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:	Part 12 - Subdivision
Report to:	The Hearing Panel
Author:	Kym Lewis
Date:	13 June 2008
Group file:	314/274030

1.0 Introduction

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to the subdivision provisions 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 subdivision. 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

This section of the report briefly sets out the statutory framework within which the council must consider the submissions. In preparing this report the submissions and, in particular, the decisions requested in the submissions, have been considered in light of the relevant statutory matters. These were summarised by the Environment Court in Eldamos Investments Limited v Gisborne District Council W 047/05 where the court set out the following measures for evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other methods in district plans:

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�

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

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

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:

(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 be "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.

3.0 Background

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

In accordance with section 218 of the RMA, subdivision includes freehold subdivision and lease hold subdivision. This includes the creation of fee simple sites, unit titles, company lease or company titles and cross leases. Subdivision is therefore the process of dividing a parcel of land or a building into one or more parcels, or changing an existing boundary location.

The subdivision of land may not directly create adverse effects on the environment. However it does provide opportunities and expectations for future development which may cause adverse effects.

The physical and natural environment in the islands creates major constraints on subdivision. In particular, there is a need to preserve the natural environment, visual character, amenity, and heritage values and to have regard to drainage capability. The Plan also recognises the potential for adverse effects arising from subdivision within and associated with the coastal environment. The Plan's objectives, policies and rules give particular emphasis to ensuring a proper assessment of such effects when subdivision applications are evaluated.

This section of the Plan recognises the relationship between subdivision and the effects on landscape character from associated land use activities by establishing:

Minimum area standards for sites.
Assessment criteria for considering subdivision proposals. This includes criteria relating to site design and layout, utility services, access to the site(s), public access to open spaces, coasts, rivers and lakes as well as criteria relating to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about subdivision 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 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 subdivision together with the related further submissions is contained in Appendix 1. Appendix 2 contains copies of the submissions and further 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 were considered by the hearing panel at the start of the hearing process and the panel has already waived the failure to comply with the time limit for any late submissions or further submissions listed in Appendix 1. This has been done in accordance with sections 37 and 37A of the RMA.

4.2 Submissions about rejecting all of part 12.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2803/1, 2812/1, 2815/1, 2818/1, 2822/1, 2808/1

4.2.1 Decision requested

The above submissions request the following:

To reject the proposed provisions (for part 12) in their entirety and seek effects based solutions from the workshops that were put forward by the community.

4.2.2 Planner's analysis

The submissions do not specifically identify any changes needed so that effects based solutions from the workshops are encouraged and facilitated. Accordingly, the above submitters are invited to provide clarification at the hearing as to how Part 12 should be amended in order to achieve effects based solutions from the workshops.

Notwithstanding the above, the following comments are made with regard to the above submissions:

The above submissions raise matters which are the subject of other hearings reports particularly, the hearing report pertaining to the "Whole Plan". This report addresses matters relating to the RMA 1991, the section 32 analyses and the prescriptive nature of the Plan.

A meeting was held in September 2005 to select members of the Waiheke community and local experts to attend a series of 3 focus group meetings on 4 topics as part of the review of the HGI plan. The intent of these meetings was to allow members of the focus groups to provide further input into how the district plan should deal with the following broad issues.

Each of the four focus groups held on Waiheke developed a set of directions for the working party. Those directions are publicly available and are on council's website. Some focus groups did not reach agreement on all of their directions. The directions were reported to the working party and were one of a range of inputs taken into account in developing the Plan. As is appropriate, the Plan concentrates on objectives, policies and rules and does not include details about how the consultation process (including the focus groups) influenced the content of the Plan.

With regard to subdivision, the following directions were agreed upon by the focus groups:

Get mechanisms / management right for access provisions e.g. esplanade strips, walkways, etcetera
Subdivision should provide for public access / opening up of uniform legal roads, etcetera;
Work is needed on how the plan could provide for affordable housing (issue is community diversity) - will need very careful consideration - work should examine how the plan allows for co-housing, multi units, etcetera, also link with visitor facilities.

The following directions given to the working party that were not fully agreed on by the focus groups were:

Allow for the provision of 'granny' flats - 1 per site;
Maintain existing densities within the Plan;
Allow for bonus provisions i.e. additional height, density, etcetera for comprehensive developments i.e. innovative housing, eco housing which support sustainability principles
Allow for 1-step or conjoint process for subdivision and landuse;
Plan for growth by providing higher density pocket in existing urban areas and provide for flexibility in rural areas e.g. cluster development which maintains values and environmental improvements we want to achieve.

As noted in sections 4.15 and 4.20 of this report, part 12 provides for the public access in the form of financial contributions, esplanade reserves and/or esplanade strips. The provision for bonus density subdivision is also considered in section 4.22 of this report and enabling growth within the Hauraki Gulf Islands is assessed within hearings report for Part 2 � Resource management overview and Appendix 10 (HGMPA).

In addition, a 1-step process for subdivision and land use development is provided by way of clauses 12.6.1(1) and (2) whereby the opportunity to combined the both land use activities at the time of subdivision can be achieved by applying for a joint land use/subdivision consent.

4.2.3 Planner's recommendation

The submissions being considered in this section of the report are too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to the Plan. However it is considered that, the directions provided at the focus groups as they relate to subdivision have been considered and where appropriate, included as part of the objectives, polices and rules for part 12 (subdivision).

It should also be noted that, there are a large number of other submissions and other subparts to the above submissions that raise more specific concerns about the implications of the Plan. These will be considered in other hearing reports and the council may make some amendments in response.

On this basis, it is recommended that submissions 2803/1, 2812/1, 2815/1, 2818/1, 2822/1, 2808/1 are rejected.

Planner's recommendations about rejecting all of part 12.

That submissions 2803/1, 2812/1, 2815/1, 2818/1, 2822/1, 2808/1 are rejected.

4.3 Submission about preventing subdivision due to infrastructure constraints.

Submission dealt with in this section: 2995/7

4.3.1 Decision requested

The above submission seeks the following:

No more subdivisions for developers as the infrastructure won't handle it.

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

It is recognised that past subdivision rules particularly within the island residential 1 and 2 land units have resulted in small site sizes that were appropriate to a village scale. However, this historic pattern of subdivision did not relate to specific natural characteristics of the land and the need to accommodate on-site effluent disposal systems. Accordingly, infrastructure constraints have resulted within these areas particularly in terms of providing for onsite wastewater and stormwater disposal. On this basis, it is considered that historical subdivision patterns on the islands (and on Waiheke, Rakino and Great Barrier in particular), are not necessarily consistent with the objectives of securing appropriate management of resources, or consistent with achieving sustainable land use development. The policies also emphasis that open character is the desired pattern, irrespective of existing site sizes and landscape patterns that were created in the past.

Therefore, the policies and ensuing rules with the Plan, particularly for these residential land units and the settlement areas, now seek to provide for subdivision that provides for and enhances the character of these areas, and ensures that development resulting from subdivision can adequately dispose of stormwater and onsite wastewater without adversely affecting the natural environment. Further consideration is given to ensuring that the safety of people and property from natural hazards and contaminated land are avoided, remedied or mitigated, and that each proposed site provides for utility services.

On this basis, it is considered that the objectives, policies and rules within the Plan provide a greater level of assessment in terms of a site's capacity to accommodate infrastructure. This is achieved through appropriate minimum site areas for land units and settlement areas as well as amended objectives, policies and assessment criteria which consider how sites can be adequately serviced.

For reasons outlined above, it is recommended that the above submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about preventing subdivision due to infrastructure constraints.

That submission 2995/7 be rejected.

4.4 Submission about a full review of subdivision as it relates to Great Barrier Island

Submission dealt with in this section: 3110/1

4.4.1 Decision requested

The above submission seeks the following:

Totally review the subdivision section of the plan especially the areas suitable of subdivision on Great Barrier.

4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

The above submission seeks a "total reassessment" of the minimum site sizes and the settlement areas to better reflect "the future potential of development on Great Barrier Island". The submitter considers that there are a number of areas more appropriate for sustainable subdivision throughout Great Barrier Island.

It is considered that submission 3110 is too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to part 12 of the Plan. Indeed, the above submission makes various general statements of an ideological nature without specifically identify any changes needed so that part 12 can better reflect the "future potential of development on Barrier". Accordingly, submitter 3110 is invited to provide clarification at the hearing as to how Part 12 should be amended in order to reflect the future potential of development on Great Barrier Island.

It should be noted that the extent of the settlements areas is being reviewed and the intention is to consolidate and provide for development in those areas.

For reasons set out above, it is recommended that submission 3110/1 be rejected as it makes a various general statement of an ideological nature without seeking any specific decision.

Planner's recommendations about a full review of subdivision as it relates to Great Barrier Island.

That submission 3110/1 be rejected.

4.5 Submissions about 'wastewater references'

Submissions dealt with in this section: 308/6, 371/6, 573/6, 630/6, 641/6, 647/6, 656/6, 674/6, 686/6, 697/6, 699/6, 711/6, 719/6, 726/6, 740/6, 798/6, 807/6, 812/6, 815/6, 824/6, 1828/6, 873/6, 885/6, 910/6, 932/6, 959/6, 1015/6, 1055/51, 1236/6, 1814/6, 1815/6, 1816/6, 1817/6, 1818/6, 1819/6, 1820/6, 1821/6, 1822/6, 1823/6, 1825/6, 1826/6, 1827/6, 1829/6, 1830/6, 1831/6, 1832/6, 1833/6, 1834/6, 1835/6, 1836/6, 2285/6, 2462/6, 2704/6, 2794/6, 2833/6, 2995/6, 3005/6, 3190/6, 3209/6, 3218/6, 3228/6, 3236/6, 3253/6, 3267/6, 3278/6, 3289/6, 3305/6, 3314/6, 3318/6, 3336/6, 3340/6, 3356/6, 3366/6, 3371/6, 3386/6, 3404/6, 3559/6, 3624/6, 3646/6, 3823/6, 726/7.

4.5.1 Decisions requested

Submission 726/7 requests the following:

That composting toilets and greywater systems be the preferred option for all subdivisions.

Submissions 308/6, 371/6, 573/6, 630/6, 641/6, 647/6, 656/6, 674/6, 686/6, 697/6, 699/6, 711/6, 719/6, 726/6, 740/6, 798/6, 807/6, 812/6, 815/6, 824/6, 1828/6, 873/6, 885/6, 910/6, 932/6, 959/6, 1015/6, 1055/51, 1236/6, 1814/6, 1815/6, 1816/6, 1817/6, 1818/6, 1819/6, 1820/6, 1821/6, 1822/6, 1823/6, 1825/6, 1826/6, 1827/6, 1829/6, 1830/6, 1831/6, 1832/6, 1833/6, 1834/6, 1835/6, 1836/6, 2285/6, 2462/6, 2704/6, 2794/6, 2833/6, 2995/6, 3005/6, 3190/6, 3209/6, 3218/6, 3228/6, 3236/6, 3253/6, 3267/6, 3278/6, 3289/6, 3305/6, 3314/6, 3318/6, 3336/6, 3340/6, 3356/6, 3366/6, 3371/6, 3386/6, 3404/6, 3559/6, 3624/6, 3646/6, 3823/6 request the following:

That the 'wastewater' references in clauses 12.2, 12.4, 12.6, 12.9, 12.11, 12.12, be differentiated as appropriate (to include greywater, blackwater with / without solids, and septic tank processed blackwater adequate / inadequate to pump without additional water, septic tank sludge);

4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Subdivision should only occur on land where there is adequate physical capacity and capability to accommodate development impacts. Wastewater references are therefore included within the above clauses to ensure that sites have the capacity to accommodate wastewater generated from land use developments. Meeting such a requirement requires assessment from a suitably qualified person who will look at the soil type and land area to determine if the land has the ability to accommodate on-site wastewater. More specific wastewater designs are often undertaken at the time of development (i.e. land use stage).

The above submissions seek to reference various types of wastewater systems and to further define wastewater disposal within Part 12 of the Plan. While compositing toilets and greywater systems are utilised throughout the Hauraki Gulf Islands, wastewater in the islands is currently disposed of through a wide range of on-site disposal systems, consisting in the main of septic tank pre-treatment units and effluent soakage fields.

In response to the above submissions, it is the Auckland Regional Council (ARC), rather than the city council, which has functions under the RMA (s30) relating to the quality, quantity, level, flow, taking or use, of water. Specifically, wastewater is assessed in accordance with the ARC document, Technical Publication 58 - On-site wastewater systems: design and management manual (TP58). The Building Act 2004 and the council's bylaw also controls wastewater disposal.

These publications specifically identify how wastewater should be disposed of (including composting toilets and grey water systems) and differentiates between grey water and black water and the specific treatment of solids.

It is further noted that TP58 is already in its third edition (2004) and is updated when better design guidelines are devised by engineers. Accordingly, a wastewater design or treatment process specified within a district plan may eventually be superseded by more efficient design guidelines in the future. This would result in conflicting legislation (district plan and TP58) and confusion over how on-site wastewater should be assessed.

Therefore, as the Council's bylaw, the Building Act and the ARC already place controls on the disposal of wastewater, it is not considered necessary to duplicate these controls or include additional controls in the Plan. Any amendments to wastewater disposal should be made in accordance with these documents rather than within the Plan.

For these reasons, it is recommended that the above submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking additional wastewater references

That submissions 308/6, 371/6, 573/6, 630/6, 641/6, 647/6, 656/6, 674/6, 686/6, 697/6, 699/6, 711/6, 719/6, 726/6, 740/6, 798/6, 807/6, 812/6, 815/6, 824/6, 1828/6, 873/6, 885/6, 910/6, 932/6, 959/6, 1015/6, 1055/51, 1236/6, 1814/6, 1815/6, 1816/6, 1817/6, 1818/6, 1819/6, 1820/6, 1821/6, 1822/6, 1823/6, 1825/6, 1826/6, 1827/6, 1829/6, 1830/6, 1831/6, 1832/6, 1833/6, 1834/6, 1835/6, 1836/6, 2285/6, 2462/6, 2704/6, 2794/6, 2833/6, 2995/6, 3005/6, 3190/6, 3209/6, 3218/6, 3228/6, 3236/6, 3253/6, 3267/6, 3278/6, 3289/6, 3305/6, 3314/6, 3318/6, 3336/6, 3340/6, 3356/6, 3366/6, 3371/6, 3386/6, 3404/6, 3559/6, 3624/6, 3646/6, 3823/6, 726/7 be rejected.

4.6 Submissions about a sustainable development in landforms 5 and 6.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 284/4, 2598/5, 1284/5.

4.6.1 Decisions requested

The above submissions request:

The proposed provisions for landform 5 (productive land) and 6 (regenerating slopes) in relation to subdivision activities should be amended so that a more proactive approach to sustainable development is encouraged and facilitated.

4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The submissions being considered in this section of the report are too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to the Plan and do not specifically identify any changes needed to landforms 5 and 6 within Part 12 so that a more proactive approach to sustainable development is encouraged and facilitated. Accordingly, the submitters are invited to provide clarification at the hearing.

Notwithstanding this, the objectives, policies and rules in the Plan as they relate to landforms 5 and 6 have been written with the intention of achieving the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the RMA is 'to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources'. Sustainable management is defined in s5(2) and is also set out in section 2.0 of this document. The council is required to take the purpose of the Act into account when considering alternatives, benefits and costs under s32.

Throughout the hearing process the council will consider submissions which seek that specific rules be eliminated or relaxed. Indeed, these submitters have lodged other submissions which will be considered in other hearing reports and in the following sections of this report. Accordingly, the council may make some amendments in response.

Therefore, given that submissions 284/4, 2598/5, 1284/5 do not specifically identify any changes needed so that a more proactive approach to sustainable development is encouraged and facilitated, it is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking a more proactive approach to sustainable development in landform 5 (productive land) and landform 6 (regenerating slopes).

That submissions 284/4, 2598/5, 1284/5 be rejected.

4.7 Submissions about landscape and coastal and rural amenity protection, including the Hauraki Gulf Island Marine Park Act 2000.

Submissions dealt with in this section: Group 1

308/1, 371/1, 573/1, 630/1, 641/1, 647/1, 656/1, 674/1, 686/1, 697/1, 699/1, 711/1, 719/1, 726/1, 740/1, 798/1, 807/1, 812/1, 815/1, 824/1, 873/1, 885/1, 910/1, 932/1, 959/1, 960/1, 1015/1, 1055/46, 1133/1, 1236/1, 1814/1, 1815/1, 1816/1, 1817/1, 1818/1, 1819/1, 1820/1, 1821/1, 1822/1, 1823/1, 1825/1, 1826/1, 1827/1, 1828/1, 1829/1, 1830/1, 1831/1, 1832/1, 1833/1, 1834/1, 1835/1, 1836/1, 2285/1, 2462/1, 2704/1, 2794/1, 2833/1, 2995/1, 3005/1, 3190/1, 3209/1, 3218/1, 3228/1, 3236/1, 3253/1, 3267/1, 3278/1, 3289/1, 3305/1, 3314/1, 3318/1, 3336/1, 3340/1, 3356/1, 3366/1, 3371/1, 3386/1, 3404/1, 3559/1, 3624/1, 3646/1, 3823/1; and

Group 2

308/2, 371/2, 573/2, 630/2, 641/2, 647/2, 656/2, 674/2, 686/2, 697/2, 699/2, 711/2, 719/2, 726/2, 740/2, 798/2, 807/2, 812/2, 815/2, , 824/2, 873/2, 885/2, 910/2, 932/2, 959/2, 960/2, 1015/2, 1055/47, 1133/2, 1236/2, 1814/2, 1815/2, 1816/2, 1817/2, 1818/2, 1819/2, 1820/2, 1821/2, 1822/2, 1823/2, 1825/2, 1826/2, 1827/2, 1828/2, 1829/2, 1830/2, 1831/2, 1832/2, 1833/2, 1834/2, 1835/2, 1836/2, 2285/2, 2462/2, 2704/2, 2794/2, 2833/2, 2995/2, 3218/2, 3253/2, 3305/2, 3005/2, 3190/2, 3209/2, 3228/2, 3236/2, 3267/2, 3278/2, 3289/2, 3314/2, 3318/2, 3336/2, 3340/2, 3356/2, 3366/2, 3371/2, 3386/2, 3404/2, 3559/2, 3624/2, 3646/2, 3823/2, 3700/1.

4.7.1 Decision requested

Group 1 submissions request the following:

The introduction of better focused landscape and coastal and rural amenity protection within part 12, including specific reference to the HGMPA within the issues, objectives, policies and rules of part 12;

Group 2 submissions request the following:

The specific referencing within Part 12 to coastal amenity area protection and enhancement.

Submission 3700/1 requests the following:

The protection and enhancement, of landscape and view shafts (relative to vantage points at sea and on the land) and coastal and rural amenity, must be given effect to within Part 12 of the Plan. This must include specific reference to the HGMP Act in all sections to do with Resource Management Issues, Objectives, Policies and Rules.

4.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.7.2.1 Landscape, coastal and rural amenity protection

The above submissions do not specifically identify any changes needed in order to better focus on landscape, coastal and rural amenity protection. Accordingly, the above submitters are invited to provide clarification at the hearing as to how Part 12 should be amended in order to better focus on landscape, coastal and rural amenity protection.

Notwithstanding this, the following comments are made with respect to these matters:

Coastal protection

The Plan provisions recognise the potential for adverse effects that may arise from subdivision within and associated with the coastal environment. The objectives within Part 12 of the plan seek to control subdivision so as to preserve the natural character, landscape values, heritage and amenity values of the coastal environment. This is highlighted within objective 12.3.1 � natural character and landscape values and by the associated policies (3) and (4) which state:

(3) By avoiding subdivision and development in the coastal environment where it would result in sprawling or sporadic development.

(4) By limiting subdivision and associated development in areas with outstanding landscape value within the coastal environment so that natural character and landscape values are not adversely affected.

The subdivision provisions in each land unit seek to give effect to the objectives and policies by enabling an appropriate pattern and density of development. Buildings in sensitive land units are also controlled by the Plan. Such an approach within both the land use and subdivision provisions is considered consistent with coastal protection.

Coastal Amenity Areas

The Plan identifies some beach front locations within island residential 1 (traditional residential) as being subject to an additional limitation described as 'coastal amenity area'. This limitation applies to the beach front land at Oneroa, Palm Beach, Blackpool and Onetangi on Waiheke Island. Within island residential 1, additional controls are placed on buildings in the coastal amenity area so that they do not compromise the character and amenity of the coast. Within the coastal amenity area, a land use consent for a restricted discretionary activity is required for buildings, including relocations, alterations and/or additions. Elsewhere within the land unit, such building work when associated with a permitted activity (such as a dwelling), does not require a land use consent.

On Great Barrier Island, there are sub-areas within certain settlement areas which are identified as 'Reserve, dune, coastal margin and wetland conservation areas'. Like the provision for islands residential above, a resource consent for a restricted discretionary activity is required for buildings, including relocations, alterations and/or additions. In addition, table 12.3 states that subdivision in 'Reserve, dune, coastal margin and wetland conservation areas' is a non-complying activity.

Additional coastal protection is addressed in a wide variety of other ways in the Plan such as:

by classifying some land in coastal locations as landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) and landform 2 (dune systems and sand flats)
by classifying esplanade reserves as recreation 1 (local parks and esplanade reserves)
by requiring (in clause 10c.5.7) coastal protection yards in all land units and settlement areas where development or activities are provided for
by identifying scheduled items in coastal locations eg ecologically significant sites, archaeological sites
by identifying some natural hazards in coastal locations ie the erosion risk zones at Onetangi Beach, and Kennedy Point
by including rules and guidelines on esplanade reserves in part 12 - Subdivision.

Other submissions seek additional decisions related to coastal amenity areas including the extension of this control to all beach front locations. Those matters will be considered in other hearing reports.

It is not clear exactly what amendments the above submissions are seeking when they ask for ' better focused landscape and coastal and rural amenity protection' . However, the coastal amenity areas are given priority in the Plan by imposing additional controls on development within landform 1, parts of island residential 1 and within specific sub-areas of the settlement areas.

Landscape and rural amenity protection

In determining whether the proposed policies, rules or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives, the review of the subdivision provisions was undertaken after detailed landscape analysis by John Hudson, a registered landscape architect. Minimum site size for each land unit, including the more rural land units (Landforms 1-7, Rural 1-3) are therefore set at a level that is consistent with the objectives and policies for the land units, which seek to maintain elements, features and patterns that contribute to the visual amenity, natural landscape character and amenity value of each land unit.

The proposed rules also seek to protect and enhance the natural environment including indigenous vegetation, wetlands, ridgelines, headlands, heritage features and outstanding landscape features. Accordingly, clauses 12.9.3 (protection of significant environmental feature(s)) and 12.9.4 (Cluster subdivision associated with the protection of significant environmental features) provide for a reduction to the minimum site sizes within landform 2-7 and rural 1 only, provided there is a significant environmental feature worthy of protection. The reduced site sites are contained in table 12.2 and the definition of a significant environmental feature is contained in Part 14 (definitions).

In light of the above, the panel can be satisfied that the objectives, policies and rules in Part 12 of the Plan have been written with the intention of achieving the purpose of the RMA. This includes protecting and enhancing the coast as well as the landscape and rural amenity.

4.7.2.2 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (HGMPA)

The council must ensure that that the Plan does not conflict with sections 7 and 8 of 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. The Plan must 'give effect to' any New Zealand coastal policy statement.

While specific reference to the HGMPA has not been made within Part 12 of the Plan, the Plan itself does appropriately recognise the role of the HGMPA. The HGMPA is addressed in the following places within the Plan:

clause 1.3.6
clause 2.3.2
clause 2.5 (at clause 2.5.3, issue (3); clause 2.5.8, objective (2))
clause 11.2(1)
appendix 10 - which contains s7, 8 and 9 of the HGMPA.

In addition, the HGMPA was considered by the council in the section 32 reports prepared.

Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the objectives, policies and rules within Part 12 give effect to sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA for the following reasons:

The objectives, policies and rules provide for subdivision based upon the physical characteristics of the land and its capacity to integrate development impacts as well as consideration of natural character, visual character and amenity values.

By recognising the physical capacity and capability of land to accommodate development impacts, this will enable the protection of the natural and physical resources, historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship of the tangata whenua of the Gulf and its islands. The objectives, policies and rules will also enable the protection of the life supporting capacity of soil air, water and ecosystems, whilst also allowing people and communities of the Gulf to provide for their social and economic wellbeing and their health and safety.

Accordingly, it is not considered necessary to specifically reference the HGMPA within Part 12 when the objectives, policies and rules of the Plan already combine to give effect to sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA.

Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that, throughout the hearing process the council will consider submissions which seek that specific rules be eliminated or relaxed. Indeed, many of the above submitters (groups 1 and 2) have lodged submissions which will be considered in other hearing reports, and the council may make some amendments in response. In the event amendments are made with regard to HGMPA, consequential amendments to Part 12 may be considered necessary and will be addressed accordingly.

For these reasons outlined above, it is recommended that the decision sort with respect to the above submissions be rejected.

4.7.2.3 View Shafts

With regard to the protection and enhancement of view shafts, it is unclear as to which views are of particular concern. Like the operative Plan, the proposed Plan does not seek to specifically protect any public views. Protection of public views was a matter that was raised in consultation and by the Waiheke focus group that considered landscape matters. The council's landscape consultant, John Hudson, undertook some preliminary assessment of ten public views on Waiheke. That assessment is summarised in a document entitled Waiheke Island View Report [1] which is available on Council's website. The report identifies that in order to retain some of the views considered, it may be necessary to control the potential development or vegetation that could occur on adjacent private properties. The report also identified that, in some cases, management of vegetation on adjacent council owned land such as road berms or reserves would be required to retain views.

The council did not include any controls in the Plan specifically aimed at protecting public views because it did not have sufficient information to formulate an effective control or justify its introduction. Any view shafts would need to be defined by survey so that the permitted heights of trees and buildings could be accurately identified. The implications of these limitations for private property would need to be carefully considered. Furthermore, the Plan generally seeks to promote planting and retention of vegetation, and has extended the vegetation controls on Waiheke to also apply to exotic trees. To then limit the height or planting of vegetation in some locations, would create some potential conflicts within the Plan.

It is noted that proposed change 8 (landscape and volcanic cones) to the ARC's Regional Policy Statement identifies some views to volcanic cones as being of regional significance. This includes views from the Auckland isthmus to Browns Island and Rangitoto. Change 8 does not identify any other views within the Hauraki Gulf islands as being of regional significance.

For reasons set out above, it is recommended that the above submissions be rejected as it relates to protection and enhancement of landscapes and view shafts.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking better focused landscape and coastal and rural amenity protection within part 12 of the Plan, including specific reference to the HGMPA.

That group 1submissions 308/1, 371/1, 573/1, 630/1, 641/1, 647/1, 656/1, 674/1, 686/1, 697/1, 699/1, 711/1, 719/1, 726/1, 740/1, 798/1, 807/1, 812/1, 815/1, 824/1, 873/1, 885/1, 910/1, 932/1, 959/1, 960/1, 1015/1, 1055/46, 1133/1, 1236/1, 1814/1, 1815/1, 1816/1, 1817/1, 1818/1, 1819/1, 1820/1, 1821/1, 1822/1, 1823/1, 1825/1, 1826/1, 1827/1, 1828/1, 1829/1, 1830/1, 1831/1, 1832/1, 1833/1, 1834/1, 1835/1, 1836/1, 2285/1, 2462/1, 2704/1, 2794/1, 2833/1, 2995/1, 3005/1, 3190/1, 3209/1, 3218/1, 3228/1, 3236/1, 3253/1, 3267/1, 3278/1, 3289/1, 3305/1, 3314/1, 3318/1, 3336/1, 3340/1, 3356/1, 3366/1, 3371/1, 3386/1, 3404/1, 3559/1, 3624/1, 3646/1, 3823/1 be rejected; and
Group 2 submissions 308/2, 371/2, 573/2, 630/2, 641/2, 647/2, 656/2, 674/2, 686/2, 697/2, 699/2, 711/2, 719/2, 726/2, 740/2, 798/2, 807/2, 812/2, 815/2, , 824/2, 873/2, 885/2, 910/2, 932/2, 959/2, 960/2, 1015/2, 1055/47, 1133/2, 1236/2, 1814/2, 1815/2, 1816/2, 1817/2, 1818/2, 1819/2, 1820/2, 1821/2, 1822/2, 1823/2, 1825/2, 1826/2, 1827/2, 1828/2, 1829/2, 1830/2, 1831/2, 1832/2, 1833/2, 1834/2, 1835/2, 1836/2, 2285/2, 2462/2, 2704/2, 2794/2, 2833/2, 2995/2, 3218/2, 3253/2, 3305/2, 3005/2, 3190/2, 3209/2, 3228/2, 3236/2, 3267/2, 3278/2, 3289/2, 3314/2, 3318/2, 3336/2, 3340/2, 3356/2, 3366/2, 3371/2, 3386/2, 3404/2, 3559/2, 3624/2, 3646/2, 3823/2, 3700/1 be rejected.

4.8 Submissions about under grounding of services at subdivision.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 526/14, 527/14, 528/14, 529/14, 539/14

4.8.1 Decision requested

The above submissions request:

Amend any existing sections of the Plan that refer to the under grounding of electricity and telecommunication services in landforms which are not urban being a requirement at the time of subdivision. These sections should be amended to encourage placing services underground and that each rural subdivision application will be assessed on what is appropriate for that particular site and proposal.

4.8.2 Planner's Analysis and recommendation

In responding to the above submissions, it is considered necessary to turn to the current wording of objective 12.3.8 and its associated policies:

Objective 12.3.8

To design subdivisions so that network utility services are installed in a manner that minimises any adverse effects on the environment, including visual amenity, noise, earthworks, dust, spill lighting, electro magnetic field emissions and radio frequency fields (RF).

Policies

By requiring at the time of subdivision that electricity and telecommunication services are placed underground.
By preventing the installation of utility services which may be sought in conjunction with subdivision where the effect on landscape and amenity values cannot be adequately remedied or mitigated.

The proposed policies relate to clause 12.6.1 (bulk, location and access controls for buildings) whereby each site must demonstrate where a building, access and parking can be constructed which complies with specific development controls, including part 5 (Network utilities).

The Plan recognises the relationship between subdivision and the effect on landscape character from associated land use activities. Particularly in the inner islands, electricity and telecommunication services are invariably required to service any activity on a site. Such services can take the form of tall power/telecommunication poles with overhead cabling, which can adversely affect the landscape character and amenity value of an area. Applicants will therefore need to consider the provision of utility services as an integral part of any subdivision.

The polices and assessment criteria in clause 12.11.11 (Network utility services) consider the design of subdivision within all land units and settlement areas and how each can be serviced by network utilities without adversely affecting the natural landscape and amenity qualities of the environment. Matters to consider include shared services (easements) and the extent to which services can be placed underground.

Criterion 12.11.11(4) also considers whether the provision of network utility services are appropriate given the potential uses and particular characteristics of an area. For example, rural sites may not be able to connect to network utility services due to an absence of these services in the area or because providing such services may adversely affect the landscape character of the area. As such, alternative measures can be considered such as generators. Consideration of these matters will enable sites that are capable of accommodating additional land use development, to be subdivided without having to modify the landscape.

It is considered that objective 12.3.8, the associated policies and assessment criteria seek to design subdivision so that network utility services are installed in a manner that minimises any adverse effects on the environment. This includes the under grounding of electricity and telecommunication services in landforms that are not urban at the time of subdivision. Consideration of alternative measures is also assessed to ensure that providing such services does not adversely affect the landscape character of the area.

Notwithstanding the above, section 4.41.2.3 below does recommend amendments to objective 12.3.8 and policy (2) to improve clarity and to be more specific to the environmental outcomes outlined above.

On this basis, the panel can be satisfied that the objectives, policies and rules have been written with the intention of achieving the relief sought by the above submissions.

For these reasons, it is recommended that the above submissions be accepted however, no amendments to the Plan are considered necessary.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking the under grounding of services at subdivision.

That submissions 526/14, 527/14, 528/14, 529/14, 539/14 be accepted however, no amendments to the Plan is required.

4.9 Submissions about comprehensive management plans (CMPs)

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/127, 1288/160, 1101/12, 1284/12, 1286/109, 1287/51, 1289/17, 2721/9, 2878/110, 618/129, 1288/162, 1284/14, 1286/111, 1287/30, 1289/19, 2721/11, 2878/112, 618/131, 1289/21, 618/133, 1288/164, 1101/18, 1284/16, 1286/113, 1287/46, 1289/23, 2721/13, 2878/114, 618/136, 1288/167, 1101/21, 1284/19, 1286/116, 1289/26, 2721/16, 2878/117, 1101/16, 1284/23, 1289/21, 1284/5, 1287/49, 1287/53.

4.9.1 Decision requested

Submissions 618/127, 1288/160, 1101/12, 1284/12, 1286/109, 1287/51, 1289/17, 2721/9, 2878/110, seek the following:

The Plan provisions should enable comprehensive management plan as a discretionary activity and provide for land use activities and subdivision proposals that are not currently enabled in the proposed rules (whether or not amended by other allied submissions) and thus are deemed non complying. Only one consent for a comprehensive management plan should be granted during the life of the Plan in respect of any site or property;

Submissions 618/129, 1288/162, 1284/14, 1286/111, 1287/30, 1289/19, 2721/11, 2878/112 seek the following:

Amend all rural land unit (and non-conservation islands) subdivision provisions to enable comprehensive management plans as a discretionary activity (and introduce a set of allied assessment criteria) but excluding landforms 1-4.

Submissions 618/131 and 1289/21 seek the following:

Amend the residential type zone subdivision provisions to enable comprehensive management plans as a discretionary activity[and particularly within the submitters proposed residential 2A zone which is addressed in a separate submission] and introduce a set of allied assessment criteria.

Submissions 618/133, 1288/164, 1101/18, 1284/16, 1286/113, 1287/46, 1289/23, 2721/13, 2878/114 request the following:

Revise the proposed subdivision assessment criteria for discretionary activities to include specific provisions for comprehensive management plans (eg Far North District provisions, Rule 12.9.2; Rodney District Council rural provisions, Rule 7.14.2.7).

Submissions 618/136, 1288/167, 1101/21, 1284/19, 1286/116, 1289/26, 2721/16, 2878/117 request the following:

Provide for cluster subdivision and / or land use activities as a development option within comprehensive management plans. The balance area to be set aside into a combination of productive land (where it exists), and environmental enhancement processes and protection mechanisms.

Submissions 1101/16 requests the following:

Amend the residential type zone subdivision provisions to enable comprehensive management plans as a discretionary activity and introduce a set of allied assessment criteria.

Submission 1284/23 requests the following:

Amend residential and retail type zone subdivision provisions to enable comprehensive management plans as a discretionary activity and introduce a set of allied assessment criteria.

Submission 1284/5 seeks the following:

The proposed provisions for landform 5 (productive land) and landform 6 (regenerating slopes) in relation to subdivision activities should be amended so that a more proactive approach to sustainable development is encouraged and facilitated. A comprehensive management plan approach could also be adopted.

Submission 1287/49 seeks the following:

Provide for cluster subdivision [and / or land use activities] as a development option within CMPs. Such development must meet prescribed design and environmental outcomes.

Submission 1287/53 seeks the following:

Amend all rural zone (and non-conservation islands) subdivision provisions to enable comprehensive management plans as a discretionary activity (and introduce a set of allied assessment criteria) but not including the Rural 2 zone (other than for Thompsons Point) and only on sites over 4ha in the Rural 1 zone and excluding landforms 1-4.

4.9.2 Planner's analysis and Recommendation

These submissions seek to provide for comprehensive assessment of land use activities on a site in conjunction with a subdivision application. The submissions refer to this as a comprehensive management plan (CMP). Any CMP must relate to the whole of the property and include land management, enhancement and environmental protection outcomes. Some submissions seek to include CMP's as a discretionary activity and to provide for land use activities and subdivision proposals that would otherwise be non-complying.

In order to analyse the requested decisions, it is considered necessary to discuss how comprehensive management plans have been applied in the past and how the proposed Plan provides for a comprehensive assessment of land use activities and environmental protection and enhancement at the time of subdivision.

4.9.2.1 Comprehensive Management Plans within the Operative Plan and proposed Plans

A comprehensive management approach (called a comprehensive rural development) is currently provided for within land unit 22 (western landscape) of the operative Plan.

Section 6.22.2 of the operative Plan sets out the resource management strategy for land unit 22 and includes the following statement:

Accordingly, the Plan's rules provide for limitations on density of buildings in the rural landscape, as well as specific rules to manage the distribution, location and design and appearance of buildings. An integral part of the strategy is to link subdivision opportunities to land use activities through a comprehensive resource management application process in order to ensure sustainable land management eventuates. The rules also provide the opportunity for recognising the protection of significant environmental features by allowing for a limited but higher density of buildings in the landscape as and where appropriate. The rules for this land unit provide, as a discretionary activity, for Comprehensive Rural Development but only when a joint application for the associated subdivision is made.

Land subject to the above provision is now classified as rural 2 (western landscape) (Owhanake, Church Bay, Park Point) in the proposed Plan and has been subdivided to its full potential through historical comprehensive rural development provided above. Similarly, the subdivision potential at Te Whau Peninsula has also been realised through comprehensive subdivision proposals as outlined in section 8.7.3 of the operative Plan.

It is considered that the rules for comprehensive rural development have effectively become redundant as the majority of the land has been subdivided. Accordingly, providing for comprehensive management plans within these rural areas will serve no additional purpose for subdivision and for this reason, this provision has not been included within the proposed Plan.

