazards as :

erosion (including coastal erosion, bank erosion and sheet erosion);
falling debris (including soil, rock, snow and ice);
subsidence;
inundation (including flooding, overland flow, storm surge, tidal effects and ponding); and
slippage.

Section 72 of the Building Act 2004 requires a building consent authority to grant a building consent on land subject to, or likely to be subject to 1 or more natural hazards if the authority considers that the building work proposed will not accelerate, worsen or result in a natural hazard on the land on which the work will be carried out, or on any other property. The authority must also consider it reasonable to grant a waiver or modification of the building code in respect of the natural hazard concerned.

Section 73 requires that if a building consent is issued under section 72, the building consent authority must notify the Registrar-General of Land identifying the natural hazard concerned and provide a project information memorandum (PIM) that relates to the building consent in question.

Section 35 of the Building Act addresses the content of PIMs which must include information likely to be relevant to proposed building work including any special feature of the land concerned. Special features are potential natural hazards or the likely presence of hazardous contaminants that are likely to be relevant to the design and construction or alteration of a building, that are known to the territorial authority and are not apparent from the district plan. In this case, Council has chosen to show the hazards known to it at the time the plan was notified, on the district plan maps.

Clause E1.3.2 of the First Schedule of the Building Regulations states that surface water (flowing from a drain, river or stream) resulting from a storm having a 2 percent probability of occurring annually (a 1 in 50 year storm) shall not enter housing, communal residential and communal non residential buildings. Clause E1 does not however specifically protect commercial or industrial buildings to the same extent but these buildings remain protected by section 71.

Natural hazard identification is also an important function of the "open government" of local authorities irrespective of the requirements of the RMA or the Building Act and Regulations. Section 44A of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 allows a person to apply to a local authority for a land information memorandum (LIM) in relation to matters affecting any land in the district of the authority. The matters to be included in the memorandum include information identifying each special feature or characteristic of the land including erosion, avulsion, falling debris, subsidence, slippage, alluvion, or inundation. LIMs are typically applied for by people wishing to purchase a property.

3.0 Background

This section of the report sets out background information about the topic under consideration. It identifies how the Plan deals with natural hazards.

Natural hazards are any atmospheric or earth or water related occurrence (including earthquake, tsunami, erosion, volcanic and geothermal activity, landslip, subsidence, sedimentation, wind, drought, fire or flooding) the action of which adversely affects or may adversely affect human life, property or other aspects of the environment.

The issue for Auckland City Council is how to manage and respond to irregular or periodic exposure to such events. The frequency and magnitude of these events will vary and their effects on the environment, including people, property and infrastructure will vary as a result. Many natural hazards are difficult to predict, in terms of their possible location, frequency, magnitude and consequences.

Part 8 of the proposed Plan deals with natural hazards. Reliable information on natural hazard areas known to the Council when the plan was notified are identified on the inner islands planning maps. These natural hazard areas are flood prone areas (types A and B), soil warning areas and soil register areas (where council holds a geotechnical report on the site), and erosion risk zones. Because of a lack of reliable information for the outer islands there are no natural hazard areas identified on the outer islands planning maps. In developing the rules in part 8, a precautionary approach has been taken to ensure that activities are not located in areas likely to be subject to natural hazard events, in the absence of information known to Council and/or shown on the planning maps.

The rules in part 8 :

prevent activities such as vegetation removal or modification of areas where that removal or modification may contribute to or accelerate erosion e.g. removal of vegetation on steep slopes or near stream, the removal or modification of sand dunes;
prevent activities in areas likely to affected by flooding or erosion including coastal erosion and /or slippage;
prevent the use of materials or structures above mean high water springs that may serve as a defence against coastal erosion.

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about natural hazards 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 part 8 (natural hazards) together with the related further submissions is contained in appendix 1. Appendix 2 contains copies of the summary of submissions. 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', ie they were received after the closing date for lodging submissions (11 December 2006) or further submissions (28 May 2007). All late submissions related to this part of the plan have been accepted by the council as provided for under sections 37 and 37A of the RMA.

4.2 Submissions about seawall remediation and other techniques.

Submissions dealt with in this section:

86/2, 293/2, 360/2, 622/2, 623/2, 624/2, 625/2, 720/2, 755/2, 756/2, 757/2, 758/2, 759/2, 760/2, 761/2, 762/2, 763/2, 764/2, 765/2, 766/2, 767/2, 768/2, 769/2, 795/2, 838/2, 846/2, 847/2, 848/2, 860/2, 1124/2, 1188/2, 1189/2, 1212/2, 1213/2, 1222/2, 1246/2, 2051/2, 2052/2, 2059/2, 2090/2, 2548/2, 2565/2, 2590/2, 2627/2, 2629/2, 2698/2, 3027/2, 3555/2, 3606/2.

4.2.1 Decisions requested

The above submitters request that Council should "provide a toolkit based on the RMA principles of avoid, remedy and mitigate in relation to risk, which includes (without limitation), regulation, good practice guides, stormwater management measures, reference to and consistency with provisions of other statutes, enabling sea wall remediation proposals and other appropriate techniques. The basis for this toolkit is contained in the Tonkin and Taylor 2004 report relating to coastal hazard assessment."

4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Council is providing a toolkit of objectives, policies and rules in part 8 so that the effects of natural hazards are avoided, remedied or mitigated. The Building Act 2004, PIMs issued under the Building Act, the Building Code (Building Regulations) and LIMs issued under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, also provide other regulatory means to prevent buildings from being constructed in areas likely to be subject to natural hazards.

With reference to stormwater management techniques (for Kennedy Point where most submitters have property interests) the Council has undertaken to give particular attention to the proper management of the stormwater flow from the roading system, will allow access to Council reserve land to undertake remedial works to the cliff edge, and will share information on suggested property management approaches.

With regards to seawall remediation proposals for Kennedy Point properties, it is likely that any seawall built will have to be placed below mean high water springs and will require a resource consent from the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) under the Regional Coastal Plan. Auckland City is not likely to oppose any reasonable application by Kennedy Point residents to the ARC.

The Tonkin and Taylor report is addressed more fully in section 4.3.2 below, but council has provided a toolkit to address problems on Kennedy Point

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to seawall remediation and other techniques:

That submissions 86/2, 293/2, 360/2, 622/2, 623/2, 624/2, 625/2, 720/2, 755/2, 756/2, 757/2, 758/2, 759/2, 760/2, 761/2, 762/2, 763/2, 764/2, 765/2, 766/2, 767/2, 768/2, 769/2, 795/2, 838/2, 846/2, 847/2, 848/2, 860/2, 1124/2, 1188/2, 1189/2, 1212/2, 1213/2, 1222/2, 1246/2, 2051/2, 2052/2, 2059/2, 2090/2, 2548/2, 2565/2, 2590/2, 2627/2, 2629/2, 2698/2, 3027/2, 3555/2, 3606/2 be accepted in part.

4.3 Submissions about reducing the hazard notification on Kennedy Point to a 50 year time frame.

Submissions dealt with in this section:

(1) 720/1, 755/3, 756/3, 757/3, 758/3, 760/3, 765/3, 767/3, 769/3, 846/3, 1124/3, 1188/3, 1212/3, 1213/3, 1222/3, 1246/3, 2059/3, 2590/3, 2627/3, 2629/3, 3555/3.

(2) 86/3, 293/3, 622/3, 623/3, 624/3, 625/3, 720/1, 720/3, 759/3, 761/3, 763/3, 764/3, 765/3, 766/3, 768/3, 795/3, 762/3, 838/3, 847/3, 848/3, 860/3, 1189/3

4.3.1 Decisions requested

(1) Reduce the hazard notifications on Esslin Road, Donald Bruce Road and Kennedy Point, so that they only affect private property where there is clear evidence that the land will be adversely affected within a 50 year time frame.
(2) Reduce the hazard notifications on Kennedy Point, so that they only affect private property where there is clear evidence that the land will be adversely affected within a 50-year time frame.

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

After a number of residents raised concerns in November of 2002 about the erosion occurring along the Huruhi Bay esplanade reserve, Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council engaged Tonkin and Taylor to produce a hazard assessment report. In April 2004, the Eastern Huruhi Bay Coastal Hazard Assessment report was produced. The assessment by Tonkin and Taylor identified that there is a significant erosion risk to both the esplanade reserve around the peninsular and to the properties that back onto the reserve. The assessment determined that the primary cause is the inherent defects in the cliff geology, which means the cliff is generally weak in terms of its material strength and therefore more susceptible to slips and on going erosion.