Notwithstanding the above, the Plan provides for a 'comprehensive development' at Thompsons Point (rural 2) as it is considered that this area can accommodate further subdivision (refer to clause 12.9.7 of the proposed plan). The rules and specific assessment criteria for Thompsons Point focus upon preserving natural character and amenity values of the land unit and wider coastal environment with particular regard to the pattern of indigenous vegetation, productive rural land, low impact design and placement of buildings within the environment. Revegetation of indigenous vegetation is also assessed as well as the extent to which protective legal instruments are proposed.

Comprehensive development is also provided for within the Pakatoa and Matiatia land units (refer to clauses 12.9.9 and 12.9.10 respectively). Subdivision within these land units are subject to standards and terms and assessed in accordance with the general assessment criteria (clause 12.11) as well as specific assessment criteria for these land units (clauses 12.12.6 and 12.12.7 respectively). This approach recognises the specific characteristics of Matiatia and Pakatoa and seeks to provide for a more comprehensive and integrated assessment of both subdivision and land use in terms of the design and layout for these sites.

4.9.2.2 Assessment of Land Use as part of Subdivision

Part 12 recognises the relationship between subdivision and the effects on landscape character from associated built forms that may arise from land use activities within the relevant land unit. An assessment of land use matters is required as part of any subdivision assessment as subdivision provides opportunities and expectations for future development which may cause adverse effects.

For example, as part of any subdivision proposal which meets minimum site size (refer clause 12.8.1), it is anticipated that each proposed site will later contain buildings such as a dwelling. Such a building will have the potential to develop to the full extent allowed under the permitted bulk and location controls for the relevant land unit. On this basis, clause 12.6.1 (bulk, location and access controls for buildings) has been included as part of the general rules for subdivision.

Clause 12.6.1 states that each site must demonstrate where a building, access and parking can be constructed which complies with specific development controls. In the event a subdivision in land units 1-7, island residential 1 and 2 and rural 1 meets the requirements of clause 12.6.1 (including all other general rules), the application is a restricted discretionary activity. In accordance with clause 12.8.2, council has restricted its discretion to several matters including bulk and location of buildings. This enables council to assess the capacity of each proposed site to accommodate development while also assessing the effects of additional built forms within the landscape. If deemed necessary to mitigate adverse effects, the applicant and/or Council may restrict building platforms on each proposed site by way of a consent notice or similar legal mechanism.

In the event that a restricted discretionary subdivision does not meet the requirements of the clause 12.6.1, it requires discretionary activity consent and the council may, in accordance with section 91 of the RMA, defer considering the subdivision application and request the applicant lodge a land use consent at the time of subdivision. As stated in section 4.9.2.3 below, a joint land use/subdivision application can be assessed at the same time. Council therefore has full discretion to assess the effects on the environment and can restrict building platforms on each proposed site if considered necessary to mitigate adverse effects.

As recommended in section 4.44 below, subdivision applications seeking to protect significant environmental features, or to subdivide in Settlement areas, Commercial 1-5, Recreation 1-3, Conservation, Rural 2, Rural 3, Matiatia and the Pakatoa land units, and which do not comply with clause 12.6.1(1), should remain discretionary activities. A discretionary activity for these forms of subdivision will adequately assess the actual and potential effects of the proposal should the proposal be unable to demonstrate compliance with all stated bulk and location controls for access and dwelling location. In addition, a discretionary activity will still enable council to decline an application if the effects of the subdivision are more than minor.

On a broader level (resource management strategy and objectives and policies), the Plan recognises that each land unit will comprise elements and patterns (and may also have features) that contribute to the landscape character and visual amenity values of each land unit. It is this character and these values which need to be maintained and protected through subdivision.

Accordingly, the Plan provides general criteria for all discretionary activity subdivision (clause 12.11) for assessing layout and design and to ensure that elements, patterns and features of the landscape are protected, preserved and where possible, enhanced. The criteria also consider whether development resulting from subdivision can adequately dispose of stormwater and onsite wastewater without adversely affecting the natural environment. Further consideration is given to ensuring that the safety of people and property from natural hazards and contaminated land are avoided, remedied or mitigated, and that each proposed site provides for utility services, access and public access to open spaces, the coast, rivers and lakes, where necessary.

On this basis, the panel can be satisfied that as part of any subdivision application, whether restricted discretionary, discretionary or non-complying, consideration is given to the effects of establishing built forms on each proposed site. This approach will provide a better understanding of the nature of the proposal, achieve integrated resource management outcomes and effectively assess the actual and potential effects of the proposed development.

4.9.2.3 CMP's providing for land use activities not otherwise provided for within the relevant land unit.

While consideration is given to the effects of additional built forms, to ensure best planning practice, it is not appropriate to include a full assessment of land use activities as part of subdivision applications. Such an assessment applies to the use of land at the land use stage. Furthermore, allowing for land use activities that are not otherwise provided for within the land unit rules could lead to adverse amenity effects, which detract from the character of the environment and undermine the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for the land units. Accordingly, land use activities should be assessed as part of the resource management strategy for the land units themselves rather than at the time of subdivision. This approach will ensure consistency in all the rules within the Plan and avoid repetition.

Notwithstanding the above, the opportunity to combine the land use and subdivision activities can be achieved by requiring a joint land use/subdivision consent. This enables an applicant to apply for two consents which are assessed at the same time. The approach separates the appropriate resource management assessment of each application and provides separate recommendations for the land use and subdivision proposals within one report. A joint land use/subdivision application ensures that a comprehensive assessment is undertaken as it applies to the effects of both land use and subdivision, but it provides separate decisions under section 113 of the RMA. For example, while a subdivision consent may be granted approval, the application relating to the land use consent may be declined.

4.9.2.4 CMP's for the purpose of achieving land management, enhancement and environmental protection.

Protection of significant environmental features clauses 12.9.3 and 12.9.4

In responding to submissions seeking a comprehensive assessment of land for the purposes of achieving land management, enhancement and environmental protection, it is considered necessary to turn to objective 12.3.2 and its associated policies.

12.3.2 Objective - protection of significant environmental features

To provide for subdivision which leads to the protection of areas of high environmental and heritage value.

Policies

By establishing subdivision rules that provide for the creation of sites which protect, and enhance the natural environment including indigenous vegetation, wetlands, headlands, heritage features and other landscape features.
By ensuring that the elements, patterns and features that contribute to the significant environmental features are preserved.
By ensuring that the creation of sites which protect and enhance the natural environment do not adversely affect landscape character and amenity value of a site and the wider visual catchment.

The above policies directly relate to clauses 12.9.3 (protection of significant environmental features) and 12.9.4 (cluster subdivision associated with the protection of significant environmental features). These rules seek to protect and enhance the natural environment including indigenous vegetation, wetlands, ridgelines, headlands, heritage features and outstanding landscape features, and provide for a reduction to the minimum site sizes within landforms 2-7 and rural 1 only, provided there is a significant environmental feature worthy of protection. Such protection leads to preservation and enhancement in environmental quality and diversity. The reduced site sites are contained in table 12.2 and the definition of a significant environmental feature is contained in Part 14 (definitions).

Cluster subdivision provides for sites which are created in the form of a cluster or a group of clusters, with each site ranging between 3000m ²-5000m ². One further site must be created that will comprise the balance of the land subject to the subdivision and contain most of the significant environmental feature. Accordingly, each site with a cluster must hold an equal undivided share to the protected site.

Standards and terms and specific assessment criteria relating to the protection of significant environmental features are contained in clauses 12.9.3.3, 12.9.4.3, 12.12.1 and 12.12.2 of the Plan. These standards and terms ensure that the features are of a quality and maturity that are worthy of protection while the criteria ensures that the creation of such sites do not adversely affect the landscape character and amenity values of the site and wider visual catchment. Such forms of subdivision must involve specialist reports and include an on-going management programme that details any protection and enhancement for the feature(s) subject to protection.

Therefore, the objective, policies and rules seek to protect areas of high environmental and heritage value while the rules provide thresholds over which features become eligible for protection. The visual effects of reducing site sizes are also addressed specifically within the criteria so that the landscape character of the land unit(s) and amenity value of environment are not adversely affected.

On this basis, it is considered that part 12 already provides for an integrated approach to land use (in terms of built forms) that assesses the whole of a property and includes land management, enhancement and environmental protection outcomes.

All other discretionary and non-complying subdivision applications

It should be noted that all discretionary and non-complying subdivision applications not seeking to subdivide in accordance with clauses 12.9.3 or 12.9.4 must be assessed in accordance with general assessment criteria contained in clause 12.11.

This assessment criteria considers the design of the subdivision in terms of protecting natural features, character and amenity and considers the extent to which subdivision enhances heritage features and provides for ecological restoration and enhancement (refer to clause 12.11.13 � protecting vegetation and landscape and clause 12.11.14 � preserving and enhancing heritage features).

The extent to which site sizes and design of a proposed site is suitable for rural production is also considered within clause 12.11.4 � land suitable for rural production. The criteria also seek to ensure that the safety of people and property from natural hazards and contaminated land are avoided, remedied or mitigated and that each proposed site provides for onsite wastewater, utility services, access and public access to open spaces, coasts, rivers and lakes where necessary.

Therefore, the objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria seek to achieve land management, enhancement and environmental protection. This includes the preservation and enhancement of heritage features as well as ecological restoration and enhancement.

4.9.2.5 Provisions from Far North and Rodney District Plans.

A review of the above provisions has been undertaken as some submissions suggest similar provisions should be included in the Plan. In the time since these submissions were lodged the relevant provisions of the Proposed Rodney District Plan and Partly operative Far North District Plan have been amended as a result of decisions on submissions and/or appeals. For completeness, the updated provisions are attached as Appendix 4. It is noted that the relevant rule in the Far North District Plan is now numbered as 13.9.2.

Far North District Plan

A summary of provision 13.9.2 is as follows:

Clause 13.9.2 (Management Plans) provides for subdivision in specific areas, which do not comply with the minimum site size for discretionary activities in table 7, to be considered if it is accompanied by a management plan for the whole of the property. Only one consent for a discretionary (subdivision) activity in terms of a management plan can be granted in respect of a site or any specified portion of a site.
These management plans should include information relating to site design and layout, geotechnical matters, potential hazards, stormwater control and topography and geography of the property. In addition, these plans should identify any outstanding landscapes and natural features, areas of indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna, or historic heritage resources.
All management plans must include measures contained in clauses 13.9.3.1(c) and (d). These include providing for the protection and enhancement of indigenous vegetation and habitats, outstanding landscapes and natural features, historic heritage resources and riparian margins. Measures to control the placement and visual appearance of dwellings and ancillary buildings such as garages and water tanks must also be included as well as the mechanisms to ensure that the management plan binds future owners.
There is no minimum site size however, the average size of each proposed site is outlined in clause 13.9.2.2. Clause 13.9.2.2(d) expressly states that development bonuses provided for elsewhere in the Plan are not available for any site created by a consent granted under clause 13.9.3.

Rodney District Plan

A summary of provision 7.14.2.7 is as follows:

Rule 7.14.2.7 (Conservation Subdivision Plan Requirements) requires a conservation subdivision plan with the following types of subdivision:

The creation of a Farm Park (Rule 7.14.6) : [This provision has been removed based on submissions but is subject to an appeal]
For the Protection of Natural Areas (Rule 7.14.3) : [subject to appeal]

Where the proposed subdivision permanently, legally and physically protects from farming, forestry, or other rural activities, areas containing significant strands of native trees, native bush, scrub or wetlands or significant wildlife habitat.

The number of site sizes are dependent on the area of native bush or significant area being protected (refer to Rule 7.14.3.2.1). However, Rule 7.14.3.2.6 states that there shall be a minimum site size of 1ha and a maximum site size of 2ha. This minimum site size can increase to 2.15ha depending on where the protected native bush or significant feature is located (being the parent site or rural residential site).

For Significant Enhancement Planting (Rule 7.14.4) : [subject to an appeal]

For the purposes of enabling significant enhancement plantings using native plants, which are permanently protected from farming, forestry or other rural activities in circumstances meeting policy 7.4.10.

Rule 7.14.4.3 states that one rural residential site per 6ha minimum of native vegetation planting is allowed and up to a maximum of five rural residential sites may be created where the minimum 6ha of planting per rural residential site meets the Native Revegetation Planting Standards set out in Rule 7.14.2.3.

Rule 7.14.4.5 states that there shall be a minimum site size of 1ha and a maximum site size of 2ha. Where the protected revegetation area is to be contained within the new rural residential site, the rural residential site shall have a minimum site size of 6.15ha (6ha protected area and minimum 1500m ² for building and access), or a maximum site size determined by the size of the protected area with a 1500m ² for building and access. The minimum site size for the balance shall be 1ha.

For Significant Land Rehabilitation (Rule 7.14.5) : [subject to appeal]

Where the proposed subdivision will remove and permanently protect from farming, forestry and other rural activities, steep, eroding hill country of Class VI or higher from farming, forestry and other rural activities.

One rural residential site per 6ha is allowed (refer to Rule 7.14.5.2) and up to a maximum of five residential sites may be created where the 6ha of land for each residential site is permanently retired and legally and physically protected from farming or commercial forestry activities and which is replanted in native vegetation.

The minimum site size of the rural-residential site shall be 1 ha and a maximum site size shall be 2ha. The minimum site size for the balance shall be 1ha.

For Countryside Living Rural Sites

The Council may grant consent to the subdivision of land in the identified Countryside Living Rural Zone where the minimum average is 2ha. This may reduce down to 1ha provided the 2ha average is met and for every site below 2ha, there is one site between 2ha and 3.9ha, so the average of each pair of sites is between 2ha and 2.9ha.

The subdivision shall show all areas of native bush and wetland to be protected and the legal and physical protection of these areas.

For Countryside Living Rural Cluster Housing Sites

The Council may consent to the subdivision of land creating sites for Countryside Living Rural purposes on a clustered basis dispersed amidst a commonly owned site where the total number of sites shall be on the basis of a maximum of 1 site for every 1.5ha of land.

The minimum site size for the site held in common undivided shares by the owners of the cluster housing shall be 25ha. The minimum private site size shall be 4000m ²and the minimum balance site area shall be 25ha.

A Conservation Subdivision Plan shall identify the following:

(a) Primary Conservation Areas : These are areas where development is severely constrained for reasons associated with a natural hazard which has implications on human safety such as wetlands, floodplains, instable land, steep land (generally over 1:5), and land unsuitable for sewage effluent disposal.

(b) Secondary Conservation Areas : These areas identify 'noteworthy' natural features of the environment to which development has the potential for significant adverse effect such as areas of native forest, bush, wetlands, any actual and potential Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) identified on the Planning Map, wildlife habitats, groundwater recharge areas, first and second order streams, heritage sites, and important rural and coastal landscape features such as ridges, knolls and headlands, outlooks and open space.

(c) A development sketch plan that overlays the site analysis plan and supporting statements should then be prepared illustrating how the adverse effects on the constraints and values identified in phrases (a) and (b) above have been avoided, mitigated and/or protected (including permanent protection by means of covenant and/or stock proof fencing where warranted).

4.9.2.6 Planner's comments

It is evident that the above provisions within both the Far North and Rodney District Plans seek to reduce site sizes provided there is a positive environmental effect generated through the protection of significant areas. While these provisions have more prescriptive assessment criteria for example, pest control (refer to clause 7.14.3.2.4 of the Rodney District Plan), it is considered that the provisions within the HGI proposed Plan for the Protection of Significant Environmental Features (clause 12.9.3) and Cluster Subdivision (clause 12.9.4), provide for the same environmental and resource management outcomes that are sought within the Far North and Rodney District Plans.

As stated in section 4.9.2.4 above, subdivision in accordance with 12.9.3 and 12.9.4 of the Plan will provide for smaller sites where features of ecological, heritage and/or landscape value are protected, maintained and enhanced in perpetuity. Such protection leads to preservation and enhancement in environmental quality and diversity.

4.9.2.7 Planner's recommendation

It is considered that while the term "Comprehensive Management Plan" has not been used within Part 12, the Plan provides for an integrated approach to land use (in terms of built forms) that assesses the whole of a property and includes land management, enhancement and environmental protection outcomes.

This is achieved through the following provisions as noted above:

'Comprehensive development' is provided for at Thompsons Point (rural 2) and in the Matiatia and Pakatoa land units.
Clause 12.6.1 (bulk, location and access controls for buildings) states that each site must demonstrate where a building, access and parking can be constructed which complies with specific development controls.
In the event that subdivision does not meet the requirements of the clause 12.6.1, a discretionary activity consent is required and the council may, in accordance with section 91 of the RMA, defer considering the subdivision application and request the applicant to lodge a land use consent at the time of subdivision.
The opportunity to combine the land use and subdivision activities can be achieved by requiring a joint land use/subdivision consent. This enables an applicant to apply for two consents which are assessed at the same time. The approach separates the appropriate resource management assessment of each application and provides separate recommendations for the land use and subdivision proposals within one report. A joint land use/subdivision application ensures that a comprehensive assessment is undertaken as it applies to the effects of both land use and subdivision.
Clauses 12.9.3 (protection of significant environmental features) and 12.9.4 (cluster subdivision associated with the protection of significant environmental features) reduces the minimum site size (refer to table 12.2) within landforms 2-7 and rural 1 provided there is a significant environmental feature(s) worthy of protection and where possible, enhancement.
The general assessment criteria contained in clause 12.11 consider the design of the subdivision in terms of protecting natural features, character and amenity and the extent to which the subdivision enhances heritage features and provides for ecological restoration and enhancement (refer to clause 12.11.13 � protecting vegetation and landscape and clause 12.11.14 � preserving and enhancing heritage features).
It is not considered appropriate to include an assessment of land use activities which are not permitted within the land unit as part of subdivision applications, as it could lead to adverse amenity effects which detract from the character of the environment and undermine the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for the land units.
The above provisions within both the Far North and Rodney District Plans seek to reduce site sizes provided there is a positive environmental effect generated through the protection of significant areas. It is considered that the provisions within the proposed Plan for the Protection of Significant Environmental Features (clause 12.9.3) and Cluster Subdivision (clause 12.9.4), achieve the same environmental and resource management outcomes that are sought within the Far North and Rodney District Plans.

Overall, the objectives, policies and rules already contained in Part 12 of the Plan have been written in order to provide for an integrated approach to land use that assesses the whole of a property and includes land management, enhancement and environmental protection outcomes. On this basis, it is not considered necessary to provide for a "Comprehensive Management Plan".

For reasons outlined above, it is recommended that the relief sort with respect to the above submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking comprehensive management Plans.

That submissions 618/127, 1288/160, 1101/12, 1284/12, 1286/109, 1287/51, 1289/17, 2721/9, 2878/110, 618/129, 1288/162, 1284/14, 1286/111, 1287/30, 1289/19, 2721/11, 2878/112, 618/131, 618/133, 1288/164, 1101/18, 1284/16, 1286/113, 1287/46, 1289/23, 2721/13, 2878/114, 618/136, 1288/167, 1101/21, 1284/19, 1286/116, 1289/26, 2721/16, 2878/117, 1101/16, 1284/5, 1287/49, 1287/53, 1284/23, 1289/21 be rejected.

4.10 Submission about comprehensive management plans at Thompsons Point.

Submission dealt with in this section: 1287/28, 1287/15, 1287/55

4.10.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1287/15 requests the following:

The Plan (in particular part 2) should be amended to enable the planning techniques sought by the submitter to be applied to the submitters land (at 306 Sea View Road, Thompsons Point) as well as for the Plan provisions per se - other than landforms 1 � 4;

Submission 1287/28 seeks the following:

That the subdivision provisions applying to rural 2 including Thompsons Point, if retained, include specific provision for comprehensive management plans as discretionary activities;

Submission 1287/55 seeks the following:

Amend the residential zone subdivision provisions to enable comprehensive management plans as a discretionary activity within the submitter's proposed residential zone (at 306 Sea View Road, Thompsons Point) (and introduce a set of allied assessment criteria).

4.10.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

In addition to the above decisions sought, the submitter seeks to reclassify part of Thompsons Point (306 Sea View Road) into Island Residential 1 (creating 20 sites) with the balance of the area comprising two new land units: Rural 2A with a density of 1:3.5ha and Rural 2B with a density of 1:5ha.

The submitter also proposes that a concept plan of the development could be included to identify all building areas, roads and infrastructure and that buildings meeting specific development controls are to be approved as controlled activities or as restricted discretionary activities should they not comply with all relevant standards.

The re-classification of this area, including the classification of land use developments on the site, must be considered in other parts of the Plan. Indeed, other subparts of submission 1287 (Answer Services Holdings Limited) seek amendments to parts 1-4, 6, 10a, 10c, 13 and 14 of the Plan with regard to reclassification as well as the provision for Comprehensive Management Plans as discretionary activities. Those subparts will be considered in the hearing reports for those parts of the Plan and should be read in conjunction with this section.

With regard to the comprehensive development plans for Thompsons Point, the following is noted:

Thompson's Point is located on an eastern headland between Palm Beach and Onetangi Beach. The headland with surrounding ridges is now classified as rural 2 (western landscape) and has not been extensively subdivided although land use consents have been approved for four dwellings.

In consultation with John Hudson, Council's landscape architect, additional subdivision rules have been written for Thompsons Point to reflect the landscape analysis undertaken and the objectives and policies of the land unit. These include:

Comprehensive Development at Thompsons Point (clause 12.9.7)
1. The subdivision must provide for sites at an average of one site per 7.5ha of gross site area;
2. All sites created must have a minimum area of 4.0ha, other that those sites created for the purposes of reserves, public accessway or jointly owned sites; and
3. The application must detail revegetation on each proposed site. This must include an ongoing management programme that specifies any protection and enhancement.

A 'comprehensive development' is proposed for Thompsons Point (rural 2) given that this area is largely under development in terms of subdivision potential. The rules and specific assessment criteria focus upon preserving natural character and amenity values of the land unit and wider coastal environment with particular regard to the pattern of indigenous vegetation, productive rural land, low impact design and placement of buildings within the environment. Revegetation of indigenous vegetation is also assessed as well as the extent to which protective legal instruments are proposed.

In light of the above, it is considered that the relief sought by the above submitter is already provided for to the extent that a comprehensive development provides for an integrated approach to land use that assesses the whole of the property and includes land management, enhancement and environmental protection outcomes. An allied set of assessment criteria for Thompsons Point is provided for in clause 12.12.4 of the Plan. On this basis, it is not considered necessary to use the term "Comprehensive Management Plan" as it will not achieve a more effective sustainable management of the resources on Thompsons Point.

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the operative and proposed Plan provisions would not achieve the best outcomes on the site. However, the landowner's proposal may not be the most appropriate either. Overall, it will require further discussion with the landowner (preferably all landowners on Thompsons Point) in order to address it more appropriately in the Plans.

Therefore, is recommended that submissions 1287/28, 1287/15, 1287/55 are accepted in part as the relief sought by these submissions is already provided for to the extent that an integrated approach to land use and subdivision has been applied to Thompsons Point. Further discussions will need to be undertaken with regard to the landowner's proposal. As such, no changes to the Plan is recommended.

Planner's recommendations about comprehensive management plans at Thompsons Point.

That submissions 1287/28, 1287/15, 1287/55 be accepted in part however, no changes to the Plan is recommended.

4.11 Submissions about providing for residential and retail clusters and bonus provisions.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/138, 1288/169, 1101/23, 1284/21, 1286/118, 1287/57, 1289/28, 2721/18, 2878/119 and 618/76, 1286/77, 1289/9, 2878/77, 1101/8, 1127/26.

4.11.1 Decision requested.

Submissions 618/138, 1288/169, 1101/23, 1284/21, 1286/118, 1287/57, 1289/28, 2721/18, 2878/119 request the following:

In the subdivision provisions, provide for residential development consolidation as a development alternative to residential clusters where it is more appropriate on a site specific basis to create a hamlet form of development. The balance area from cluster developments to be set aside into a combination of productive land (where it exists), and environmental enhancement processes and protection mechanisms;

Submissions 618/76, 1286/77, 1289/9, 2878/77, 1101/8 request the following:

All relevant sections of part 12 be amended accordingly by the inclusion of reference to such bonus provisions and other than where cluster development is to be achieved by attached buildings, a minimum building area of 350m ² be provided for each dwelling to foster cluster development with the balance land area enabled as a single freehold lot with an additional dwelling on it enabled, and that the significance environmental feature definition and allied rules be amended accordingly.

Submission 1127/26 requests the following:

Amend part 12 to allow for residential cluster development on larger sites in Island Residential 1 or 2 areas as an alternative to 2000m ² lot size regimes. This should be provided for as a restricted discretionary activity and integrate with communal wastewater provision and integrated urban design principles.

4.11.2 Planners analysis and recommendation

In order to address the above submissions, it is considered appropriate to review the provisions within the proposed Plan as they already relate to cluster subdivision.

4.11.2.1 Cluster subdivision within the proposed plan

As noted above, the proposed Plan provides for the clustering of sites through clause 12.9.4 (cluster subdivision associated with the protection of significant environmental features). This provision applies only to landforms 2-7 and rural 1 provided there is a significant environmental feature worthy of protection. Sites can therefore be created as a cluster or a group of clusters with one further site created that will comprise the balance of the land subject to the subdivision and contain most of the significant environmental feature. Each site which is the subject of a cluster or group of clusters must hold an equal and undivided share in the balance site.

It should be noted that, a site subject to a cluster(s), must be between 3000m ² and 5000m ²and have a maximum site coverage of 200m ². Access to these sites must be via a common accessway and infrastructure servicing more than one property is encouraged.

Clustering sites and having a large balance site can lead to better protection of the significant feature as it reduces the degree of environmental modification through the construction of driveways and built forms. It also ensures that the significant environmental features remains intact rather than being broken up through boundary alignments.

The specific criteria relating to cluster subdivision assesses the extent to which the sites avoid a linear form or repetitive patterns of buildings and infrastructure and the extent to which the site is visually integrated into the landscape. This addresses the likely cumulative effect that could occur with clustering, at least within the site itself. The preservation of elements, features and patterns that contribute to the natural character is also assessed as well as the extent to which the proposed subdivision minimises the impact on any existing or potential productive activities on the parent site. Appropriate planting subject to bonds and consent notices is also assessed.

In light of the above, it is evident that the relief sought within the submissions is already provided for in some form within the proposed Plan. The specific changes sought with regard to cluster subdivision is discussed in further detail below.

4.11.2.2 Planner's recommendation

The above submissions seek a form of cluster subdivision within all land units, including residential development that is consolidated through attached buildings. Submissions request that this is achieved through bonus density provisions whereby additional densities and/or clusters occur when environmental protection and enhancement is achieved. In addition, where sites are not to be consolidated, there should be a minimum building area of 350m ² with the balance site being available as a single freehold site.

As noted above, cluster subdivision is provided for within landforms 2-7 and Rural 1 only which are rural and have large site sizes. This provision already provides for bonus densities provided significant environmental protection is achieved. Given the elements, features and patterns that are characteristic of these land units, they also have the potential to contain significant environmental features (e.g. significant indigenous bush within land form 7 - forest and bush areas) which can be protected. Providing for the clustering of residential development within these land units is considered practicable, given that a large balance site of several hectares will help mitigate the effects of a cluster of built forms.

Moreover, proposed sizes subject to cluster subdivision range from 3000m ² to 5000m ² and limit site coverage to 200m ² per site. This will provide a degree of open space throughout the cluster itself which will reduce the adverse visual effects associated with clustering buildings and infrastructure. These clustered sites will provide sufficient space to locate dwellings so that linear forms or repetitive patterns of buildings and infrastructure are reduced.

Therefore, when undertaking cluster subdivision for the purposes of significant environmental features, the minimum site size for the land units are markedly reduced provided there is an environmental benefit gained and the additional built forms are integrated into the landscape.

It is considered that providing for cluster subdivision within land units which do not have the means to mitigate the clustering of built forms (large site sizes and the provision to accommodate significant environmental features), may generate adverse effects on landscape character through the massing of built forms and through modification of the environment (e.g. earthworks and vegetation removal). This may detract from the character and amenity of these areas and may not be consistent with the objectives for these land units.

The submitters also seek that, where sites are not to be consolidated, there should be a maximum building area of 350m ² with the balance site being available as a single freehold site. For the same reasons noted above, it is considered that increasing the maximum site coverage from 200m ² to 350m ² will potentially lead to a massing of built structures within in one area which could compromise the character, amenity and elements, features and patterns which make up the landscape. In addition, providing the balance area as a single freehold title results in a density (and additional development rights) in the environment that is greater than what is anticipated within the land unit. This is not necessarily consistent with the objectives of securing appropriate management of resources, or consistent with achieving sustainable land use development.

Moreover, it is not considered appropriate to provide for bonus density and cluster provisions in exchange for environment protection within residential and retail landscapes. This is due to the small site sizes of these land units (2000m ² and 1500m ² respectively) which are unlikely to mitigate the visual effects generated through the massing of built forms. Cluster subdivision within these land units may result in the proliferation and massing of built forms within the landscape which may detract from the character and amenity of these areas.

Therefore, for reasons outlined above, it is recommended that the above submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking residential and retail clusters and bonus provisions.

That submissions 618/138, 1288/169, 1101/23, 1284/21, 1286/118, 1287/57, 1289/28, 2721/18, 2878/119 and 618/76, 1286/77, 1289/9, 2878/77, 1101/8, 1127/26, be rejected.

4.12 Submissions seeking gross site areas in Part 12.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/77, 619/20, 1288/48, 2670/20 and 619/49, 754/58, 859/58, 2670/48, 754/22, 859/22, 1101/9, 1289/10, 1286/78, 2878/79, 1127/21 , 1287/4.

4.12.1 Decision requested

The above submissions request that site sizes are based on gross site area and not net site area.

4.12.2 Planner's Analysis and recommendation

In order to address the relief sought above, it is considered necessary to turn to the definition of net site area contained in part 14 (definitions) of the Plan as follows:

Net site area: means the net area of a site. It is calculated by deducting the area of the entrance

strip from gross site area .

Accordingly, the definition of entrance strip within Part 14 is as follows:

Entrance strip: means the narrow part of a site, designed to provide vehicle or other access from a road to the main part of the site. The entrance strip may have easements that provide access to other sites. The entrance strip only includes the narrow part of the site until it reaches 7.5m wide, perpendicular to the course of the entrance strip (as shown on figure 14.1: Entrance strip).

As illustrated in figure 14.1, entrance strips which are less than 7.5 metres wide, are not capable of accommodating a dwelling and/or wastewater fields (this is largely due to wastewater lines having to be 1.5 metres away from side boundaries - refer to technical publication 58). Their primary function is to provide access to and from a site.

The effective area for building on is restricted to the white area of figure 14.1 as you cannot build on the entrance strip. If we included the grey area as well (i.e. gross site area) this would give a false impression of capacity to accommodate development, as that area could not be used for stormwater and wastewater disposal.

Submissions 754/22, 859/22 state that the use of net site area conflicts with clause 12.9.3.3 which uses the term gross site area. This relates only to the area on each proposed site which contains the protected significant environmental feature (SEF). Minimum site size for significant environmental protection subdivision is still based upon net site area to ensure that there is sufficient open space available to service and integrate the additional built forms.

It should be noted that the use of 'gross' site area in clause 12.9.3.3 has been assessed as part of submissions relating to clause 12.9.3.1 in section 4.54 below.

Therefore, for reasons outlined above, it is recommended that the relief sort with respect to the above submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking gross site areas.

That submissions 618/77, 619/20, 1288/48, 2670/20 and 619/49, 754/58, 859/58, 2670/48 754/22, 859/22, 1101/9, 1289/10, 1286/78, 2878/79, 1127/21, 1287/4 be rejected.

4.13 Submission about land unit 10 and 12 being allowed on one title.

Submission dealt with in this section is 719/7.

4.13.1 Decision requested

The above submission requests the following:

Land unit 10 and land unit 12 being allowed on one title � they should be subdivided as very confusing.

4.13.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

The above relief being considered in this section of the report is too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to Part 12 of the Plan.

Notwithstanding this, the following points may provide some clarity as to why the submitter considers dual land units on one title leads to confusion:

The address relating to this submission is stated as 18 Nepean Avenue, Waiheke Island. Within the operative plan, this 4400m ² site is classified as land unit 12 (bush residential) and land unit 10 (forest and bush areas). These dual land units are the result of a boundary adjustment undertaken in 2002 (SUB36020007101).
Clause 12.6.6(1) of the plan currently states:

Where any proposed site in a subdivision application includes more than one land unit, the subdivision rules which apply to the proposed site are the rules for the land unit which forms the greatest part of the proposed site.

The above clause ensures that minimum site size as it relates to each land unit is upheld so that the elements, features and patterns that contribute to the visual amenity, natural landscape character and amenity value of each land unit are maintained. For this reason, it is not considered that this clause should be removed or amended from the Plan.

Notwithstanding the above, dual land units on one site can lead to conflicting land use activities. For example, within the operative plan, an entertainment facility is a non-complying activity within land unit 12 however, it is a permitted activity within land unit 10.
It is evident that any subdivision within both the operative and proposed plan as it relates to 18 Nepean Avenue will be a non-complying activity as the minimum site size for land unit 10 (25ha) will not be achieved.
With regard to this site, the proposed plan seeks to re-classify the entire site of 18 Nepean Avenue as Island Residential 2 (bush residential). While this matter will be assessed in another hearings report, it is considered that in the event the re-classification of the site is accepted, the confusion noted in the above relief may lessen as the site will not be subject to conflicting land use activities and subdivision densities.

As stated above, the relief being considered in this section of the report is too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to Part 12 of the Plan. On this basis, it is recommended that the relief sought be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submission seeking land unit 10 and 12 being allowed on one title.

That submissions 719/7 be rejected.

4.14 Submissions about introducing non-complying activity status for all coastal amenity area subdivision in excess of the minimum site sizes in tables 12.1 and 12.2.

Submissions dealt with in this section are as follows: 814/5, 959/4

4.14.1 Decision requested

The above submissions request the following:

Introducing non-complying activity status for all coastal amenity areas subdivision in excess of the minimum site areas in tables 12.1 and 12.2

4.14.2 Planners analysis and recommendation

With regard to coastal amenity areas, as noted in section 4.7.2.1 above, the land unit rules serve to protect coastal amenity in specific locations of island residential 1 (traditional residential) by identifying these areas on the planning maps as being within a "coastal amenity area". On Great Barrier Island, there are also sub-areas within certain settlement areas which are identified as 'Reserve, dune, coastal margin and wetland conservation areas'. Additional controls are imposed on all buildings within these areas so they do not compromise the character and amenity of the coast. Therefore, the Plan already provides for coastal amenity area protection and enhancement at the time of land use development and as part of the rules pertaining to landform 1, Island residential 1 as well as specific sub-areas within settlement areas.

Tables 12.1 and 12.3 of the Plan outline minimum site size for landform 1, Island residential 1 (whether or not land is identified as coastal amenity areas) as well as sub-areas which are identified as 'Reserve, dune, coastal margin and wetland conservation areas'. Clause 12.10 (Non-complying Activities) of the Plan identifies specific subdivisions that are non-complying activities. The relevant provisions relating to coastal amenity areas are as follows:

Non-complying activities

As shown in table 12.4: Activity table for all types of subdivision, the following subdivisions are non-complying activities:

3. Any subdivision which does not meet the minimum site sizes specified in table 12.1: Minimum site areas for land units, table 12.2: Minimum site areas for protecting significant environmental features and table 12.3: Minimum site areas for settlement areas.

5. Any subdivision in parts of settlement areas, where subdivision is identified as a non-complying activity in table 12.3.

Accordingly, any subdivision within identified coastal amenity areas (island residential 1), or in landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) which does not meet the minimum site size, is deemed to be a non-complying activity. In addition, table 12.3 states that subdivision in 'Reserve, dune, coastal margin and wetland conservation areas' is a non-complying activity.

On this basis, the panel can be satisfied that the objectives, policies and rules already contained in the Part 12 of the Plan have been written with the intention of achieving the decision sought by the above submissions.

Therefore is recommended that the decision sought be accepted but no changes to the Plan are required.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking a non-complying activity status for all coastal amenity area subdivision in excess of the minimum site sizes in tables 12.1 and 12.2.

That submissions 814/5 and 959/4 be accepted but no changes to the Plan are required.

4.15 Submissions about providing for bridle paths

Submission dealt with in this section: 832/6, 1190/34, 1191/6, 852/2, 2922/2.

4.15.1 Decision requested

Submissions 832/6, 1190/34, 1191/6 request the following:

There should be a rule in the Plan for subdivision that bridle paths are put in.

Submission 852/2 requests the following:

Add objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria; in the general rules - Subdivision provide for bridle paths in any subdivision.

Submission 2922/2 requests the following:

Provide for bridle paths in all subdivisions.

4.15.2 Planners analysis and recommendation

Bridal paths have not been included in Part 12 as it is considered that the provision of bridle paths is a land use consideration that should be assessed at the time of land use development. Part 10a (Land units: objectives, policies and activity tables), Part 10b (Settlement areas: objectives, policies and activity tables), (Part 13 (Connectivity and Linkages) and Part 6 (Financial Contributions) are appropriate parts of the Plan in which to provide for bridal paths throughout the Hauraki Gulf Islands. Accordingly, the above submissions seek amendments to other parts of the Plan requesting the provision for bridal paths. Those subparts will be considered in the hearing reports for those parts of the Plan.

In general, the Plan identifies existing bridle paths in Rangihoua but does not seek to require any specifically. Notwithstanding this, such public access can be made through financial contributions (Part 6) and through the taking of esplanade reserves and esplanade strips (clause 12.13).

Objective 12.3.3 (public access to and along the coastline) provides a link to these sections of the Plan as the policies seek to facilitate access to and along the coastline, including rivers and lakes, while not adversely affecting the natural character of these environments. The policies state the way in which access can be acquired through financial contributions and through the taking of esplanade reserves and esplanade strips.

These measures are contained in Part 6 (financial contributions) and clause 12.13 (Esplanade reserves). The rules contained within these parts outline how financial contributions are levied through subdivision, which include the option of providing open spaces or services instead of cash contributions. These provisions can enable access to and along the coast, rivers and lakes and could include the provision for bridal paths if offered by the applicant as part of a financial contribution or esplanade strip.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 832/6, 1190/34, 1191/6, 852/2, 2922/2 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking bridal paths as part of subdivision.

Submissions 832/6, 1190/34, 1191/6, 852/2, 2922/2 be rejected.

4.16 Submission about no cross lease or unit title subdivision on Waiheke.

Submission dealt with in this section: 1015/8

4.16.1 Decision requested

Submission 1015/8 request the following:

That there is to be no cross leasing or unit title subdivision (on Waiheke).

4.16.2 Planners analysis and recommendation

In responding to the above submissions, it is considered necessary to address the different forms of subdivision that occur in New Zealand and what a cross lease and unit title subdivision consist of. Much of the following information is outlined in the Quality Planning website:

Freehold subdivision

Freehold subdivisions occur where new allotments (usually referred to as sites) are created under the Land Transfer Act and ownership is held in an estate in fee simple. Fee simple means that the ownership of the land and the buildings on it is held solely by those persons listed on the certificate of title. Freehold is the most common form of subdivision. The boundaries are pegged by registered surveyors and a 'guaranteed' title is issued.

Leasehold

Land or buildings or both that are leased for a period exceeding 35 years is defined in the RMA as a subdivision. They are also known as leasehold subdivisions. A leasehold estate is most commonly defined as an estate or interest in land held for a fixed term of years. Ownership is through a lease from the owner of the freehold title. Leaseholds usually operate under continually renewable terms, with a 'ground rent' payable to the freehold title owner. The leaseholder effectively buys the right to own the dwelling or building and lease the land for a certain time. The leaseholder can sell the lease, but there are often restrictions on the use of the property.

Cross lease

The formal name for a cross lease is a Composite Leasehold and Share Title. A common example is two flats on one section and each person holds a leasehold of one flat and an undivided share of the freehold section that both flats occupy. As a consequence, each person is required to obtain the other person's consent to alter or extend their flat, as both persons own half a share of the land.

The lease is for a period of 999 years and the share corresponds to the number of dwelling units. The cross-lease plan shows the dwellings as "flats" and is often called a "Flats Plan". The use of outdoor spaces is often defined by covenant (agreement) areas which are also outlined on the plan.

Unit title

A unit title development (such as an apartment block) consists of:

two or more principal units (to be used as a residence or business)
the accessory units to be attached to the principal units (such as a garden, garage, pool or carparking space)
any common property (that is, common spaces such as lawns and driveways, and common facilities such as lifts and laundries)

As a form of ownership, unit title is similar to other property in that it can be bought and sold, or leased or mortgaged. However, unlike other forms of title, it is made up of three components:

ownership in the particular unit
an undivided share in the ownership of the common property
an undivided share in the ownership of the units if the unit plan is cancelled

In accordance with the above definitions, subdivision includes freehold subdivision and lease hold subdivision. This includes the creation of fee simple sites, unit titles, company lease or company titles and cross leases. Subdivision is therefore the process of dividing a parcel of land or a building into one or more parcels, or changing an existing boundary location.

The above forms of subdivision are expressly provided for within the RMA in accordance with section 218 of the RMA. Pursuant to section 11 of the RMA, no person may subdivide land (as defined by section 218 of the RMA) unless the subdivision is expressly allowed by a rule in a plan or a resource consent, and a survey plan had been processed under Part 10 of the RMA. Therefore, as the RMA expressly provides for such forms of subdivision, Council must provide the opportunity to subdivide land under a cross lease or unit title.

Therefore is recommended that the relief sought be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submission seeking that no cross lease or unit title subdivision be provided on Waiheke Island.

That submission 1015/8 be rejected.

4.17 Submission about facilitating the clustering of built structures within landform 6

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1098/2, 1099/2.

4.17.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 1098/2, 1099/2 request the following:

That the subdivision rule for landform 6 (regenerating slopes) should in addition be characterised by appropriately sited clusters of buildings

4.17.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

The above submitters consider that by allowing small scattered development within this landscape will:

Increase road and servicing impacts on slopes
Undermine ecological continuity
Limit social interaction and community development
Result in inefficient development patterns
Increase the visual impact (particularly on slopes)
Lead to fragmentation of the landscape

The submitters therefore consider that the clustering of buildings in this landscape in conjunction with recommended ecologically sustainable design guidelines will minimise the above effects.

With regard to these matters, the following comments are made:

4.17.2.1 Resource Management Strategy

Clause 10a.7.1 of the Plan, outlines the characteristics of landform 6 (regenerating slopes) which includes:

High natural visual prominence (in both coastal locations and as a backdrop to settlement areas) and its unbroken expansive qualities;

Small, scattered and unobtrusive buildings, if there are buildings at all.

The ensuing objectives and policies of this land unit seek to maintain and protect the above characteristics outlined in clause 10a.7.1.

Accordingly, the subdivision rules for landform 6 work together with other rules for landform 6 (contained in parts 10a, 10c and 13) to achieve the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for this land unit. This includes reducing roading and servicing impacts and providing ecological continuity.

Therefore, while the decision sought by the submitters is in respect to the clustering of sites as part of subdivision, any amendments made to part 12 (Subdivision) within landform 6 may require consequential amendments to the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for landform 6 as contained in part 10a.

4.17.2.2 Cluster subdivision

As stated in section 4.9 above, the proposed Plan provides for the clustering of sites through clause 12.9.4 (cluster subdivision associated with the protection of significant environmental features). This provision applies only to landforms 2-7 and rural 1 provided there is a significant environmental feature worthy of protection

The clustering of buildings as part of a subdivision design is already provided for within landform 6 (regenerating slopes) but only if there is an environmental benefit gained through the protection of significant features, and provided the effects on landscape character and amenity are not adversely affected. In many circumstances, often the significant environmental feature itself, such as extensive bush, will mitigate the effects of the clustering of built forms. This is because the massing of built forms in an isolated area can be broken up by specimen trees and by an extensive bush backdrop that surrounds the housing cluster.

It is not considered appropriate to provide for cluster subdivision in landform 6 where there is not a significant environmental feature worthy of protection and there are no mitigating measures to integrate the built form into the landscape. It is considered that the effects generated by clustering built forms into a landscape which has high natural visual prominence (in both coastal locations and as a backdrop to settlement areas) and has unbroken expansive qualities could detract from the character and amenity of these areas if there are no mitigating measures in which to integrate the massing of buildings. Accordingly, such an approach is not consistent with the objectives and policies for landform 6.

4.17.2.3 Assessment of built forms in Landform 6 (regenerating slopes)

The submitters have also request that ecologically sustainable design guidelines are included within the Plan.

Appendix 11 (Sustainable design guidelines for the islands) of the Plan outlines sustainable measures for building and includes guidelines on the following:

Sustainable design - starting out
Earthworks
Designing for the sun
Energy
Water
Wastewater
Low impact design
Building in the bush
Building materials

While Appendix 11 is not a mandatory document, the assessment criteria contained in Part 11 (Assessment Matters) outlines matters that need to be considered when assessing an activity for a discretionary activity as identified in the activity tables contained in part 10a -Land units: objectives, policies and activity tables and part 10b - Settlement areas: objectives, policies and activity tables. These matters include the consideration of sustainable design for buildings.

Therefore, sustainable building design as sought by the above submitters is provided for within the Plan for any land use application requiring discretionary activity assessment in accordance with parts 10a and 10b.

4.17.2.4 Planner's recommendation

Overall, the panel can be satisfied that the objectives, policies and rules already contained in the Part 12 of the Plan have been written to provide for cluster subdivision in landform 6 providing there is a significant environmental feature worthy of protection.

For reasons outlined above, it is not considered appropriate to provide for cluster subdivision where there is no significant environmental feature worthy of protection and there are no mitigating measures in which to integrate the built form into the landscape.

In addition and as noted in section 4.17.2.1 above, the subdivision rules for landform 6 work together with other rules for landform 6 (contained in parts 10a and 10c) to achieve the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for this land unit. Consequently, these rules will ensure that the visual impact of scattered buildings in the landscape and the effect on ecological continuity will be assessed as part of any development for subdivision and land use development.

Therefore is recommended that the submissions 1098/2 and 1099/2 are accepted in part as the Plan already provides for a form of cluster subdivision however, no further changes are recommended in the Plan.

Planner's recommendations about submissions facilitating the clustering of built structures within landform 6.

That submissions 1098/2, 1099/2 are accepted in part as the Plan already provides for a form of cluster subdivision however, no further changes are recommended in the Plan.

4.18 Submissions about cluster subdivision in landforms 6 and 7 which follows ecologically sustainable design principles.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1098/1, 1099/1

4.18.1 Decision requested

Submissions 1098/1, 1099/1 request the following:

That subdivision rules for landform 6 (regenerating slopes) apply to landform 7 (forest and bush areas) specifically in the allowance to facilitate the clustering of built structures, hamlets and villages in areas with the capacity to absorb growth. That subdivision follows Ecologically Sustainable Design (ESD) principles.

4.18.2 Planner's analysis

The above submissions state that Great Barrier's identity is being challenged and growth in population is likely to occur. It is therefore prudent to plan for this growth in a sustainable manner. To meet this challenge, the submitters consider that the existing landscape values and development patterns must be readdressed to maintain the integrity of the island and absorb the pressures of population increases. This could include the options of clustering housing and development pods within close proximity using Ecologically Sustainable Design principles.

As stated in section 4.17.2.2 above, the Plan provides for the clustering of sites through clause 12.9.4 (cluster subdivision associated with the protection of significant environmental features). This provision applies only to landforms 2-7 and rural 1 provided there is a significant environmental feature worthy of protection.

Accordingly, the clustering of buildings as part of a subdivision design is already provided for within landform 7 (forest and bush areas) but only if there is an environmental benefit gained through the protection of significant features, and provided the effects on character and amenity are not adversely affected. In many circumstances, the characteristic forest and bush areas within this land unit forms the significant environmental feature itself, which also helps to mitigate the effects of clustered built forms. This is because the massing of built forms in an isolated area can be broken up by specimen trees and by an extensive bush backdrop that surrounds the housing cluster(s).

4.18.2.1 Ecologically Sustainable Design (ESD) Principles

The submitters request that ecologically sustainable design principles are included in the Plan which provides a framework to assess the design outcomes of subdivision and associated development. This can be achieved through " sieve mapping and land capacity study to assess areas that would be capable of supporting development ". There are three principles that encapsulate the ESD approach which include addressing natural, urban, social and cultural needs of a site.

In analysing the decision sought by the submitter, it should be noted that further growth and development on Great Barrier Island is envisaged for the settlements areas. Indeed, the extent of the settlements areas is being reviewed and the intention is to consolidate and provide for development in those areas.

With regard to providing growth in other land units, it is noted that a review of the subdivision provisions has been undertaken after considerable landscape analysis by John Hudson, a registered landscape architect. This work helped determine the appropriate minimum site areas for land units and settlement areas, based upon the physical characteristics of the land and its capacity to integrate development impacts, as well as consideration of natural character, visual character and amenity values. The policies and rules are therefore designed to promote and encourage subdivision applications to meet minimum site sizes so that they are consistent with the objectives and policies for each land unit or settlement area.

Accordingly, the objectives and policies for Landform 6 seek to limit activities to those of a low intensity and to require buildings to be assessed so that there will be no adverse effects on the natural character, ecological and visual amenity values of the land unit. The objectives and policies for landform and 7 seek to protect the conservation values associated with landform 7. These include, protecting the extensive podocarp and broadleaf forest areas, areas of secondary regenerating forest and some isolated areas of manuka and kanuka within this land unit. It is considered that the continued implementation of 25 hectare site sizes will retain and protect the natural character and general amenity value of the landform 7 (refer also to section 4.79 below).

Therefore, it is considered that minimum site size is considered to be the only practical and timely way to reflect land capacity, visual effects and the natural, urban, social and cultural needs of a site. In addition, Council does not have the resources to undertake site by site reviews of every piece of land in the Gulf to determine areas of land that would be capable of supporting pockets of development. Therefore, the minimum site sizes for each land unit focuses on the extent to which proposed sites can be adequately serviced, and on the effects upon landscape character and amenity values associated with additional built forms in the environment. Consideration is also given to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

On this basis, the minimum site size method is the most appropriate way of addressing subdivision given the nature of the district Plan. As such, it is recommended that submissions 1098/1 and 1099/1 are rejected.

With regard to providing for Ecologically Sustainable Design (ESD) principles and as stated in section 4.17.2.3 above, Appendix 11 (Sustainable design guidelines for the islands) of the Plan outlines sustainable measures for building. While Appendix 11 is not a mandatory document, the assessment criteria contained in Part 11 (Assessment Matters) outlines matters that need to be considered when assessing an activity for a discretionary activity as identified in the activity tables contained in part 10a -Land units: objectives, policies and activity tables and part 10b - Settlement areas: objectives, policies and activity tables.

Criterion 17 within Part 11 includes 'Sustainable building design' and assesses:

the extent to which the applicant has investigated alternatives in terms of sustainable design such as 'green building' methods, renewable energy sources and low impact design methods. (Appendix 11 - Sustainable design guidelines for the islands can assist applicants with this criteria.)

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking cluster subdivision to landforms 6 and 7 which follows ecologically sustainable design principles.

That submissions 1098/1, 1099/1 be rejected.

4.19 Submissions about modifying subdivision rules pertaining to landform 7 to reflect land capacity and visual effects.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1098/4, 1099/4

4.19.1 Decision requested

Submissions 1098/4 and 1099/4 request the following:

That the subdivision rules pertaining to forest and bush areas be modified to reflect land capacity and visual effect, as opposed to a defined minimum site size. This results in focusing on the effects of development in an environment of development within an ESD Building Framework.

4.19.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

The decision sought by the above submitters is similar to that which has already been considered in section 4.18 above.

Accordingly, minimum site size is considered to be the only practical and timely way to reflect land capacity and visual effects as requested by the submitters. In addition, Council does not have the resources to undertake site by site reviews of every piece of land in the Gulf. Therefore, the minimum site sizes for each land unit focuses on the extent to which proposed sites can be adequately serviced, and on the effects upon landscape character and amenity values associated with additional built forms in the environment. Consideration is also given to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

It is considered that the minimum site size method is the most appropriate way of addressing subdivision given the nature of the district Plan. As such, it is recommended that submission 1098/4 and 1099/4 are rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions modifying subdivision rules pertaining to landform 7 to reflect land capacity and visual effects.

Submission 1098/4 and 1099/4 are rejected.

4.20 Submission about notification so that access and reserve contributions are not over looked.

Submission dealt with in this section: 1281/2

4.20.1 Decision requested

The above submission requests the following:

Subdivisions must all be notified so that possibilities for access and reserve land contributions are not overlooked as is too often the case now.

4.20.2 Planner's Analysis and recommendation

In response to the above submission, it is considered appropriate to separately turn to the provision for access and reserve contributions and notification within Part 12:

4.20.2.1 Access and reserve land contributions

Provision for potential access and reserve land is a consideration in all subdivisions. Indeed objective 12.3.3 and its policies state the following:

12.3.3 Public Access to and along the Coastline

To ensure that subdivisions facilitate access to and along the coastline while not adversely affecting the natural character of the coastal environment.

Policies

By taking esplanade reserves or esplanade strips at the time of subdivision.
By requiring, at the time of subdivision, pedestrian links to and along the coastline from public places.
By facilitating, through subdivision, public access to the foreshore except where restrictions are necessary because of safety, security, damage to vegetation and wildlife, conflict with traditional Maori sites, or other exceptional circumstances.
By using various measures including esplanade areas or financial contributions, or both, to achieve public access to the coast, rivers and lakes.

The above policies are the most appropriate means of meeting section 6(d) of the RMA and achieving the objective to facilitate access to and along the coastline, including rivers and lakes, while not adversely affecting the natural character of these environments.

The policies clearly state the way in which access can be acquired through financial contributions and through the taking of esplanade reserves and esplanade strips. Policy 3 also references matters that will be considered if an esplanade reserve and/or esplanade strip is to be reduced, waived, cancelled or varied. This aspect links to rule 12.13.2(1)(b) and assessment criteria 12.13.4 which considers all applications to reduce, waive, cancel or vary esplanade areas as discretionary activities.

In addition, assessment criteria 12.11.5(8) (Site design and layout), 12.11.6(3) (Access to sites) and 12.11.12 (1)-(3) (open space, recreation and financial contributions) provide specific matters to consider when facilitating public access to and along coasts, rivers and lakes. Applicants will therefore need to consider access (whether public or private) to these areas as part of any subdivision.

Overall, the objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria will facilitate land contributions and access to coasts, rivers and lakes where practicable whilst also ensuring that natural hazards are not exacerbated or created, and there are no adverse effects on flora, fauna, landscape amenity or traditional Maori sites. As part of any subdivision application, including restricted discretionary activities, these objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria particularly, within clause 12.13 (esplanade reserves) and Part 6 (Financial contribution) must be considered.

4.20.2.2 Notification

Section 93(1) of the RMA states that a consent authority must fully notify an application for resource and/or subdivision consent unless the application is a controlled activity, or the consent authority is satisfied that the adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be minor.

Notwithstanding this, section 94 states that:

(1) If notification is not required under section 93(1), the consent authority must serve notice of the application on all persons who, in the opinion of the consent authority, may be adversely affected by the activity, even if some of those persons have given their written approval to the activity.

(2) However, a consent authority is not required to serve notice of the application under subsection (1) if all persons who, in the opinion of the consent authority, may be adversely affected by the activity have given their written approval to the activity.

On this basis, all discretionary and non-complying activity consents can be notified (limited or fully) after an assessment of the effects of a proposed subdivision has been undertaken. Council cannot notify an application unless it is considered that the effects of the proposal will be more than minor and/or it is considered that no persons will be adversely affected by the proposal.

Activity status of subdivision applications

Within Part 12, subdivision is either a permitted, (clause 12.7),restricted discretionary (clause 12.8), discretionary (clause 12.9) or a non-complying activity (clause 12.10).

Restricted discretionary applications (12.8) include: company leases, unit titles, boundary adjustments and the creation of rights of way. In addition, subdivision including cross leases in landforms 1-7, island residential 1 and 2 and rural 1 which meets minimum site size (table 12.1) and the general rules in clause 12.6 are restricted discretionary activities.

Notwithstanding this, the provision for non-notification pursuant to section 94D(2) and (3) of the RMA has not been included for such restricted discretionary activities within part 12. Therefore, restricted discretionary activities can be notified and potentially declined if the matters over which Council has restricted its discretion will generate adverse effects that are more than minor.

Discretionary applications within part 12 (clause 12.9) include subdivision for the purpose of protecting Significant Environmental Features and all subdivision within commercial 1-5, recreation 1-3, rural 2 and 3, Pakatoa, Matiatia and within the settlement areas provided, the subdivision meets general rules in clause 12.6 and the specific standards and terms relevant to the land unit.

It should be noted that, where any subdivision proposal (including restricted discretionary activities noted in clause 12.8) does not meet particular general rules and/or standards and terms, then the activity status of an application is likely to change. Non-complying activities are contained in clause 12.10 and include the subdivision of any land which does not comply with the relevant site sizes contained in tables 12.1 and 12.2.

On this basis, all restricted discretionary, discretionary and non-complying activity consents may be notified (limited or fully) after an assessment of the effects of a proposed subdivision has been undertaken. Council cannot notify an application unless it is considered that the effects of the proposal will be more than minor and/or it is considered that no persons will be adversely affected by the proposal. Each application must be assessed on a case by case basis and on its merits.

Therefore for reasons outlined above, it is considered that submission 1281/2 be rejected as the Plan has been written to ensure that all subdivision applications must be assessed against the provisions relating to the taking of esplanade reserves (clause 12.13) and Part 6 (financial contributions. In addition, (with the exception of permitted activities) all have the potential to be notified however, such a determination must be assessed on a case by case basis and on its merits. On this basis, subdivision applications cannot be automatically notified without a proper assessment of effects pursuant to sections 93 and 94 of the RMA.

Planner's recommendations about submission seeking notification so that access and reserve contributions are not over looked.

Submission 1281/2 be rejected.

4.21 Submissions about providing more flexible and diverse opportunities for land use development outside of the existing settled areas.

Submission dealt with in this section: 1284/9, 2878/107

4.21.1 Decision requested

Submission 1284/9 requests the following:

Amend the subdivision provisions for all rural zones (including non-conservation Islands) to incorporate more flexible and diverse opportunities for land use and development outside of the proposed strategic limitations imposed by the proposed focus on concentrating development within existing settled areas with limited subdivision and use options elsewhere .

Submission 2878/107 requests the following:

The proposed subdivision provisions (for rural 1 and 2) need amending to incorporate more flexible and diverse opportunities for land use and development outside of the proposed strategic limitations imposed by the proposed focus on concentrating development within existing settled areas with limited subdivision and use options elsewhere.

In order to facilitate the above requests, the above submissions seeks comprehensive management plans (CMPs) for all rural land units that assesses the whole of a property and includes land management, enhancement and environmental protection outcomes.

4.21.2 Planner's Analysis and recommendation

In responding to the above submissions, it is considered appropriate to assess the following:

CMPs

The provision for CMP's has already been assessed in section 4.9 above whereby it was concluded that the objectives, policies and rules already contained in the Part 12 of the Plan have been written with the intention of achieving an integrated approach to land use that assesses the whole of a property and includes land management, enhancement and environmental protection outcomes. On this basis, it is not considered necessary to provide for a "Comprehensive Management Plan" as it will not achieve a more effective sustainable management of resources associated with subdivision.

Provide for more flexible and diverse opportunities for land use and development outside of the existing settled areas,

With regard to the above relief, it is important to note that the subdivision rules have been written with the intent on concentrating subdivision and development in either settlement areas or where built form has already modified the natural character and the effects of further development can be mitigated (refer to policy 2 of objective 12.3.1).

Such an approach is consistent with the resource management strategy and objectives and policies of each settlement area and/or land unit as it ensures that development is located in areas which have the capacity to integrate development impacts without adversely affecting the character and amenity of the surrounding landscapes, particularly rural landscapes and residential and recreational areas. Accordingly, there are specific land units and settlement areas which provide for more intensive development opportunities both in terms of land use and subdivision potential. Conversely, other land units provide land use opportunities which require larger areas of land to ensure that the open landscape is protected.

As submitter 1284 is a Great Barrier Island resident, an appropriate example of concentrating development within specific areas can be seen in the settlement areas located only on Great Barrier Island. These areas have historically been areas of settlement and they are important centres of community for the people of Great Barrier. Some of these settlements have the capability to grow into the future, while others are recognised as needing to be contained within existing areas due to the fragile or sensitive nature of the surrounding environment.

The settlement plans have been developed to enable an integrated approach to resource management for the settlement areas. They recognise issues around reverse sensitivity by locating similar activities in the same locations, and enable a framework for sustainable management for activities on the island. Where growth, including subdivision, is to occur, it is encouraged within or around the settlement areas rather than compromising the landscape values of outlying areas.

Providing for subdivision and more diverse land use opportunities outside settlement areas, may lead to the modification of surrounding rural landscapes (land units 1-7) which would adversely affect the elements, features and patterns that contribute to the visual amenity, natural landscape character and amenity value of these land units. It is considered that concentrating subdivision and development in either settlement areas or where built form has already modified the natural character, and the effects of further development can be mitigated, will secure appropriate management of resources and achieving sustainable land use development.

For these reasons, it is recommended that the submissions 1294/9 and 2878/107 be rejected.

It should also be noted that, throughout the hearing process the council will consider submissions which seek that specific rules be eliminated or relaxed; these submissions may seek to achieve a more proactive approach to sustainable development that is being sought by submissions 1284/9 and 2878/107. In addition, submissions 1284 and 2878 also contain other subparts which will also be considered in other hearing reports.

Planner's recommendations about providing more flexible and diverse opportunities for land use development outside of the existing settled areas.

That submission 1284/9 and 2878/107 be rejected.

4.22 Submission about bonus density provisions.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1287/59, 1287/61, 1289/14, 1288/62, 1289/30

4.22.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1287/59 requests the following:

The Plan should include provisions providing a comprehensive management approach to residential subdivision whereby bonus density is enabled at a ratio in relation to securing areas of protected land and management and environmental enhancement proposals including re-plantings of native vegetation;

Submission 1287/61, 1289/14 request the following:

The subdivision rules for the residential zones on Waiheke in relation to any sites over 6000m2 should include a provision for a bonus density regime, being the equivalent of the rural significant environmental feature type approach but in a urban context, as a means of securing higher residential density within a bush protection environment and should allow cluster development to occur within such land up to a maximum density of one dwelling/ 1000m2 only where communal infrastructure is proposed and where significant environmental feature type protection covenants secure the greater (>50%) proportion of the site;

Submission 1288/62 requests the following:

For landforms 2, 4-7, beyond the baseline minimum lot size areas in Table 12.2 (as modified by the submitters separate submission), the Plan should include provisions providing a bonus density approach to rural land use and subdivision whereby an appropriate density is determined by a ratio in relation to sustainability and management enhancements including areas of protected land, open space and land management and enhancement proposals including re-plantings of native vegetation and management of water systems. Thus for every 4 ha of additional significant environmental feature type outcome secured beyond a baseline requirement of 50% of parent site, sustainability managed/protected/enhanced two addition lots beyond the (submitters proposed) Table 12.2 density regime should be enabled. The bonus provisions should enable a conjunctive application for removal of vegetation to obtain vehicle access and provide for dwellings as a discretionary activity.

Submission 1289/30 requests the following:

Include provisions providing a comprehensive management approach to residential subdivision whereby bonus density is enabled at a ratio in relation to securing areas of protected land and management and environmental enhancement proposals including re-plantings of native vegetation.

4.22.2 Planner's Analysis and recommendation

The above submissions seek to increases densities that are higher that those provided for as part of Significant Environmental Feature subdivision (SEF - refer section 4.9.2.4 above). Increasing densities is therefore based on the quantity of the environmental feature proposed for protection.

In responding to the above submissions, it is considered necessary to separate two distinct matters contained in the above decisions: Bonus densities within residential land units and, increasing densities above those provided for as part of any SEF subdivision.

4.22.2.1 Bonus densities in residential land units

It is considered that providing for bonus densities within residential land units where there is environmental protection will result in the proliferation and clustering of built forms within the residential landscape. Such a clustering of buildings could lead to adverse effects on the landscape and amenity values of these areas. An assessment regarding the clustering of buildings as part of environmental protection within residential land units has already been assessed in section 4.11 above.

To this end, it is not considered appropriate to provide for bonus density provisions in exchange for environmental protection within residential landscapes. In addition, the protection of environmental features is already assessed as part of any subdivision within residential land units. This assessment is contained in criteria 12.11.12 (open space, recreation and financial contribution); 12.11.13 (protecting vegetation and landscape); and 12.11.1.4 (preserving and enhancing heritage features). Further protection and enhancement can also be achieved as part of land use consents.

4.22.2.2 Bonus density regime in landforms 2-7 and rural 1

As noted in section 4.9.2.4 above, the Plan provides for the protection of significant environmental protection in clauses 12.9.3 (protection of significant environmental features) and 12.9.4 (cluster subdivision associated with the protection of significant environmental features). When subdividing for the purposes of significant environmental features, the minimum site size for the land units are markedly reduced on the basis that there is an environmental benefit gained and the additional built forms are integrated into the landscape.

The above submissions seek the same environmental outcome as envisaged in clauses 12.9.3 and 12.9.4 however, the submitters consider that bonus density provisions should be based solely on the amount of land that is available for environmental protection. This approach fails to take into consideration that minimum and average site sizes contained in tables12.1 and 12.2, are based not only on the physical characteristics of the land and its capacity to integrate development impacts, but also on the natural character, visual character and amenity values that contribution to the land units and the overall character of the Hauraki Gulf Islands.

It is recognised that the management and enhancement of areas of protected land and open space will provide for growth and safeguard the life-supporting capacity of the air, water, soil and ecosystems (section 5(2) of the RMA), however it is considered that a balance also needs to be struck between environmental protection, providing greater densities and retaining natural character, visual character and amenity values of the land units. It is also the character of the locality that contributes to the overall character of the Hauraki Gulf Islands, and makes it a desirable place to live.

Given the comments made above, it is considered that the decision sought would fail to be consistent with the resource management strategy, objectives and policies of each land unit which seek to ensure that landscape and amenity values are not adversely affected. Therefore, while environmental protection and enhancement is a positive effect that is generated on the environment, the effects of additional built forms and the modification of the environment may adversely affect the landscape character of the area. By introducing additional built forms based solely on a quantitative area subject to protection, does not consider the effects on landscape amenity of the additional built forms.

In addition, it is considered that providing for bonus densities through the protection of environmental features will not generate greater environmental benefits above what can already be achieved through significant environmental feature subdivision contained in clauses 12.9.3 and 12.9.4 of the Plan. Moreover, the provision to take land for the purposes of land management and environmental enhancement can also be achieved through financial contributions and under section 230 of the Act (Requirement for esplanade reserves or esplanade strips).

Therefore, providing for bonus density provision is not consistent with the objectives of securing appropriate management of resources, nor is it consistent with achieving sustainable land use development.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 1287/59, 1287/61, 1289/14, 1288/62, 1289/30 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about bonus density provisions.

That submissions 1287/59, 1287/61, 1289/14, 1288/62, 1289/30 be rejected.

4.23 Submission about preventing degradation of the landscape

Submission dealt with in this section: 1816/7

4.23.1 Decision requested

Submission 1816/7 requests the following:

Tighten up on discretionary consents to prevent further fragmentation, degradation of the landscape.

4.23.2 Planners analysis and recommendation

The submission being considered in this section of the report is too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to the Plan. In addition, the submission does not specifically identify any changes needed to tighten up on discretionary consents to prevent further fragmentation, degradation of the landscape. Accordingly, submitter 1816/7 is invited to provide clarification at the hearing as to how Part 12 should be amended to prevent further fragmentation, degradation of the landscape.

Notwithstanding this, the objective, policies and rules within part 12 take into account that the physical and natural environment in the islands creates major constraints on subdivision. In particular, there is a need to preserve the natural environment, visual character, amenity, and heritage values and to have regard to drainage capability. The proposed Plan provisions recognise the potential for adverse effects that may arise from subdivision within and associated with the coastal environment. Furthermore, the significant ecological and landscape values of the islands, as recognised in regional planning documents, require that subdivision should only occur on sites where there is adequate physical capacity and capability to integrate development impacts. As such, the proposed objectives, policies and rules give particular emphasis to ensuring a proper assessment of such effects when subdivision applications are evaluated.

Throughout the hearing process the council will consider submissions which seek that specific rules be eliminated or relaxed; these submissions may seek to achieve a more restrictive approach to sustainable development that is being sought by submission 1816. Indeed, this submitter has lodged other submissions which will be considered in other hearing reports.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submission 1816/7 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about preventing degradation of the landscape.

That submission 1816/7 be rejected.

4.24 Submission about effects from increased valuations

Submission dealt with in this section: 1823/7

4.24.1 Decision requested

Submission 1823/7 requests the following:

There needs to be protection for rural landowners so that they are not forced into subdividing rural land because of a valuation/rating assumption that they will or should. Rural land needs to be treated as rural land, not potential residential.

4.24.2 Planners analysis and recommendation

This submission does raise an issue about how district plan provisions are taken into account in valuing a property. While property values are influenced by district plan rules, the process of property valuation is outside the scope of the Plan.

Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that, the objectives policies and rules for subdivision seek to protect the quality and diversity of the natural environment and the visual character associated with rural land units. Within rural land units, minimum site sizes have been formulated to provide for productive activities that require large site sizes, particularly within landform 5, which seeks to provide and encourage pastoral farming and horticulture.

On this basis, the minimum and average site sizes outlined in tables 12.1 and 12.2 are not based on providing for residential development as the primary use on sites rather, they are based on providing for rural related activities within these land units

As the decision sought by submission 1823/7 is outside the scope of the Plan, it is recommended that it be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about effects from increased valuations.

That submission 1823/7 be rejected.

4.25 Submission about land divided by formed or unformed legal roads.

Submission dealt with in this section: 1895/1, 1895/2

4.25.1 Decision requested

Submission 1895/1 requests the following:

Where a property /title is divided by a legal road or a legal unformed road, subdivision of the property which reflects the division should be a permitted activity.

Submission 1895/2 requests the following:

Where a property/ title is divided by a legal road or a legal unformed road the minimum site size should be 1500sm.

4.25.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

It is recognised that subdividing a site which is cut off from the balance of a site by the formation of a public road may reduce managerial costs associated with having several "pieces" of land. For example, when farming, containing live stock within separate pieces of land may be costly to manage and difficult when moving stock across the roads.

Notwithstanding this, the minimum site sizes proposed for each land unit and settlement area (tables 12.1 and 12.3) are based upon the physical characteristics of the land and its capability to integrate development impacts as well as consideration of natural character, visual character and amenity values of each land unit.

Subdividing areas which are separated by a formed or unformed legal road and which do not meet the minimum site size for the land unit, can increase the building development above what would have been anticipated had the site not been subdivided. This increases the modification of the environment, through additional built forms, earthworks and vegetation removal and can lead to adverse amenity effects which detract from the character of the environment and undermine the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for the land unit.

Ensuring that sites divided by roads meet the minimum site size for both the land unit is consistent with the resource management strategy and objective and policies for each land unit.

In light of the above, it is recommended that the above submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about land divided by formed or unformed legal roads.

That submissions 1895/1 and 1895/2 be rejected.

4.26 Submission about providing for retirees.

Submission dealt with in this section: 2048/2

4.26.1 Decision requested

Submission 2048/2 requests the following:

That the Plan make provision under part 12 (subdivision) for town house sized subdivision for retirees with appropriate resource and infrastructure controls.

4.26.2 Planners analysis and recommendation

Accommodation for retired, elderly or disabled people is provided for as a discretionary activity within Island residential 1 and 2, commercial 1, 2, 3 and within the residential amenity areas, local retailing areas within the settlement areas. This provides for shared accommodation, serviced apartments or small self-contained dwellings. In accordance, the definition of this activity in part 14 (definitions), any serviced apartments or dwellings must be either, part of a development undertaken by a registered charity, society or public body, held together in one title or be held in unit titles. This ensures that any retirement village is managed as one site and for the sole purpose of providing accommodation, welfare and where appropriate, medical facilities to an aging population. Given the intensity of such an activity, it is likely that shared facilities in the form of wastewater, stormwater and even potable water will be shared by the collective units.

Providing for housing development for retirees is therefore recognised within the Plan but notwithstanding unit title subdivision, it does not provide for each unit to be subdivided into freehold sites. Such an approach would not meet the definition of 'Accommodation for retired, elderly or disabled people' as the development would not be held together in one title.

In addition, creating ' town house sized subdivision ' for the purposes of retirees undermines the purpose of identifying minimum site sizes, and may detract from the character of the environment and be contrary to the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for the land unit. In addition, it is unlikely that " town house sized subdivision " could adequately service development on freehold sites (e.g. wastewater).

As stated earlier in this report, while consideration is given to the effects of additional built forms as part of the assessment of any subdivision proposal, to ensure best planning practice, it is not appropriate to include an assessment of land use activities as part of subdivision applications. Accordingly, providing for town houses for retirees should be assessed as part of the resource management strategy for the land units themselves rather than at the time of subdivision. This approach will ensure consistency in the rules within the proposed plan and avoid repetition.

In light of the above, it is recommended that the above submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about providing for retirees.

That submission 2048/2 be rejected.

4.27 Submission about not finalising part 12 until the level and growth of the community is clarified.

Submission dealt with in this section: 3061/110

4.27.1 Decision requested

The above submission requests the following:

That Part 12.0 Subdivision is opposed in its present form and that finalisation of this part be held in abeyance until the final shape and priorities within the Plan are clarified, especially in relation to what level and style of growth is mandated by the community.

The above submission considers that the Plan is does not demonstrate clear policy commitments and objectives specific to growth.

4.27.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

The above submission makes various general statements of a philosophical and ideological nature without seeking any specific decision. Accordingly, submitter 3061 is invited to provide clarification at the hearing as to how Part 12 should be amended in order to demonstrate clear policy commitments and objectives specific to growth.

Given the lack of specific direction of submission 3061/110, it is recommended that it be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about finalising part 12 until the level and growth of the community is clarified.

That submission 3061/110 be rejected.

4.28 Submission about prohibiting subdivision on ridgelines

Submission dealt with in this section: 3076/1

4.28.1 Decision requested

The above submission requests the following:

The plan to recognise that further subdivision on ridgelines and visually sensitive areas be prohibited.

The above submission considers that there have been inappropriate subdivisions, building platform and buildings permitted on ridgelines and in the coastal environment.

4.29 Planner's analysis

In responding to the above submission, it is considered necessary to turn to the ridgeline controls as contained in both the operative and proposed Plans.