The April 2004 report identified 3 different erosion risk classification zones and a year 2100 erosion risk zone line, which affected most properties on the western side of Kennedy Point. In zone 1 areas, the cliff material is believed to be erosion resistant and located at headlands. The cliff material in zones 2 and 3 is more weathered and has a higher erosion risk (see figure H1 attached from Tonkin and Taylor report). The estimated rate of change by Tonkin and Taylor was:

Zone 1: Less than 1 metre / 100 years

Zone 2: 1 - 5 metres / 100 years

Zone 3: 5 - 10 metres / 100 years

A revised version of the Tonkin and Taylor report produced in June 2004 included both a year 2050 erosion risk line and a year 2100 erosion risk line. On most properties on the western side of Kennedy Point, there is little significant difference between the two lines.

In July 2004, it was agreed to extend the hazard assessment to include the shoreline area between the southern end of Takirau Bay to the Kennedy Point boat ramp

Affected property owners were written to in October 2004. In response, some residents raised concerns that the 2050 and 2100 erosion risk zone lines shown on figure 7.2 of the Tonkin and Taylor report, which skirt the front of some properties and bisect or run behind houses on other properties were not consistent with the broad-brush assessment or precautionary estimate of the report. As a consequence of these issues, and the potential uncertainty of erosion effects on individual properties, it was decided to identify all properties at risk within an erosion risk zone on the planning maps, without showing the detailed risk to individual properties.

After a meeting between Council officers and a residents group, an amended Tonkin and Taylor report was produced dated November 2004. This deleted the 10 metre safety margin from the line of influence they showed for the 2050 and 2100 erosion risk zone lines (see figure 7.1 from Tonkin and Taylor report attached). Whilst the resulting 2050 line was moved seaward the line was still within the front boundaries of most properties (especially those in the southern half) of the Kennedy Point peninsular.

Later correspondence with the Council by two members of the residents group requested the removal of the erosion risk zone lines and a simple identification of those properties which were touched by those lines. Hence the identification of the erosion risk zone in the planning maps for Kennedy Point is based on both the 2050 and 2100 erosion risk lines from the November 2004 Tonkin and Taylor report, but the planning maps do not show those lines, and only identify those properties the Council believes could be affected by coastal erosion in the next 50-100 years. As there is very little difference between these two lines, and as some residents have noted, it is difficult to determine the exact risk to individual properties over a 50-100 year time frame, the hazard notifications for Kennedy Point should not be altered.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking a reduction of the hazard notification on Kennedy Point to a 50 year time frame :

That submissions 720/1, 755/3, 756/3, 757/3, 758/3, 760/3, 765/3, 767/3, 769/3, 846/3, 1124/3, 1188/3, 1212/3, 1213/3, 1222/3, 1246/3, 2059/3, 2590/3, 2627/3, 2629/3, 3555/3 be rejected.

That submissions 86/3, 293/3, 622/3, 623/3, 624/3, 625/3, 720/1, 720/3, 759/3, 761/3, 763/3, 764/3, 765/3, 766/3, 768/3, 795/3, 762/3, 838/3, 847/3, 848/3, 860/3, 1189/3 be rejected.

4.4 Submissions seeking the removal of the various hazard notations relating to Kennedy Point.

Submissions dealt with in this section:

(1) 86/1, 293/1, 325/1, 360/1, 622/1, 623/1, 624/1, 625/1, 759/1, 761/1, 762/1, 763/1, 764/1, 765/1, 766/1, 768/1, 795/1, 838/1, 847/1, 848/1, 860/1, 1189/1, 2051/1, 2052/1, 2090/1, 2548/1, 2565/1, 2698/1, 3027/1, 3606/1,

(2) 755/1, 756/1, 757/1, 758/1, 760/1, 767/1, 769/1, 846/1, 1124/1, 1188/1, 1212/1, 1213/1, 1222/1, 1246/1, 2059/1, 2590/1, 2627/1, 2629/1, 3555/1

4.4.1 Decisions requested

Remove the various hazard notations relating to Kennedy Point and in particular the submitter's land.
Remove the various hazard notations relating to Esslin Road, Donald Bruce Road and Kennedy Point and in particular the submitter's land.

4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The submissions seek either the removal of the various hazard notification relating to Kennedy Point and in particular the submitters' land or the decisions from council outlined in sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 of this report. It would be inappropriate for council to remove the hazard notifications for Kennedy Point or any other individual pieces of land, if the council is reasonably confident that the land is hazard prone. To do so would be contrary to Council's requirements under section 31 of the RMA and section 44A of the Local Government Official Information and Meeting Act 1987.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking the removal of the various hazard notations relating to Kennedy Point and in particular the submitter's land .

That submissions 86/1, 293/1, 325/1, 360/1, 622/1, 623/1, 624/1, 625/1, 759/1, 761/1, 762/1, 763/1, 764/1, 765/1, 766/1, 768/1, 795/1, 838/1, 847/1, 848/1, 860/1, 1189/1, 2051/1, 2052/1, 2090/1, 2548/1, 2565/1, 2698/1, 3027/1, 3606/1 and 755/1, 756/1, 757/1, 758/1, 760/1, 767/1, 769/1, 846/1, 1124/1, 1188/1, 1212/1, 1213/1, 1222/1, 1246/1, 2059/1, 2590/1, 2627/1, 2629/1, 3555/1 be rejected.

4.5 Submissions seeking the removal of erosion risk zones relating to Esslin Road, Donald Bruce Road and Kennedy Point.

Submissions dealt with in this section:

360/9, 2720/1, 2227/1

4.5.1 Decisions requested

That the Council remove the Erosion Risk Zone relating to Esslin Road, Donald Bruce Road and Kennedy Point or apply the Erosion Risk Zone designation to all properties along the coastline of Waiheke, taking account not only of possible erosion but also of predicted rising sea levels (2227/1).

That the shaded area for 10 Kennedy Point Road (erosion risk area) be removed (360/9).

Expresses concern of putting coastal erosion conditions onto 35 Kennedy Point Road, which is not waterfront (2720/1).

4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Because of Council's obligations under section 31 of the RMA it would not be responsible of Council to remove the erosion risk zone relating to Esslin Road, Donald Bruce Rd or Kennedy Point. Even if the erosion risk zone was removed Council will be obliged to include information on the risk of erosion for the same properties within land information memorandums, and project information memorandums issued with building consent applications.

Because of previous work undertaken which identified that Onetangi Beach was the most at risk beach on Waiheke Island, Onetangi Beach is also identified on the planning maps as a erosion risk area, following the study of the beach in 2002 by Tonkin and Taylor. It is not however appropriate as suggested to apply a erosion risk classification to all properties along the coastline of Waiheke because many coastal areas will not be significantly affected by coastal erosion or by predicted sea level rises due to topography, geology, location etc. Because of budgetary constraints, it has not been possible to undertake a comprehensive study of coastal erosion across the whole of the Waiheke or Great Barrier Islands. The Council will however continue to investigate the most at risk areas when money becomes available.

The rules in part 8.6.1 take a precautionary approach and will provide protection to coastal properties by keeping activities at distances and elevations where they are not likely to be effected by a natural hazard event i.e. :

within 20 metres of coastal cliffs with a slope angle steeper than 180,
at an elevation less than 3 metres above mean high water springs (MHWS) if the activity is within 20m of mean high water springs, or
at an elevation less than 2 metres above MHWS if the activity is more than 20 metres from mean high water springs.

With regards to 10 Kennedy Point Rd, the November 2004 report by Tonkin and Taylor on Kennedy Point shows that the 2050 and 2100 erosion risk line affects about one-third of the property. In the case of 35 Kennedy Point Road, whilst the planning maps, because of their scale appear to include the right of way from the property to the coastal reserve, at a larger scale (on council's geographical information service database) it can be seen that this right of way is not included and 35 Kennedy Point Rd is not within the erosion risk zone. The Tonkin and Taylor report confirms that the erosion risk lines are close to, but do not affect, the right of way that 35 Kennedy Point Road has to the coastal reserve.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking the removal of the erosion risk zone from Esslin Road, Donald Bruce Road and Kennedy Point or the application of the zone to all coastal properties on Waiheke:

That submissions 360/9 and 2227/1 be rejected.

That submission 2720/1 be accepted with no change to the text or maps because the erosion risk zone notation does not affect 35 Kennedy Point Road

4.6 Submissions about amendments to the hazard notification at Kennedy Point.

Submissions dealt with in this section:

Group 1: 86/4, 293/4, 360/4, 622/4, 623/4, 624/4, 625/4, 759/4, 761/4, 762/4, 763/4, 764/4, 765/4, 766/4, 768/4, 795/4, 838/4, 847/4, 848/4, 860/4, 2051/4, 2052/4, 2090/4, 2548/4, 2565/4, 2698/4, 3027/4, 3606/4.

Group 2: 755/4, 756/4, 757/4, 758/4, 760/4, 767/4, 769/4, 846/4, 1124/4, 1188/4, 1212/4, 1213/4, 1222/4, 1246/4, 2059/4, 2590/4, 2627/4, 2629/4, 3555/4.

4.6.1 Decisions requested

Group 1: Make consequential amendments to the proposal (with specific reference to the hazard notifications at Kennedy Point), which better reflect the relationship between the level of risk and range of RMA and other techniques necessary to avoid , remedy and mitigate this risk.