Application of ridgeline control

As illustrated throughout the Islands, some buildings have been located on significant ridgelines. An assessment of a building located above a ridgeline requires discretionary activity resource consent within both the operative and proposed Plans and is subject to an assessment in terms of their scale form, finish and overall visual impact on the environment.

In some circumstances, comprehensive subdivisions have located building platforms on or near ridgelines. This can be seen along Nick Johnstone Drive, Church Bay Road and Delamore Drive. At that time, building platforms were located on or near ridgelines as the operative Plan allowed for buildings on a ridgeline, provided they met the standards contained in either 6B.1.2.6 which requires that buildings are located below a significant ridgeline or, section 6C.1.2.6 as follows:

Where any building is located within 100 metres either side of a significant ridgeline (measured on a horizontal plane) shown on the planning map:

the building shall not exceed 4 metres in height above the significant ridgeline, and
the building shall be designed, constructed and located so that its visual impact is mitigated by vegetation and/or earthworks, and
any trees, shrubs, stands of bush or landforms which mitigate the visual impacts and enable consent to be granted shall be protected by a consent notice or similar mechanism.

Provided the above standards were met, then the operative Plan stated that the application would not be notified. On this basis, the operative Plan anticipated some level of development on or near ridgelines provided the scale form and finish of the building meet specific standards and the effects on the environment were no more than minor. This approach resulted in some subdivisions locating building platforms on or near ridgelines as the bulk and location controls provided for some level of development.

Clause 10c.4.7 of the proposed Plan states:

10c.4.7 Ridgeline control

Any building within a significant ridgeline area identified on the planning maps must be

constructed and located so that:

The building is below the significant ridgeline at that point; or
The building is below the top of protected vegetation (located on the same site as the building) that either screens the building or forms a backdrop against the ridgeline at that point.

Protected vegetation means any vegetation that is protected by:

The indigenous vegetation protection rules in clause 10c.5.1; or
The exotic tree protection rules in clause 10c.5.2; or
A legal covenant with council under the Land Transfer Act 1952.

Explanation

Buildings that protrude above significant ridgelines can compromise the visual landscape qualities of the ridge and appear visually obtrusive giving rise to adverse visual effects. The location and height of buildings within 100m either side of a significant ridgeline is therefore controlled to manage the adverse visual impact that can occur when a building protrudes above the ridgeline.

The location of a building above a ridgeline, which does not meet the above standards, requires discretionary activity resource consent. There are no standards within the Plan which provide for buildings located above the ridgeline to be non-notified. Therefore, every resource consent application to locate a building on a ridgeline must be assessed on a case by case basis and upon its merits. As a discretionary activity, a resource consent application to locate a building on a ridge can be notified and declined if the effects on the environment are more than minor.

On this basis, the Plan anticipates at a discretionary level, some form of building on a ridgeline provided the scale, form and finish of a building does not adversely affect the environment.

Ridgeline assessment as part of subdivision

While the ridgeline controls are a land use matter which are considered at the time of development, as part of any subdivision application, clause 12.6.1 of the Plan states that each proposed site must demonstrate where a building, access and parking can be constructed which complies with specific development controls, this includes clause 10c.4.7 (ridgeline control). In the event that a subdivision application cannot demonstrate that buildings can be located below a significant ridgeline, then a discretionary activity consent is required and the effects on locating buildings on a ridgeline will be considered as part of the subdivision assessment.

In some circumstances, building platforms may be placed on titles by way of consent notices to ensure that built forms are located below the ridgeline. Alternatively, covenants can also be imposed which restricts the height of a building above a ridgeline.

On this basis, the panel can be satisfied that as part of any subdivision application, consideration is given to the effects of establishing built forms on significant ridgelines and visually sensitive areas.

4.29.1 Planner's recommendation

The location of buildings on or near ridgelines and visually sensitive areas is assessed as part of the bulk and location controls within both the operative and proposed Plans. Therefore, it is considered that prohibition of buildings on or near ridges and visually sensitive areas is unnecessary when the Plan provides enough controls and considerations to ensure that the visual impact of development within these areas can be adequately assessed.

On this basis, it is not appropriate for subdivision to prohibit the location of buildings on ridgelines. This is primarily a land use matter which must be assessed on a case by case basis and as part of the resource management strategy for the Hauraki Gulf Islands.

In light of the above, it is recommended that submission 3076/1 be rejected

Planner's recommendations about prohibiting subdivision on ridgelines.

That submission 3076/1 be rejected.

4.30 Submission about subdividing land contaminated by weed spray

Submission dealt with in this section: 3501/11

4.30.1 Decision requested

Submission 3501/11 seeks the following:

Seeks the ability to subdivide any land contaminated by weed spray by the council.

The above submission raises a specific matter pertaining to Council's use of spays in relation to the submitter's land.

4.30.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

Subdividing on the basis that land is contaminated by weed spray undermines the purpose of having minimum site sizes, which seek to preserve the natural character of the land units and settlement areas and relate minimum areas based on their physical and natural character, use and potential. Such an approach is not consistent with the objectives of securing appropriate management of resources, or consistent with achieving sustainable land use development.

On this basis, it is recommended that submission 3501/11 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about subdividing land contaminated by weed spray.

That submission 3501/11 be rejected.

4.31 Submission about subdividing 80 Schooner Bay Road, Great Barrier Island.

Submission dealt with in this section: 3501/8

4.31.1 Decision requested

The above submission seeks the following:

Seeks the ability to create 5 sections of 1000m2 on the Schooner Bay frontage of the property at 80 Schooner Bay Rd, Tryphena, Great Barrier.

4.31.2 Planners analysis and recommendation

This subdivision proposal will be for the purpose of providing "budget land" for housing and accommodation for residents unable to afford land on Great Barrier Island. The submitter seeks that this land (80 Schooner Bay Road) is reclassified into "residential" so that five sections of 1000m ²are created.

80 Schooner Bay Road is classified as landform 6 (regenerating slopes) in the Plan and comprises 44768m ². The minimum site size in table 12.1 for landform 6 is 25 ha. In accordance with clause 12.9.3 and table 12.2, the minimum site size can reduce to 4ha with an average of 7.5 ha.

The reclassification of the subject site into "residential" will be the subject of a separate hearings report. Should council elect to reclassify this site, then consequential amendments may be made in Part 12.

The submitter should be made aware that at present the above form of subdivision is a non-complying activity, as it does not meet the minimum site sizes contained in tables 12.1 and 12.2. As a non-complying activity, the proposal will need to pass the "gateway tests' contained in section 104D of the RMA:

"a consent authority may grant a resource consent for a non-complying activity only if it is satisfied that either �

(a) the adverse effects of the activity on the environment (other than any effect to which section 104(3)(b) applies will be minor; or

(b) the application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of-

(i) the relevant plan, if there is a plan but no proposed plan in respect of the activity; or

(ii) the relevant proposed plan, if there is a proposed plan but no relevant plan in respect of the activity; or

(iii) both the relevant plan and the relevant proposed plan, if there is both a plan and a proposed plan in respect of the activity."

Such an assessment will be undertaken at the time of processing and based upon the merits of the application. For this reason, no further assessment can be made with regard to the above submission.

In light of the above, it is therefore recommended that submission 3501/8 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about subdividing 80 Schooner Bay Road, Great Barrier Island.

That submission 3501/8 be rejected.

4.32 Submission about mitigating cumulative effects.

Submission dealt with in this section: 3574/3

4.32.1 Decision requested

Submission 3574/3 seeks the following:

Lot size must be carefully managed to avoid rather than mitigate the cumulative effects of that development on the environment and ecology of the particular area, and the wider island region

4.32.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Submission 3574/3 is considered too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to part 12 of the Plan. Indeed, the above submission makes various general statements of a philosophical and ideological nature relating to conservation without seeking any specific decision.

It should be noted that the purpose of the RMA is 'to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources'. Sustainable management is defined in s5(2) and is also set out in section 2.0 of this document. Section 5(2)(b) and 5(2)(c) state:

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

(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment."

Therefore, the Plan does not have to only avoid adverse effects, if remedying or mitigating effect will achieve sustainable management.

It is recommended that submission 3574/3 be rejected as it makes various general statements of a philosophical and ideological nature without seeking any specific decision.

Planner's recommendations about mitigating cumulative effects.

That submission 3574/3 be rejected.

4.33 Submission about subdivision within 4 kilometres of Orapiu Wharf.

Submission dealt with in this section: 3712/2

4.33.1 Decision requested

The above submission seeks the following:

Delete any provision which is more permissive of land subdivision within 4 kilometres of Orapiu Wharf.

4.33.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

Submission 3712 being considered in this section of the report is too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to part 12 of the Plan. Indeed, the above submission makes a general statement regarding the removal of permissive provisions within 4 kilometres of Orapiu Wharf, but does not identify why the relief is sought and what amendments, if any, are sought to the Plan to address this matter.

Within a 4 kilometre range, land surrounding Orapiu Wharf comprises a range of land units including Island residential 2, recreation land and landforms 1-7. Consistent with the resource management strategy contained in clause 3.3.5 of the Plan, the land units located within this radius seek to provide for large-scale rural activities to occur in eastern Waiheke. The strategy also seeks to protect the landscape character of Waiheke, natural features such as wetlands, native vegetation and wildlife habitats and waahi tapu and other taonga. The strategy also seeks to regulate the use and development of land for conservation, recreation and community services and to allow the development of essential infrastructure.

It is considered that removing the "permissive" provisions within 4 kilometres of Orapiu Wharf, may undermine the resource management strategy envisaged for the eastern Waiheke, which is not consistent with the objectives of securing appropriate management of resources, or consistent with achieving sustainable land use development. The significance of the 4kn radius from Orapiu is therefore not clear.

For reasons set out above, it is recommended that submission 3712/2 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about subdivision within 4 kilometres of Orapiu Wharf.

That submission 3712/2 be rejected.

4.34 Submission about public recreation and public visitor activities within Rotoroa.

Submission dealt with in this section: 947/2

4.34.1 Decision requested

The above submission seeks the following:

Subdivision options should be provided where public recreation or public visitor related activities are established/proposed and require leases over 35 years such that subdivision is deemed to occur. Such subdivision should be provided for as a restricted discretionary activity (with specific reference to Rotoroa).

4.34.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

Clause 12.10(6) states that any subdivision in the Rotoroa land unit is a non-complying activity. Subdivision in this context refers to the creation of freehold sites only. Accordingly, lawfully established buildings on the Rotoroa island are able to be unit titled and/or leased for longer than 35 years in accordance with clauses 12.8.1(1) and 12.8.1 (3) of the Plan. Restricted discretionary activity consent is required for any form of unit titling and/or leasing. This is illustrated in table 12.4 (Activity table for all types of subdivision).

Therefore, unit titling and leasing on Rotoroa as restricted discretionary activities is already provided for within the Plan however, it is accepted that this is not clearly stated within the Rotoroa land unit provisions. It is further noted that several submissions have requested similar decisions in the following sections of the report. Accordingly, it is evident that the Plan does not specify that in many land units, leasehold subdivision may still occur on sites which may not be able to be subdivided into freehold sites.

To provide clarity on this matter, it is recommended that table 12.4 (Activity table for all types of subdivision) is relocated immediately after clause 12.5 (Content and Structure) so that people can determine relatively quickly which subdivision provisions relate to a specific land unit and settlement area and the activity status of these types of subdivision. Therefore, where land may not be subdivided into freehold sites (including cross leases) as they are non-complying activities, this does not preclude a site being subdivided into a leasehold estate such as a company lease and/or unit title. Such forms of leasehold subdivision must still comply with the relevant standards and assessment pertaining to the leasehold subdivision.

As such, it is recommended that submission 947/2 is accepted in part and table 12.4 (Activity table for all types of subdivision) is relocated immediately after clause 12.5 (Content and Structure). It is further recommended that any consequential amendments to the format of Part 12 is also made.

For reasons set out above, it is recommended that submission 947/2 be accepted in part.

Planner's recommendations about public recreation and public visitor activities within Rotoroa.

1. That submission 947/2 be accepted in part and table 12.4 (Activity table for all types of subdivision) is relocated into immediately after clause 12.5 (Content and Structure).

It is further recommended that any consequential amendments to the format of Part 12 is also made.

4.35 Submissions about clause 12.1 (Introduction).

Submission dealt with in this section: 3521/134, 1405/7, 1406/7

4.35.1 Decision requested

Submission 3521/134 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.1 to recognise the relationship between subdivision and environmental effects via allocation of suitable land for wastewater disposal early in the subdivision planning process.

Submissions 1405/7, 1406/7 request the following:

That clause 12.1 Introduction, be amended to specify subdivision in any landform

4.35.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.35.2.1 Submission 3521/134

Any proposed subdivision must demonstrate that there is sufficient capacity for the disposal of any effluent or other wastewater flows. However, clause 12.1 is meant to provide the introduction to subdivision and outline the key constraints on subdivision that is created by the physical and natural environment. Indirect reference to wastewater disposal is made in this section by referring to the " drainage capability " (as a constraint) and " the physical capacity and capability of the land to accommodate subdivision ".

The introduction does not elaborate on the specific way in which subdivision seeks to assess the physical capacity and capability of the land through specific rules and criteria. It is within the resource management issues (clause 12.2) and the resource management strategy (clause 12.4) that specific reference to wastewater disposal is made:

12.2(10) How to ensure that subdivision occurs in a manner which maintains water quality through adequate wastewater and effluent treatment and disposal, and stormwater disposal and dispersion.

12.4 The Plan includes criteria for assessing subdivision layout and design and to ensure that development resulting from subdivision can adequately dispose of stormwater and onsite wastewater without adversely affecting the natural environment.

Adding a statement within clause 12.1 regarding the allocation of suitable land for wastewater disposal is not consistent with the intent of the clause 12.1, which is to provide a general introduction to the section, nor will such a reference add greater weighting to the assessment of wastewater disposal as part of subdivision. Clauses 12.2 and 12.4 outline the resource management issues, including the assessment of wastewater, which need to be considered as part of any subdivision. It is considered that, the above references coupled with assessment criteria contained in clause 12.11.10 (sewage treatment and disposal) will ensure that subdivision recognises the relationship between subdivision and environmental effects associated with wastewater disposal.

On this basis, it is recommended that the above submission is rejected.

4.35.2.2 Submissions 1405/7, 1406/7

The above submissions consider that additional subdivision in 'suitable areas" outside settlements and within any landform is needed to ensure that the target Great Barrier Island population is achieved.

It is considered that subdividing within any landform for the purposes of achieving a target population does not take into account the resource management strategy of the land units and settlement areas. Such an approach is not consistent with the Resource Management Act and does not consider the physical characteristics of land, its capacity to integrate development impacts and the consideration of natural character, visual character and amenity values.

For these reasons, it is recommended that the above submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about clause 12.1.

Submission 3521/134 be rejected.
Submissions 1405/7, 1406/7 be rejected

4.36 Submissions about clause 12.2 (Resource Management Issues)

Submissions dealt with in the section: 941/47, 1093/71, 1093/72, 1405/8, 1406/8

4.36.1 Decision requested

Submission 941/47 requests the following:

Issue 12.2(16) be amended as follows (or words to similar effect):

"How to ensure that utility services required in conjunction with subdivision are located and designed to avoid, remedy or mitigate ~~minimise~~ any adverse effect on the natural environment and visual amenity where practicable" .

Submission 1093/71 requests the following:

Add a new point 7 to clause 12.2:

"How to provide for the tension between the use of rural land for residential purposes and the retention of rural land for productive purposes.

Submission 1093/72 requests the following:

Add a new point 8 to clause 12.2:

"How to minimise interface conflicts between established activities in the rural area and newly established activities that are sensitive to the effects of established activities".

Submissions 1405/8, 1406/8 request the following:

That clause 12.2 RM Issues, be amended to specify subdivision in any landform

4.36.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.36.2.1 Submission 941/47

Submission 941/47 is concerned that there should be an appropriate balance between providing for utilities and ensuring any adverse effects on development and the community are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Submission 941/47 seeks that the words "avoid remedy or mitigate" and "where practicable" be added in issue 12.2(16).

It is considered that adding the words "avoid, remedy or mitigate" within issue 12.2(16) is accepted as section 5(2)(c)of the RMA states "... Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment." Therefore, by including "avoid remedy or mitigate " within issue 12.2(16) will ensure greater consistency with the RMA.

Section 5(2) of the RMA is not qualified by using the words "where practicable." Accordingly, it is considered that adding the words "where practicable" creates ambiguity and does not add any value to the issue. Such words will often add confusion and uncertainty when assessing proposals and consent applications (i.e what is considered appropriate and where practicable?). It is also good planning practice to keep wording simple, clear and concise.

Furthermore, as stated in section 4.8 above objective 12.3.7, the associated policies and assessment criteria 12.11.11 (network utility services) seek to design subdivision so that network utility services are installed in a manner that minimises any adverse effects on the environment. This includes under grounding of electricity and telecommunication services in landforms that are not urban at the time of subdivision. Consideration of alternative measures such as generators is also assessed to ensure that providing such services does not adversely affect the landscape character of the area. Consideration of these matters will enable sites that are capable of accommodating additional land use development, to be subdivided without having to modify the landscape.

The panel can be satisfied that the objectives, policies and rules pertaining to utility services have been written so that adverse effects generated by network utility services are avoided, remedied and mitigated and that alternative measures can be provided for in the event the under-grounding of services is not practical.

On this basis adding the words "where practicable." within issue 12.2(16) is not accepted. Therefore, for reasons outlined above, it is recommended that the submission 941/47 is accepted in part and clause 12.2(16) is amended as follows:

16. How to ensure that utility services required in conjunction with subdivision are located and designed to ~~minimise~~ avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect on the natural environment and visual amenity.

4.36.2.2 Submission 1093/71 and 1093/72

Submission 1093 (New Zealand Wine Growers) states that, the wine making industry is " under pressure from expanding urbanisation which brings cross-boundary reverse sensitivities that restrict the normal operations of viticulture and wine growing ".

Accordingly, the submission seeks two additional issues to be contained within 12.2, which reflects the reverse sensitivity effects that can arise from subdivision as follows:

"How to provide for the tension between the use of rural land for residential purposes and the retention of rural land for productive purposes;

"How to minimise interface conflicts between established activities in the rural area and newly established activities that are sensitive to the effects of established activities".

It is considered that the above submissions address two separate matters: reverse sensitivity and the retention of rural land. In responding to submission 1093/71 and 1093/72, it is considered appropriate to respond to these matters separately:

Reverse Sensitivity

The term applies to situations where incompatible land uses are sited next to each other, resulting in conflict between property users. This is particularly common in rural areas, and on Waiheke Island where vineyards are located adjacent to residential land units. Property owners on the smaller residential land units can be affected by noise from machinery, bird scarers and spray drift. Visual impacts of land use activities can also affect neighbours.

It is noted that as part of any discretionary activity subdivision, an assessment against criterion 12.11.3 (Reverse Sensitivity) is required as follows:

The extent to which the proposed subdivision minimises any potential for cross-boundary conflicts with regard to the land use activities proposed for the site(s).

It is acknowledged that while regard must be had to the effects of reverse sensitivity, the matter has not been included as a resource management issue within clause 12.2. On this basis, and to ensure that an integrated and consistent approach is provided within the Plan, it is recommended that an additional issue is included within clause 12.2 to reflect that reverse sensitivity is a resource management matter which needs to be addressed in part 12 of the Plan.

Notwithstanding the above, the wording recommended by the above submissions are not accepted as it specifically relates to residential and rural examples of reverse sensitivity effects. The Hauraki Gulf Islands comprises a variety of land units each with different land uses and potential reverse sensitivity effects. It is not appropriate to confine the issue to specific activities. It is therefore recommended that an additional issue is included as follows:

(20) How to ensure subdivision avoids, remedies or mitigates the potential for cross-boundary conflicts with regard to land use activities.

The above issue clearly identifies the potential for cross-boundary conflicts and is consistent with the planning terminology contained in clause 12.11.3.

Therefore, it is recommended that the relief sought by the above submissions, as they relate to reverse sensitivity effects, are accepted in part. However, the resource management issue is re-worded to recognise the potential for cross-boundary conflicts in other land uses.

Retain rural land for productive purposes.

It is noted that, assessment criterion 12.11.4 (land suitable for rural production) for discretionary activity subdivision assesses:

The extent to which the site sizes and design of a proposed site containing land for rural production retains as much of this land around the building platform as practicable.

This criterion does not encourage the retention of rural land for productive purposes but assesses how subdivision can be designed so that land for rural production can be located in close proximity to the building platform. This is to minimise the potential modification of the landscape through earthworks and vegetation removal (e.g. vehicle tracks and scattered built forms).

Notwithstanding the above, while consideration is given to the effects of additional built forms and environmental modification as part of the assessment of subdivision design, to ensure best planning practice, it is not appropriate to provide for the retention of rural land for production purposes as part of subdivision applications. Such an assessment applies to the use of land at the land use stage.

Accordingly, land use activities should be assessed as part of the resource management strategy for the land units themselves rather than at the time of subdivision. This approach will ensure consistency in the rules within the Plan and avoid repetition.

On this basis, it is recommended that submissions 1093/71 and 1093/72 as they relate to seeking the retention of rural land for productive purposes are rejected.

4.36.2.3 Submissions 1405/8, 1406/8

Submissions 1405/8, 1406/8 request the same decision as submissions 1405/7, 1406/7.

For the same reasons outline in section 4.35.2.2 above, it is considered that the decision requested is not consistent with the Resource Management Act and does not consider the physical characteristics of land, its capacity to integrate development impacts and the consideration of natural character, visual character and amenity values.

It is therefore recommended that the above submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about clause 12.2.

Submission 941/47 is accepted in part and clause 12.2.(16) is amended as follows:
16. How to ensure that utility services required in conjunction with subdivision are located and designed to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect on the natural environment and visual amenity.
That submissions 1093/71 and 1093/72 as they relate to reverse sensitivity effects are accepted in part and clause 12.2 of the Plan is amended to include an additional resource management issue as follows:
(20) "How to ensure that subdivision avoids or mitigates any potential for cross-boundary conflicts with regard to land use activities".
Submissions 1093/71 and 1093/72 be rejected as they relate to retaining rural land for productive purposes.
Submissions 1405/8 and 1406/8 be rejected

4.37 Submissions about clause 12.3 (Objectives and policies)

Submission dealt with in this section: 618/103, 619/50, 2670/49, 1288/102, 754/59, 754/60, 859/60, 859/59, 1405/9, 1406/9, 3521/133, 3597/1

4.37.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 618/103, 619/50, 2670/49, 1288/102 request the following:

The objectives and policies in part 12 should be amended to reflect the matters raised by the submitter. Specific reference should be made policies to the significant environmental feature definition, the use of bonus density subdivision rules, the cluster subdivision intent and method.

Submissions 754/60, 859/60 request the following:

Specific reference should be made in policies to the significant environmental feature definition, the use of bonus density subdivision rules, the cluster subdivision intent and method, and so forth.

Submission 754/59 requests the following:

The objectives and policies should be amended to reflect the matters outlined in submission 754/1-58

Submission 859/59 requests the following:

The objectives and policies should be amended to reflect the matters outlined in submission 859/1-58.

Submissions 1405/9, 1406/9 request the following

That clause 12.3 Objectives and policies, be amended to specify subdivision in any landform.

Submission 3521/133 requests the following:

Retain the policies and objectives under clause 12.3, in particular, those which seek to protect significant environmental features, natural character and landscape values.

Submission 3597/1 requests the following:

Insert a new objective and policies in clause 12.3 as follows:

"Objective - habitat and biodiversity values

To preserve the habitat of all species listed in Appendix 6 (rare and endangered plants and animals etc) (Maybe specific to GBI ?)

Policies

1. By setting (new) minimum sizes for subdivision in areas gazetted as areas of Special Ecological Significance, sensitive areas and otherwise known to be significant for biodiversity and wildlife habitat.

2. By prohibiting, the ownership of dogs or cats on subdivisions in areas as in ( 1 ) above.

4.37.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.37.2.1 Submissions 618/103, 619/50, 2670/49, 1288/102, 754/60, 859/60

The matters raised by submissions 618, 619 and 2670 as they relate to bonus density subdivision and the cluster subdivision have already been discussed in sections 4.9, 4.11 and 4.22 above, where it was recommended that the decisions requested be rejected.

Given that these matters have been rejected, there is no need to make consequential amendments to the objectives and policies in clause 12.3.

On this basis, it is recommended that submissions 618/103, 619/50, 2670/49, 1288/102, 754/60, 859/60 are rejected.

4.37.2.2 Submissions 754/59, 859/59

As the above submissions are identical in their content, they will be considered at the same time.

The first 58 decisions requested in submissions 745 and 859 relate to parts 4, 10a, 10c, 12 and 13. Submission 745 also requests the removal of the 100 metre set back requirement from the road boundary of Onetangi Road as contained in clause 10a.19.7.1 in the Plan. Decisions relating to these parts are assessed in hearings reports for parts 4, 10a and 10c.

Included in the 58 decisions, submissions 754 and 859 seek amendments to Part 12 relating to bonus density subdivision and net site area. These matters have already been discussed in sections 4.11 and 4.12 above, where it was recommended that the decisions requested be rejected.

On this basis, it is recommended that submissions 754/59 and 859/59 as they relate to bonus density provisions and net site area are rejected.

The first 58 decisions requested by submissions 745 and 859 seek amendments to clauses 12.9.3.3, 12.9.3, 12.9.4, 12.11.2, 12.11.4, 12.11.5, 12.11.6, 12.11.6, 12.11.7, 12.11.8, 12.11.10, 12.11.11, 12.11.12, 12.11.13, 12.11.14, 12.11.15, 12.12.1, 12.12.2, 12.1T, 12.2T.

In addition, the remaining decisions requested by submissions 745 and 859 seek amendments to clauses 12.3.1, 12.3.2, 12.3.4, 12.3.9, 12.6.1, 12.6.2, 12.6.3, 12.6.6, 12.8.1, 12.9, 12.9.3, 12.9.3.3, 12.9.4.3, 12.10, and 12.3T.

These decisions will be considered in the forgoing sections of this report and the council may make some amendments in response. In the event amendments are made, consequential amendments to clause 12.3 may be considered necessary and will be addressed accordingly.

4.37.2.3 Submissions 1405/9, 1406/9

Submissions 1405/9, 1406/9 request the same decision as submissions 1405/7, 1406/7, 1405/8 and 1406/8 (refer to 4.35.2.2 and 4.36.2.3 above).

It is therefore recommended that the above submissions be rejected.

4.37.2.4 Submission 3521/133

It is considered that the structure and content of the objectives, policies and rules, which focus on the physical characteristics of the land and its capacity to integrate development impacts, is the most appropriate means for meeting the purpose of the Resource Management Act, and enables Council to fulfil its functions under s31, 72 and 74(1).

As the submission seeks to retain the objectives and policies in clause 12.3 it is recommended that submission 3521/133 is accepted.

4.37.2.5 Submission 3597/1

Submission 3597 seeks the addition of an objective and associated policies for the purposes of protecting habitat and biodiversity values as follows:

"Objective - habitat and biodiversity values

To preserve the habitat of all species listed in Appendix 6 (rare and endangered plants and animals etc)

Policies

By setting (new) minimum sizes for subdivision in areas gazetted as areas of Special Ecological Significance, sensitive areas and otherwise known to be significant for biodiversity and wildlife habitat.
By prohibiting, the ownership of dogs or cats on subdivisions in areas as in ( 1 ) above.

In addressing submission 3597/1, it is considered necessary to consider the following:

Land use rules

The subdivision rules for protecting habitat and biodiversity (see below) work together with more specific rules contained in parts 7 and 10c which seek to protect habitats and biodiversity.

Part 7 contains specific rules in clause 7.11.4 for the protection of ecologically significant sites while clause 10c.5 protects indigenous vegetation. In particular, clause 10c.5.1.2(5) states that the destruction, removal, modification of the habitat or any rare, threatened or endemic species listed in Appendix 6 - List of threatened and unusual plant species, requires restricted discretionary consent.

Accordingly, the Plan provides a greater level of assessment of the effects on habitats and biodiversity as part of the land use rules. This is largely because land-use activities have a greater impact on habitats and biodiversity.

It should be noted that, Clause 12.6.1 (bulk, location and access controls for buildings) states that each site must demonstrate that a building, access and parking complies with specific development controls. These controls includes compliance with Part 7 and rules in clause 7.11.4.

This approach will ensure that effects on habitats and biodiversity are adequately assessed at the time of subdivision and through the appropriate section(s) of the RMA (section 88). Such an approach will ensure best planning practice and provide consistency in the rules within the Plan and avoid repetition.

Rules which protect habitat and biodiversity in Part 12

Notwithstanding the above, the Plan does seek to protect habitats and biodiversity at the time of subdivision by providing for the protection of significant environmental features as contained in clauses 12.9.3 and 12.9.4 of the Plan (see section 4.9.2.4). Objective 12.3.2 also outlines the direction sought and the action required to achieve such protection.

12.3.2 Objective - protection of significant environmental features

To provide for subdivision which leads to the protection of areas of high environmental and heritage value.

Policies

By establishing subdivision rules that provide for the creation of sites which protect, and enhance the natural environment including indigenous vegetation, wetlands, headlands, heritage features and other landscape features.
By ensuring that the elements, patterns and features that contribute to the significant environmental features are preserved.
By ensuring that the creation of sites which protect and enhance the natural environment do not adversely affect the landscape character and amenity value of a site and the wider visual catchment.

The standards and terms and specific assessment criteria in clauses 12.9.3.3, 12.9.4.3, 12.12.1 and 12.12.2 ensure that the features are of a quality and maturity that are worthy of protection. Such forms of subdivision must involve specialist reports, which detail the attributes of the feature(s) recommended for protection, and include an on-going management programme that details any protection and enhancement for the feature(s) subject to protection.

The attributes of a significant environmental feature, particularly if it is a stand of indigenous vegetation will include an assessment of whether there are any threatened or endangered plant or animal species within the feature (as contained in Appendix 6). It is these attributes which contribute to the significance of the feature and which must be protected and where possible, enhanced.

In addition to the above, the protection of habitat and biodiversity is assessed as part of all other discretionary subdivisions in assessment criteria contained in clause 12.11.13 (Protecting vegetation an landscape) and in particular, criterion 12.11.13(4) which states:

The extent to which the subdivision provides for ecological restoration and enhancement where appropriate. Ecological enhancement may include enhancement of existing indigenous vegetation, replanting and weed and pest control .

On this basis, the panel can be satisfied that as part of a subdivision application applied for under clauses 12.9.3 and 12.9.4 and any discretionary and non-complying subdivision application, careful consideration is given to the protection of habitats and biodiversity.

4.37.2.6 Planner's recommendation to submission 3597/1

As outlined above, Parts 7 and 10c of the Plan provide specific rules which assess the effects on habitats and biodiversity. In addition, objective 12.3.2 and the rules and criteria within Part 12 have been written so that the effects on habitats and biodiversity are adequately assessed at the time of subdivision. It is considered that the addition of the submitter's objective and policies will not add greater weight or value to this assessment. For these reasons, it is recommended that submission 3597/1 be rejected.

The submission's objective also indirectly requests a change to the minimum site sizes for subdivisions protecting significant environmental features. However, submission 3597/1, does not specifically identify any amendments to the minimum site sizes nor the reasons why the site sizes should be reduced. For this reason, it is recommended that this part of the submission is rejected.

In addition, submitter 3597/1 seeks a policy prohibiting, the ownership of dogs or cats as part of subdivided areas. While pest eradication (including feral cats) is considered as part of subdivision applications for the purposes of protecting significant environmental features and as part of any discretionary and non-complying subdivision, the Plan cannot prohibit the ownership of domestic cats or dogs as this matter is outside the scope of the RMA.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.3.

That submissions 618/103, 619/50, 2670/49, 1288/102, 754/60, 859/60 are rejected.
Submissions 754/59 and 859/59 as they relate to bonus density provisions and net site area are rejected.
Submissions 1405/9, 1406/9 are rejected.
Submission 3521/133 is accepted.
Submission 3597/1 be rejected.

4.38 Submissions about clause 12.3.1 (Objective � natural character and landscape values).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/104, 1288/103, 619/51, 754/61, 859/61, 2670/50, 618/105, 1288/104, 619/52, 754/62, 859/62, 2670/51, 895/1, 1093/73.

4.38.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 618/104, 1288/103, 619/51, 754/61, 859/61, 2670/50 request the following:

Clause 12.3.1(2) needs amendment to reflect the fact that subdivision and development can and will occur outside of the limited context defined in the proposed policy.

Submissions 618/105, 1288/104, 619/52, 754/62, 859/62, 2670/51 request the following:

Clause 12.3.1(4) needs clarification as to what outstanding natural values are.

Submission 895/1 requests the following:

Delete the single word "outstanding" from clause 12.3.1 i.e. "protect natural features and landscapes".

Submission 1093/73 requests the following:

Add a new policy 2. to clause 12.3.1 Objective - natural character and landscape values:

"Use interface control mechanisms such as buffer areas and restrictive covenants where residential subdivision may adjoin primary production activities and issues of reverse sensitivity may arise."

4.38.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.38.2.1 Submissions 618/104, 1288/103, 619/51, 754/61, 859/61, 2670/50

The above submissions seek an amendment to policy (2) of objective 12.3.1 by stating that subdivision and development can and will occur outside areas identified for subdivision and development.

A similar decision has already been assessed in section 4.21 above whereby it was considered that concentrating subdivision and development in either settlement areas or where built form has already modified the natural character, and the effects of further development can be mitigated, will secure appropriate management of resources and achieve sustainable land use development.

In addition, while the objectives, policies and rules in Part 12 seek to concentrate subdivision and development in the areas outlined in policy (2), people may elect to apply for subdivision and development which do not comply with these rules and are therefore outside of these areas. Such subdivisions applications are likely to be non-complying activities and will be assessed on their merits and in accordance with the gateway tests in section 104D of the RMA. It is not considered appropriate to anticipate that non-complying activities will be granted consent as each application must be assessed on a case by case basis.

For reasons outlined above and section 4.21, it is recommended that submissions 618/104, 1288/103, 619/51, 754/61, 859/61, 2670/50 are rejected.

4.38.2.2 Submissions 618/105, 1288/104, 619/52, 754/62, 859/62, 2670/51

The above submissions seek clarification as to what outstanding natural values are in policy (4) of objective 12.3.1. Policy (4) states:

By limiting subdivision and associated development in areas with outstanding landscape value within the coastal environment so that natural character and landscape values are not adversely affected.

In responding to the above submissions, it is considered necessary to turn to section 6(a) and (b) of the RMA which states the following:

Matters of national importance

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance:

(a) The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:

(b) The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:

The wording used in policy (4) is consistent with the terminology within the RMA and is written in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA and in particular, sections 6(a) and (b). This is in accordance with best practice and is the most appropriate means for meeting the purpose of the Resource Management Act, and enables Council to fulfil its functions under s31, 72 and 74(1).

On this basis, it is recommended that submissions 618/105, 1288/104, 619/52, 754/62, 859/62, 2670/51 are rejected.

Notwithstanding the above, there is no definition of "outstanding natural features and landscapes" or "natural character". Therefore, the assessment will always have an element of subjectivity.

4.38.2.3 Submission 895/1

The above submission seeks the removal of the word "outstanding" from objective 12.3.1.

As stated in section 4.38.2.2 above, the use of the term "outstanding" has been used to ensure consistency with section 6(b) of the RMA.

For this reason, it is recommended that submission 895/1 is rejected.

4.38.2.4 Submission 1093/73

Submission 1093/73 requests a new policy to objective 12.3.1 as follows:

"Use interface control mechanisms such as buffer areas and restrictive covenants where residential subdivision may adjoin primary production activities and issues of reverse sensitivity may arise."

Submitter 1093 has requested decisions relating to reverse sensitivity as noted in section 4.36.2.2 above. Accordingly, submissions 1093/71 and 1093/72 were accepted in part as reverse sensitivity is a resource management matter which needs to be addressed as part of any subdivision assessment. Cross boundary conflicts can affect the amenity values and the character of the land units and settlement areas.

Notwithstanding the above, it is not considered appropriate to include the above policy within objective 12.3.1 as it does not necessarily relate to the protection of natural character and landscape values as sought by objective 12.3.1. Indeed, a policy provides a general course of action to be pursued to achieve certain environmental outcomes sought in the objectives.

It is further considered that reverse sensitivity effects can be adequately assessed as part of the assessment criteria contained in clause 12.11.3 (reverse sensitivity). For these reasons, it is recommended that submission 1093/73 is rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.3.1

Submissions 618/104, 1288/103, 619/51, 754/61, 859/61, 2670/50 are rejected.
Submissions 618/105, 1288/104, 619/52, 754/62, 859/62, 2670/51 are rejected.
Submission 895/1 is rejected.
Submission 1093/73 is rejected.

4.39 Submissions about objective 12.3.2 (Objective � protection of significant environmental features).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/106, 1288/105, 619/53, 859/63, 754/63, 2670/52, 2641/68.

4.39.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 618/106, 1288/105, 619/53, 859/63, 754/63, 2670/52 request the following:

Objective 12.3.2 and the associated policies need amendment to reflect the recognition that re-plantings also contribute to the protection and enhancement of natural environmental values and that the subdivision rules recognise that.

Submission 2641/68 requests the following:

Amend policies 1 and 3 in clause 12.3.2 to say the following or similar:

1. By establishing subdivision rules that provide for the creation of sites which protect, and enhance heritage values and the natural environment including indigenous vegetation, wetlands, headlands, heritage features and other landscape features.

3. By ensuring that the creation of sites which protect and enhance heritage values and the natural environment do not adversely affect the landscape character and amenity value of a site and the wider visual catchment.

4.39.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.39.2.1 Submissions 618/106, 1288/105, 619/53, 859/63, 754/63, 2670/52

As stated in section 4.9.2.4 above, objective 12.3.2 (protection of significant environmental features) and the associated policies relate to clauses 12.9.3 (protection of significant environmental features) and 12.9.4 (cluster subdivision associated with the protection of significant environmental features).

It is acknowledged that replanting does contribute to the protection and enhancement of natural environmental values however, clauses 12.9.3 and 12.9.4 do not seek to create a significant environmental feature. The feature itself must already exist and must be any distinct natural feature or landscape which makes a significant contribution to the quality of the local natural environment and amenity (refer to Part 14 - definitions). Therefore, an applicant cannot propose to replant an area and state that it will become a Significant Environmental Feature.

This is highlighted in the standard and terms contained in clause 12.9.3 and in particular, clause 12.9.3(2) which states [underlined for emphasis]:

An appropriately qualified, independent person must prepare a report certifying that:
1. Any existing indigenous vegetation is of a quality and maturity that is self sustaining and worthy of preservation.
2. Any natural feature or area to be retired from active farming is able to be managed in a way that preserves and enhances its existing ecological, heritage and/or landscape value.
3. Any feature of archaeological, historical or cultural significance is of such significance to the community as to warrant its preservation in the public interest.
4. Any significant environmental feature will not be adversely affected by the impact of development associated with the subdivision

Enhancement of the significant environmental feature is provided for in clause 12.9.3(4) which states:

The application must detail the attributes of the feature(s) recommended for protection. This must include an on-going management programme that details any protection and enhancement.

The objective, policies and rules therefore seek to protect existing significant environmental features while also providing for an enhancement programme. Such forms of enhancement may include re-planting if the feature under protection comprises indigenous vegetation however, replanting should not be considered the primary attribute of the feature recommended for protection.

Therefore, it is not considered appropriate to include a new policy to objective 12.3.1 which specifies that replanting contributes to protection and enhancement of the natural environment. This would place greater weighting and value to such forms of enhancement and imply that applicants can create a significant environmental feature as opposed to replanting to enhance an existing significant feature.

On this basis, it is considered that the rules in part 12 already recognises that replanting of indigenous vegetation contributes to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

For reasons stated above, it is recommended that the submissions 618/106, 1288/105, 619/53, 859/63, 754/63, 2670/52 are rejected.

4.39.2.2 Submission 2641/68

Submission 2641/68 seek that "heritage values" is recognised in policy (1) and (3) of objective 12.3.2.

As the protection of "historic heritage" is required by section 6(f) of the RMA, it is considered that amending the policies to incorporate the protection of historic heritage is appropriate. Not withstanding this, it is considered that the words "historic heritage" should be used as compared to "heritage values" in order to be consistent with the RMA. This is in accordance with best practice and is the most appropriate means for meeting the purpose of the Resource Management Act, and enables Council to fulfil its functions under s31, 72 and 74(1).

As a consequential amendment and to ensure consistency, it is further recommended that objective 12.3.2 is amended as follows:

To provide for subdivision which leads to the protection of areas of high environmental and historic heritage value.

For this reason, submission 2641/68 is accepted in part.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.3.2

Submissions 618/106, 1288/105, 619/53, 859/63, 754/63, 2670/52 are rejected.
Submission 2641/68 is accepted in part and the Plan be amended accordingly by:
Amend policy 1 of objective 12.3.2 to state:
1. By establishing subdivision rules that provide for the creation of sites which protect, and enhance historic heritage and the natural environment including indigenous vegetation, wetlands, headlands, heritage features and other landscape features.

3. By ensuring that the creation of sites which protect and enhance historic heritage and the natural environment do not adversely affect the landscape character and amenity value of a site and the wider visual catchment.

As a consequential amendment and to ensure consistency, it is further recommended that objective 12.3.2 is amended as follows:

To provide for subdivision which leads to the protection of areas of high environmental and historic heritage value.

4.40 Submissions about clause 12.3.4 (Objective � access roads and tracks).

Submission dealt with in this section: 458/1, 459/1, 618/107, 1288/106, 619/54, 754/64, 859/64, 2670/53,

4.40.1 Decision requested

Submissions 458/1, 459/1 request the following:

Remove restrictions on vehicle access (clause 12.3.4)

Submissions 618/107, 1288/106, 619/54, 754/64, 859/64, 2670/53 request the following:

Policy 12.3.4(2) needs to be amended so that it relates to access to lot boundaries rather than on site access and driveways which may not be able to be defined until a building is proposed.

4.40.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.40.2.1 Submissions 458/1, 459/1

Submissions 458/1, 459/1 state that, the restriction of vehicle access is "unreasonable and unsafe", that "emergency vehicle access must be provided for if requested" and "it is the right of the property owner to be able to access their properties".

Objective 12.3.4 and the ensuing policies and rules do not seek to restrict access to sites; instead, the provisions recognise that as part of subdivision, each proposed site must have adequate physical capacity and capability to integrate development impacts. This includes having the capacity to safely accommodate on-site car parking and access which is a requirement of Part 13 (connectivity and linkages).

While vehicle access to sites is required as part of the development controls for all land units and settlement areas, such access often involves earthworks and the modification of the landscape. By locating and where necessary, restricting the location of access to sites, this will ensure that the natural character and landscape values of the environment are not adversely affected.

The policies also directly relate to clause 12.6.1 (bulk, location and access controls for buildings) whereby each site must demonstrate where a building, access and parking can be constructed which complies with specific development controls. The provision for shared access to sites is also provided for (right of ways) in clause 12.8.1(5) and special purpose sites in clause 12.9.2. It is even a standard required for cluster subdivision in clause 12.9.4.

Assessment criteria in clauses 12.11.6 (Access to sites) and 12.11.15 (Earthworks and land disturbance) seek that the access to sites is practical, legal and safe while also ensuring that that the natural character and landscape values of each land unit and settlement area are not adversely affected through the modification of the environment.

Where vehicle access to sites cannot be provided for without adversely affecting natural character and landscape values, policy 3 and criterion 12.11.6(2) consider alternative measures such as legal foot access or access by sea. Consideration of these matters will enable sites that are capable of accommodating additional land use development to be subdivided without having to modify the landscape.

Therefore, the policies and rules seek to provide access, whether vehicular, pedestrian or by sea, that is designed and located to avoid adverse effects on natural character, landscape and amenity values.

The panel can therefore be satisfied that the structure and content of objective 12.3.4 and the policies do not seek to restrict on-site access as stated in submissions 458/1, 459/1. The proposed objectives, policies and rules give particular emphasis to ensuring a proper assessment of effects when subdivision applications are evaluated. This includes providing for on-site access. Such an approach is considered the most appropriate means for meeting the purpose of the Resource Management Act, and enables Council to fulfil its functions under s31, 72 and 74(1).

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 458/1, 459/1 are rejected.

4.40.2.2 Submissions 618/107, 1288/106, 619/54, 754/64, 859/64, 2670/53

Submissions 618/107, 1288/106, 619/54, 754/64, 859/64, 2670/53 seek to amend policy 12.3.4(2) so that subdivision ensures sufficient access to the proposed site boundaries, but that access to a building platform is assessed at the time of land use development.

By removing the need to demonstrate on-site access to a building platform, earthworks and tree removal could adversely affect the landform, ecological values as well as the natural character and landscape values of the environment could result. In addition, adequate assessment should be made to ensure practical, legal and safe access to building platform. This approach is consistent with the objectives of securing appropriate management of resources and achieving sustainable land use development.

For these reasons it is recommended that submissions 618/107, 1288/106, 619/54, 754/64, 859/64, 2670/53 are rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.3.4

Submissions 458/1, 459/1 are rejected.
Submissions 618/107, 1288/106, 619/54, 754/64, 859/64, 2670/53 are rejected.

4.41 Submissions about Clause 12.3.8 (Objective � network utility services).

Submission dealt with in this section: 941/48, 941/49, 941/50

4.41.1 Decision requested

Submission 941/48 requests the following:

Objective 12.3.8 be amended to read (or words to similar effect):

To design subdivisions so that network utility services are installed in a manner that avoids, remedies or mitigates ~~minimises~~ any adverse effects on the environment where practicable , including visual amenity, noise, earthworks, dust, spill lighting, electromagnetic field emissions and radiofrequency fields.

Submission 941/49 requests the following:

Policy 12.3.8 (1) be amended as follows (or words to similar effect):

"By requiring at the time of subdivision that electricity and telecommunication services are placed underground, where practicable ".

Submission 941/50 requests the following:

Policy 12.3.8.(2) be deleted or, alternatively, amended as follows (or words to similar effect):

"By encouraging ~~preventing~~ the installation of utility services which may be sought in conjunction with

subdivision so that ~~where~~ the effect on landscape and amenity values ~~cannot be~~ is adequately remedied or mitigated as far as practicable "

4.41.2 Planner's Analysis and recommendation

4.41.2.1 Submission 941/48

Submissions 941/48 seeks to amend objective 12.3.8 by including the words "avoids, remedies or mitigates" and "where practicable " . These amendments are considered separately as follows:

Avoids, remedies or mitigates

In accordance with section 5(2)(c) of the RMA:

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:

As the RMA expressly uses the terms avoiding, remedying, or mitigating , it is considered that amending objective 12.3.8 to reflect this terminology is appropriate. This is in accordance with best practice and is the most appropriate means for meeting the purpose of the Resource Management Act, and enables Council to fulfil its functions under s31, 72 and 74(1).

Where practicable

Submission 941/48 seeks to amend objective 12.3.8 by adding the words "where practicable" . This amendment is not supported as the words add ambiguity to the policy and do not add any value to the general direction the policy is trying to achieve.

Furthermore, the objective recognises the difficulty of the RMA in trying to achieve the direction sought in policy (1), hence policy (2), which recognises that sites may not be able to underground network utility services due to an absence of these services in the area or because providing such services may adversely affect the ecology and/or landscape character of the area. As such, alternative measures can be considered such as generators. Consideration of these matters as part of the assessment criteria contained in 12.11.11 (network utility services) will enable sites that are capable of accommodating additional land use development, to be subdivided without having to modify the landscape.

Accordingly, such words as " where practicable " are better utilised in the assessment criteria of the plan as this is where alternative measures are considered. For the above reasons, submission 941/48 as it relates to include the terms " where practical " is rejected.

On this basis, it is recommended that submission 941/48 is accepted in part and objective 12.3.8 of the Plan is amended as follows:

2.3.8 Objective - network utility services

To design subdivisions so that network utility services are installed in a manner that minimises avoids, remedies or mitigates any adverse effects on the environment, including visual amenity, noise, earthworks, dust, spill lighting, electromagnetic field emissions and radiofrequency fields.

4.41.2.2 Submission 941/49

Submission 941/49 seeks to amend policy 12.3.8(1) by adding the words "where practicable" at the end of the policy sentence.

As stated in above, the words add ambiguity to the policy and does not add any value to the general direction the policy is trying to achieve. Such words as are better utilised in the assessment criteria of the plan. For the above reasons, the submission 941/49 is rejected.

4.41.2.3 Submission 941/50

The above submission requests that the words "Encouraging" is replaced with "preventing" with consequential grammatical changes which replaces " where " with " so that " and " cannot be " with " is ".

The use of the word "encouraging" in substitution for "preventing" is not supported. As stated in above and in section 4.8, the Plan recognises the relationship between subdivision and the effect on landscape character from associated land use activities. Council will generally require the undergrounding of services for new development where the effects on landscape values can be adequately remedied or mitigated. However, where the undergrounding of services may cause adverse effects, then alternative measures can be considered such as generators and/or overhead and aboveground utilities. Consideration of these matters will enable sites that are capable of accommodating land use development, to be subdivided without having to modify the landscape.

Accordingly, policies 12.3.8(1) and 12.3.8(2) have been written to reflect the direction of objective 12.3.8. Policy 12.3.8(1) directs applicants and council to underground utility services as a preference however, policy 12.3.8(2) addresses the situation where undergrounding may not be the most appropriate method of providing utility services especially, where it adversely affects landscape and amenity values. Both policies have equal value and weighting to ensure that objective 12.3.8 is achieved.

It is therefore considered that, by using the word "encouraging" especially in light of policy 12.3.8(1), may place more weighting on the undergrounding of utility services. This does not accurately reflect objective 12.3.8, which states that utility services are to be installed in a manner which does not adversely affect the environment. Council may not consider that the undergrounding of utility services is appropriate where there are adverse effects on landscape and amenity values.

Notwithstanding this, submission 941/50 has demonstrated that the word "preventing" does not necessarily achieve the environmental outcomes sought by objective 12.3.8. It implies that the installation of any form of utility service, where there are adverse effects on landscape and amenity values, may not be considered at the time of subdivision and that Council may not consider alternative measures to service sites.

It is therefore recommended that policy 12.3.8(2) should be written in a way that it gives direction to remedy and mitigate landscape and visual amenity effects which can potentially occur through the implementation of utility services.

Accordingly, it is recommended that submission 941/50 is accepted in part and policy 12.3.8(2) Plan be amended as follows:

By ensuring that any adverse effect on landscape and amenity values as a result of the installation of utility services is ~~By preventing the installation of utility services which may be sought in conjunction with subdivision where the effect on landscape and amenity values cannot be~~ adequately remedied or mitigated.

As far as practicable

Submission 941/50 also seeks to amend policy 12.3.8(2) by adding the words "as far as practicable" at the end of the policy sentence.

As stated in section 4.41.2.1 above, the words add ambiguity to the policy and does not add any value to the general direction the policy is trying to achieve. Such words as are better utilised in the assessment criteria of the plan. For these reasons, it is recommended that submission 941/50, as it relates to the words "as far as practicable", is rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.3.8

Submission 941/48 is accepted in part and objective 12.3.8 of the Plan is amended as follows:

2.3.8 Objective - network utility services

To design subdivisions so that network utility services are installed in a manner that ~~minimises~~ avoids, remedies or mitigates any adverse effects on the environment, including visual amenity, noise, earthworks, dust, spill lighting, electromagnetic field emissions and radiofrequency fields.

Submission 941/48 as it relates to include the terms " where practical " is rejected.
Submission 941/49 is rejected.
Submission 941/50 is accepted in part and policy 12.3.8(2) Plan be amended as follows:
By ensuring that any adverse effect on landscape and amenity values as a result of the installation of utility services is ~~By preventing the installation of utility services which may be sought in conjunction with subdivision where the effect on landscape and amenity values cannot be~~ adequately remedied or mitigated.
Submission 941/50, as it relates to the words " as far as practicable " is rejected

4.42 Submissions about clause 12.3.9 (Objective � the character of the inner islands).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/108, 1288/107, 619/55, 2670/54, 754/65, 859/65, 669/1.

4.42.1 Decision requested

Submissions 618/108, 1288/107, 619/55, 2670/54 seek the following:

Objective 12.3.9 needs to be amended as do the allied policies to recognise the limited areas of land available for subdivision at 2000m2 lot size minimums. The residential objectives and policies need refocusing to address the likely development pressures which are not those relating to subdivision of land at 2000m2 densities.

Submissions 754/65, 859/65 seek the following:

Objective 12.3.9 needs to be amended, as do the allied policies, to recognise the limited areas of land available for subdivision at 2000m2 lot size minimums. The proposed provisions have little meaning in terms of the key issue of managing development on the typical existing pattern of 800-1200m2 lot sizes. The residential objectives and policies need refocusing to address the likely development pressures which are not those relating to division of land at 2000m2 densities.

Submission 669/1 seeks the following:

Objects to the council setting a minimum site size for residential development of 2000m2

4.42.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

The above submissions seek to decrease minimum site size of island residential 1 and 2 which is linked to sections 4.80 and 4.81.1 of this report (minimum site size for island residential 1 and island residential 2). Some changes are recommended in these sections and if accepted, the council will need to make some amendments to clause 12.3.9 in response. Accordingly, it is recommended that the submissions are accepted in part, subject to the detail of decision arising out of sections 4.80 and 4.81.1 of this report.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.3.9

Submissions 618/108, 1288/107, 619/55, 2670/54, 754/65, 859/65, 669/1 be accepted in part.

4.43 Submission about clause 12.4 (Resource management strategy).

Submission dealt with in this section: 3521/135

4.43.1 Decision requested

Submission 3521/135 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.4 to reference wastewater rather than on-site wastewater, to acknowledge options for decentralised wherever appropriate.

4.43.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

As stated in section 4.5 above and section 4.8 of the Plan, the disposal of wastewater within the islands is controlled through a variety of techniques, including the ARC Technical Publication 58 - On-site Wastewater Systems: Design and Management Manual; the Building Act 2004; and the council's bylaw controlling wastewater.

While the Plan does not have specific wastewater rules, the impervious surface and building coverage controls ensure that there is sufficient permeable land for on-site wastewater disposal.

The wastewater strategy for the Hauraki Gulf islands has been to require existing and future development to satisfactorily dispose and treat wastewater on-site. This changed slightly because of the inability of commercial developments in Oneroa to adequately dispose of wastewater on small commercial sites. Therefore, limited reticulation was provided for Oneroa village through the construction of the Owhanake wastewater treatment plant. Capacity for the wastewater treatment plant was increased so that it could serve the Matiatia wharf facility and the Matiatia development.

Notwithstanding this, the broad strategy is still to require existing and future development to satisfactorily dispose and treat wastewater on-site. As such, the inclusion of policies recognising decentralised systems is not considered consistent with the overall strategy. The reference to "onsite" wastewater is therefore consistent with Technical Publication 58 as well as section 4.8 of the Plan.

For this reason, it is recommended that submission 3521/135 is rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submission 3521/135 pertaining to clause 12.4

Submission 3521/135 is rejected.

4.44 Submissions about clause 12.6.1 (Bulk, location and access controls for buildings).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/109, 1288/108, 619/56, 754/66, 859/66, 2670/55, 618/110, 1288/109, 619/57, 2670/56.

4.44.1 Decisions Requested

Submissions 618/109, 1288/108, 619/56, 754/66, 859/66, 2670/55 request the following:

Clause 12.6.1 needs to be revised so that it is clear what the status is of a subdivision application where a specific development control permitted activity standard is not met. In that situation such proposals should remain at the consent status level of the individual development control that is not met so if the subdivision is restricted discretionary and the development control modification is restricted discretionary then it must be clear that any such subdivision does not become discretionary per se .

Submissions 618/110, 1288/109, 619/57, 2670/56 request the following:

If a subdivision proposal does not comply with clause 12.6.1(1) then it clearly must require some other consent and the rules need to be clear as to that.

4.44.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.44.2.1 Submissions 618/109, 1288/108, 619/56, 754/66, 859/66, 2670/55, 618/110, 1288/109, 619/57, 2670/56

Submission 618/109, 1288/108, 619/56, 754/66, 859/66, 2670/55, 618/110, 1288/109, 619/57, 2670/56 raise two separate matters for consideration. These are as follows:

Change of activity status when clause 12.6.1 is not met.

The above submissions request that where subdivision applications do not meet clause 12.6.1, then the activity status of the subdivision should change to be consistent with that of the development control which is not met. Therefore, if a restricted discretionary subdivision application does not meet a development control in clause 12.6.1 (e.g. earthworks) then the subdivision remains a restricted discretionary activity.

In analysing the above request, it is considered necessary to consider the following:

Subdivision within Land forms 1-7, island residential 1 and 2 and Rural 1.

Section 4.9.2.2 above outlines how the plan recognises the relationship between subdivision and the effects on landscape character from associated built forms that may arise from land use activities within the relevant land unit. An assessment of land use matters is required as part of any subdivision assessment as subdivision provides opportunities and expectations for future development which may cause adverse effects.

The subdivision thresholds within the proposed Plan are identified within clause 12.6 of the (general rules) and where appropriate, within the specific rules (standards and terms) related to each land unit. These rules provide the threshold over which subdivision will be assessed. These standards and terms have been arrived at so that subdivision within the Hauraki Gulf Islands can be robustly assessed in terms of the effect on the natural and physical resources of the islands. Many of these standards and terms provide linkages to other district plan related rules, particularly land use rules, to ensure consistency in the provisions of the Plan and to achieve other land use objectives within the Plan.

Under the proposed Plan, any subdivision within the land units landforms 1-7, island residential 1 and 2 and rural 1, which meets the minimum site size and general rules, requires consent for a restricted discretionary activity. The matters of discretion for restricted discretionary activities will ensure that subdivision is of a standard that will avoid, remedy and/or mitigate any adverse effect. This includes restricting the bulk and location of buildings if the associated visual effects of a development warrants such a restriction. It is considered that consideration of specific matters by council, and the opportunity for council to refuse applications where necessary, will be sufficient to ensure that elements, features and patterns that contribute to the visual amenity, natural landscape character and amenity value of each land unit are maintained, whilst also ensuring that the proposed sites can adequately service development associated with subdivision.

Notwithstanding the above, the Plan has been written so that in the event the general rules (specifically 12.6.1 � bulk, location and access controls for building) are not met, a restricted discretionary activity becomes a discretionary activity.

The rationale behind this approach is to encourage applicants to comply with the minimum site size requirements. This is because the proposed minimum areas (table 12.1 and 12.3) are based upon the physical characteristics of the land and its capacity to integrate development impacts as well as consideration of natural character, visual character and amenity values. These site sizes therefore link to the resource management strategy and objectives and policies of each land unit, which recognise that each land unit and settlement area will comprise elements and patterns (and may also have features) that contribute to the landscape character and visual amenity values of each land unit. It is this character and these values which need to be maintained and protected through subdivision.

In addition, where a subdivision application cannot demonstrate compliance with the bulk and location controls in 12.6.1, it is considered that the assessment criteria contained in clause 12.11 will ensure that all potential and actual effects are identified and adequately assessed. A discretionary activity will ensure that subdivisions can be notified and declined, or approved provided they can avoid, remedy and/or mitigate any adverse effect. This approach should also provide greater public certainty over the extent to which the subdivision can be undertaken within the environment. For these reasons, it is not recommended that this approach is changed.

Subdivision applications seeking to protect significant environmental features or to subdivide in Settlement areas and the Commercial 1-5, Recreation 1-3, the Conservation land unit, Rural 2, Rural 3, the Matiatia and Pakatoa land units.

The above forms of subdivision have been identified as discretionary activities. However, in the event that the relevant standards and terms are not met, then these discretionary subdivision applications will become non-complying activities. Such an approach is to demonstrate that when the relevant standards and terms are not met, then these discretionary subdivision applications are potentially outside the scope for which such applications have been considered in the plan.

It is considered that an amendment to the classification of subdivision applications seeking to protect significant environmental features or to subdivide within the Settlement areas, Commercial 1-5, Recreation 1-3, Conservation, Rural 2, Rural 3, the Matiatia and Pakatoa land units, is required. This is because when assessing such applications against clause 12.6.1, not all subdivisions, which meet minimum and average site sizes, will be able to provide access and locate a dwelling within all of the stated bulk and location controls of clause 12.6.1.

In order to meet clause 12.6.1(1), a discretionary subdivision application would require the parent site to be generally flat, relatively devoid of vegetation and which meets the minimum site size. In reality, the islands within the gulf have varying topographies and comprise various landscapes, each with elements, features and patterns that make up the particular land unit. On this basis, subdivision applications may "default" to being non-complying activity as a result of the elements that comprise these land units. For example, the removal of generally protected vegetation may be the only reason why a subdivision meeting the required site sizes becomes non-complying, as many forms of development require some form of bush removal. Such an infringement (indigenous vegetation removal) is a restricted discretionary activity in a land use consent, but if assessed in conjunction with a subdivision consent, it results in the application being non-complying.

Given the relative ease in which these subdivision applications can become non-complying activities, applicants may elect to increase their potential economic return by applying for subdivisions which do not meet minimum site size (also a non-complying activity). Accordingly, this approach does not encourage applicants to comply with the minimum and average site size requirements which is the intent of the subdivision provisions. Any non-complying status prescribed to a subdivision is to reflect that the proposal is potentially outside the scope for which applications may be considered for approval. Non-complying subdivisions are therefore subject to the Act's s104D gateway test which places much weighting on whether the proposal in contrary to the objectives and policies of the Plan. Therefore, non-complying subdivisions must be assessed in terms of whether they meet the resource management strategy of the land unit and Part 12.

It is therefore recommended that submissions 618/109, 619/56, 754/66, 859/66, 2670/55, 618/110, 619/57, 2670/56 are accepted in part, and part 12 of the plan is amended so that subdivision applications seeking to protect significant environmental features, or to subdivide in Settlement areas, Commercial 1-5, Recreation 1-3, Conservation, Rural 2, Rural 3, Matiatia and the Pakatoa land units, and which do not comply with clause 12.6.1(1), should remain discretionary activities. A discretionary activity for these forms of subdivision will adequately assess the actual and potential effects of the proposal should it be unable to demonstrate compliance with all stated bulk and location controls for access and dwelling location. In addition, a discretionary activity will still enable council to decline an application if the effects of the subdivision are more than minor.

It should be noted that the above recommendation does not apply to any other standard and term as it relates to clause 12.6.2 � 12.6.6 or any specific standards and terms which relate to these land units and settlement areas. These standards and terms are not onerous nor subjective and are able to be complied with should the applicant design a subdivision on the basis of these rules. Clauses 12.6.2 to 12.6.6 and the specific standards and terms for each of these land units and settlement areas therefore provide the scope in which applications may be considered for approval.

Infringing clauses 12.6.2 to 12.6.6 and the specific standards and terms relevant to the application may also be contrary to the wider resource management strategies envisaged throughout the Plan and specifically, the objectives and policies of each land unit. Therefore, changing the activity status of a subdivision application, which does not meet all other standards and terms, will inform the community as to the scope in which subdivisions will be considered. Such an approach will also provide greater certainty over the extent to which subdivisions can be undertaken within the Hauraki Gulf Islands.

Therefore, it is recommended that submissions 618/109, 1288/108, 619/56, 754/66, 859/66, 2670/55, 618/110, 1288/109, 619/57, 2670/56 are accepted in part and part 12 of the plan is amended so that subdivision applications seeking to protect significant environmental features, or to subdivide in Settlement areas, Commercial 1-5, Recreation 1-3, Conservation, Rural 2, Rural 3, Matiatia and the Pakatoa land units, and which do not comply with clause 12.6.1(1), should remain discretionary activities.

It is further recommended that consequential amendments are made to clauses 12.5 (Content and Structure), 12.9 (discretionary activities), 12.10 (non-complying activities) and table 12.4 (Activity table for all types of subdivision). These amendments are outlined in Appendix 3.

Clarification of status of a subdivision application when clause 12.6.1 is not met.

As stated above, in the event that subdivision does not meet the requirements of the clause 12.6.1, a restricted discretionary application becomes a discretionary activity and the council may, in accordance with section 91 of the RMA and clause 12.6.1(2), defer considering the subdivision application and request the applicant to lodge a land use consent at the time of subdivision. The land use consent will be then assessed as part of the subdivision application however, the report will provide separate recommendations for the land use and subdivision proposals.

As recommended above, subdivision applications seeking to protect significant environmental features, or to subdivide in Settlement areas, Commercial 1-5, Recreation 1-3, Conservation, Rural 2, Rural 3, Matiatia and the Pakatoa land units, and which do not comply with clause 12.6.1(1), should remain discretionary activities. A discretionary activity for these forms of subdivision will adequately assess the actual and potential effects of the proposal should the proposal be unable to demonstrate compliance with all stated bulk and location controls for access and dwelling location. In addition, a discretionary activity will still enable council to decline an application if the effects of the subdivision are more than minor.

Such an approach will provide a better understanding of the nature of the proposal, achieve integrated resource management outcomes and effectively assess the actual and potential effects of the proposed development.

The submissions also request that clause 12.6.1 is re-worded so that it is clear when clause 12.6.1 is not met, then the activity status of an application changes.

This aspect of submissions is supported as clause 12.6.1 does not specifically state that the activity status of subdivision applications (with the exception of right of way applications) will change. This is only made clear in clauses 12.9 (Discretionary activities) and 12.10 (Non-complying activities) which list all subdivisions which are discretionary and non-complying activities. It is within these clauses that reference is made to subdivisions which do not comply with clause 12.6.1.

As recommended in section 4.34 above, to provide clarity on this matter, it is recommended that table 12.4 (Activity table for all types of subdivision) is relocated immediately after clause 12.5 (Content and Structure) so that people can determine relatively quickly which subdivisions provisions relate to a specific land unit and settlement area, and the activity status of these types of subdivision.

Therefore, submissions 618/109, 1288/108, 619/56, 754/66, 859/66, 2670/55 and 618/110, 1288/109, 619/57, 2670/56 are accepted in part as they relate to providing clarity on the activity status of applications.

Planner's recommendations about submission 3521/135 pertaining to clause 12.6.1

Submissions 618/109, 1288/108, 619/56, 754/66, 859/66, 2670/55, 618/110, 1288/109, 619/57, 2670/56 are accepted in part and part 12 of the plan is be amended so that subdivision applications seeking to protect significant environmental features, or to subdivide in Settlement areas, Commercial 1-5, Recreation 1-3, Conservation, Rural 2, Rural 3, Matiatia and the Pakatoa land units, and which do not comply with clause 12.6.1(1), should remain discretionary activities.
It is further recommended that consequential amendments are made to clauses 12.5 (Content and Structure), 12.9 (discretionary activities), 12.10 (non-complying activities) and table 12.4 (Activity table for all types of subdivision). These amendments are outlined in Appendix 3.
Submissions 618/109, 1288/108, 619/56, 754/66, 859/66, 2670/55 and 618/110, 1288/109, 619/57, 2670/56 are accepted in part and the plan is amended in accordance with the recommendation outlined in section 4.34 above.

4.45 Submissions about clause 12.6.2 (Shared wastewater treatment and disposal facilities).

Submission dealt with in this section: 618/111, 1288/110, 619/58, 754/67, 859/67, 2670/57, 3521/136, 3521/137, 3521/138.

4.45.1 Decision requested

Submissions 618/111, 1288/110, 619/58, 754/67, 859/67, 2670/57 request the following:

Clause 12.6.2 should be amended to reference ARC publication TP 124 and not the HGI Development Code which is inappropriate.

Submission 3521/136 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.6.2(3), to reference directly the Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water Rules for Sewage Disposal and to reference the ARC Technical Publication TP58 (2004 or subsequent version at the time of notifying the decisions on submissions to this Plan).

Submission 3521/137 requests the following:

That the HGI Development Code (as referenced in clause 12.6.2(3)) be reviewed and updated as, for example, it still refers to the 1994 version of TP58 which has been superseded.

Submission 3521/138 requests the following:

That the HGI Development Code (as referenced in clause 12.6.2(3)) be reviewed and updated as it states that a community based system is required where lots are less than 1000m2. Update this and / or the Plan to increase the minimum lot size to 4000m2 in a subdivision where a cluster of on-site systems is considered unlikely to have cumulative effects. On such lot sizes (4000m2) the PARP:ALW rules allow primary rather than compulsory secondary treatment standards for individual systems in recognition of the lower potential for cumulative effects.

4.45.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.45.2.1 Submissions 618/111, 1288/110, 619/58, 754/67, 859/67, 2670/57

Point 3 of clause 12.6.2(3) states the following:

3. The facility provides for low impact design that avoids, remedies and mitigates adverse effects on the environment. The Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Code may be used as a guideline for achieving this outcome.

The Auckland Regional Council's Technical Publication 124 (Low impact design manual) provides alternative low impact stormwater design methods primarily for residential development throughout the Auckland region. The methods recommended in the document can be applied to all environments however, the examples used primarily relate to isthmus or urban environments and therefore makes recommendations relating to reticulated services, parking, kerbing, footpaths and the clustering of houses. Like the Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Code, it is not intended that Technical Publication 124 will become mandated by the Auckland Regional Council.

The Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Code is currently a draft document which provides methods and procedures for mitigating effects such as earthworks, stormwater drainage, wastewater and roading that arise through subdivision and land use development. This code has been written with reference to Technical Publication 124 and incorporates low impact design stormwater measures recommended by this document. The code is not a mandatory document and is referenced in clause 12.6.2(3) as a guideline for persons who require examples and guidance on what designs are low impact.

The code is intended to:

Recognise the unique natural environment of the Hauraki Gulf Islands;
Provide guidelines and requirements for engineering and technical aspects of subdivision and land development on the islands;
Recognise the particular engineering issues which arise on the islands (including soil types, rain fall, land forms, limited services);
Include both performance based and prescriptive criteria as appropriate;
Apply to all types of land development.

With regard to wastewater controls, the code provides detailed information associated with all issues relating to waste water, including:

Public Health.
Treatment and disposal of wastewater from households and businesses.
Preventing pollution of streams, groundwater and aquifers.

Submissions 618/111, 1288/110, 619/58, 754/67, 859/67, 2670/57 are not supported as the Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Code is considered a more appropriate document for development within the Hauraki Gulf Islands. Technical Publication 124 focuses primarily on stormwater controls methods for residential development throughout the Auckland region (particularly isthmus areas) and not on wastewater methods which apply to the Hauraki Gulf Islands. It is considered that the information contained within this code is more relevant to the community and environment of the Hauraki Gulf Islands.

For these reasons, submissions 618/111, 1288/110, 619/58, 754/67, 859/67, 2670/57 are rejected.

4.45.2.2 Submission 3521/136

The above submission requests that clause 12.6.2(3) is amended to reference the Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water Rules for Sewage Disposal and to reference the ARC Technical Publication TP58 (2004 or subsequent version at the time of notifying the decisions on submissions to this Plan).

As stated in section 4.5 above, it is the Auckland Regional Council (ARC), rather than the city council, which has functions under the RMA (s30) relating to the quality, quantity, level, flow, taking or use, of water.

The Proposed Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water applies to the management of air, land and water resources in the Auckland Region, including:

Air
Soil
Rivers and streams
Lakes
Groundwater
Wetlands
Geothermal water

Section 5.5.20 (Sewage treatment and disposal) of the Proposed Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water, outlines specific rules (design flow rate and proportion of gross site area to discharge volume) for the disposal of sewage from the dwellings to land.

In the event that these flow rates are infringed then either a controlled or discretionary activity consent is required from the ARC. It should be noted that, the Proposed Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water Plan does not outline specific design systems. In order to meet the objectives, policies and assessment criteria for sewage disposal within this Regional Plan, sections 5.5.20(c), 5.5.22(c) and 5.5.23(c) state:

All aspects of on-site wastewater treatment and land application disposal system, design, installation, and operation shall be in accordance with ARC Technical Publication No. 58 "On-site Wastewater Systems: Design and Management Manual", August 2004, (TP58),

Therefore, the rules with Auckland Regional Council's Proposed Air Land and Water Plan work directly with Technical Publication 58 to ensure that the design of any treatment system meets the requirements of the Proposed Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water and any adverse effect from sewage disposal is avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Submission 3571/136 is not supported as the Council's bylaw, the Building Act and the ARC already place controls on the disposal of wastewater. Accordingly, it is not considered necessary to duplicate these controls or include additional controls in the Plan.

In addition, the intent of clause 12.6.2(3) of the proposed Plan is to ensure that shared wastewater treatment and disposal facilities provide for low impact design methods. Low impact design methods are specifically outlined in Technical Publication 124 or in the Hauraki Gulf Island Development Code however, the Auckland Regional Council's Proposed Air Land and Water plan and Technical Publication 58 do not expressly provide for low impact designs systems. Indeed, TP 58 is intended to serve as a guideline design manual, rather than a set of regulations in its own right. Furthermore, it does not provide comprehensive or complete design details for all of the types of on-site wastewater treatment and disposal systems available.

On this basis, it is considered that referencing the Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water Rules for Sewage Disposal and the ARC Technical Publication TP58 is not appropriate within clause 12.6.2(3) as these documents do not expressly provide for low impact design wastewater systems.

As stated in section 4.45.2.1, it is considered that the Hauraki Gulf Island Development Code is a more relevant document to use as it expressly provides for low impact design methods which are suitable to the community and environment of the Hauraki Gulf Islands.

For reasons outline above, it is recommended that submission 3521/136 is rejected.

4.45.2.3 Submission 3521/137

Submission 3521/137 requests that the Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Code (as referenced in clause 12.6.2(3)) be reviewed and updated as it still refers to the 1994 version of TP58 which has been superseded.

As stated above, the Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Code is a draft document and is therefore subject to updates prior to the document being finalised. On this basis, amendments may be made to the Code so that the most up to date version of Technical Publication 58 is referenced within this Code.

The decision requested by the above submitter is outside the scope of the District Plan however, the submission raises a valid point as the Code does need to be updated. Accordingly, this matter will be referred to the appropriate council group.

Not withstanding the above, the panel cannot require that a separate guideline document independent to the proposed Plan be reviewed and updated. On this basis, it is recommended that submission 3521/137 be rejected.

It should also be noted that any proposed alterations to the Code subsequent to the proposed Plan being notified, cannot be given any legal effect within the proposed Plan. In order to give the alterations legal effect under the proposed plan (after it is has been notified) the council will need to either notify a variation to the Plan or make a submission on the proposed plan requesting changes to the Code.

4.45.2.4 Submission 3521/138

Submission 3521/138 requests the following:

With regard to the proposed Plan being modified to increase minimum site size to 4000m ² where there is a cluster of on-site systems, the decision sought is considered to be too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to clause 12.6.2. In addition, as stated in section 4.45.2.3 above, the panel cannot recommend that a separate guideline document independent to the proposed Plan be reviewed and updated.