Group 2: Make consequential amendments to the proposal (with specific reference to the hazard notifications at Esslin Road, Donald Bruce Road and Kennedy Point) which better reflect the relationship between the level of risk and range of RMA and other techniques necessary to avoid, remedy and mitigate this risk

4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

It is unclear from these submissions what specific changes to the Plan that the submitters request. The provisions of Part 8 seek to avoid the risk of a natural hazard adversely affecting properties and activities on Esslin Road, Donald Bruce Road and on Kennedy Point. It would be helpful if submitters attend the hearing and provide specific examples to the panel to support their submissions.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to the hazard notifications at Kennedy Point.

That submissions 86/4, 293/4, 360/4, 622/4, 623/4, 624/4, 625/4, 759/4, 761/4, 762/4, 763/4, 764/4, 765/4, 766/4, 768/4, 795/4, 838/4, 847/4, 848/4, 860/4, 2051/4, 2052/4, 2090/4, 2548/4, 2565/4, 2698/4, 3027/4, 3606/4 be rejected.

That submissions 755/4, 756/4, 757/4, 758/4, 760/4, 767/4, 769/4, 846/4, 1124/4, 1188/4, 1212/4, 1213/4, 1222/4, 1246/4, 2059/4, 2590/4, 2627/4, 2629/4, 3555/4 be rejected.

4.7 Submissions about reconciling competing Council policy decisions on the role of seawalls

Submissions dealt with in this section:

86/5, 293/5, 360/5, 606/5, 622/5, 623/5, 624/5, 625/5, 755/5, 756/5, 757/5, 758/5, 759/5, 760/5, 761/5, 762/5, 763/5, 764/5, 765/5, 766/5, 767/5, 768/5, 769/5, 795/5, 838/5, 846/5, 847/5, 848/5, 860/5, 1124/5, 1188/5, 1189/5, 1212/5, 1213/5, 1222/5, 1246/5, 2051/5, 2052/5, 2059/5, 2090/5, 2548/5, 2565/5, 2590/5, 2627/5, 2629/5, 2698/5, 3027/5, 3555/5

4.7.1 Decisions requested

Reconcile the competing council policy positions on the role of seawalls by adopting the recommendations of the Tonkin and Taylor report 2004 (relating to coastal hazard assessment), noting that these have been successfully put in place elsewhere by the council both historically and recently e.g. at Kohimarama Beach

4.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

It is unclear what the competing council policy positions are with regards to seawalls. The Tonkin and Taylor (T&T) report notes that "due to the cliff structure and the erosion mechanisms, the range of hard engineering solutions is practically limited to seawalls and revetments (facing of stone, concrete) to protect against long-term shoreline retreat. Seawalls or revetments can provide protection by reducing the toe erosion of the cliff line. However, increasing hard structures in the coastal environment needs to be carefully considered with any policy contained in the RMA, PRP:C (proposed Regional Plan : Coastal) and NZCPS (New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement)." It states in a later paragraph that "should private individuals wish to undertake coastal protection on the esplanade reserve, landowner approval would have to be sought from the ACC and the necessary resource consents obtained. Similarly, any works below MHWS will require consent approval from the ARC."

The T&T report also suggests that beach replenishment could be considered in embayed shorelines as well as replanting of the cliff area.

Seawalls may be the only appropriate protection for many properties on Kennedy Point due to the nature of the cliff face, where they are likely to have only minor effects on public access and landscape values, but seawalls or other hard structures will generally not be an appropriate means of protection in unmodified coastal environments . Hard structures in other areas may limit public access to beaches, cause a loss of the dry sand area and lead to inappropriate development in the coastal area. Their failure can cause ongoing problems and a greater armouring of the coastal area. The objective and policies in clause 8.3.3 seek to protect existing natural coastal defences and prevent the use of new hard engineered structures where they are likely to have an adverse effects on the coastal environment.

The work undertaken by Council at Kohimarama and St Heliers was in a highly modified coastal environment where beach sand replenishment occurred and artificial reefs were built in order to retain the sand on these beaches.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking a reconciliation of the competing Council policy decisions on the role of seawalls

That submissions 86/5, 293/5, 360/5, 606/5, 622/5, 623/5, 624/5, 625/5, 755/5, 756/5, 757/5, 758/5, 759/5, 760/5, 761/5, 762/5, 763/5, 764/5, 765/5, 766/5, 767/5, 768/5, 769/5, 795/5, 838/5, 846/5, 847/5, 848/5, 860/5, 1124/5, 1188/5, 1189/5, 1212/5, 1213/5, 1222/5, 1246/5, 2051/5, 2052/5, 2059/5, 2090/5, 2548/5, 2565/5, 2590/5, 2627/5, 2629/5, 2698/5, 3027/5, 3555/5 be rejected .

4.8 Submissions about providing for sea walls which do not impede public access as a controlled activity

Submissions dealt with in this section:

86/6, 293/6, 360/6, 622/6, 623/6, 624/6, 625/6, 720/6, 755/6, 756/6, 757/6, 758/6, 759/6, 760/6, 761/6, 762/6, 763/6, 764/6, 765/6, 766/6, 767/6, 768/6, 769/6, 795/6, 838/6, 846/6, 847/6, 848/6, 860/6, 1124/6, 1188/6, 1189/6, 1212/6, 1213/6, 1222/6, 1246/6, 2051/6, 2052/6, 2059/6, 2090/6, 2548/6, 2565/6, 2590/6, 2627/6, 2629/6, 2698/6, 3027/6, 3555/6, 3606/6

4.8.1 Decisions requested

Provide for sea walls which protect land from coastal erosion and which do not impede public access as a controlled activity

4.8.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Sea walls, groynes and other methods of shoreline armouring may protect private property, but in the case of sandy beaches, may cause the loss of the dry sand beach area available to the public or have adverse effects on the local environment. Hard structures can also adversely affect the natural appearance of coastal areas and replace natural processes that may protect the coast from coastal erosion. In some areas the presence of armouring structures may also encourage inappropriate intensification or development in coastal hazard areas. Failure of sea walls and groynes may lead to further inappropriate modification of the coastal environment. Sea walls in one area may affect the accretion or movement of sand in other areas. Seawalls paid for by Council may enable beachfront interests to enjoy the benefit of a near-shore location while externalising the costs onto a wider community. Because of these issues and the general comments in section 4.9.2 below about controlled activities it is not considered appropriate to provide for sea walls as a controlled activity.

Planner's recommendations about submissions about providing for sea walls, which do not impede public access as a controlled activity:

That submissions: 86/6, 293/6, 360/6, 622/6, 623/6, 624/6, 625/6, 720/6, 755/6, 756/6, 757/6, 758/6, 759/6, 760/6, 761/6, 762/6, 763/6, 764/6, 765/6, 766/6, 767/6, 768/6, 769/6, 795/6, 838/6, 846/6, 847/6, 848/6, 860/6, 1124/6, 1188/6, 1189/6, 1212/6, 1213/6, 1222/6, 1246/6, 2051/6, 2052/6, 2059/6, 2090/6, 2548/6, 2565/6, 2590/6, 2627/6, 2629/6, 2698/6, 3027/6, 3555/6, 3606/6 be rejected.

4.9 Submissions about development being a controlled activity where a geotechnical report exists for a site.

Submissions dealt with in this section:

86/7, 293/7, 360/7, 622/7, 623/7, 624/7, 625/7, 720/7, 755/7, 7557, 757/7, 758/7, 759/7, 760/7, 761/7, 762/7, 763/7, 764/7, 765/7, 766/7, 767/7, 768/7, 769/7, 795/7, 838/7, 846/7, 847/7, 848/7, 860/7, 1124/7, 1188/7, 1189/7, 1212/7, 1213/7, 1222/7, 1246/7, 2051/7, 2052/7, 2059/7, 2090/7, 2548/7, 2565/7, 2590/7, 2627/7, 2629/7, 2698/7, 3027/7, 3555/7, 3606/7.

4.9.1 Decisions requested

Acknowledge on an individual site basis that where a geotechnical report exists from a registered geotechnical engineer, development will become a controlled rather than a discretionary activity

4.9.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The council has intentionally omitted the controlled activity status from the Plan. In the past, the council has used the controlled activity status in the Isthmus Plan, the Central Area Plan and in the operative Hauraki Gulf Islands Plan. Considerable experience has led the council to the view that, in the main, the use of the controlled activity status does not provide the council with sufficient discretion to address the adverse effects associated with particular proposals. This is because the council is not able to decline an application for a controlled activity but can only impose conditions relating to matters over which it has reserved control. Council cannot impose conditions which require such significant modification as to fundamentally alter the proposal. To do so would effectively negate the consent granted and prevent the activity from taking place. Not all proposals which warrant assessment through the resource consent process can be adequately mitigated by the use of conditions. Some proposals need to be declined or substantially modified.