On this basis, it is recommended that submission 3521/138 be rejected.

It should be noted that an analysis of the minimum site sizes as they relate to these land units will be considered in the following sections of this report and the council may make some amendments in response. In the event amendments are made, consequential amendments to clause 12.6.2 may be considered necessary and will be addressed accordingly.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.6.2 (Shared wastewater treatment and disposal facilities).

Submissions 618/111, 1288/110, 619/58, 754/67, 859/67, 2670/57 are rejected.
Submission 3521/136 is rejected.
Submission 3521/137 be rejected.
Submission 3521/138 be rejected.

4.46 Submissions about clause 12.6.3 (Company leases and unit titles).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/112, 1288/111, 619/59, 754/68, 859/68, 2670/58, 1552/14

4.46.1 Decision requested

Submissions 618/112, 1288/111, 619/59, 754/68, 859/68, 2670/58 request the following:

Clause 12.6.3 should be amended to state clearly that any such proposals are subdivisions and that the relevant lot size regimes apply according irrespective of the nature of the title.

Submission 1552/14 requests the following:

That the clause 12.6.3 is reworded as the following:

" Any building or buildings subject to a company lease or unit title application must:

Have existing use rights; or
Comply with the provisions of the Plan; or
Have a valid resource consent."

4.46.2 Planners analysis and recommendation

4.46.2.1 Submissions 618/112, 1288/111, 619/59, 754/68, 859/68, 2670/58

Section 4.16 outlines the types of subdivision and what cross leasing and unit titling consists of. In the case of company leases and unit titles (clause 12.6.3), these types of subdivision are leasehold and involve dividing a building or buildings into one or more parcels. Unit title subdivisions (or strata titles) generally occur where more than one dwelling or building is built on a single title and separate ownership is required. This includes multi-storey developments where the unit title allows for ownership to be defined in three dimensions.

Company lease or company titles occur when the owners of the units are shareholders in a private company with occupation rights only to an individual unit. This form of lease is now rarely used. 'Company lease' is defined in section 218 of the RMA.

It is therefore considered unnecessary to state in clause 12.6.3 that company leases and unit titles are subdivisions as they are already defined in section 218 of the RMA as being a type of subdivision. In addition, as these forms of subdivision are leasehold and relate to lawfully established structures, they are not required to be subject to minimum site sizes as suggest by the above submitters. Within the Plan, subdivisions that are subject to minimum site sizes are freehold subdivisions and cross leases only.

For this reason, it is recommended that submissions 618/112, 1288/111, 619/59, 754/68, 859/68, 2670/58 are rejected.

Notwithstanding the above, submissions 618/112, 1288/111, 619/59, 754/68, 859/68, 2670/58, 1552/14 have further highlighted that Part 12 of the Plan does not specify that in many land units, leasehold subdivision may still occur on sites which may not be able to be subdivided into freehold sites. As recommended in section 4.34.2 above, to provide clarity on this matter, it is recommended that table 12.4 (Activity table for all types of subdivision) is relocated immediately after clause 12.5 (Content and Structure) so that people can determine relatively quickly which subdivisions provisions relate to a specific land unit and settlement area and the activity status of these types of subdivision.

Therefore, where land may not be subdivided into freehold sites (including cross leases), this does not preclude a site being subdivided into a leasehold estate such as a company lease and/or unit title. Such forms of leasehold subdivision must still comply with the relevant standards and assessment pertaining to the leasehold subdivision.

4.46.2.2 Submission 1552/14

Clause 12.6.3 refers to more than one building being located on a site for the purposes of company leases and/or unit titling. However, while company leases and unit titles typically involve the leasing of more than one building on a site, submission 1552/14 is accepted as leasehold subdivision can still occur where there is one building on a site.

On this basis, it is recommended that submission 1552/14 is accepted and the clause 12.6.3 is amended as follows:

" Any building or buildings subject to a company lease or unit title application must:

Have existing use rights; or
Comply with the provisions of the Plan; or
Have a valid resource consent."

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.6.3

Submissions 618/112, 1288/111, 619/59, 754/68, 859/68, 2670/58 are rejected.
Notwithstanding the above, submissions 618/112, 1288/111, 619/59, 754/68, 859/68 and 2670/58, have further highlighted that Part 12 of the Plan does not specify that in many land units and settlement area, leasehold subdivision may still occur on sites which may not be able to be subdivided into freehold sites. Therefore, in order to provide clarity, it is recommended that table 12.4 (Activity table for all subdivision) is relocated below clause 12.5. This is outlined in section 4.34.2 above.
Submission 1552/14 is accepted and the clause 12.6.3 is amended as follows:
"Any building or buildings subject to a company lease or unit title application must:
1. Have existing use rights; or
2. Comply with the provisions of the Plan; or
3. Have a valid resource consent."

4.47 Submissions about Clause 12.6.6 (Sites that are split between settlement areas or land units).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/113, 1288/112, 619/60, 2670/59, 618/114, 1288/113, 619/61, 2670/60, 754/70, 859/70, 754/71, 859/71, 754/72, 859/72, 754/73, 859/73, 839/2, 2740/2, 2737/2, 859/69, 754/69, 895/2, 1127/24, 1545/1, 2738/3, 2739/3.

4.47.1 Decision requested

Submissions 618/113, 1288/112, 619/60, 2670/59 request the following:

Clause 12.6.6(1) needs to state that the greatest part means over 50% so there is no doubt. Also there needs to be consistency in the use of the word site or lot. The rule must apply to any proposed lot.

Submissions 859/69, 754/69 request the following:

Clause 12.6.6(1) needs to state that the greatest part means over 50% so there is no doubt.

Submissions 618/114, 1288/113, 619/61, 2670/60 request the following:

Clause 12.6.6(2) needs to be amended so that it sensibly reflects the on-ground situation. The areas of land that become residual lots from settlement area lots where there are split land units will frequently not be able to meet the minimum areas for the relevant land unit classification and such subdivision should be provided for as discretionary activities. Also the areas within settlement areas also may not meet the minimum area and should be able to be assessed and determined as discretionary activities. If that is not the case then the boundaries should be adjusted accordingly to avoid creating of unnecessary non-complying activities.

Submissions 754/72, 859/72 request the following:

Submissions 754/73, 859/73 request the following:

The areas within settlement areas also may not meet the minimum area and should be able to be assessed and determined as discretionary activities. If that is not the case then the boundaries should be adjusted accordingly to avoid creating a raft of unnecessary non-complying activities (clause 12.6.6(2)).

Submissions 754/70, 859/70 request the following:

There needs to be consistency in the use of the word site or lot. 754/70, 859/70, 754/71, 859/71

Submissions 754/71, 859/71 request the following:

Clause 12.6.6(1) must apply to any proposed lot.

Submission 895/2 requests the following:

New cross leases should be prohibited (refers to clause 12.6.6)

Submission 1127/24 requests the following:

Include clear rules that enable the residual lot created where properties are split zoned to be separated out as a restricted discretionary activity either in conjunction with the subdivision of the residential part or in advance of any such subdivision.

Submission 1545/1 requests the following:

Retain the provisions of part 8.12.1(c) in the operative plan by amending the heading of clause 12.6.6 to read:

" Sites that are split between settlement areas or land units, or lots divided by roads", and adding a new subclause (3) to clause 12.6.6 as follows:

"3. Where part of a lot is cut off from the balance of the lot by the formation of a public road, the council may approve a subdivision to enable the severed part of the lot to be subdivided. This may occur if the lot does not comply with the minimum area rules for the relevant landform. This is subject to all other relevant rules being met"

Submissions 2738/3, 2739/3 request the following:

That no changes are made to the Plan that would prevent the subdividing of the Tiri Road residentially zoned land (specifically at 34 Tiri Road and the two properties either side of this including no 36 Tiri Road) on the basis that the remainder of each of the three properties concerned will be less than the proposed minimum lot size for their classification (rural 1) and that the subdivision provisions be amended to achieve that outcome by providing for residual lots with no minimum area requirement where sites are split-zoned between residential and rural 1 or rural 2.

Submissions 839/2, 2740/2, 2737/2 request the following:

That clause 12.6.6 (or any other part of the Plan) not be changed in such a way that it would prevent the subdividing of the street frontage along the western side of Tiri Road as proposed in sheet 2 on the basis that the remainder of the three rural properties concerned would each be less than 5 ha.

4.47.2 Planners analysis and recommendation

4.47.2.1 Submissions 618/113, 1288/112, 619/60, 2670/59 and 859/69, 754/69, 754/70, 859/70, 754/71, 859/71

The above submissions raise two separate matters for consideration. These are as follows:

Specifying a percentage value in clause 12.6.6 to determine land units which comprise the majority of a site.

It is acknowledged that clause 12.6.6(1) does not specifically state a percentage value to determine which land unit forms the greatest part of a proposed site. Notwithstanding this, submissions 618/113, 1288/112, 619/60, 2670/59 and 859/69, 754/69 are not accepted as a proposed site may consist of more than two land units and not one land unit comprises over 50% of the site. For example, a site may consist of landforms 5, 6 and 7, with each land unit comprising a land area of 25%, 40% and 35% respectively. Landform 6 would form the greatest part of this site despite not covering 50%.

Therefore, including a specific percentage value in clause 12.6.1(1) does not consider sites which have multiple land units and where there is no land unit which comprises over 50% of the site. In this regard, submissions 618/113, 1288/112, 619/60, 2670/59 and 859/69, 754/69 are not supported.

Notwithstanding the above, the submitters do state that the wording for clause 12.6.1(1) creates a degree of ambiguity which requires clarification. Accordingly, it is recommended that for the purposes of clarity, clause 12.6.1(1) is amended as follows:

A subdivision application may propose to create a new site which comprises two or more land unit classifications. Where this occurs, the proposed site is required to meet the subdivision rules for the land unit which covers the greatest part of the proposed site.

On this basis, submissions 618/113, 1288/112, 619/60, 2670/59 and 859/69, 754/69 are accepted in part.

Consistency in the term "site" and "lot"

It is noted that, submissions 618/113, 1288/112, 619/60, 2670/59, 754/70, 859/70, 754/71, 859/71 also request that the Plan is consistent with the use of the word "site" or "lot". These submissions state that the term "lot" should be used.

In responding to the above, it is considered necessary to turn to the definition of "site" within part 14 of the Plan:

Site means either:

An area of land which is:
1. Contained in a single certificate of title; or
2. Contained in a single lot on an approved survey plan or subdivision for which a separate certificate of title could be issued without further consent of the council;

being in any case the smaller land area of (a) or (b);or

An area of land which is composed of two or more contiguous lots held in two or more certificates of title where such titles are:
1. Subject to a condition imposed under section 75 of the Building Act 2004 (or previously bound by section 37 of the Building Act 1991 (repealed)); or
2. Held together in such a way that they cannot be dealt with separately without the prior consent of the council, such as a covenant imposed under section 220(2)(a) and section 240 of the Resource Management Act 1991, or any covenant previously bound by section 643 (repealed) of the Local Government Act 1974.

Except that in the case of land subdivided under the Unit Titles Act 1972 or the cross lease system, 'site' will be considered to be the whole of the land subject to the unit development or cross lease.

In accordance with the above definition, it is apparent that a site can consist of more than one lot, which are held together in one or more certificates of title. It is considered that by using the term "lot" in part 12, can result in confusion, whereby a person may assume that one of their lots within one title can be subdivided (freehold) even if it does not meet minimum site size. Discussions with Council planners have also highlighted that this is a matter which confuses many people and requires constant clarification.

On this basis, throughout the Plan, the term "site" has been used as opposed to "lot". This term is to ensure consistency within the Plan in terms of parts 10a, 10b and 10c and to avoid confusion where there is more than one lot on a certificate of title.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 618/113, 1288/112, 619/60, 2670/59, 754/70, 859/70, 754/71, 859/71 are rejected as they relate to using the term "lot".

4.47.2.2 Submissions 618/114, 1288/113, 619/61, 2670/60 and 754/72, 859/72 and 754/73, 859/73.

As stated in section 4.21.2 above, settlement areas are located on Great Barrier Island and seek to concentrate development within specific areas. These areas have historically been areas of settlement and they are important centres of community for the people of Great Barrier. Some of these settlements have the capability to grow into the future, while others are recognised as needing to be contained within existing areas due to the fragile or sensitive nature of the surrounding environment.

The settlement areas recognise issues around reverse sensitivity by locating similar activities in the same locations, and enable a framework for sustainable management for activities on the island. Where growth, including subdivision, is to occur, it is encouraged within the settlement areas rather than compromising the landscape values of outlying areas.

Clause 12.6.6 states that any form of freehold subdivision on sites which are split between a settlement area and other land units, must still comply with the minimum site size as it relates to both the settlement area and the land unit(s). However, submissions 618/114, 1288/113, 619/61, 2670/60 and 754/72, 859/72 and 754/73, 859/73 request that settlement areas are able to be subdivided as one site irrespective of whether minimum site sizes can be meet. A discretionary activity subdivision would be required for a freehold subdivision of this nature.

Reducing sites below the minimum site size, can lead to adverse amenity effects which detract from the character of the environment and undermines the resource management strategy, objectives and policies for the land unit and settlement area.

Notwithstanding this, where sites which are split between a settlement area and another land unit(s), it is considered that in these circumstances only, subdividing the settlement area into one site will ensure that development associated within these areas are contained to within the specific boundaries of the settlement areas. This will also reduce the likelihood of these activities encroaching onto neighbouring land units and avoid confusion over conflicting development controls relating to both a settlement area and a rural land unit. It is recommended that this form of subdivision is a discretionary activity so that a full assessment of effects can be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the RMA.

Therefore, it is recommended that submissions 618/114, 1288/113, 619/61, 2670/60 and 754/72, 859/72 and 754/73, 859/73 are accepted and the clause 12.6.6 (2) of the Plan is amended as follows:

2) Where part of any site falls into a settlement area, that part of the site which is located in the settlement area may be subdivided out as one site ~~provided it meets the minimum site size for the settlement area~~ . even if the site does not comply with the minimum area for the settlement area in table 12.3. In addition, that part of the site which is not located in the settlement area ~~must also meet the minimum site size for the relevant land unit,~~ is not subject to the minimum site size for the relevant land unit(s).

Such forms of subdivision are discretionary activities subject to meeting the general rules contained in clause 12.6 (refer to clause 12.9 - Discretionary activities and clause 12.10 Non-complying activities).

In addition to the above, consequential amendments to clause 12.9 (Discretionary activities) and 12.10 (Non-complying activities) is also recommended for consistency and continuity.

These are as follows:

12.9 (Discretionary activities)

Subdivision in accordance with clause 12.6.6(2) which meet the general rules in clause 12.6.

and

Subdivision in accordance with clause 12.6.6(2) which does not meet the clause 12.6.1(1). Note: Applications which do comply with clause 12.6.1(1) may be subject to clause 12.6.1(2).

And;

12.10 (Non-complying activities)

Subdivisions in accordance with 12.6.6(2) which does not meet the general rules in clause 12.6. 2 � 12.6.6.

4.47.2.3 Submission 895/2

Submission 895/2 requests that new cross leases should be prohibited activities and clause 12.6.6 should be amended to reflect this.

This matter has already been addressed in section 4.16 above whereby it was concluded that by removing the provision for cross leasing would result in Council not effectively carrying out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (see s72, 73 of the RMA).

For these reasons, submission 895/2 is rejected.

4.47.2.4 Submission 1127/24

Submission 1127/24 requests that sites which have split zones (i.e. multiple land units) should be able to be subdivided as restricted discretionary activities and to reflect these boundaries of the land unit.

In many circumstances, sites within the Hauraki Gulf islands will comprise multiple land units. Clause 12.6.1(1) has therefore been written to reflect these situations so where a proposed site includes more that one land unit, the subdivision rules which apply to the proposed site are the rules for the land unit which forms the greatest part of the proposed site.

By providing for restricted discretionary activity subdivision to reflect the boundaries of land units has the potential to create additional sites which do not meet minimum site size as they relate to the land unit. Such an approach can increase the modification of the environment through additional built forms, earthworks and vegetation removal and can lead to adverse amenity effects, which detract from the character of the environment and undermine the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for the land unit.

While this approach also focuses on isolating land use controls which relate to each land unit, it fails to take into account the physical characteristics of the land and its capacity to integrate development impacts as well as consideration of natural character, visual character and amenity values. Minimum site sizes have therefore been written to reflect these characteristics.

Therefore, ensuring that sites with multiple land units meet minimum site as they relate to the greatest part of each proposed site, will provide consistency with the resource management strategy and objective and policies for each land unit.

For reason set out above, it is recommended that submission is 1127/24 rejected.

4.47.2.5 Submission 1545/1

Submission 1545/1 requests an amendment to clause 12.6.6 which provides for sites that are divided by roads to be subdivided so that severed part of the site is contained in one freehold estate. This may occur if the site does not comply with the minimum site size for the relevant land unit.

This request has already been addressed in section 4.25 above whereby it was concluded that subdividing areas which are separated by a formed or unformed legal road and which do not meet the minimum site size for the land unit, can increase the building coverage above what would have been permitted had the site not been subdivided. This increases the modification of the environment, through additional built forms, earthworks and vegetation removal and can lead to adverse amenity effects which detract from the character of the environment and undermine the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for the land unit.

For the same reason noted in section 4.25.2 above, it is recommended that submission 1545/1 is rejected.

4.47.2.6 Submissions 2738/3, 2739/3 and 839/2, 2740/2, 2737/2

The above submissions request that clause 12.6.6(1) be amended so that no minimum area is required where sites are split-zoned between residential and rural 1 or rural 2.

Similar to the decision sought in section 4.47.2.4, these submitters request that where sites have multiple land units, sites can be subdivided around the boundaries of these land units irrespective of the minimum site sizes in table 12.1.

For reasons already outlined above, providing for the subdivision of sites based solely on the land units boundaries is not accepted as such an approach can increase the modification of the environment through additional built forms, earthworks and vegetation removal and can lead to adverse amenity effects, which detract from the character of the environment and undermine the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for the land unit.

Therefore, ensuring that sites with multiple land units meet minimum site as they relate to the greatest part of each proposed site, will ensure consistency with the resource management strategy and objective and policies for each land unit. On this basis, it is recommended that submissions 2738/3, 2739/3 and 839/2, 2740/2, 2737/2 are rejected.

It is noted that the above submissions specifically relate to any subdivision along the street frontage of 34 and 36 Tiri Road and Lot 8, DP 53686, CT 5D/65 Ocean View Road, Oneroa. This is because the Plan seeks to extend the island residential 1 land unit to the Tiri Road frontage part of the land at 34 & 36 Tiri Road and Lot 8, DP 53686, CT 5D/65 Ocean View Road, Oneroa.

These sites currently comprise land unit 20 in the operative plan however, with the reclassification noted above, they now have dual land units on these sites consisting of island residential 1 and rural 1. The subject sites each comprise 41126m ², 52255m ² and 50300m ² (respectively). Given that the proposed minimum site size for rural 1 is 5ha, it is noted that any subdivision within the island residential 1 land units will not meet clause 12.6.6(2) as the residual site sizes for the rural 1 land unit will not meet the minimum site size of 5ha. This will result in a non-complying activity in accordance with 12.10.

The above submitters should be made aware that in reclassifying this part of Tiri Road, and increasing minimum site size of rural 1 to 5ha, Council was aware that a form of subdivision within island residential 1 land unit may not meet clause 12.6.6(1). However, Council did consider that like all applications, a subdivision application within island residential 1 will be assessed on its merits and in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is anticipated that depending on the design and layout of the application as well as proposed mitigation, an application could be considered favourably.

It should be noted that an analysis of the minimum site sizes as they relate to rural 1 will be considered in the following sections of this report and the council may make some amendments in response. In the event amendments are made, the decision requested by the submitters may be realised.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.6.6

Submissions 618/113, 1288/112, 619/60, 2670/59 and 859/69, 754/69 are accepted in part. Accordingly, it is recommended that for the purposes of clarity, clause 12.6.1(1) is amended as follows:
(1) A subdivision application may propose to create a new site which comprises two or more land unit classifications. Where this occurs, the proposed site is required to meet the subdivision rules for the land unit which covers the greatest part of the proposed site.
Submissions 618/113, 1288/112, 619/60, 2670/59, 754/70, 859/70, 754/71, 859/71 are rejected as they relate to using the term "lot".
Submissions 618/114, 1288/113, 619/61, 2670/60 and 754/72, 859/72 and 754/73, 859/73 are accepted and the clause 12.6.6 (2) of the Plan is amended as follows:
(2) Where part of any site falls into a settlement area, that part of the site which is located in the settlement area may be subdivided out as one site ~~provided it meets the minimum site size for the settlement area.~~ even if the site does not comply with the minimum area for the settlement area in table 12.3. In addition, that part of the site which is not located in the settlement area ~~must also meet the minimum site size for the relevant land unit,~~ is not subject to the minimum site size for the relevant land unit(s).

Such forms of subdivision are discretionary activities subject to meeting the general rules contained in clause 12.6 (refer to clause 12.9 - Discretionary activities and clause 12.10 Non-complying activities).

In addition to the above, consequential amendments to clause 12.9 (Discretionary activities) and 12.10 (Non-complying activities) is also recommended for consistency and continuity.

These are as follows:

12.9 (Discretionary activities)

Subdivision in accordance with clause 12.6.6(2) which meets the general rules in clause 12.6.

and

Subdivision in accordance with clause 12.6.6(2) which does not meet the clause 12.6.1(1). Note: Applications which do comply with clause 12.6.1(1) may be subject to clause 12.6.1(2).

And;

12.10 (Non-complying activities)

Subdivisions in accordance with 12.6.6(2) which does not meet the general rules in clause 12.6.2- 12.6.6
Submission 895/2 is rejected.
Submission is 1127/24 is rejected.
Submission 1545/1 is rejected.
Submissions 2738/3, 2739/3 and 839/2, 2740/2, 2737/2 are rejected.

4.48 Submissions about clause 12.8.1 (Restricted discretionary activities).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/115, 1288/114, 619/62, 754/74, 859/74, 2670/61, 3724/1, 3724/2, 3724/4.

4.48.1 Decision requested

Submissions 618/115, 1288/114, 619/62, 754/74, 859/74, 2670/61 request the following:

Clause 12.8.1 should be amended so that where there are any resultant non-compliances arising from boundary relocations they can be addressed as restricted discretionary activities.

Submission 3724/1 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.8.1 (1) so that company leases and unit titles in rural 2 (western landscapes) have no minimum site areas as per table 12.1 (if so intended)

Submission 3724/2 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.8.1.(4) so that Boundary adjustments are restricted discretionary in rural 2 ( western landscape) where change in areas is no more than 1 hectare.

Submission 3724/4 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.8.1 so that multiple dwellings are restricted discretionary in rural 2 (western landscape).

4.48.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.48.2.1 Submissions 618/115, 1288/114, 619/62, 754/74, 859/74, 2670/61

Clause 12.9 (Discretionary activities) states that boundary relocations where the site sizes do not stay the same and/or additional non-compliances with the development controls result, then such boundary adjustments require discretionary activity consent.

The above submissions request that resultant non-compliances which may arise from boundary adjustments are assessed as restricted discretionary activities.

The above submissions are not supported as boundary adjustments where there are additional non-compliances with the subdivision and/or land use rules, can result in adverse effects which need to be considered at a discretionary level to ensure that the actual and potential effects of a proposal are determined and where possible, avoided, remedied and/or mitigated.

For example, where a boundary adjustment proposes to transfer a large amount of land from one site to another (i.e. the site sizes do not stay the same), this will increase the development right on one site and restrict it on another. The larger site may have the capability of subdividing and/or increasing the level of built form on the site. In addition, a site size could be reduced to such an extent that the natural character, visual character and amenity values of land unit are adversely impacted. This is not consistent with the objectives of securing appropriate management of resources, or consistent with achieving sustainable land use development.

These consequential effects need to be considered as part of the assessment for boundary adjustments where non-compliances with the subdivision and/or land use rules occur. It is considered that the specific matters of discretion for restricted discretionary activities will not ensure that all effects on the environment are assessed and where possible avoided, remedied and/or mitigated.

On this basis, it is recommended that submissions 618/115, 1288/114, 619/62, 754/74, 859/74, 2670/61 are rejected.

4.48.2.2 Submission 3724/1

As stated in section 4.46.2.1 above, company leases and unit titles are leasehold subdivisions and relate to lawfully established structures. They are not required to meet minimum site sizes as suggested by submission 3724/1. Within the Plan, subdivisions that are subject to minimum site sizes are freehold subdivisions and cross leases only.

For this reason, it is recommended that submission 3724/1 is accepted in part as it relates to company leases and unit titles not being subject to minimum site size requirements.

It is noted that, submission 3724/1 appears to request that the standards and terms for boundary adjustments in rural 2 are made more lenient. However, clause 12.8.1 of the Plan states that company leases and unit titles are restricted discretionary activities in all land units and settlement areas (including rural 2 as specified by the submitter). In the event that additional non-compliances occur as a result of a boundary adjustment, then the application will require consent as a discretionary activity.

It is recommended that boundary adjustments within rural 2 are not assessed differently to boundary adjustments in other land units. As outlined in section 4.48.2.1 above, there are actual and potential effects which can arise through boundary adjustments and which need to be adequately assessed and where possible avoided, remedied and/or mitigated.

For this reason, it is recommended that submission 3724/1 is rejected.

4.48.2.3 Submission 3724/2

Submission 3724/2 requests that boundary adjustments are restricted discretionary activities in rural 2 where the change in the area is no more than 1 ha.

In responding to the above submission, it is important to note that all consents must be decided on their merits and no two applications are the same. Therefore, while the transfer of 1ha from a large site (e.g. 18ha) to another large site may generate minimal effects, there will be circumstances whereby the effects of transferring 1ha from a smaller site may potentially generate adverse effects on the environment.

This is particularly apparent for rural 2 sites at Church Bay Road where the site sizes range from 1.7110ha (88B Church Bay Road) to 43.1414ha at 131 Church Bay Road. By transferring 1ha from a 1.7110ha site, may adversely affect the natural character, visual character and amenity values of site and the land unit. This is not consistent with the objectives of securing appropriate management of resources. Accordingly, a discretionary activity assessment will ensure that all actual and potential effects from the proposal are adequately assessed.

For these reasons, submission 3724/2 is rejected as it does not take in account the range of site sizes that already exist within the rural 2 land unit.

4.48.2.4 Submission 3724/4

The above submission requests that clause 12.8.1 is amended so that multiple dwellings are restricted discretionary activities in rural 2 (western landscape).

Multiple dwelling applications are considered as part of the land unit rules therefore, to ensure best planning practice, it is not appropriate to include an assessment of land use activities as part of subdivision applications. Accordingly, land use activities should be assessed as part of the resource management strategy for the land units themselves rather than at the time of subdivision. This approach will ensure consistency in the rules within the Plan and avoid repetition.

Notwithstanding the above, the Plan recognises the relationship between multiple dwellings and subdivision. This is because the creation of multiple dwellings on a site potentially generates the same effects as a subdivision application for the same site.

In the majority of land unit rules, where multiple dwellings are proposed, then discretionary activity consent is required. However, in the event that the resultant number of dwellings on a site are more than that which could occur if the site was subdivided in accordance with the rules in Part 12 (Subdivision), then an application for multiple dwellings will become a non-complying activity.

This is because creating multiple dwellings on a site increases the intensity of use on the site, which can result in further modification of the environment (e.g. earthworks and vegetation removal) and a proliferation of built forms in the environment. Therefore, by ensuring that multiple dwellings applications are assessed in accordance with the minimum site size for the land unit and/or settlement area, this will provide consistency with part 12 of the plan, and ensure that multiple dwellings on the site do not generate adverse amenity effects which detract from the character of the environment and undermine the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for the land unit.

Therefore, by providing for multiple dwellings in rural 2 as restricted discretionary activities undermines the purpose of having minimum site sizes, which seek to preserve the natural character of the land units settlement areas and relate minimum areas based on their physical and natural character, use and potential.

For this reason, it is recommended that submission 3724/4 is rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.8.1

Submissions 618/115, 1288/114, 619/62, 754/74, 859/74, 2670/61 are rejected
Submission 3724/1 is accepted in part as it relates to company leases and unit titles not being subject to minimum site size requirements.
Submission 3724/1 is rejected as it relates to greater leniency for rural 2.
Submission 3724/2 is rejected.
Submission 3724/4 is rejected.

4.49 Submissions about clause 12.8.2 (Matters of discretion and assessment criteria).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2641/69, 3724/3.

4.49.1 Decision requested

Submission 2641/69 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.8.2 to state the following or similar:

1. For restricted discretionary activities.

h. Heritage

2. The council's assessment of an application for a restricted discretionary activity will consider the matters contained in 12.11.14 Preserving and enhancing heritage features .

Submission 3724/3 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.8.2 (g) so that Financial contributions are not justified where no change in uses occurs (company leases and unit titles).

4.49.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

Submission 2641/69 seeks to include consideration of heritage sites as part of all restricted discretionary activities.

In responding to the above submission, it should be noted that, the effects of any heritage site that is scheduled in the Plan must be considered as part any subdivision application. Clause 12.6.1 (bulk, location and access controls for buildings) states that each site must demonstrate where a building, access and parking can be constructed which complies with specific development controls, including Part 7 (heritage).

In the event that a heritage site is located on a proposed site, then the applicant must demonstrate that the controls in part 7 will not be infringed and/or that the heritage item will not be affected by the proposed subdivision (refer to assessment criteria in clause 12.11.14 � Preserving and enhancing heritage features).

Notwithstanding this, submission 2641/69 states that while council have scheduled known heritage sites within the Plan, there still remains a significant amount of work " to ensure that the full diversity and that a representative range of heritage within the islands has been protected ".

Clause 7.8.1 of the Plan does acknowledge that not all archaeological sites within the islands have been scheduled in the Plan however, those sites that did not have sufficient heritage value (or have not yet been identified) are still protected by the provisions of the New Zealand Historic Places Act 1993 (NZHPT). An authority is required from the NZHPT prior to damaging, destroying or modifying any archaeological site, whether the site is scheduled within the Plan or not.

Given that the Plan has not scheduled all heritage sites within the Plan, nor have all heritage sites been identified throughout the islands, it is considered appropriate to include an additional matter of discretion for restricted discretionary activities as requested by submission 2641/69. This will ensure that the effects of heritage sites, which have not been scheduled in the Plan, or have not yet been identified at present, are assessed as part of any restricted discretionary application. This is also consistent with section 6(f) of the RMA which seek to protect "historic heritage".

For these reasons, it is recommended that submission 2641/69 is accepted and an additional matter of discretion is included in clause 12.8.2 as follows:

h. Heritage

2. The council's assessment of an application for a restricted discretionary activity will consider the matters contained in the following clauses: 12.11.2 (low impact design), 12.11.5 (site design and layout), 12.11.6 (access to sites), 12.11.9 (stormwater disposal), 12.11.10 (sewage treatment and disposal), 12.11.11 (network utility services), and 12.11.12 (open space, recreation and financial contributions) and 12.11.14 (Preserving and enhancing heritage features).

4.49.2.1 Submission 3724/3

A financial contribution (FINCO) should not be taken as part of a subdivision for company leases and unit titles as this matter should have been considered as part of the land use consent for the development. The requirement for taking FINCO's both in the land use and subdivision consents are outlined fully in Part 6 of the Plan. To ensure consistency, it is considered that this matter should be clarified within Part 6 and not within Part 12.

On this basis, submission 3724/3 is rejected as it relates to clause 12.8.2

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.8.2

Submission 2641/69 is accepted and an additional matter of discretion is included in clause 12.8.2 as follows:
h. Heritage

2. The council's assessment of an application for a restricted discretionary activity will consider the matters contained in the following clauses: 12.11.2 (low impact design), 12.11.5 (site design and layout), 12.11.6 (access to sites), 12.11.9 (stormwater disposal), 12.11.10 (sewage treatment and disposal), 12.11.11 (network utility services), and 12.11.12 (open space, recreation and financial contributions) and 12.11.14 (Preserving and enhancing heritage features).
Submission 3724/3 is rejected.

4.50 Submissions about clause 12.9 (Discretionary activities).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 619/63, 754/75, 859/75, 1280/3, 618/116, 1288/115, 2670/62, 1243/84, 1243/85, 1243/87, 1243/88, 2001/36, 3061/77, 3061/80.

4.50.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 619/63, 754/75, 859/75, 618/116, 1288/115, 2670/62 request the following:

Clause 12.9 needs to be amended so that any subdivision that does not meet the general rules in clause 12.6 is a discretionary activity.

Submission 1280/3 requests the following:

Include a provision in the subdivision rules making provision for subdivisions outside the limits set out in Table 12.1 to be considered as a discretionary activity where there are circumstances which warrant consideration of a higher density of subdivision and that the objectives, policies and strategy for the land unit are not compromised by the proposal.

Submission 1243/84 requests the following:

Retain clause 12.9.1(1).

Submission 1243/85 requests the following:

Retain clause 12.9.1(2) as it applies to landforms 1-7 and rural 1.

Submission 1243/87 requests the following:

Retain clause 12.9.1(7).

Submission 1243/88 requests the following:

Retain clause 12.9.1(8).

Submission 2001/36 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.9.1 to reflect these submissions.

Submission 3061/77 requests the following:

The provision for subdivision in landform 6 (regenerating slopes) is opposed.

Submission 3061/80 requests the following:

The provision for subdivision in landform 7 (forest and bush) is opposed.

4.50.2 Planners analysis and recommendation

4.50.2.1 Submissions 619/63, 754/75, 859/75, 618/116, 1288/115, 2670/62

The above submissions request that clause 12.9 is amended so that any subdivision that does not meet the general rules in clause 12.6 is a discretionary activity. However, it is unclear whether the submissions seek discretionary activity status for all leasehold applications, boundary relocations or freehold subdivision in land units and settlement areas which do not meet the general rules for subdivision. In addition, the submissions do not articulated why the Plan should be altered to give effect to this submission.

The above submitters are therefore invited to clarify at the hearing as to which types of subdivision should be amended so that they remain discretionary activities should the general rules in clause 12.6.1 not be met.

Notwithstanding this, the activity status of subdivisions where they do not meet the general rules and/or specific standards and terms has been analysed in section 4.44 above. Accordingly, it is recommended that a restricted discretionary activity should become a discretionary activity when the proposal does not meet clause 12.6.1(1). This is to ensure that all actual and potential effects of the proposal can be assessed.

With regard to subdivision applications seeking to protect significant environmental features, or to subdivide in Settlement areas, Commercial 1-5, Recreation 1-3, Conservation, Rural 2, Rural 3, Matiatia and the Pakatoa land units, it has been recommended that part 12 of the plan is amended so that such forms of subdivisions which do not comply with clause 12.6.1(1), should remain discretionary activities. A discretionary activity for these forms of subdivision will adequately assess the actual and potential effects of the proposal should it be unable to demonstrate compliance with all stated bulk and location controls for access and dwelling location. In addition, a discretionary activity will still enable council to decline an application if the effects of the subdivision are more than minor.

Therefore, it is recommended that submissions 619/63, 754/75, 859/75, 618/116, 1288/115, 2670/62 are accepted in part and part 12 of the plan is amended so that subdivision applications seeking to protect significant environmental features, or to subdivide in Settlement areas, Commercial 1-5, Recreation 1-3, Conservation, Rural 2, Rural 3, Matiatia and the Pakatoa land units, and which do not comply with clause 12.6.1(1), should remain discretionary activities.

4.50.2.2 Submission 1280/3

Submission 1280/3 requests that subdivisions which do not meet minimum site sizes contained in table 12.1 should be considered discretionary activities where there are circumstances which warrant consideration of a higher density of subdivision and that the objectives and policies and strategy for the land units are not compromised by the proposal.

As stated previously in this report, the minimum site sizes are based upon the physical characteristics of the land and its capacity to integrate development impacts as well as consideration of natural character, visual character and amenity values. These site sizes are also consistent with the resource management strategy, objectives and policies of each respective land unit.

In the event a subdivision does not meet the minimum site sizes as they relate to the relevant land unit, then the subdivision is a non-complying activity in accordance with clause 12.10 of the Plan. A non-complying activity status therefore reflects that the Plan does not encourage a reduction in minimum site sites and that such a reduction can leads to potential adverse effects, which can undermine the resource management strategy for the land units themselves.

It is considered that providing for a reduction in minimum site sizes as a discretionary activity undermines the purpose of having minimum site sizes, which seek to preserve the natural character of the land units settlement areas and relate minimum areas based on their physical and natural character, use and potential.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submission 1280/3 is rejected.

4.50.2.3 Submission 1243/84, 1243/85, 1243/87 and 1243/88

Submission 1243/84, 1243/87 and 1243/88 seek to retain clauses 12.9.1(1), 12.9.1(2) as it applies to landforms 1-7 and rural 1, clauses 12.9.1(7) and 12.9.1(8).

The above clauses relate to the discretionary activity status of subdivision applications for boundary relocations and subdivision in landforms 1-7 and rural 1, rural 2 and rural 3.

It is considered that the structure and content of these clauses relate to the physical characteristics of these land units and their capacity to integrate development impacts. These clauses provide for discretionary activity subdivision within these land units which will ensure that subdivisions could be declined or are of a standard that will avoid, remedy and/or mitigate any adverse effect. This approach is the most appropriate means for meeting the purpose of the Resource Management Act, and enables Council to fulfil its functions under s31, 72 and 74(1).

For these reasons, it is recommended that these clauses are retained and the submissions 1243/84, 1243/85, 1243/87 and 1243/88 be accepted.