There will be other submissions that seek a controlled activity status for specific activities. These submissions will be considered in other hearing reports. If, as a result of these submissions, the council does decide to introduce a controlled activity status, then it will be appropriate at that time to reconsider whether some or all development on sites with a geotechnical reports should be a controlled activity. However, at this time, it is recommended that the submissions seeking a controlled activity status, be rejected.

It is noted that clause 8.6.1 states that where an appropriately qualified engineer confirms that the land will not be subject to flooding, erosion or instability, no consent will be required under part 8.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking that development be a controlled activity where a geotechnical report exists for a site:

That submissions 86/7, 293/7, 360/7, 622/7, 623/7, 624/7, 625/7, 720/7, 755/7, 756/7, 757/7, 758/7, 759/7, 760/7, 761/7, 762/7, 763/7, 764/7, 765/7, 766/7, 767/7, 768/7, 769/7, 795/7, 838/7, 846/7, 847/7, 848/7, 860/7, 1124/7, 1188/7, 1189/7, 1212/7, 1213/7, 1222/7, 1246/7, 2051/7, 2052/7, 2059/7, 2090/7, 2548/7, 2565/7, 2590/7, 2627/7, 2629/7, 2698/7, 3027/7, 3555/7, 3606/7 be rejected

4.10 Submissions about Council working with residents and property owners to develop an appropriate policy response to issues of erosion and stability.

Submissions dealt with in this section:

86/8, 293/8, 360/8, 622/8, 623/8, 624/8, 625/8, 755/8, 756/8, 757/8, 758/8, 759/8, 760/8, 761/8, 762/8, 763/8, 764/8, 765/8, 766/8, 767/8, 768/8, 769/8, 795/8, 838/8, 846/8, 847/8, 848/8, 860/8, 1124/8, 1188/8, 1189/8, 1212/8, 1213/8, 1222/8, 1232/1, 1246/8, 2051/8, 2052/8, 2059/8, 2090/8, 2227/5, 2565/8, 2590/8, 2629/8, 2698/8, 30278, 3555/8, 3606/8

4.10.1 Decisions requested

That the council dedicate sufficient specialist resources to work with the residents and property owners as well as the Auckland Regional Council to develop an appropriate policy response to issues of erosion and stability in those areas that suffer from them

4.10.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The objectives, policies and rules in Part 8 of the proposed Plan are believed to be an appropriate policy response to the issues of erosion and instability in areas that suffer from them.

As noted previously the council has undertaken to give particular attention to the proper management of the stormwater flow from the roading system servicing Kennedy Point, it will allow access to Council reserve land around Kennedy Point to undertake the necessary remedial works to the cliff edge, and will share information on suggested property management approaches to minimise the rate of erosion. The Council is unlikely to oppose any reasonable application to the ARC by residents wishing to construct seawalls in appropriate locations below Kennedy Point.

The work undertaken by the Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council in relation to Kennedy Point is and example of Council working with property owners. As described in 4.3.2 of this report, Council commissioned Tonkin and Taylor to investigate erosion issues in conjunction with specialist council officers and property owners. Council will continue to deal with specific issues as funding and priorities allow.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking that council work with residents and property owners to develop an appropriate policy response to issues of erosion and stability:

That submissions: 86/8, 293/8, 360/8, 622/8, 623/8, 624/8, 625/8, 755/8, 756/8, 757/8, 758/8, 759/8, 760/8, 761/8, 762/8, 763/8, 764/8, 765/8, 766/8, 767/8, 768/8, 769/8, 795/8, 838/8, 846/8, 847/8, 848/8, 860/8, 1124/8, 1188/8, 1189/8, 1212/8, 1213/8, 1222/8, 1232/1, 1246/8, 2051/8, 2052/8, 2059/8, 2090/8, 2227/5, 2565/8, 2590/8, 2629/8, 2698/8, 3027/8, 3555/8, 3606/8 be accepted without changes to the text.

4.11 A submission seeking the alignment of any proposals on natural hazards with the principles of the RMA so as to avoid, remedy or mitigate.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 325/2

4.11.1 Decisions requested

To align any proposal on natural hazards with the principles of the RMA 1991 so as to "avoid, remedy or mitigate".

4.11.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

It is believed that the natural hazard objectives, policies and rules are consistent with and align with the principles of the RMA 1991. The submitter is encouraged to attend the hearing and provide specific examples for the panel to support their submission. Overall it is considered that this submission can be accepted without changes to the plan.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking the alignment of any proposals on natural hazards with the principles of the RMA, so as to avoid, remedy or mitigate.

That submission 325/2 be accepted without changes to the text or maps.

4.12 A submission supporting the recognition of flood plains, at risk soil and erosion areas in the planning maps.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3061/165, 3061/166, 3061/167.

4.12.1 Decisions requested

The recognition of flood plains, at risk soil and erosion areas in the planning maps is supported.

4.12.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

That the submissions be accepted.

Planner's recommendation about a submission supporting the recognition of flood plains, at risk soil and erosion areas in the planning maps.

That submissions 3061/165, 3061/166 and 3061/167 be accepted without changes to the text or maps.

4.13 Submissions relating to climate change.

Submissions dealt with in this section:

536/1, 1166/7 and 3106/4

4.13.1 Decisions requested

That the council, in accordance with the Ministry of Environment's request, express clearly the fact of climate change and how to mitigate and adapt to the climate change. Request that council state: "The partnership between Auckland City Council and the Ministry for the Environment aims to improve awareness, understanding of the effects of climate change and ways of mitigating this change within the local government sector, leading to increased long-term sustainable behaviour in relation to mitigating and adapting to climate change (536/1).
2. That "at risk areas" from effects of climate change are identified and the district plan ensures those areas are managed so that new development and infrastructure are not built on those areas and initiatives are undertaken to reduce risks to existing development (1166/7)

Strengthen the plan in its treatment of climate change (3106/4).

4.13.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Whilst Part 8 only mentions climate change in passing with reference to section 7 of the RMA, it was difficult at the time of the notification of the Plan for Council to quantify the effects of climate change, specifically on the Hauraki Gulf Islands. Council is commissioning further work on possible changes to rainfall, wind, sea level and storm surge frequency for the Auckland area as a result of climate change. If, as a result of this work, the plan provisions are likely to be insufficient then a plan change will be undertaken. On average though, it is expected that average temperatures in New Zealand will increase by about 10C by the 2030s and 2-30C by the 2080s and using moderate projections it is possible that sea level rise will be between 30-50cm by 2100, exacerbating coastal erosion, sea inundation during storms, salinisation of fresh water and drainage of low lying lands. More episodes of heavy rainfall are likely and a greater risk of severe winds and storms. The number of hot days is expected to increase in the northern North Island.

What policies and rules of Part 8 seek to do is to avoid development in areas that are likely to be affected by climate change - areas prone to flooding, coastal erosion, slippage, subsidence. The rules also seek to prevent the modification of hazard prone areas or natural defences such as sand dune areas, so that they will maintain their resilience to natural hazard events arising from climate change.

The development controls in part 10c including indigenous vegetation protection and exotic tree protection also contribute to reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The writer is unaware of any formal partnership between Auckland City Council and the Ministry of the Environment and the inclusion of the statement requested by the submitter in the district plan may be misleading.

Natural hazard areas (which may be at risk from the effects of climate change) known to the Council when the plan was notified, are identified on the inner islands planning maps. These natural hazard areas are flood prone areas (types A and B), soil warning areas and soil register areas, and erosion risk zones. Because of a lack of reliable information for the outer islands there are no natural hazard areas identified on the outer islands planning maps. The policies and rules in part 8 will take a precautionary approach and will ensure that activities are not located in areas likely to be subject to natural hazard events, in the absence of information known to Council and/ or shown on the planning maps. These policies and rules also seek to prevent the modification of hazard prone areas so that they maintain their resilience to natural hazard events arising from climate change and to ensure changes to hazard prone areas will not increase the risk to existing development.

It is therefore considered that the plan provisions do identify many areas that are at risk from the effects of climate change. Once further research and analysis is undertaken there may be additional at risk areas identified.

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to climate change:

That submissions 1166/7 and 3106/4 be accepted without any change to the text or maps

That submission 536/1 be rejected

4.14 A submission requesting that works authorised by statute or regulations be a permitted activity.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 941/44

4.14.1 Decisions requested

Clause 8 be amended to include the following activity (or words to like effect) as a permitted activity:

"The actions of any person in carrying out work which is authorised by statute or regulations (including the Electricity Act 1992 and the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003)".

4.14.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

There are some situations where work authorised by statute or regulation might legally override rules within the proposed plan and could be considered as a permitted activity. The matter raised by the submitter in connection with the Electricity Act 1992 and the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003 is also addressed in part 5- network utility services, specifically clause 5.6.7. This is a more appropriate place for the proposed rule such as the submitter proposes, which could apply to many parts of the proposed plan.

Planner's recommendations about a submission requesting that works authorised by statute or regulation be a permitted activity .

That submission 941/44 be be accepted in part

4.15 A submission requesting that part 8 be amended to include measures to manage and avoid erosion including stormwater management and revegetation programmes.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2227/2

4.15.1 Decisions requested

Amend Part 8 of the Proposed District Plan to include measures to manage and avoid erosion including stormwater management and revegetation programmes

4.15.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The impervious surface area rules in part 10c.4.9 recognise that stormwater must be disposed of on site and seek to control the amount of impervious surfaces on small sites, so that the adverse effects of stormwater when concentrated by impervious surfaces are minimised. Because in nearly all areas stormwater and wastewater is not reticulated, sufficient permeable surfaces must be available on every site to dispose of both the stormwater generated from impervious surfaces on the site and for the wastewater generated on that site. The amount of vegetation cover, the slope of the land, the soil types and the saturation of the soil moderate the absorption of stormwater. Stormwater that is not absorbed on site will travel across other land until it finds its way to a water body.

The inner islands planning maps identify flood prone land areas in western Waiheke and the rules in part 8 prevent development or activities (without a resource consent) in identified flood prone areas. In the absence of identified flood prone areas, the rules in part 8 require a resource consent for any building, structure or earthworks activity at an elevation less than 1 metre above the edge of adjacent permanent stream, river, wetland or lake (see rule 8.5.1).

The rules in part 8 require a resource consent for the removal of any vegetation:

on land where the slope is steeper than 1 in 3;
within 5 metres of the centreline of any stream, or river, or the edge of any lake or wetland;

and the removal of indigenous vegetation greater than 2 metres in height within 10 metres of the centreline of any stream or river or the edge of any wetland to prevent erosion of streams, rivers and wetlands. The protection of this vegetation helps to prevent erosion. Vegetation is also protected by other rules e.g. 10c.5.1, 10c.5.2 and 12.11.13

The proposed rules will also protect vegetation by requiring a resource consent for any building, structure or earthworks activity:

within 20m of a coastal cliff with a angle steeper than 1 in 3;
on any slope with an angle greater than 1 in 2; and
the removal of vegetation from sand dunes that are within 40 metres of mean high water springs (see rule 8.5.1).

The issue of revegetation is addressed as part of the assessment criteria for discretionary activities, and is intended to be used as a means of mitigating the effects of some activities.

No further amendments are considered necessary to Part 8 to manage and avoid erosion including stormwater management and revegetation programmes as various other controls throughout the plan achieve this.

Planner's recommendations about a submission requesting that part 8 of the proposed plan include measures to avoid erosion including stormwater management and revegetation programmes.

That submission 2227/2 be accepted without changes to Part 8.

4.16 A submission requesting that part 8 be reviewed, integrated, mandated and upgraded.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3061/52

4.16.1 Decisions requested

Part 8.0 Natural hazards is opposed in it present form until it is reviewed, integrated, mandated by the community and upgraded to:

Take account of climate change issues e.g. sea level rise
Take account of development in coastal amenity areas
Take account of radical / extreme weather events
Apply the HGMPA to this part of the Plan
Ensure a complete coverage in relation to coastal erosion and slippage, specific to the effectiveness of the building controls in particular.
Recognise the role of on-site stormwater runoff in coastal erosion
Integrated comprehensive waters management system

4.16.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

With regards to climate change, sea level rise and radical/extreme weather events this is addressed in section 4.13 of this report. Part 8 controls development in all coastal areas, including coastal amenity areas, through restriction on development and activities within 20m from a coastal cliff with a angle steeper than 1 in 3 and with restrictions on the removal of vegetation from sand dunes that are within 40 metres of mean high water springs.

The rules within part 8 take a precautionary approach in the absence of this information by setting limitations on activities in areas that have a high probability of coastal erosion and slippage. Thus the rules (8.6.1) propose to limit development and activities

within 20m from a coastal cliff with a angle steeper than 1 in 3;
on any slope with an angle greater than 1 in 2; and
at an elevation less than 3 metres above mean high water spring if the activity/ development is within 20m of mean high water springs;
at an elevation less than 2 metres above mean high water spring if the activity/ development is more than 20m of mean high water springs.

and prevent the modification and removal of sand dunes and vegetation from sand dunes that are within 40 metres of mean high water springs. The use and effectiveness of controls in the Building Act for land subject to natural hazards is complementary to what the rules are proposing. The requirements of the Building Act in natural hazard areas are outlined in the explanation to part 8.3.1 of the proposed plan.

On-site stormwater runoff may be a contribution in some cases to coastal erosion and it is addressed to some extent in policy 2 of objective 8.3.2. The impervious surface area rules in part 10c.4.9 also recognise that stormwater must be disposed of on site and seeks to control the amount of impervious surfaces on small sites, so that the adverse effects of stormwater when concentrated by impervious surfaces are minimised. This matter is also dealt with by building regulations. Clause E1 (Surface Water) of the New Zealand Building Regulations 1992 requires buildings and site works to be constructed in a way that protects people and other property from the adverse effects of surface water. Specifically clause E1 requires that surface water resulting from an event having a 10% probability of occurring annually (a 1 in 10 year rainfall event) and which is collected or concentrated by buildings or site works, to be disposed of in a way that avoids the likelihood or damage to other property. Thus, clause E1 can be used to prevent stormwater runoff affecting coastal erosion on esplanade reserves or properties not owned by the person discharging the stormwater.

Whilst the Hauraki Gulf Islands Marine Park Act 2000 is not specifically mentioned in part 8, the provisions in part 8 do not conflict with sections 7 and 8 of the Act.

As noted in section 4.15.2 of this report, rules are proposed in part 10c.4.9 to limit the amount of impervious surfaces on small sites, to limit the adverse effects of stormwater, whilst part 4.8 of the proposed plan deals with wastewater, and the Building Act deals with the requirements for drinking water.

Planner's recommendations about a submission requesting that part 8 be reviewed, integrated, mandated and upgraded.

That submission 3061/52 be rejected.

4.17 A submission requesting that clause 8.3.3 be retained but that the policies in clause 8.3.2 be amended to specifically refer to the control of stormwater runoff along coastal areas and the restriction of pedestrian access to dunes.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1250/17

4.17.1 Decisions requested

Retain clause 8.3.3 but amend the policies in clause 8.3.2, to specifically refer to the control of stormwater runoff along coastal areas and the restriction of pedestrian access to dunes.

4.17.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

As noted in section 4.15 above the control of stormwater runoff is adequately dealt with by the Building Regulations.

The restriction of pedestrian access to sand dunes is not best controlled under a district plan. If the Council is the owner of land on which there are sand dunes, it can as land owner reasonably control access to those dunes if it is necessary to prevent their damage or prevent the loss of vegetation. Beach care programs typically fence of regenerating areas and control access to prevent damage. Council's Public Places Bylaw makes it an offence to cause damage to a public place or to remove sand from a public place, and requires persons wishing to gain access to a public to use a designated access where this is available. As Council's bylaws apply down to mean low water mark it can restrict access to dune areas if it provides designated access areas.

Planner's recommendations about a submission requesting that clause 8.3.3 be retained but that the policies in clause 8.3.2 be amended to specifically refer to the control of stormwater runoff along coastal areas and the restriction of pedestrian access to dunes.

That submission 1250/17 be rejected.

4.18 A submission relating to drought conditions.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3521/69

4.18.1 Decisions requested

Amend clause 8.3.2 to include a policy that recognises the relationship between the nature of non-reticulated water use on the islands creating a higher risk to residents and businesses from drought conditions

4.18.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Whilst drought is a natural hazard the writer believes that the residents of the Hauraki Gulf Islands are well aware of the risks of drought and the need to conserve water in summer or during drought conditions and the addition of a policy as suggested would be of little practical value. Council would not generally include any rules to give effect to such a policy - such as rules on the size of water tanks or the requirement to use water saving devices. It is noted that section 18 of the Building Act 2004 states that any person who carries out building work is not required by the Act to achieve performance standards that are additional to, or more restrictive than the performance criteria prescribed in the building code in relation to that building work. Severe drought conditions are also likely to be a region wide issue and would affect the water supply dams that serve reticulated water supplies in the region.

Planner's recommendation about a submission relating to drought conditions

That submission 3521/69 be rejected.

4.19 A submission requesting that clause 8.3.2 be amended by adding a policy that seeks to avoid development in hazard prone areas.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3521/70

4.19.1 Decisions requested

Amend clause 8.3.2 by adding a policy that seeks to avoid development in hazard prone areas

4.19.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The additional policy proposed by the submitter is similar to the second policy in part 8.3.1 which states: "By preventing new development and activities in high risk areas where the effects of the natural hazard cannot be adequately avoided or mitigated". There are many types of hazard prone areas but it is only reasonable to exclude activities from areas where the risk of a hazard event occurring is high and/or where the consequences of natural hazard event are serious. No additional policy as suggested by the submission is recommended.