Notwithstanding this, the submitters are invited to confirm if the recommendations made below and in section 4.44 above are within the scope of their relief.

4.50.2.4 Submission 1243/85

It should be noted that, submission 1243/85 seeks to retain clause 12.9.1(2) as it relates to landforms 1-7 and rural 1 only however, clause 12.9.1(2) also relates to island residential 1 and island residential 2. This implies that submission 1243/85 does not consider that clause 12.9.1(2) should apply to the island residential 1 and island residential 2 land units.

It is unclear from the submission why clause 12.9.1(2) should exclude island residential 1 and 2 nor has this submission recommended any changes needed to island residential 1 and 2. On this basis, it is recommended that submission 1243/85 is rejected as it relates to island residential 1 and island residential 2 and that clause 12.9.1(2) retains these land units

4.50.2.5 Submission 2001/36

Submission 2001/36 seeks specific amendments to the land use rules for Pakatoa which will be assessed in a future hearings report for Pakatoa.

4.50.2.6 Submissions 3061/77 and 3061/80

The above submissions oppose the provision for subdivision within landform 6 (regenerating slopes) and landform 7 (forest and bush areas).

The above submissions being considered in this section of the report are too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to the Plan. In addition, the submissions do not specifically identify why subdivision within these land units are opposed nor do they articulate how the Plan should be altered to give effect to this submission.

On this basis, the submissions 3061/77 and 3061/80 are rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.9

Submissions 619/63, 754/75, 859/75, 618/116, 1288/115, 2670/62 are accepted in part and part 12 of the plan is amended in accordance with section 4.44 above.
Submission 1280/3 is rejected
Submissions 1243/84, 1243/85, 1243/87 and 1243/88 be accepted
Submission 1243/85 is rejected as it relates to island residential 1 and island residential 2.
Submission 2001/36 seeks specific amendments to the land use rules for Pakatoa which will be assessed in a future hearings report for Pakatoa.
Submissions 3061/77 and 3061/80 are rejected.

4.51 Submissions about clause 12.9.2 (Special purposes sites)

Group 1: Submissions dealt with in this section: 129/2, 130/2, 132/2, 172/2, 237/2, 243/2, 241/2, 270/2, 271/2, 272/2, 274/2, 275/2, 242/2, 244/2, 3422/2, 3425/2, 3426/2, 3429/2, 3430/2, 3431/2, 3432/2, 3433/2, 3434/2, 3435/2, 3436/2, 3439/2, 3440/2, 3441/2, 3442/2, 3443/2, 3444/2, 3445/2, 3446/2, 3447/2, 3448/2, 3449/2, 3450/2, 3451/2, 3452/2, 3453/2, 3456/2, 3457/2, 3458/2, 3459/2, 3460/2, 3461/2, 3462/2, 3427/2, 3428/2, 3465/2, 3466/2, 3467/2, 3468/2, 3469/2, 3437/2, 3438/2, 3454/2, 3455/2, 3464/2, 3470/2, 3471/2, 3475/2, 3477/2, 3478/2, 3480/2, 3481/2, 3485/2, 3488/2, 3489/2, 3490/2, 3491/2, 3497/2, 3498/2, 3504/2, 3857/2, 3463/2, 3472/2, 3473/2, 3474/2, 3482/2, 3483/2, 3486/2, 3492/2, 3499/2, 3476/2, 3479/2, 3494/2, 3500/2, 3484/2, 3493/2, 3495/2, 3496/2, 3501/2, 3502/2, 3503/2, 3505/2, 3506/2, 3511/2, 3581/2, 3851/2.

Group 2: Submissions dealt with in this section: 134/1, 280/2, 452/1, 454/1, 2509/1, 2079/1, 2088/1, 2536/1, 3151/1, 3152/1, 3508/1, 78/1, 105/1, 174/1, 1405/23, 1406/23, 247/1, 248/1, 2156/1, 2174/1, 2423/1, 3032/1, 3069/1, 3070/1, 3124/1, 2524/1, 2655/1, 2717/5

Group 3:Submission dealt with in this section: 3666/1

4.51.1 Decision requested

Group 1:

Submissions 129/2, 130/2, 132/2, 172/2, 237/2, 243/2, 241/2, 270/2, 271/2, 272/2, 274/2, 275/2, 242/2, 244/2, 3422/2, 3425/2, 3426/2, 3429/2, 3430/2, 3431/2, 3432/2, 3433/2, 3434/2, 3435/2, 3436/2, 3439/2, 3440/2, 3441/2, 3442/2, 3443/2, 3444/2, 3445/2, 3446/2, 3447/2, 3448/2, 3449/2, 3450/2, 3451/2, 3452/2, 3453/2, 3456/2, 3457/2, 3458/2, 3459/2, 3460/2, 3461/2, 3462/2, 3427/2, 3428/2, 3465/2, 3466/2, 3467/2, 3468/2, 3469/2, 3437/2, 3438/2, 3454/2, 3455/2, 3464/2, 3470/2, 3471/2, 3475/2, 3477/2, 3478/2, 3480/2, 3481/2, 3485/2, 3488/2, 3489/2, 3490/2, 3491/2, 3497/2, 3498/2, 3504/2, 3857/2, 3463/2, 3472/2, 3473/2, 3474/2, 3482/2, 3483/2, 3486/2, 3492/2, 3499/2, 3476/2, 3479/2, 3494/2, 3500/2, 3484/2, 3493/2, 3495/2, 3496/2, 3501/2, 3502/2, 3503/2, 3505/2, 3506/2, 3511/2, 3581/2, 3851/2 request the following:

Broaden the definition of clause 12.9.2 to allow provision for further development for the necessities of continuing / maintaining and expanding settlement areas for future development and the economic implications for Great Barrier.

Group 2:

Submission 134/1 requests the following:

Broaden the definition of clause 12.9.2 to allow for provision of community and cultural facilities and pensioner housing and low cost affordable housing. To allow for the provision of the development for the benefit and wellbeing of our community on Great Barrier.

Submission 280/2 requests the following:

Broaden definition in clause 12.9.2 to provide for growth and offer choices, and to accommodate community based initiatives such as Te Taurehere, Pensioner housing, Chaswyn Village, Great Barrier Community Arts, and various other endeavours in that area, the Great Barrier Island Affordable Housing Trust.

Submissions 452/1, 454/1, 2509/1 request the following:

Broaden the definition of special purpose sites, clause 12.9.2, to allow for the provision of community facilities.

Submissions 2079/1, 2088/1 request the following:

Broaden the definition at clause 12.9.2 to allow for provision of community and cultural facilities and pensioner housing and low cost affordable housing.

Submission 2536/1 requests the following:

Broaden the definition of the clause 12.9.2 to allow for the provision of community facilities, a cultural building, pensioner housing, low cost affordable housing. There should be a provision for this because of our rural isolation.

Submission 3151/1 requests the following:

A broadening of the definition of clause 12.9.2 to allow for provision of community facilities.

Submission 3152/1 requests the following:

Broadening of Special Purpose sites in clause 12.9.2 is needed because of our rural isolation.

Submission 3508/1 requests the following:

Broaden the definition of clause 12.9.2 to allow for the provision of community facilities, a cultural building, pensioner housing, low cost affordable housing, -there should be provision for this because of our rural isolation.

Submission 78/1 requests the following:

Facilitate this list in clause 12.9.2.1 being more open and flexible to include community based initiatives.

Submission 105/1 requests the following:

That the following be included under clause 12.9.2.1:

All community facilities as currently defined in the Plan at clause 14.1 and the following added:

community cultural buildings
pensioners housing / housing village
low cost/affordable housing /housing village

Submission 174/1 requests the following:

Broaden definitions of clause 12.9.2.1 to allow for provision of community facilities, such as pensioner housing, low cost affordable housing, community activity centre, cultural activity / education centre.

Submissions 1405/23, 1406/23 request the following:

Amend clause 12.9.2.1 to include subdivision for residential and community facilities.

Submissions 247/1, 248/1 request the following:

Broaden the definition of 12.9.2.1 to allow for provision of community facilities.

Submissions 2156/1, 2174/1 request the following:

Add general community facility, educational community facility and Taurahere community facility to clause 12.9.2.1 (provisions for special purpose sites).

Submissions 2423/1, 3032/1, 3069/1, 3070/1, 3124/1 request the following:

Add the following activities to clause 12.9.2.1:

7. General community facilities

8. Educational community facilities.

9. Taurahere community facilities

Submission 2524/1 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.9.2.1 to provide for community facilities.

Submission 2655/1 requests the following:

Broaden the definition of special purpose sites in clause 12.9.2.1 to allow for provision of community facilities including cultural buildings, pensioner housing village, low cost/affordable housing village.

Submission 2717/5 requests the following:

Special purpose lots to be available as they do not seem to be at present and they should override the land unit minimum size. There needs to be a public interest like halls, clubs, maraes, old folks homes, 4000 m2 even 2000m2 for such activities.

Submission 3666/1 requests the following:

There should be a provision made in the plan for where land is gifted to a Charitable Trust that land so gifted should be able to get a title in fee simple by way of subdivision, regardless of whatever land unit or landform (except landform 4, SES or coastal cliffs).

4.51.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.51.2.1 Group 1 submissions

Minimum site sizes are not applied to sites which are created for the access, public works, utility services or consequential land uses which occur as part of a freehold subdivision. eg jointly owned access strip or reserves. These forms of subdivision are considered special purpose sites and are contained in clause 12.9.2.

It is considered that amending clause 12.9.2 to provide for the necessities of continuing / maintaining and expanding settlement areas for future development and the economic implications for Great Barrier is not appropriate as this clause applies only to specific land uses such as a public utility, reserve or jointly owned access lots. The decision requested relates more to the land use rules contained in parts 10b and 10c of the Plan and the minimum site sizes for each land unit and settlement area on Great Barrier Island. Amendments to these parts will be considered in other hearing reports and in the following sections of this hearings report. In the event amendments are made, consequential amendments to Part 12 may be considered necessary and will be addressed accordingly.

For these reasons, it is recommended that the above submissions are rejected as they relate to clause 12.9.2.

4.51.2.2 Group 2 submissions

Special purpose sites apply to specific land uses relating to access, public works, utility services which are often designated, or consequential land uses which occur as part of a freehold subdivision. For example, the creation of an access denial strip, or a jointly owned access site are generally created at the time of a freehold subdivision to ensure that access can be obtained to each site. In addition, the creation of a reserve is a result of section 230 of the RMA which states that:

where any allotment of less than 4 hectares is created when land is subdivided, an esplanade reserve 20 metres in width shall be set aside from that allotment along the mark of mean high water springs of the sea, and along the bank of any river or along the margin of any lake, as the case may be, and shall vest in accordance with section231.

These land uses are for specific purposes which have particular site size requirements and are not related to any other land use activity noted within parts 10a and 10b of the Plan. In addition, the standards and terms contained in clause 12.9.2.2 state:

The following standards and terms apply:

No minimum site area is set for special purpose sites, however any site size must be no greater than is required for the purposes of the site.
Where a special purpose site is no longer required or used for the purpose for which it was subdivided, the land must be re-amalgamated with the land from which it was originally subdivided. This requirement will be secured through a consent notice or other suitable legal instrument that is registered on the title of the land concerned.

The above submissions seek to include additional land uses such as pensioner housing, low cost affordable housing, community facilities, maraes, and educational facilities as part of special purposes sites for Great Barrier Island. This would result in the creation of sites which do not meet minimum site size, and with land uses which are not otherwise provided for in some of the land units. Indeed, many of the land uses requested by the above submissions are provided for at a discretionary level within the residential amenity areas, local retailing area of the settlement areas as well as the Mulbery Grove school and Okiwi school and domain areas but not in any of the rural land units located within the Hauraki Gulf Islands.

Providing for land use activities that are not provided for within the land unit rules can lead to adverse amenity effects, which detract from the character of the environment and undermine the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for the land units. Furthermore, this approach will undermine the purpose of having minimum site sizes, which seek to preserve the natural character of the land units and settlement areas and relate minimum areas based on their physical and natural character, use and potential.

In addition to the above, while consideration is given to the effects of additional built forms that can be created as part of subdivision, to ensure best planning practice, it is not appropriate to include an assessment of land use activities as part of subdivision applications.

Accordingly, land use activities should be assessed as part of the resource management strategy for the land units themselves (parts 10a and 10b of the Plan) rather than at the time of subdivision. This approach will ensure consistency within the rules and ensure that the effects from land use activities are robustly assessed in accordance with the RMA.

To this end, it is considered that special purpose sites should apply only to specific activities which are created as a result of a utility provider or a freehold subdivision. These land uses are for specific purposes that have particular site size requirements.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submission in group 2 are rejected.

In light of the above requests, it appears that many members of the community are unclear as to the intent of special purposes sites. However, it is considered that these submissions do not provide sufficient scope in which amendments can be made to clause 12.9.2.1. Accordingly, amendments may need to be addressed by way of a plan change.

4.51.2.3 Submission 3666/1

Submission 3666/1 requests the following:

In reviewing the above submission in depth, submission 3666/1 requests that provision should be made to subdivide a parcel of land for the purposes of providing for a community facility. This is on the basis that the parcel of land is gifted to a charitable trust.

It is considered that while community facilities can benefit the community, such facilities need to be considered on a case by case basis and in accordance with the rules pertaining to each land unit. As stated in section 4.51.2.2 above, subdividing for the purposes of creating a land unit activity can lead to adverse amenity effects, which detract from the character of the environment and undermine the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for the land units. Furthermore, this approach will undermine the purpose of having minimum site sizes, which seek to preserve the natural character of the land units and settlement areas and relate minimum areas based on their physical and natural character, use and potential.

On this basis, it is considered that subdivision applications should be assessed based on the land's physical and natural character, its use and potential while land use activities should be assessed as part of the resource management strategy for the land units and settlement areas themselves.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submission 3666/1 is rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.9.2

Group 1:
Submissions 129/2, 130/2, 132/2, 172/2, 237/2, 243/2, 241/2, 270/2, 271/2, 272/2, 274/2, 275/2, 242/2, 244/2, 3422/2, 3425/2, 3426/2, 3429/2, 3430/2, 3431/2, 3432/2, 3433/2, 3434/2, 3435/2, 3436/2, 3439/2, 3440/2, 3441/2, 3442/2, 3443/2, 3444/2, 3445/2, 3446/2, 3447/2, 3448/2, 3449/2, 3450/2, 3451/2, 3452/2, 3453/2, 3456/2, 3457/2, 3458/2, 3459/2, 3460/2, 3461/2, 3462/2, 3427/2, 3428/2, 3465/2, 3466/2, 3467/2, 3468/2, 3469/2, 3437/2, 3438/2, 3454/2, 3455/2, 3464/2, 3470/2, 3471/2, 3475/2, 3477/2, 3478/2, 3480/2, 3481/2, 3485/2, 3488/2, 3489/2, 3490/2, 3491/2, 3497/2, 3498/2, 3504/2, 3857/2, 3463/2, 3472/2, 3473/2, 3474/2, 3482/2, 3483/2, 3486/2, 3492/2, 3499/2, 3476/2, 3479/2, 3494/2, 3500/2, 3484/2, 3493/2, 3495/2, 3496/2, 3501/2, 3502/2, 3503/2, 3505/2, 3506/2, 3511/2, 3581/2, 3851/2 are rejected.
Group 2:
Submissions 134/1, 280/2, 452/1, 454/1, 2509/1, 2079/1, 2088/1, 2536/1, 3151/1, 3152/1, 3508/1, 78/1, 105/1, 174/1, 1405/23, 1406/23, 247/1, 248/1, 2156/1, 2174/1, 2423/1, 3032/1, 3069/1, 3070/1, 3124/1, 2524/1, 2655/1, 2717/5 are rejected.
Submission 3666/1 is rejected

4.52 General submissions about clause 12.9.3 (protection of significant environmental features).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 138/2, 618/117, 1288/116, 619/64, 754/76, 859/76, 2670/63, 618/73, 618/75, 1289/31, 2878/78, 619/24, 754/28, 859/28, 1101/24, 1101/6, 1289/7, 2878/75, 1243/89, 1274/10, 1286/75, 1287/10, 1287/24, 1287/26, 1287/3, 1288/47, 1288/52, 2641/70, 2670/24, 2717/2, 3262/1, 3521/139.

4.52.1 Decision requested

Submission 138/2 requests the following:

The creation of a separate subdivisional house site in the northeastern corner of Lot 16 DP52537 (20 Sandford Way), Home Bay, Rakino. (Plan attached to submission shows suggested house site).

Submissions 618/117, 1288/116, 619/64, 754/76, 859/76, 2670/63 request the following:

Clause 12.9.3 needs to be amended so that the rule applies to rural 2 (western landscape) as well as rural 1(rural amenity) and also so that such subdivision remains as a discretionary activity where the requirements of 12.9.3.1 are not met.

Submission 618/73 requests the following:

Amend the SEF (significant environmental feature) rules in clause 12.9.3 to include rural 2 (western landscape) sites (of 3.5ha) and to provide for bonus density development regimes for rural 2 sites over 5ha.

Submissions 618/75, 1289/31, 2878/78 request the following:

Include provisions for a bonus density approach to rural land use and subdivision whereby an appropriate density is determined by a ratio in relation to sustainability and management enhancements including areas of protected land, open space and land management and enhancement proposals including re-plantings of native vegetation and management of water systems. Thus for every 1 ha of additional significant environmental feature type outcome secured beyond a baseline requirement of 50% of parent site sustainably managed/protected/enhanced one additional lot is enabled.

Submissions 619/24, 754/28, 859/28 request the following:

The proposed provisions should be amended to allow for a bonus density approach within clause 12.9.3 (similar to the methodology (but not detail) in the operative Plan for land unit 22).

Submission 1101/24 requests the following:

Beyond the baseline minimum lot size areas in Table 12.2 include provisions providing a bonus density approach to rural land use and subdivision whereby an appropriate density is determined by a ratio in relation to Sustainability and Management Enhancements including areas of protected land, open space and land management and enhancement proposals including re-plantings of native vegetation and management of water systems. Thus for every 1 ha of additional significant environmental feature type outcome secured beyond a baseline requirement of 50% of parent site sustainably managed/protected/enhanced two addition lots beyond the Table 12.2 density regime is enabled.

Submissions 1101/6, 1289/7, 2878/75 request the following:

Amend the SEF (significant environmental feature) rules in clause 12.9.3 to include rural 1 sites (of 1ha and 1.5ha) and to provide for bonus density development regimes for rural 1 sites over 4ha.

Submission 1286/75 requests the following:

The significance environmental feature rules for Rural 1 land in clause 12.9.3 be amended to provide for lot size areas of 1 ha and 1.5ha respectively and to also include provision for bonus density development regimes for Rural 1 sites over 4ha.

Submission 1287/10 requests the following:

Clause 12.9.3 be amended to allow for a bonus density approach (similar to the method in the operative plan for land unit 22) .

Submission 1287/24 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.9.3 to include Rural 2 land with a minimum area and a 3.5ha average, and a baseline requirement of 50% of the parent site sustainably managed/protected/enhanced.

Submission 1287/26 requests the following:

A bonus density regime should be applied to rural 2 (western landscape) sites (table 12.2 and clause 12.9.3). Beyond the baseline minimum lot size areas in table 12.2 (as modified by the submitters separate submission) the Plan should include provision whereby an appropriate density is determined by a ratio in relation to sustainability and management enhancements including areas of protected land, open space and land management and enhancement proposals including re-plantings of native vegetation and management of water systems. Thus for every 1 ha of additional significant environmental feature type outcome secured beyond a baseline requirement of 50% of parent site sustainably managed/protected/enhanced one addition lots beyond the (submitters proposed) Table 12.2 density regime is enabled.

Submission 1288/52 requests the following:

Allow for a bonus density approach within clause 12.9.3 (similar to the methodology but not detail in the Operative Plan for land unit 22). That approach should enable a higher density beyond that defined by a significant environmental feature type subdivision so that where cluster housing is proposed there can be more household units within a clearly defined set of environmental and strategic outcomes.

Submission 2670/24 requests the following:

The proposed provisions should be amended to allow for a bonus density approach within clause 12.9.3 and consequentially clause 12.9.4 (similar to the methodology (but not detail in the Operative Plan for land unit 22).

Submission 1287/3 requests the following:

The provisions set out in clause 12.9.3 are supported to the extent that the overarching principle of that approach is adopted in the Plan. The proposed provisions need amendment and extension so that a number of linked provisions are better framed to achieve sustainable development and so that the provisions apply more widely.

Submission 1288/47 requests the following:

The proposed subdivision opportunity for subdivisions using rule 12.9.3 is supported to the extent that the principle of the approach is adopted in the Plan. The proposed provisions need amendment so that a number of linked provisions are better framed to achieve sustainable development.

Submission 2641/70 requests the following:

Retain the provisions relating to the protection of significant environmental features(s) in clause 12.9.3.

Submission 3262/1 requests the following:

That the clause 12.9.3 (12.9.3.1, 12.9.3.2 and 12.9.3.3) remain unaltered.

Submission 1243/89 requests the following:

Retain clause 12.9.3.

Submission 2717/2 requests the following:

Protection of significant environmental feature should be non notified.

Submission 3521/139 requests the following:

Add criteria to clause 12.9.3 that specify what should be considered a significant environmental feature.

Submission 1274/10 requests the following:

To confirm, in writing, that with the scheduling of the heritage items in the proposed Plan the archaeological features will have not already been "protected" and thus the option to "protect" these features in exchange for subdivision under the discretion lost (refer Table 12.2).

4.52.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.52.2.1 Submission 138/2

The Plan has scheduled a homestead (33-2 - Standford homestead); a stone working area (33-3); a wharf/jetty/landing (33-4) and the site surrounds of these areas on the subject site. While the submitter supports the scheduling of the homestead, the submitter considers that an additional site should be created on this site, given that there will be a negative effect on the resale value of the site and the financial responsibility of the owner to restore and/or maintain the scheduled sites.

In responding to the above submission, it should be noted that the subject site is located in rural 3 (Rakino) which is not subject to clause 12.9.3 (Protection of significant environmental features) nor it is anticipated that clause 12.9.3 will be applied to rural 3.

For this reason, it is recommended that submission 138/2 is rejected as it relates to clause 12.9.3.

Notwithstanding the above recommendation, it is noted that while rural 3 is not subject to clause 12.9.3 nor can the 4.4044ha site meet the minimum site size for rural 3 (being 3.0ha), the Act does not preclude the submitter or any potential purchaser from applying for a non-complying activity consent. Such subdivision applications will be assessed on their merits and in accordance with the gateway tests in section 104D of the RMA.

4.52.2.2 Group 1: Submissions 618/117, 1288/116, 619/64, 754/76, 859/76, 2670/63, 618/73, 618/75, 1289/31, 2878/78, 619/24, 754/28, 859/28, 1101/24, 1101/6, 1289/7, 2878/75, 1286/75, 1287/10, 1287/24, 1287/26, 1288/52, 2670/24

In reviewing the above submissions, there are three key matters which need to be addressed as part of the planner's analysis and recommendation of these submission. These are as follows:

The inclusion of Rural 2 (western landscape) within clause 12.9.3

As stated in section 4.9.2.1 above, land subject to rural 2 was previously classified as land unit 22 (western landscape) (Owhanake, Church Bay, Park Point) in the proposed Plan and has been subdivided to its full potential through historical comprehensive rural development. Similarly, the subdivision potential at Te Whau Peninsula has also been realised through comprehensive subdivision proposals as outlined in section 8.7.3 of the operative Plan.

As part of the comprehensive rural development for these areas, building platforms were located on each site and bonus density provisions for this land unit enabled the following:

Bonus Density Provisions For Land Unit 22

Application may be made for a subdivision which provides for lots at a density greater than that specified in terms of Rule 8.7.4.B(a) up to a maximum density of 1 lot per 3.5 ha of gross land area of the site. For each additional lot which increases the lot ratio below that provided for in Rule 8.7.4.B(a) an additional 2 hectares of public open space, reserve, protected area or protected significant natural feature shall be provided. Any application shall be considered in terms of the following criteria:

i) Whether the proposed subdivision is likely to minimise the impact of buildings in the rural landscape. In that regard discretely located clusters rather than a widely dispersed pattern of buildings is considered more likely to meet this criteria, and

ii) Whether or not the subdivision is likely to lead to buildings being located in a manner which will detract from the character of the coastal landscape or coastal environment, and

iii) Whether the proposed subdivision facilitates the protection of soils of high actual or potential productivity or whether it is likely to lead to cumulative impacts, permanently or significantly affecting such high actual or potential productivity, and

iv) The extent of protection proposed as part of the subdivision application and the nature and extent of the protective legal instruments, and v) Whether the proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Western Waiheke SMA resource management strategy.

Consequently, large portions of these sites, including significant natural features are already protected through legal mechanisms. Any remaining pockets of land which are not covenanted can be used for productive purposes as outlined in the objectives and policies for the land unit.

For this reason, it is considered that the rural 2 land unit will generally not be able to meet the standards and terms of significant environmental feature subdivision (refer to clause 12.9.3.3). These standards and terms seek to protect features which already which make a significant contribution to the quality of the local natural environment and amenity (refer to definition in Part 14) and which are not already protected by legal instruments.

In addition, it is considered that significantly reducing the minimum site sizes in rural 2 (e.g. 3.5ha as per submission 1287/24) in order to vegetate and covenant further land will not reflect the objectives and policies which seek to provide for the continued operation of existing rural-residential activities, including small-scale rural uses.

With regard to Thompsons Point, the rules and specific assessment criteria for this rural 2 area focus upon preserving natural character and amenity values of the land unit and wider coastal environment with particular regard to the pattern of indigenous vegetation, productive rural land, low impact design and placement of buildings within the environment. Revegetation of indigenous vegetation is also assessed as well as the extent to which protective legal instruments are proposed.

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the operative and proposed Plan provisions would not achieve the best outcomes on this site. However, the landowner's proposal may not be the most appropriate either. Overall, it will require further discussion with the landowner (preferably all landowners on Thompsons Point) in order to address it more appropriately in the Plans.

For these reasons, it is recommended that the group 1 submissions as they relate to rural 2 are rejected.

Bonus density provisions (particularly in rural 1 and 2 land units)

Bonus density provisions have been analysed in section 4.22.2 above where it is considered that such relief would fail to be consistent with the resource management strategy and objectives and policies of each land unit, including rural 1 and rural 2, which seek to ensure that landscape and amenity values are not adversely affected. Therefore, while environmental protection and enhancement is a positive effect that is generated on the environment, the effects of higher densities (additional built forms and the modification of the environment) may adversely affect the landscape character of the area. By introducing additional built forms based solely on a quantitative area subject to protection does not consider the effects on landscape amenity.

For these reasons, it is recommended that the decision sought by group 1 with respect to bonus density provisions is rejected.

Discretionary activity status where clause 12.9.3.1 are not met

Submissions 618/117, 1288/116, 619/64, 754/76, 859/76, 2670/63 also request that where subdivision applications under clause 12.9.3 do not meet the standard and terms contained in 12.9.3.1, then the application remains a discretionary activity as opposed to a non-complying activity in accordance with clause 12.10 of the Plan.

Clause 12.9.3.1 outlines the specific standards and terms that are required to be met in order for a proposal to protect significant environmental features to be a discretionary activity. In accordance with clause 12.10, if a proposal cannot meet these standards and terms, then the application becomes a non-complying activity.

It is considered that these standards and terms are not onerous nor are they subjective. They serve to answer commonly asked questions and outline the information required before council can consider the application under the Act. By changing the activity status of an application if it does not meet one or more of the standards and terms, demonstrates that the application is potentially outside the scope of this form of subdivision and therefore requires an assessment against the relevant objectives and policies, as required by section 104D of the RMA.

This approach is to encourage compliance with the standards and terms and ensure that applicants applying for this form of subdivision are aware, that in order for a council to consider a marked reduction in density, they must have a significant environmental feature worthy of protection. Accordingly, evidence must be provided which supports the application and ensures that there will be on-going protection and enhancement of the protected feature.

For these reasons, it is recommended that the decision sought by submissions 618/117, 1288/116, 619/64, 754/76, 859/76, 2670/63 with respect to the activity status of subdivisions under clause 12.9.3 are rejected.

4.52.2.3 Submissions 1287/3 and 1288/47

Submissions 1287/3 and 1288/47 being considered in this section of the report are too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to clause 12.9.3. In addition, the decision sought does not specifically identify any changes needed to clause 12.9.3 so that " a number of linked provisions are better framed to achieve sustainable development ". Accordingly, the above submitters are invited to provide clarification at the hearing as to how clause 12.9.3 should be amended in order to achieve the decision sought.

Throughout the hearing process the council will consider submissions which seek that specific rules be eliminated or relaxed; these submissions may seek to achieve a more proactive approach to sustainable development that is being sought by submissions 1287 and 1288. Indeed, submissions 1287 and 1288 also recommend changes to other clauses in Part 12 and subparts of the Plan. These decisions sought will be considered in the following sections of this report and in other hearing reports.

In the event amendments are made to other clauses and/or subparts of the Plan, consequential amendments to clause 12.9.3 may be considered necessary and will be addressed accordingly.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 1287/3 and 1288/47 are rejected.

4.52.2.4 Submissions 2641/70, 3262/1 and 1243/89

Submissions 2641/70, 3262/1 and 1243/89 seek to retain all provisions in clause 12.9.3.

As stated in the section 32 report, the standards and terms and specific assessment criteria in clauses 12.9.3.3, 12.9.4.3, 12.12.1 and 12.12.2 of the Plan ensure that the features are of a quality and maturity that are worthy of protection. The ensuing criteria ensure that the creation of such sites do not adversely affect the landscape character and amenity value of the site and wider visual catchment. Such forms of subdivision must involve specialist reports and include an on-going management programme that details any protection and enhancement for the feature(s) subject to protection.

Therefore, the provisions in clause 12.9.3 seek to protect areas of high environmental and heritage value while provide thresholds over which features become eligible for protection. The visual effects of reducing site sizes are also addressed specifically within the criteria so that the landscape character of the land unit(s) and amenity value of environment are not adversely affected.

Protecting, and where possible, enhancing these areas, is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Act as set out within sections 6(b), 6(c), 6(e) 6(f), 7(f) and section 8.

For these reasons, it is recommended that the provisions in clause are retained and submissions 2641/70, 3262/1 and 1243/89 are accepted.

Notwithstanding the above, decisions sought by other submissions will be considered in the following sections of this report and the council may make some amendments in response. In the event amendments are made, consequential amendments to clause 12.9.3 may be considered necessary and will be addressed accordingly.

4.52.2.5 Submission 2717/2

Submission 2717/2 requests that subdivision for the protection of environmental features should be non-notified.

In responding to the above submission, it should be noted that a Plan cannot state that a discretionary activity is non-notified. This contravenes the purpose of such an activity which requires an effects assessment pursuant to sections 93 and 94 of the Act. In addition, each application must be assessed on its merits and on a case by case basis. This enables the consent authority to notify a discretionary application (limited or full) depending on the assessment of effects and grant or refuse this type of application. If it chooses to grant consent, then it may impose conditions.

In order to make subdivision for the protection of environmental features non-notified, the Plan will need to change the activity status to a restricted discretionary activity and in accordance with section 94D(2) and (3) of the Act, the application will be considered without public notification or the need to obtain written approval of or serve notice on affected parties.

This approach applies only to restricted discretionary activities whereby:

The council has restricted its discretion to aspects of an activity which are unlikely to cause adverse environmental effects to a particular party (such as a neighbouring landowner); and
Where the council has restricted its discretion to aspects of an activity where any adverse environmental effects can be adequately addressed by the applicant and the council without third party involvement.

It is not considered appropriate for subdivisions for the purposes of protecting significant environmental features to be restricted discretionary activities and subject to section 94D(2) and 94D(3) of the Act. This is because the effects of reducing minimum site size and modifying the environment through additional built forms has the potential to generate adverse amenity effects which detract from the character of the wider environment and undermine the resource management strategy, objectives and policies for the land unit.

These types of effects can potentially affect specific parties as well as the wider environment. Accordingly, this form of subdivision cannot be restricted to specific matters of discretion which are unlikely to cause adverse environmental effects to a particular party, nor could council be satisfied that the matters of discretion can be adequately addressed by the applicant and the council without third party involvement.

It is recommended that the activity status remain discretionary as this will provide a better understanding of the nature of the proposal, achieve integrated resource management outcomes and effectively assess the actual and potential effects of the proposed development.

For these reason, it is recommended that submission 2717/2 is rejected.

4.52.2.6 Submission 3521/139

Submission 3521/139 generally supports the objectives and rules for subdivision for the protection of environmental features however, submission 3521 suggests that criteria are developed which assist in determining whether a site is considered significant. This will also require the definition of a Significant Environmental Feature in Part 14 of the Plan to be amended.

Submission 3521 states:

The Significant Environmental Feature (SEF) subdivision provisions allow substantial benefits to the property owner and these need to be balanced with the benefits received from protection of environmental features. More specific criteria will both help to guide landowners as to whether it is worth applying for the protection of significant environmental features, as well as create some overall guidelines that can be used both by council planners and ecological consultants.

The decision sought by the above submission is supported. The definition of an SEF in Part 14 states:

means either of the following:

The whole of any distinct natural feature or landscape which makes a significant contribution to the quality of the local natural environment and amenity.
Any feature of archaeological, historical or cultural significance.
It may include one or more of the following:
any site of ecological significance scheduled in the Plan
a water system
a habitat for indigenous species
an association of indigenous vegetation
a landform (including any significant ridgeline identified on the planning maps)\
an ecological corridor
a visually significant area or group of areas
any item scheduled in the Plan for its archaeological, historical or cultural significance.

The above definition defines what can constitute an SEF however, it does not identify any thresholds over which these features become significant and therefore eligible for protection. This can create confusion and inconsistencies between landowners, planners and experts in their assessment of whether features are 'significant' and eligible for protection.

It is noted that Appendix 4 outlines criteria for scheduling heritage items which include archaeological sites, buildings, objects, properties and places of special value, conservation areas, site of ecological significance, geological items and trees. It is therefore recommended that clause 12.9.3 is amended to reference the criteria contained in Appendix 4. This will provide landowners, council planners and experts with relevant criteria in which to assess whether features are significant and in accordance with the definition contained in Part 14.

On this basis, it is recommended that submission 3521/139 is accepted and that clause 12.9.3.3(2) is amended to reference the criteria contained in Appendix 4 as follows:

2. An appropriately qualified, independent person must prepare a report certifying that:

a. Any existing indigenous vegetation is of a quality and maturity that is self-sustaining and worthy of preservation. The criteria contained in Appendix 4 (Criteria for scheduling heritage items) must be used in determining whether these features are significant and therefore eligible for protection.

b. Any natural feature or area to be retired from active farming is able to be managed in a way that preserves and enhances its existing ecological, heritage and/or landscape value.

c. Any feature of archaeological, historical or cultural significance is of such significance to the community as to warrant its preservation in the public interest. The criteria contained in Appendix 4 (Criteria for scheduling heritage items) must be used in determining whether these features are significant and therefore eligible for protection.

d. Any significant environmental feature will not be adversely affected by the impact of development associated with the subdivision.

This criteria can be used in determining whether an environmental feature is significant as defined in Part 14 of the Plan.

4.52.2.7 Submission 1274/10

Submission 1274/10 requests written confirmation that the scheduled archaeological site S 11/0074 (map reference 25-8) on their property can still be considered a significant environmental feature (SEF) in accordance with clause 12.9.3 (Protection of significant environmental features). Submission 1274/10 is concerned that because this item is already protected under the Plan, this will preclude the feature being considered a SEF particularly as clause 12.9.3.3(3) states:

Any area to be covenanted that is already scheduled in the Plan as a site of ecological significance (SES) or sensitive area (SA) or identified as an outstanding natural landscape (ONL) in a regional policy statement will not necessarily be considered a significant environmental feature under this clause. Any SES, SA or ONL must be accurately surveyed to ensure its true location on any proposed site. The council may also require certification of the SES, SA or ONL recommended for protection.

In responding to submission 1274/10, the following comments are made:

In accordance with the definition of Significant Environmental Feature in Part 14 of the Plan, heritage features can be deemed to be a significant environmental feature for the purposes of clause 12.9.3. In addition, any heritage feature scheduled in the Plan can be considered an SEF irrespective of whether the feature is already protected in the Plan. The Plan only precludes those SEF features which have already been legally protected as a condition of a resource consent or a subdivision consent (refer to 12.9.3.3(6)).

For clarification, clause 12.9.3.3(3) does not reference heritage sites; Sensitive Areas (SA), Sites of Ecological Significance (SES) and Outstanding Natural Landscapes (ONL) are typically areas of sensitive ecology or landscapes with unique features (as defined in Proposed Change 8 to the Auckland Regional Statement: Volcanic Features and Landscape).

In addition, the purpose of clause 12.9.3.3(3) is to state that in certain circumstances, features (being Sites of Ecological Significance, Sensitive Areas and Outstanding Natural Landscapes) that are scheduled in the Plan or a regional Plan may not meet the definition of a SEF under clause 12.9.3. For example, Proposed Change 8 to the Auckland Regional Statement: Volcanic Features and Landscape, identifies areas within the gulf that are noted as Outstanding Natural Landscapes (ONLs).

The plan change identifies two types of ONL: "wild nature" and "cultured nature". Wild nature is where there is little or no evidence of human presence or modification and indigenous vegetation patterns dominate. Those areas identified on Great Barrier Island and parts of the areas identified on Waiheke as ONL's would fall into this category. Cultured nature is where the land cover may be modified from bush into pasture, or there is a picturesque mix of bush and pastoral land with an absence of or minimal presence of human artifacts or buildings.