Planner's recommendation about a submission requesting that clause 8.3.2 be amended to include a policy that seeks to avoid development in hazard prone areas.

That submission 3521/70 be rejected.

4.20 A submission requesting that clause 8.3.2 be amended to recognise that integrated management is required for many coastal hazard mitigations proposals.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3521/71

4.20.1 Decisions requested

Amend clause 8.3.2 to recognise that integrated management is required for many coastal hazard mitigations proposals. It should be noted that resource consents may be required by both the ARC and ACC

4.20.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The issue of integrated management for coastal hazard mitigations is already addressed in the second paragraph of part 8.6.3 where it notes that "the placement of any structure in, on, under or over the bed of any lake or river or stream or below mean high water springs is controlled by the Auckland Regional Council." No change to clause 8.3.2 is recommended.

Planner's recommendation about a submission requesting that clause 8.3.2 be amended to recognise that integrated management is required for many coastal hazard mitigations proposals.

That submission 3521/71 be rejected.

4.21 A submission requesting that clause 8.3.1(2) recognises that farming activity, particularly grazing, is normally appropriate for areas that are at risk of natural hazards.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1243/65

4.21.1 Decisions requested

With respect to clause 8.3.1(2) provide that farming activity, particularly grazing, is normally appropriate for areas that are at risk of natural hazards.

4.21.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Policy 8.3.1(2) seeks to prevent new development and activities in high risk areas where the effects of the natural hazard cannot be avoided or mitigated. Rule 8.6.1(1) outlines the type of development and activities that the rule applies to. The rule as proposed did not intend to apply to the existing use of land for horticulture or pastoral farming, but it would include the modification of land that is hazard prone for horticulture or pastoral farming including the removal of vegetation from hazard prone land. It would also apply to the construction of new buildings or structures for horticulture or pastoral farming. It is appropriate that the term 'land use development activity' be removed from clause 8.6.1.1(a) because there are sufficient controls on all such activities in rule 8.6.1 as to render the term unnecessary. However a control on the removal of vegetation from soil warning areas, soil register areas or erosion risk zones would be required to prevent removal of vegetation where it could increase erosion and slips or slumps. Activities such as grazing should not have an adverse effect on hazard prone land and should not be caught by rule 8.6.1. The removal of the term 'land use development activity' would avoid confusion with this rule and clarify policy 8.3.1(2).

Planner's recommendations about a submission requesting that clause 8.3.1(2) recognises that farming activity, particularly grazing, is normally appropriate for areas that are at risk of natural hazards.

That submission 1243/65 be accepted in part and

the term "land use development activity" be removed from rule 8.6.1;
that a new rule be added after rule 8.5.1(3)which reads: the removal of any vegetation more than 2m high from any area identified as a soil warning area, soil register area or in an erosion risk zone.

4.22 A submission requesting that clause 8.5.1 should not apply to activities undertaken by the Department of Conservation in accordance with the functions under the Conservation Act 1987.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2517/5

4.22.1 Decisions requested

That clause 8.5.1 be amended to include a fourth rule that states:

"This rule does not apply to activities within the Conservation Land Unit undertaken by DOC for structures, facilities and operations in accordance with its functions under the Conservation Act 1987".

4.22.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The Department of Conservation like other land owners are required to obtain building consents where applicable for structures and buildings and are thus subject to the requirements of section 71 of the Building Act. The writer believes that other activities undertaken by DOC on the conservation land unit in accordance with its functions under the Conservation Act 1987, such as vegetation removal, land use activities, earthworks and the storage of hazardous substances are likely to be at a small scale. This is also consistent with the rules for conservation land units in rule 10a.25.6.1.

Planner's recommendations about a submission requesting that clause 8.5.1 should not apply to activities within the conservation land unit undertaken by the Department of Conservation in accordance with its functions under the Conservation Act 1987.

That submission 2517/5 be accepted and a new exception be added to clause 8.5.1 which reads : "Rules 1-5 above do not apply to activities within the conservation land unit undertaken by the Department of Conservation for structures, facilities and operations in accordance with its functions under the Conservation Act 1987".

4.23 Submissions relating to accessory structures and buildings

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2631/14, 2631/15 and 3098/2&3

4.23.1 Decisions requested

Amend clause 8.5 (2631/14) and 8.6 (2631/15) to provide for construction of minor structures and additions and alterations to existing buildings, as a Controlled Activity, subject to appropriate Matters for Control and without the need for public notification, to the satisfaction of the submitters).

Provide exemptions for small scale accessory structures (3098/2) and provide for all building work as a restricted discretionary activity (3098/3).

4.23.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

It is difficult to determine what the submitters consider to be minor structures, additions and alterations to existing buildings or small-scale accessory buildings that could be located on hazard prone land. Despite the size of an accessory building or a minor structure, it could be placed in area subject to natural hazards, and could increase the severity of natural hazards both on the land it was placed or on other land. If, for example, an accessory building or minor structure was placed in a flood prone area, it might increase the risk of flooding of adjacent land by creating an obstruction to the storm flow. If it was constructed in a slip prone area, any earthworks required for its construction might increase the potential for slippage on that land. In addition, the Council cannot in the case of an accessory building, minor structure or major alterations to existing buildings, exempt itself from the requirements of section 71 of the Building Act. Section 71 prevents a building consent from being granted for a building or for major additions or alterations to a building if the land on which the building work is to be carried out is subject or likely to be subject to one or more natural hazards. The comments in section 4.9.2 of this report regarding controlled activities are also relevant to these submissions.

There is however merit in submission 3098/3 in providing for additions or alterations to exisiting buildings or small accessory structures as a restricted discretionary activity. It is also appropriate that most building work in natural hazard areas, such as building work covered in rule 8.6.1.(1) be a restricted discretionary activity as the matters of discretion can easily be defined. In this case it is whether the building work avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential impacts of the natural hazard; or accelerate or exacerbate the probability of a natural hazard occurring and/or the potential impacts of the natural hazard.

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to accessory structures and buildings.

That submissions 2631/ 14, 2631/15 and 3098/2 be rejected. That submission 3098/3 be accepted as shown in Appendix 3.

4.24 Submissions relating to vegetation removal (8.5 and 8.6)

Submissions dealt with in this section: 526/15, 527/15, 528/15, 529/15, 539/15, 1243/66, 3098/1, 2631/14 and 3098/3

4.24.1 Decisions requested

Amend clause 8.5.1 to ensure that vegetation removal from slopes greater than 18 degrees as part of an approved rural management plan for vineyard or pastoral productive purposes is provided for (526/15, 527/15, 528/15, 529/15, 539/15).

Provide in clause 8.5.1 for the removal of riparian vegetation as a permitted activity (1243/66).

Provide for limited vegetation removal as a permitted activity and change the status of all vegetation removal to a restricted discretionary activity (3098/1&3).

Amend clause 8.5 and 8.6 to provide for minor vegetation removal, as a Controlled Activity, subject to appropriate Matters for Control and without the need for public notification, to the satisfaction of the submitters (2631/14 & 15).

4.24.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Whilst vegetation removal on slopes greater than 1 in 3 could be included in a rural management plan, it is not clear to the writer how this should be "provided for". If it is meant that this removal should be able to be incorporated as a matter within a rural management plan requiring a resource consent then the writer would agree. If however the submitters mean that vegetation removal on slopes greater than 1 in 3 should be a permitted activity just because the activity is mentioned in a rural management plan, then this would be opposed by the writer.

Technical publication (TP)71 from the Auckland Regional Council "Slope Instability Hazards in the Auckland Region: A Preliminary Assessment" identifies (at a regional scale) that most of the Hauraki Gulf Islands have either a moderate or a high slope instability hazard partly due to moderate to steep inland slopes. TP 71 categorises steep slopes as being 16-200.

The degree of vegetation cover and the slope of the land can affect slope stability and erosion. Technical Publication 90 "Erosion and Sediment Control" by the ARC notes that vegetation is, without question, the most effective long-term form of erosion control. It notes that vegetation shields the surface from the impacts of falling rain, slows the velocity of runoff, holds soil particles in place and maintains the soil's capacity to absorb water. Data from the United States suggests that there may be 1000 times the sediment yield from disturbed sites during construction compared with permanent forest cover.

The proposed plan seeks to protect riparian vegetation, to minimise streamside erosion, and to protect the health of streams from sedimentation. Riparian vegetation also moderates the effects of flooding by slowing the entry of water into steams and by reducing the velocity of water in-stream, which limits erosion during flooding events. Riparian vegetation has also been shown to reduce the total suspended solids from overland flow. The erosion of streams may have adverse effects on structures and activities located near those streams.

Rules in 8.5.1 are restricted discretionary activities for the removal of vegetation on steep slopes, and near streams, rivers, lakes and wetlands. Rule 8.5.1(2) and 8.5.1(3) does however allow the removal of plant pest species near any streams, rivers, lakes or wetlands as a permitted activity to prevent these from blocking waterways and causing flooding. Erosion from the removal of vegetation on one site can have significant off-site effects such as siltation of watercourses, which may modify or destroy in-stream values and in serious cases may also modify estuaries and coastal habitats, thus it is appropriate that the removal of vegetation on steep slopes remains a restricted discretionary activity.

Rule 8.6.1.1 (discretionary activities) requires a resource consent for any "land use development activity". This would include the removal of vegetation in a natural hazard area as part of an activity such as earthworks creating a building site and so on. As noted in part 4.17.2 of this report, it may be more appropriate that most of these activities are classified as restricted discretionary activity. Part 8.6.1.2 requires a consent for the removal of vegetation on sand dunes - because the removal of vegetation from sand dunes can have severe effects on those dunes and their ability to withstand storm events it is recommended that this activity remain a discretionary activity.

Submission 3098/1 seeks that part 8 should allow for limited vegetation removal as a permitted activity and 3098/3 seeks that the status of all vegetation removal should be a restricted discretionary activity. Submission 2631/14 and 15 seeks that the plan provide for minor vegetation removal as a controlled activity. Neither submitter indicates what they consider "limited vegetation removal" or "minor vegetation removal" would be for vegetation removal on hazard prone land. The difficulty for Council is that the retention of some areas of vegetation may be more important than the retention of other areas even on the same site, because of the degree to which that vegetation may prevent erosion or slippage. Submissions 2631/14 and 15 do not provide information as to what matters of control would be of satisfaction to the submitter.

As previously noted in section 4.9.2 of this report, the council has intentionally omitted the controlled activity status from the Plan. Considerable experience has led the council to the view that, in the main, the use of the controlled activity status does not provide the council with sufficient discretion to address the adverse effects associated with particular proposals. The council is not able to decline an application for a controlled activity but can only impose conditions relating to matters over which it has reserved control. Not all proposals for the removal of vegetation can be adequately mitigated by the use of conditions to prevent erosion or slippage. Some proposals for vegetation removal might need to be declined or substantially modified.

The requests of submissions 1243/66, 2631/14 and 2631/15 are thus opposed. The request of submission 3098/1 is also opposed. In the case of 3098/3 some vegetation removal is already provided for as a restricted discretionary.

Planner's recommendations related to vegetation removal.

That submissions 526/15, 527/15, 528/15, 529/15, 539/15 be rejected. That submissions 1243/66, 2631/ 14 and 15 and 3098/1 be rejected. That submission 3098/3 be rejected.

4.25 Submissions requesting activities in clause 8.6.1 become restricted discretionary activates

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1285/9 and 3847/1

4.25.1 Decisions requested

If the soil warning and soil register on sheet 7, map 2 (with particular reference to 28 Dolphin Lane, Church Bay) is to remain, the rules contained in part 8 should be amended so that any of the activities listed in clause 8.6.1 become restricted discretionary activities (1285/9).

Activities in clause 8.6.1 should be restricted discretionary activities, and not discretionary (3847/1)

4.25.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

As previously discussed, it is appropriate that many of the rules in part 8.6 would be more appropriate as restricted discretionary activities so that the assessment of any application is confined to the extent to which the proposed development or activity avoids, remedies or mitigates the natural hazard present or the creation of a natural hazard. It is however recommended that the soil warning and soil registers on all of the maps remain, to be consistent with Council's responsibilities under section 31 of the RMA.

Planner's recommendations about submissions requesting that the rules in part 8 should be amended so that any of the activities listed in clause 8.6.1 become restricted discretionary activities.

That submission 1285/9 and 3847/1 be accepted in part and the necessary changes be made to part 8.6.1.

4.26 A submission relating to assessment criteria

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3098/4

4.26.1 Decisions requested

In part 8, focus assessment criteria and matters to be considered for practical application of rules

4.26.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The writer believes that the assessment criteria and matters to be considered are focused on practical outcomes to avoid development in hazard prone areas.

Planner's recommendation about a submission requesting the focusing of assessment criteria and matters to be considered for the practical application of rules (for all vegetation removal and building work as a restricted discretionary activity).

That submission 3098/4 be accepted in part with no changes to the text.

4.27 A submission supporting the recognition of flood plains in the planning maps.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3061/165

4.27.1 Decisions requested

The recognition of flood plains in the planning maps is supported

4.27.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The submission is supported.

Planner's recommendation about a submission supporting the recognition of flood plains in the planning maps .

That submission 3061/165 be accepted

4.28 Submissions regarding soil warning areas and soil register areas.

Submissions dealt with in this section:

359/1, 538/3, 1096/1, 1199/14, 1285/8, 2064/1, 3061/166

4.28.1 Decisions requested

The soil warning area on 18 Causeway Road (Lots 1 and 2, DP 68000) be removed (1199/14, 2064/1).
The Soil Warning and Soil Register notation on sheet 7, map 2 should be removed (with particular reference to 28 Dolphin Lane, Church Bay) (1285/8).
To remove the "soil register area" designation from 21 Fairview Crescent, Rocky Bay (359/1).
To remove the designation of "soil register area" from the planning map, as it applies to the property at 21 Fairview Crescent, Rocky Bay (1096/1).
That the soil overlays imposed on 25 Ocean View Rd under the Plan, (specifically the "soil warning area" and "soil register area"), be removed (538/3)
The recognition of at risk soil areas in the planning maps is supported (3061/166).

4.28.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Soil warning areas are areas where the soil is suspected or known to be unstable or weak, because of its inherent nature, or because it has been an area of fill, or possibly a refuse tip. Soil register areas are most commonly areas where soil reports have been provided to council as part of a building consent application. These reports are usually prepared because of concerns regarding the site such as slope instability or weak ground, which may affect the construction of buildings. Some soil reports may show only minor problems for the site. If a soil report identifies an area of instability or weakness, the site may be identified as unstable or weak on the Council's records.

The sites above are identified on Council's Geographical Information Service as:

18 Causeway Road - filled/weak ground and soil register area;

28 Dolphin Lane - unstable/ suspected ground and soil register area;

21 Fairview Crescent - soil register area;

25 Ocean View Rd - filled weak ground and soil register area.

This information would be included in LIMs (if it was not apparent from the district plan) and PIMs, but it is appropriate that the planning maps have this information because of Council's responsibilities under section 31 of the RMA as well as its responsibilities under the Building Act 2004.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking the removal of soil warning areas and soil register areas from the planning maps.

That submissions 359/1, 538/3, 1096/1, 1199/14, 1285/8, 2064/1 be rejected

That submission 3061/166 be supported.

4.29 A submission requesting the reinstallation of the flood hazard designation (FH) on the planning maps.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2547/2

4.29.1 Decisions requested

Reinstall the flood hazard designation (FH) on the planning maps

4.29.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The FH flood hazard areas on the planning foils for Great Barrier Island in the operative plan were not based on the real risk of flooding but simply on low lying areas of land in land units 3 (alluvial flats) and land unit 4 (wetland systems). Thus, the FH areas were not necessarily a real representation of risk of flooding. Until more detailed studies are undertaken, the rules within rule 8.6.1 which cover all areas of the Hauraki Gulf Islands that are not identified as hazard prone on the planning maps, will adequately prevent development in flood hazard areas that are not identified on those maps.

Planner's recommendations about a submission requesting the reinstallation of the flood hazard designation (FH) on the planning maps.

That submissions 2547/2 be rejected.

5.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding Part 8 - Natural Hazards 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	Colin Craig: Senior Planner
Reviewer	Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands
Approver	Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning

Appendix 1

List of submissions and further submissions (125kb PDF)
Summaries of submissions

Appendix 2

Summaries of submissions

Appendix 3

Recommended changes to the Plan

Recommended changes to parts 8.5 and 8.6 are included below:

8.5 Rules - restricted discretionary activities

8.5.1 Activities

The following are restricted discretionary activities:

The removal of any vegetation (except for any species listed in appendix 14 - List of plant pest species) on any piece of land where the slope is steeper than 1 in 3 (18o).
The removal of any vegetation (except for any species listed in appendix 14 - List of plant pest species) within 5m of the centreline of any stream or river or the edge of any lake or wetland.
The removal of any indigenous vegetation greater than 2m in height within 10m of the centreline of any stream or river or the edge of any wetland.
4. The removal of any vegetation more than 2m high from any area identified as a soil warning area, soil register area or in an erosion risk zone.
5. Any of the following:
1. a. The location of any, building, permanent structure, fence or wall;
2. b. Exterior additions or alterations to, or change of use of, any building or structure;
3. c. The placement of any septic tank, wastewater treatment and disposal system, effluent disposal field, underground storage tank, water tank or stormwater pipe or soakage field;
4. d. Any earthworks;
5. e. The storage of any hazardous substance in volumes that exceed the permitted activity rules in part 9 - Hazardous facilities and contaminated land;
When located as follows:
1. i. In any natural hazard area identified on the planning maps; or
2. ii. In any of the following locations, subject to any more accurate natural hazard information identified in the planning maps to the contrary:
  - at an elevation less than 1m above the edge of any adjacent permanent stream, river, wetland or lake;
  - within a horizontal distance of 20m from the top of any coastal cliff with a slope angle steeper than 1 in 3 (18o);
  - on any slope with an angle greater than or equal to 1 in 2 (26o);
  - at an elevation less than 3m above mean high water springs if the activity is within 20m of mean high water springs;
  - at an elevation less than 2m above mean high water springs if the activity is located more than 20m from mean high water springs.

Exception

Provided that activities 4(a) to 4(e) above do not apply to any land located within (i) or (ii) where a report from an appropriately qualified engineer establishes that the land is not subject to, and will not be subject after any proposed activity, building or other structure is completed, to any of the following:

flooding, in a 1 in 100 year storm

coastal erosion over a 50 year time frame

instability or erosion.

Rules 1-5 above do not apply to activities within the conservation land unit undertaken by the Department of Conservation for structures, facilities and operations in accordance with its functions under the Conservation Act 1987.

8.5.2 Notification requirements

Except as provided for by section 94C(2) of the RMA, applications for a resource consent for the above activities will be considered without public notification or the need to obtain the written approval of or serve notice on affected persons (in accordance with section 94D(2) and (3) of the RMA).

8.5.3 Matters of discretion

The council has restricted its discretion to considering the following matters:

1. The likelihood of a natural hazard event occurring, and the likely extent of damage occurring as the result of that event. In considering this, regard will be had to the extent to which site specific analysis of the hazard (such as engineering stability or flooding reports) and its effects have been undertaken and any other information the council may have on the site and surrounding land.
2. The extent to which the proposal affects the potential impacts of the natural hazard present, or has the potential to create a new natural hazard on the subject land and any adjacent land. In considering this, regard will be had as to whether the proposal is likely to:
- avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential impacts of the natural hazard; or
- accelerate or exacerbate the probability of a natural hazard occurring and/or the potential impacts of the natural hazard.
3. The extent of vegetation removal from areas such as steep slopes, near streams, rivers, lakes or wetlands,
4. The extent to which the proposal ensures the replacement of any vegetation which is damaged or removed from areas such as steep slopes, near streams, rivers, lakes or wetlands. This will include the type of vegetation to be used, it height, location and phasing of the planting
5. Methods to avoid or mitigate erosion or slippage of the land as the result of the removal of vegetation.
6. The extent to which the proposal ensures that any storage tanks (above ground or underground) installed in hazard prone areas are protected from damage, flooding, spilling, dislocation and leakage in the event of a natural hazard event.
7. The extent to which the proposal ensures that hazardous substances stored in hazard prone areas are protected from flooding, spillage and leakage in the event of a natural hazard event.
8. The extent to which the proposal includes non-structural solutions such as planting to avoid, remedy or mitigate the hazard rather than hard engineering solutions.
9. The extent to which landscape values, and public access are affected by any structure used to avoid, remedy or mitigate any natural hazard.
10. The extent to which any building or structure listed in clause 8.6.1 located in a natural hazard area near the coast, can be relocated in the event of severe coastal erosion and shoreline retreat.

8.6 Rules - discretionary activities

8.6.1 Activities

The activities listed below are discretionary activities.

Any of the following:
1. The location of any land use development activity, building, permanent structure, fence or wall.
2. Exterior additions or alterations to, or change of use of, any building or structure.
3. The placement of any septic tank, wastewater treatment and disposal system, effluent disposal field, underground storage tank, water tank or stormwater pipe or soakage field.
4. Any earthworks.
5. The storage of any hazardous substance in volumes that exceed the permitted activity rules in part 9 - Hazardous facilities and contaminated land.
When located as follows:
1. i. In any natural hazard area identified on the planning maps; or
2. ii. In any of the following locations, subject to any more accurate natural hazard information identified in the planning maps to the contrary:
  - at an elevation less than 1m above the edge of any adjacent permanent stream, river, wetland or lake
  - within a horizontal distance of 20m from the top of any coastal cliff with a slope angle steeper than 1 in 3 (18o)
  - on any slope with an angle greater than or equal to 1 in 2 (26o)
  - at an elevation less than 3m above mean high water springs if the activity is within 20m of mean high water springs
  - at an elevation less than 2m above mean high water springs if the activity is located more than 20m from mean high water springs.

Exception

Provided that (a) to (e) above do not apply to any land located within (i) or (ii) where a report from an appropriately qualified engineer establishes that the land is not subject to, and will not be subject after any proposed activity, building or other structure is completed, to any of the following:

flooding, in a 1 in 100 year storm

coastal erosion over a 50 year time frame

instability or erosion.

1. The placement of any material, objects or structures, in or on any beach above mean high water springs in a manner that may serve as a defence against coastal erosion.
2. The modification, alteration or removal of sand dunes and vegetation (except for any species listed in appendix 14 - List of plant pest species) on sand dunes within 40m of mean high water springs.

8.6.2 Explanation

Natural hazard areas as identified on the planning maps include flood prone areas, areas identified as filled, unstable or weak ground, including areas of suspected slope instability or where soils reports are held; refuse tip sites with weak ground, and coastal erosion risk areas. It does not include any wind zone identified for the purposes of the Building Act 2004.

Flood prone areas include type A flood plains, type B flood risk areas and secondary or overland flow paths taken by stormwater on its way to a flood plain in a storm that is more severe than a 1 in 10 year storm. Type A flood plains shown on the council's planning maps and geographic information system ('GIS') are considered by the council to be a reasonably accurate assessment of flooding in a 1 in 100 year storm. Type B flood risk areas shown on the planning maps or GIS are not as accurate as type A areas and may be based on incomplete information.

8.6.3 Additional requirements

There may be instances where the requirements of section 71 of the Building Act 2004 will prevent a building consent being issued, even though the activity is authorised under the RMA by virtue of the above rules, if the council believes the land on which the building work is to be carried out is subject to or likely to be subject to one or more natural hazards. The council is likely to refer to any information it has, including information stored on its GIS when making this determination.

The placement of any structure in, on, under or over the bed of a lake or any river or stream or below mean high water springs is controlled by the Auckland Regional Council.

8.6.4 Assessment criteria for discretionary activities

The council's assessment of an application for a discretionary activity will include consideration of the following matters:

The likelihood of a natural hazard event occurring, and the likely extent of damage occurring as the result of that event. In considering this, regard will be had to the extent to which site specific analysis of the hazard (such as engineering stability or flooding reports) and its effects have been undertaken and any other information the council may have on the site and surrounding land.
The extent to which the proposal affects the potential impacts of the natural hazard present, or has the potential to create a new natural hazard on the subject land and any adjacent land. In considering this, regard will be had as to whether the proposal is likely to:
- avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential impacts of the natural hazard; or
- accelerate or exacerbate the probability of a natural hazard occurring and/or the potential impacts of the natural hazard.
The extent to which the proposal ensures that any storage tanks (above ground or underground) installed in hazard prone areas are protected from damage, flooding, spilling, dislocation and leakage in the event of a natural hazard event.
The extent to which the proposal ensures the replacement of any vegetation which is removed or damaged.
The extent to which the proposal ensures that hazardous substances stored in hazard prone areas are protected from flooding, spillage and leakage in the event of a natural hazard event.
The extent to which the proposal includes non-structural solutions such as planting to avoid, remedy or mitigate the hazard rather than hard engineering solutions.
The extent to which landscape values, and public access are affected by any structure used to avoid, remedy or mitigate any natural hazard.
The extent to which any existing natural features (e.g sand dunes in coastal hazard areas) will provide protection from the natural hazard present.
The extent to which any building, structure or activity listed in clause 8.6.1 located in a natural hazard area near the coast, can be relocated in the event of severe coastal erosion and shoreline retreat.

The extent to which matters 1, 2, 8, 9 and 10 in clause 8.5.3 are addressed.
The extent to which any proposed coastal protection works by the placement of any material, objects or structures, in or on any area located outside of the coastal marine area will be located and designed so as to avoid adverse environmental effects including:
- long term visual effects on the coastal landscape and amenity values
- any likely increase in the coastal hazard posed to the coastline in question, including increased rates of erosion, accretion, subsidence or slippage
- undermining of the foundations at the base of the structure
- erosion in front of, behind or around the ends of the structure
- settlement or loss of foundation material
- movement or dislodgement of individual structural elements
- off shore or long shore loss of sediment from the immediate vicinity.
The extent to which any existing natural features (e.g. sand dunes in coastal hazard areas) will provide protection from the natural hazard present.
Methods to avoid or mitigate erosion of sandunes as the result of their modification, alteration or the removal of vegetation from the dune.

Home |
Terms of use