While some ONLs will meet the definition of a significant environmental feature, cultured nature ONLs may not meet the definition. Therefore clause 12.9.3.3(3) serves to advise people that certain protected sites in the Plan and/or Auckland Regional Statement may not meet the definition of an SEF in Part 14 and that certification from an expert may still be required. This will ensure that such forms of subdivisions are granted on the basis that the feature(s) contributes significantly to the environment and there are adequate measures which mitigate the effects from additional built forms.

Upon reading submission 1274 in detail, the submitters have previously sought advice from Council to subdivide their 11.1249ha property for the purposes of protecting the heritage feature and mature podocarp forest on their site. This advice was sought prior to the heritage site being scheduled in the Plan. At this time, the submitter was aware that the proposed subdivision could not meet the average site size (7.5ha) and would require consent for a non-complying activity. As the Plan has not reduced the average site size in table 12.2 for subdividing under clause 12.9.3, the proposal will also require non-complying activity consent in accordance with 12.10 of the Plan.

The submitter has requested that council " may wish to factor the site of archaeological significance into its consideration as to whether to use its discretion and permit a non-complying subdivision ".

Should the submitter wish to lodge an application for the purposes of protecting the heritage site and significant vegetation, the council will factor the scheduled site of archaeological significance into its consideration of the application. However, like all non-complying activities the subdivision application will be assessed on its merits and in accordance with the objectives and policies as outlined in section 104D of the RMA. It is not considered appropriate to anticipate that the scheduling of the archaeological site will ensure that such an application will be granted consent as each application must be assessed on a case by case basis.

In light of the above, it is recommended that submission 1274/10 is accepted in part with no changes made to the Plan. This is because the discretion to apply for subdivision under 12.9.3 as a non-complying activity has not been lost. Any application will be assessed on it merits and in accordance with section 104D of the Act.

Planner's recommendations about general submissions pertaining to clause 12.9.3

1. Submission 138/2 is rejected.
2. Submissions 618/117, 1288/116, 619/64, 754/76, 859/76, 2670/63, 618/73, 618/75, 1289/31, 2878/78, 619/24, 754/28, 859/28, 1101/24, 1101/6, 1289/7, 2878/75, 1286/75, 1287/10, 1287/24, 1287/26, 1288/52, 2670/24 as they relate to the inclusion of rural 2 in clause 12.9.3 are rejected.
3. Submissions 618/117, 1288/116, 619/64, 754/76, 859/76, 2670/63, 618/73, 618/75, 1289/31, 2878/78, 619/24, 754/28, 859/28, 1101/24, 1101/6, 1289/7, 2878/75, 1286/75, 1287/10, 1287/24, 1287/26, 1288/52, 2670/24 with respect to bonus density provisions are rejected.
Submissions 618/117, 1288/116, 619/64, 754/76, 859/76, 2670/63 as they relate to the activity status of subdivisions under clause 12.9.3 are rejected.
Submissions 1287/3 and 1288/47 are rejected.
Submissions 2641/70, 3262/1 and 1243/89 are accepted.
Submission 2717/2 is rejected.
Submission 3521/139 is accepted and clause 12.9.3.3(2) of the Plan is amended to include specific criteria contained in Appendix 4 as follows:
1. An appropriately qualified, independent person must prepare a report certifying that:
  1. Any existing indigenous vegetation is of a quality and maturity that is self-sustaining and worthy of preservation. The criteria contained in Appendix 4 (Criteria for scheduling heritage items) must be used in determining the standards over which these features become significant and therefore eligible for protection.
  2. Any natural feature or area to be retired from active farming is able to be managed in a way that preserves and enhances its existing ecological, heritage and/or landscape value.
  3. Any feature of archaeological, historical or cultural significance is of such significance to the community as to warrant its preservation in the public interest. The criteria contained in Appendix 4 (Criteria for scheduling heritage items) must be used in determining whether these features are significant and therefore eligible for protection.
  4. Any significant environmental feature will not be adversely affected by the impact of development associated with the subdivision.
Submission 1274/10 is accepted in part with no changes made to the Plan.

4.53 Submissions about clause 12.9.3.1 (Provisions for subdivision for the protection of significant environmental features).

Submission dealt with in this section: 3521/141.

4.53.1 Decision requested

Submission 3521/141 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.9.3.1 by adding the following:

"It will not always be appropriate to subdivide to the minimum site size or minimum average site size, as sometimes the activity of subdivision may adversely affect the item being protected. The discretion to determine the appropriate site size will ultimately rest with Council".

4.53.2 Planners analysis and recommendation

The above decision is not supported as it is subjective in nature and resembles a criterion. By having discretion to consider minimum and average site sizes at it relates to each subdivision proposal is open to a variety of different interpretations and does not provide certainly over the extent to which the subdivision for the purposes of significant environmental features can be undertaken within the environment.

This approach also fails to take into consideration that minimum and average site sizes contained in tables 12.1 and 12.2 are based not only on the physical characteristics of the land and its capacity to integrate development impacts, but also on the natural character, visual character and amenity values that contribution to the land units and the overall character of the Hauraki Gulf Islands

This is because the effects of reducing minimum site size and modifying the environment through additional built forms can result in adverse amenity effects which detract from the character of the wider environment and undermine the resource management strategy, objectives and policies for the land unit.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submission 3521/141 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about general submissions pertaining to clause 12.9.3.1

Submission 3521/141 be rejected.

4.54 Submissions about clause 12.9.3.3 (standards and terms for subdivision for the protection of significant environmental features)

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/78, 619/21, 1288/49, 2670/21, 1287/5, 618/81, 619/26, 1288/54, 2670/25, 1287/12, 618/82, 619/27, 1287/13, 1288/55, 2670/26, 618/83, 619/28, 754/32, 859/32, 1287/14, 1288/56, 2670/27, 618/118, 1288/117, 619/65, 2670/64, 618/119, 1288/118, 619/66, 754/79, 859/79, 2670/65, 618/120, 1288/119, 619/67, 754/80, 859/80, 2670/66, 618/121, 1288/120, 619/68, 754/81, 859/81, 2670/67, 618/122, 1288/121, 619/69, 754/82, 859/82, 2670/68, 754/23, 754/24, 859/23, 754/30, 859/30, 754/31, 859/31, 754/77, 859/77, 754/78, 859/78, 859/24, 2643/9, 2644/10.

4.54.1 Decision requested

Group 1

Submissions 618/78, 619/21, 1288/49, 2670/21, 1287/5 request the following:

With respect to clause 12.9.3.3 notes conflict with the requirement that all areas be net site areas. Not clear as to the reference to 'gross area' and whether that is in relation to 'parent site' or 'proposed sites'. Also the requirement that 'each site' must include the SEF and balance area is unworkable and inconsistent with anticipated outcomes and purposes.

Submissions 754/23, 754/24, 859/23 request the following:

Clause 12.9.3.3 is in itself not clear as to the reference to gross area and whether that is in relation to parent site or proposed sites.

Submission 859/24 requests the following:

The requirement that each site must include the significant environmental feature and balance area is unworkable and inconsistent with anticipated outcomes and the purposes of the provisions.

Submissions 754/78, 859/78 request the following:

In the proposed wording of clause 12.9.3.3 the reference to site is unclear as to whether it means existing site or proposed site.

Group 2

Submissions 618/82, 619/27, 1287/13, 1288/55, 2670/26 request the following:

Amend clause 12.9.3.3 so that where land has already been voluntarily protected by some legal instrument it may still qualify as part of the significant environmental feature process if a proposal increases the level of protection - such as vesting land in council as reserve.

Submissions 754/31, 859/31 request the following:

Clause 12.9.3.3 needs an amendment so that where land has already been voluntarily protected by some legal instrument it may still qualify as part of the significant environmental feature process if a proposal increases the level of protection - such as vesting land in council as a reserve.

Submissions 618/121, 1288/120, 619/68, 754/81, 859/81, 2670/67 request the following:

Clause 12.9.3.3(5) should be amended to allow for vesting in registered entities such as Forest and Bird or similar public good type organisations or community groups.

Submissions 618/122, 1288/121, 619/69, 754/82, 859/82, 2670/68 request the following:

Clause 12.9.3.3(6) should be amended so that where a higher level of security is offered (such as vesting as reserve) existing protected significant environmental features can still be used for the purposes of the rule.

Group 3

Submissions 618/118, 1288/117, 619/65, 2670/64 request the following:

Clause 12.9.3.3 needs to be amended so that the land subject to an application under the rules does not need to include the entirety of any significant environmental feature but must have at least 50% of the parent site or property to be subdivided falling within the definition of one or more significant environmental features. In the proposed wording the reference to 'site' is unclear as to whether it means existing site or proposed site.

Submissions 754/77, 859/77 request the following:

Group 4

Submissions 618/81, 619/26, 1288/54, 2670/25, 1287/12 request the following:

Remove subjective wording from clause 12.9.3.3(3).

Submissions 618/120, 1288/119, 619/67, 754/80, 859/80, 2670/66 request the following:

Clause 12.9.3.3(3) needs to amended so that it is not subjective and open to mis-interpretation.

Submissions 754/30, 859/30 request the following:

Clause 12.9.3 also needs amendment to remove subjective wording from clause 12.9.3.3(3) which applies a subjective assessment and removes certainty from the provisions.

Submissions 618/119, 1288/118, 619/66, 754/79, 859/79, 2670/65 request the following:

Clause 12.9.3.3(2) needs to be amended so that it directly reflects the amended definition of significant environmental feature that the submitter seeks.

Submissions 618/83, 619/28, 754/32, 859/32, 1287/14, 1288/56, 2670/27 request the following:

Clause 12.9.3.3(2)(b) requires consequential amendment as it implies there is a connection between cessation of active farming and qualifying for consideration as a significant environmental feature but does not link across into any consideration of proposed plantings.

Submissions 2643/9, 2644/10 request the following:

To confirm, in writing, that with the Scheduling of the Heritage items in the Plan the "significant environmental features" will have not already been "protected" and thus the option to "protect" these features in exchange for subdivision under the discretion lost (refer Table 12.2)

4.54.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.54.2.1 Group 1: Submissions 618/78, 619/21, 1288/49, 2670/21, 1287/5, 754/23, 754/24, 859/23, 859/24 and 754/78, 859/78.

The above submissions raise three matters which require analysis and a recommendation. These are as follows:

Reference to gross area and its relationship to parent or proposed sites (clause 12.9.3.3(1))

The above submissions state that clause 12.9.3.3(1) is unclear as to the reference to 'gross area' and whether this is in relation to the "parent site' or 'proposed site'.

It is considered that, the query raised by the above submissions does require clarification in the Plan. Clause 12.9.3.3(1) relates to each proposed site however, this is not clear in the clause.

To help resolve this conflict and provide greater clarity, it is recommended that submissions 618/78, 619/21, 1288/49, 2670/21, 1287/5, 754/23, 754/24, 859/23, 859/24 and 754/78, 859/78 as they relate to clause 12.9.3.3(1) are accepted and clause 12.9.3.3(1) in the Plan is amended to include the word ' proposed '.

The requirement that each proposed site must include the SEF.

Some of the group 1 submissions consider that the requirement that each site must include the significant environmental feature is "unworkable and inconsistent with anticipated outcomes and purposes ".

Clause 12.9.3.3(1) currently states that the gross area of each proposed site must include an area containing the SEF however, it does not state the extent to which the parent site or proposed sites must contain an SEF, nor does this clause take into consideration that certain significant environmental features such as heritage sites are more discrete in their spatial location. This results in proposals seeking to protect heritage sites requiring consent for a non-complying activity as not all proposed sites may be able to contain parts of the feature.

It is accepted that without identifying the extent to which the parent site or proposed site must contain a SEF, does not help guide landowners in determining whether it is worth applying for the protection of significant environmental features. Accordingly, the assessment becomes a subjective one as landowners, experts and council planners determine whether each proposed site contains a satisfactory amount of a SEF.

It should be noted that the spatial extent of the SEF on each proposed site is considered as part of the specific assessment criteria contained in clause 12.12.1(1) which assesses the extent to which the features themselves mitigate the impacts of building development within the landscape however, there is no standard and term which identifies the extent to which an SEF must be contained on each proposed site.

In addition, it is recognised that the spatial extent of an SEF is an important consideration of each application, particularly if the feature itself is relied upon to mitigate the effects of additional built forms in the landscape. For example, protecting 200m ² of indigenous bush on a predominately open site may not adequately mitigate the effects of additional built forms in the landscape. Therefore while the bush is considered an SEF, its lack of spread may result in the proposal not being able to meet the specific criteria in clause 12.12.1 which assesses the visual effects of additional built forms within the landscape.

Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the requirement that each proposed site must contain part of the SEF is dependent on the type of feature that is being protected. In certain circumstances this standard and term will be impractical and would result in applications seeking consent and which meet the majority of standards and terms and assessment criteria, being non-complying activities.

Therefore, it is considered that by stating that each proposed site must contain part of the SEF does not recognise that the significance of a feature is based on its quality and/or its importance for preservation in the public interest. Such an approach would exclude many SEFs such as geological and heritage sites that have significance but which are contained in smaller areas.

On this basis, is recommended that group 1 submissions are accepted and clause 12.9.3.3(1) is amended so the requirement that each site must contain a SEF is removed. As a consequential amendment, it is recommended that the word "gross" is removed from the standard given that there is no requirement which requires an SEF to be located on all sites. This approach will also provide consistency with 'net site area' as referenced throughout the Plan.

Accordingly, clause 12.9.3.3(1) is amended as follows:

1. The ~~gross~~ area of each proposed site must meet the standards for minimum and average site areas specified in table 12.2 ~~include the area containing the significant environmental feature and the balance area~~ ~~(seetable 12.2:~~ (Minimum site areas for protecting significant environmental features).

Gross site area versus net site area

Tables 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 of the Plan state that all site areas (minimum and average) are net site areas. As stated in section 4.12 above, it is recommended that net site area remain in the Plan due to the lack of development potential of entrance strips. Indeed, long entrance strips can comprise a large area of land but given the narrow width of entrance strips, there is very little or no area in which to construct a building or utilise the area for wastewater disposal (refer to section 4.5.2 above). Therefore, the purpose of entrance strips is to provide access to sites.

Gross site area was used only in clause 12.9.3.3 of the Plan and it relates to the area containing the significant environmental feature on each proposed site. However, as it has been recommended that this requirement is removed, then the term "gross" site does not need to be referenced in this clause.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 618/78, 619/21, 1288/49, 2670/21, 1287/5, 754/23, 754/24, 859/23, 859/24 and 754/78, 859/78 as they relate to gross site area and net site areas are accepted and the recommendations outlined above are included in part 12.9.3.3(1).

4.54.2.2 Group 2: Submissions 618/82, 619/27, 1287/13, 1288/55, 2670/26, 754/31, 859/31, 618/121, 1288/120, 619/68, 754/81, 859/81, 2670/67 and 618/122, 1288/121, 619/69, 754/82, 859/82, 2670/68

The above submissions raise two matters which require analysis and recommendations.

These are as follows:

Land that has voluntarily been protected

Clause 12.9.3.3(6) states:

6. Significant environmental features may only be used under these rules where those features have not already been legally protected as a condition of a resource consent or a subdivision consent. However, allowances can be made for voluntary covenanting.

The above clause states that where there has already being voluntarily covenanting of a significant feature(s), then this area may also be used for the purposes of subdivision under clauses 12.9.3 and 12.9.4 (cluster subdivision).

Therefore, the panel and the above submissions can be satisfied that the decision sought is already provided for in the Plan. As such, submissions 618/82, 619/27, 1287/13, 1288/55, 2670/26, 754/31, 859/31, 618/121, 1288/120, 619/68, 754/81, 859/81, 2670/67 and 618/122, 1288/121, 619/69, 754/82, 859/82, 2670/68 as they relate to voluntary covenanting are accepted in part however, no amendments to the Plan are recommended.

Protecting land by means other than a covenant

Group 2 submissions have requested that clause 12.9.3.3 (particularly 12.9.3.3(5)) be amended to allow for the vesting of a significant environmental feature (SEF) as a reserve or in registered entities such as Forest and Bird or similar public good type organisations or community groups.

In responding to the above, it is necessary to turn to clause 12.9.3.3(5) which states:

5. Legal protection of the feature(s) must be secured through a consent notice or another suitable legal instrument that is registered on the title of the land concerned. Legal protection may also be achieved through a QEII National Trust Covenant, a covenant with council, a conservation covenant under section 77 of the Reserves Act or by vesting in a public authority or the crown as a public reserve. All costs associated with meeting this requirement must be met by the applicant.

The above clause states that legal protection of the feature(s) can be achieved through other mechanisms. Accordingly, submissions seeking SEF's to be vested as council reserve can be satisfied that this is an option which is available, subject to council's approval, under this clause.

With regard to the vesting of a significant environmental feature in registered entities such as Forest and Bird or similar public good type organisations or community groups, it is considered that that such groups should be included in this clause as they may in certain circumstances have the resources to undertake adequate on-going monitoring and enhancement of the feature(s).

On this basis, it is recommended that submissions 618/82, 619/27, 1287/13, 1288/55, 2670/26, 754/31, 859/31, 618/121, 1288/120, 619/68, 754/81, 859/81, 2670/67 and 618/122, 1288/121, 619/69, 754/82, 859/82, 2670/68 are accepted and clause 12.9.3.3(5) is amended as follows:

5. Legal protection of the feature(s) must be secured through a consent notice or another suitable legal instrument that is registered on the title of the land concerned. Legal protection may also be achieved through a QEII National Trust Covenant, a covenant with council, a conservation covenant under section 77 of the Reserves Act or by vesting in a public authority or the crown as a public reserve. At the discretion of Council, legal protection may also be achieved by vesting in a charitable trust or public organisation which specialises in the ongoing management and enhancement of natural features. All costs associated with meeting this requirement must be met by the applicant.

It should be noted that, it is unclear if the above submissions wish to protect existing reserves or covenants which have been formed through the purposes of providing a financial contribution and/or under section 230 of the RMA (Requirement for esplanade reserves or esplanade strips). As stated in clause 12.9.3.3(6), existing reserves or features already protected as a condition of a resource consent or subdivision consent cannot be considered Significant Environmental Features under this clause.

These submitters are therefore invited to provide comment at the hearing in order to clarify if their submissions relate also to open space that has already been taken by way of financial contributions and/or for the purposes of creating esplanade reserves or strips.

4.54.2.3 Group 3: Submissions 618/118, 1288/117, 619/65, 2670/64, 754/77, 859/77

The above submissions raise three matters which require analysis and recommendations.

These are as follows:

The entirety of a significant environmental Feature

The above submissions request that clause 12.9.3.3 be amended so that the land subject to an application under the rules does not need to include the entirety of any significant environmental feature.

With respect to this matter, it should be noted that, clause 12.9.3.3 does not expressly state that the entirely of a SEF must be protected. This is because SEF's, particularly the examples contained in the definition, will typically traverse adjacent sites and will be of a scale and form that cannot be entirely contained on the site subject to the subdivision.

As stated above, the spatial extent of the SEF on each proposed site is considered as part of the specific assessment criteria contained in clause 12.12.1(1). This is to assess the extent to which the feature(s) mitigates the impacts of building development within the landscape however, the criteria does not identify the extent to which a site must comprise a SEF.

Submissions 618/118, 1288/117, 619/65, 2670/64, 754/77, 859/77 are therefore accepted as the rules in clause 12.9.3.3 do not state that land subject to an application must include the entirety of any significant environmental feature. Accordingly no changes are required to clause 12.9.3.3.

It is noted that the clause 12.9.3.3 is not consistent with the definition of a SEF within Part 14 of the Plan, which states that an SEF must include the whole of any distinct natural feature or landscape. Therefore, in order for a site to subdivide under clause 12.9.3 or 12.9.4 and meet the definition of an SEF, the whole of any distinct natural feature or landscape will need to be contained within the site. As stated above, SEF's such as watercourses, ecological corridors, landforms and sensitive habitats are typically not confined to one site. This aspect is recognised within the rules in clause 12.9.3.3 but not in the definition of a SEF.

The definition of a SEF will be assessed within the hearing report on definitions and heritage. Indeed, some of these submitters have lodged other submissions requesting that the definition of a SEF is amended. These submissions will be considered and the council may make some amendments in response.

Quantitative measure for significant environmental protection

Submissions 618/118, 1288/117, 619/65, 2670/64, 754/77, 859/77 request that at least 50% of the parent site or property to be subdivided must contain a significant environmental feature (SEF) that meets the definition of one or more significant environmental features. Such an approach therefore relies on the spatial extent of the SEF for the purposes of subdividing under this clause.

As outlined in section 4.54.2.1 above, it is recommended that clause 12.9.3.3(1) is amended so that each proposed site does not have to contained part of an SEF. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that the amendment still does not state the extent to which the parent site or proposed sites must contain an SEF. The spatial extent of the SEF on each proposed site is only considered as part of the specific assessment criteria contained in clause 12.12.1(1) which assesses the extent to which the features themselves mitigate the impacts of building development within the landscape.

It is accepted that without identifying the extent to which the parent site or proposed site must contain a SEF, this does not help to guide landowners in determining whether it is worth applying for the protection of significant environmental features. Accordingly, the assessment becomes a subjective one as landowners, experts and council planners determine whether each proposed site contains a satisfactory amount of a SEF.

In addition, it is recognised that the spatial extent of a SEF is an important consideration of each application, particularly if the feature itself is relied upon to mitigate the effects of additional built forms in the landscape. For example, protecting 200m ² of indigenous bush on a predominately open site may not adequately mitigate the effects of additional built forms in the landscape. Therefore while the bush is considered a SEF, its lack of spread may result in the proposal not being able to meet the specific criteria in clause 12.12.1 which assesses the visual effects of additional built forms within the landscape.

Notwithstanding this, it is considered that providing a minimum quantitative land area which must contain one or more SEF(s) does not recognise that the significance of a feature is based on its quality and/or its importance for preservation in the public interest. Such an approach would exclude many SEFs such as geological and heritage sites that have significance but which are contained in smaller areas.

It should be noted that, any application which meets the minimum and average site areas in table 12.2, and which contains a SEF must still meet the criteria contained in clauses 12.11.1 and 12.12.1 or 12.12.2. These criteria ensure that the creation of such sites do not adversely affect the landscape character and amenity value of the site and wider visual catchment. Such forms of subdivision must involve specialist reports and include an on-going management programme that details any protection and enhancement for the feature(s) subject to protection. In the event that a proposal cannot mitigate the effects of additional built forms in the landscape, then as a discretionary activity, council can refuse consent should the visual effects on the environment be considered to be more than minor.

On this basis, it is not recommended that clause 12.9.3.3 should be amended so that the spatial extent of the feature(s) on each site must contain a minimum area. While this approach does not help to guide landowners in determining whether it is worth applying for the protection of significant environmental features, it ensures that each application is assessed on its merits and based upon the quality and/or significance of the features worthy of protection.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 618/118, 1288/117, 619/65, 2670/64, 754/77, 859/77 which request that at least 50% of the parent site or property to be subdivided must contain a significant environmental feature (SEF), be rejected.

Relationship to parent or proposed sites

Submissions 618/118, 1288/117, 619/65, 2670/64, 754/77, 859/77 consider that it is unclear whether the reference to 'site' relates to the existing site or proposed site.

This matter has already been assessed in section 4.54.2.1 above whereby it was recommended that the clause 12.9.3.3(1) be amended.

Accordingly, it is recommended that submissions 618/118, 1288/117, 619/65, 2670/64, 754/77, 859/77 are accepted and clause 12.9.3.3(1) is amended as stated in section 4.54.2.1.

4.54.2.4 Group 4: Submissions 618/81, 619/26, 1288/54, 2670/25, 1287/12, 618/120, 1288/119, 619/67, 754/80, 859/80, 2670/66 and 754/30, 859/30.

The above submissions request that clause 12.3.3(3) be amended so that it is not subjective and open to interpretation. These submissions do not specifically identify why this clause is subjective nor do they identify any changes needed. Accordingly, the above submitters are invited to provide clarification at the hearing as to how clause 12.3.3(3) should be amended in order to minimise misinterpretation.

Not withstanding the above, an analysis of clause 12.3.3(3) is outlined below:

Clause 12.3.3(3) is written as follows:

The intent of the clause is to advise people that sites which have already been scheduled in the Plan or the regional policy statement may still require certification from an expert attesting that the feature meets the definition of an SEF by being of a quality and/or significance as to warrant its protection.

The reason for this clause is to remove the perception held by the community that any Site of Ecological Significance (SES), Sensitive Areas (SA) or Outstanding Natural Landscapes (ONL) located on land will automatically be considered a significant environmental feature. These scheduled sites each have different characteristics and reasons for their protection within the Plan or regional policy statement.

The following outlines the differences between SES's, SA's and ONL's:

It is accepted that scheduled SES's have already been assessed against specific criteria (Appendix 4.0 - criteria for scheduling sites of ecological significance). Accordingly, this criteria has determined that the sites are of ecological significance that is worthy of recognition and protection in the Plan. Accordingly, it is anticipated that SES sites will meet the definition of a Significant Environmental Feature.
With regard to SA's, these areas apply to areas within the outer islands; at the time of notification of the Plan the ecological values of the outer islands had not been re-evaluated. The areas defined as sensitive areas and sites of ecological significance in the outer islands were therefore carried over from the previous district plan. Some of the SA's are often applied over a broad area of land and have not been re-evaluated as part of the proposed Plan review. It is therefore considered necessary that applications applying to protect SA's are required to certify that the SA's meet the definition of a SEF.
Proposed Change 8 to the Auckland Regional Statement: Volcanic Features and Landscape, identifies areas within the gulf that are noted as Outstanding Natural Landscapes (ONLs).

The Plan rules for protecting significant environmental features do not recognise the different characteristics of SES's, SA's and ONLs. This could result in subdivisions being granted consent based on features that do not contribute significantly to the environment or mitigate the effects from additional built forms.

Given the different characteristics of SES's, SA's and ONL's, it is considered necessary that these sites, particularly SA's and ONL's, are assessed against the relevant criteria contained in Appendix 4 (refer to recommendation in section 4.52.2.6) to ensure that the sites are eligible for protection. This will provide consistency in decision making and ensure that subdivisions being granted consent under this provision are based on sites that contribute significantly to the environment.

In light of the above, it is recommended that submissions 618/81, 619/26, 1288/54, 2670/25, 1287/12, 618/120, 1288/119, 619/67, 754/80, 859/80, 2670/66 and 754/30, 859/30 are accepted and clause 12.9.3.3(3) be amended to minimise the subjectivity of the wording as follows:

3. Any area to be covenanted that is already scheduled in the Plan as a site of ecological significance (SES) or sensitive area (SA) or identified as an outstanding natural landscape (ONL) in a regional policy statement will not necessarily be considered a significant environmental feature under this clause. Any SES, SA or ONL must be accurately surveyed to ensure its true location on any proposed site. The council may also require certification of the SES, SA or ONL recommended for protection must be accurately surveyed to ensure its true location on any proposed site. The Council will also require certification of the SES, SA or ONL recommended for protection in accordance with clause 12.9.3.3(2) above.

4.54.2.5 Submissions 618/119, 1288/118, 619/66, 754/79, 859/79, 2670/65

As stated above, the definition of a SEF will be assessed within hearing report on definitions. In the event amendments are made, consequential amendments to clause 12.9.3.3 may be considered necessary and will be addressed accordingly.

4.54.2.6 Submissions 618/83, 619/28, 754/32, 859/32, 1287/14, 1288/56, 2670/27

Submissions 618/83, 619/28, 754/32, 859/32, 1287/14, 1288/56, 2670/27 request an amendment to clause 12.9.3.3(2)(b) as it implies there is a connection between cessation of active farming and replanting, and qualifying for consideration as a significant environmental feature SEF.

The decision requested links to those considered in section 4.39.2 above whereby the submitters requested that objective 12.3.2 and the associated policies are amended to reflect that re-plantings also contribute to the protection and enhancement of natural environmental values.

As stated in section 4.39.2, subdivision for the purposes of protecting SEF's do not seek to create a SEF. The feature itself must already exist and must be any distinct natural feature or landscape which makes a significant contribution to the quality of the local natural environment and amenity (refer to Part 14 - definitions). Therefore, an applicant cannot replant an area and state that it is a Significant Environmental Feature.

Enhancement of the significant environmental feature is provided for in clause 12.9.3.3(4) which states:

The application must detail the attributes of the feature(s) recommended for protection. This must include an on-going management programme that details any protection and enhancement.

The objective, policies and rules therefore seek to protect existing significant environmental features while also providing for an enhancement programme. Such forms of enhancement may include re-planting however, re-planting should not be considered the primary attribute of the feature recommended for protection.

In light of the above, the intent of clause 12.9.2(b) is to allow for sites, which may currently farm a natural feature or landscape, to be able to subdivide if the natural feature or landscape meets the definition of a SEF. For example, in the event a ridgeline was considered to make a significant contribution to the quality and amenity of the local natural environment but it was currently farmed, then in accordance with the standards and terms of SEF subdivision, this activity would need to be retired and measures implemented which preserves and enhances the ridgeline feature.

Therefore, the ridgeline would need to already be considered a SEF and the retiring of active farming and subsequent management, would be a consequential requirement to ensure that the feature is preserved and protected in perpetuity in accordance with clause 12.9.3.3(4).

On this basis, it is not considered appropriate to include provisions which would place greater weighting and value on re-planting. This could misinform the community by implying that a significant environmental feature can be created through re-planting (i.e. an applicant could retire framing practices and undertake a re-planting programme).

Therefore, consistent with the recommendation made in section 4.39.2, it is recommended submissions 618/83, 619/28, 754/32, 859/32, 1287/14, 1288/56, 2670/27 are rejected. However in light of this recommendation, it is considered that clause 12.9.3.3(2)(b) is amended to reflect the intent of the significant environmental feature provisions as follows:

b. Any natural feature or area ~~to be retired from active farming is able to~~ that is deemed a significant environmental feature and which is used for the purposes for active farming, must retire this activity as part of the protection and enhancement of the significant environmental feature. The natural feature or area must be managed in a way that preserves and enhances its existing ecological, heritage and/or landscape value.

4.54.2.7 Submissions 2643/9, 2644/10

While the decision sought by the above submitters is identical to that requested in section 4.52.2.7, submission 1270/10 and the site it relates to differs to those outlined in submissions 2643/9, 2644/10 above.

The above submissions have been prepared by the same submitters and request similar decisions for two scheduled heritage sites at 630 Gordons Road, Waiheke Island. The submissions consider that the scheduling of two archaeological features 19-1 (Pa site) and 16-1 (Pa site) on the subject site will adversely affect the use of the land for farming purposes and will impact upon the property value. The submitters therefore seek confirmation that the scheduling of these sites will not impact upon the potential of the land to be subdivided for the purposes of protecting significant environmental features in clause 12.9.3 and 12.9.4.

Submissions 2643/9, 2644/10 are concerned that because these items are already protected under the Plan, this will preclude the feature from being considered a SEF particularly as clause 12.9.3.3(3) states:

In responding to submissions 2643/9 and 2644/10, the following comments are made:

With regard to the potential of 360 Gordons Road to be subdivided for the purposes of protecting these archaeological sites, it is evident that this 34.0873ha site, comprising landform 5 (productive land), can meet the minimum and average site areas contained in table 12.2. Provided the application meets the general rules in clause 12.6.1 and the specific standards and terns in clause 12.9.3.3, then the application will require discretionary activity consent.

Should the submitter wish to lodge an application for the purposes of protecting the heritage site and significant vegetation, the council will assess the scheduled sites of archaeological significance in its consideration of the application. However, like all subdivision applications, the subdivision application will be assessed on its merits and in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Act. It is not considered appropriate to anticipate that the scheduling of the archaeological sites will guarantee that such an application will be granted consent as each application must be assessed on a case by case basis.

Moreover, the submitters should be aware that when assessing all discretionary and non-complying activities, a consent authority may grant or refuse these type of applications. In addition, if the consent authority chooses to grant consent, then it may impose conditions.

In light of the above, it is recommended that submissions 2643/9 and 2644/10 are accepted in part however, no changes are made to the Plan. This is because the discretion to apply for subdivision under 12.9.3 and/or 12.9.4 has not been lost as a result of the scheduling of the Pa sites on the property.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.9.3.3

Group 1 submissions are accepted and clause 12.9.3.3(1) is amended as follows:
1. The ~~gross~~ area of each proposed site must meet the standards for minimum and average site areas specified in table 12.2 ~~include the area containing the significant environmental feature and the balance area (seetable 12.2:~~ (Minimum site areas for protecting significant environmental features).
2. Group 2: Submissions 618/82, 619/27, 1287/13, 1288/55, 2670/26, 754/31, 859/31, 618/121, 1288/120, 619/68, 754/81, 859/81, 2670/67 and 618/122, 1288/121, 619/69, 754/82, 859/82, 2670/68 as they relate to voluntary covenanting are accepted in part however, no amendments to the Plan are recommended.
Group 2: Submissions 618/82, 619/27, 1287/13, 1288/55, 2670/26, 754/31, 859/31, 618/121, 1288/120, 619/68, 754/81, 859/81, 2670/67 and 618/122, 1288/121, 619/69, 754/82, 859/82, 2670/68 as they relate to protecting Significant Environmental Features through other legal mechanisms are accepted and clause 12.9.3.3(5) is amended as follows:
1. Legal protection of the feature(s) must be secured through a consent notice or another suitable legal instrument that is registered on the title of the land concerned. Legal protection may also be achieved through a QEII National Trust Covenant, a covenant with council, a conservation covenant under section 77 of the Reserves Act or by vesting in a public authority or the crown as a public reserve. At the discretion of Council, legal protection may also be achieved by vesting in a charitable trust or public organisation which specialises in the ongoing management and enhancement of natural features. All costs associated with meeting this requirement must be met by the applicant.
Group 3: Submissions 618/118, 1288/117, 619/65, 2670/64, 754/77, 859/77 as they relate to protecting the entirety of any significant environmental are accepted however, no changes are required to clause 12.9.3.3.
Group 3: Submissions 618/118, 1288/117, 619/65, 2670/64, 754/77, 859/77 which request that at least 50% of the parent site or property to be subdivided must contain a significant environmental feature (SEF), be rejected.
Group 3: Submissions 618/118, 1288/117, 619/65, 2670/64, 754/77, 859/77 are accepted and clause 12.9.3.3(1) is amended as stated in recommendation 1 above.
Group 4: Submissions 618/81, 619/26, 1288/54, 2670/25, 1287/12, 618/120, 1288/119, 619/67, 754/80, 859/80, 2670/66 and 754/30, 859/30 are accepted and clause 12.9.3.3(3) be amended to minimise the subjectivity of the wording as follows:
1. Any area to be covenanted that is already scheduled in the Plan as a site of ecological significance (SES) or sensitive area (SA) or identified as an outstanding natural landscape (ONL) in a regional policy statement will not necessarily be considered a significant environmental feature under this clause. Any SES, SA or ONL must be accurately surveyed to ensure its true location on any proposed site. The council may also require certification of the SES, SA or ONL recommended for protection must be accurately surveyed to ensure its true location on any proposed site. The Council will also require certification of the SES, SA or ONL recommended for protection in accordance with clause 12.9.3.3(2) above.
Submissions 618/119, 1288/118, 619/66, 754/79, 859/79, 2670/65 as they relate to the definition of an SEF will be assessed within hearing report for definitions and heritage. In the event amendments are made, consequential amendments to clause 12.9.3.3 may be considered necessary and will be addressed accordingly.
Submissions 618/83, 619/28, 754/32, 859/32, 1287/14, 1288/56, 2670/27 are rejected however, clause 12.9.3.3(2)(b) is amended to reflect the intent of the significant environmental feature provisions as follows:
1. Any natural feature or area ~~to be retired from active farming is able to~~ that is deemed a significant environmental feature and which is used for the purposes for active farming, must retire this activity as part of the protection and enhancement of the significant environmental feature. The natural feature or area must be managed in a way that preserves and enhances its existing ecological, heritage and/or landscape value.
Submissions 2643/9 and 2644/10 are accepted in part however, no changes are made to the Plan. This is because the discretion to apply for subdivision under 12.9.3 and/or 12.9.4 has not been lost as a result of the scheduling of the Pa sites on the property.

4.55 Submissions about clause 12.9.4 (Cluster subdivision associated with the protection of significant environmental features).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/79, 619/22, 1287/6, 1288/50, 2670/22, 619/23, 618/80, 1287/7, 1288/51, 2670/23, 619/25, 754/29, 859/29, 754/25, 859/25, 754/26, 859/26, 754/27, 1243/90, 1250/81, 1287/11, 1288/53, 1288/63, 859/27, 77/1.

4.55.1 Decision requested

Group 1:

Submissions 618/79, 619/22, 1287/6, 1288/50, 2670/22 request the following:

Clause 12.9.4 is supported as to intent but not supported in terms of the framing and methodology of the proposed rules. Clause 12.9.4 needs to be amended so that it enables cluster subdivision to occur without a requirement that all new lots have an equal undivided share in the residual lot .

Submissions 754/25, 859/25 request the following:

Clause 12.9.4 is supported as to intent but not supported in terms of the framing and methodology of the proposed rules.

Submissions 754/26, 859/26 request the following:

Clause 12.9.4 needs to be amended so that it enables cluster subdivision to occur without a requirement that all new lots have an equal undivided share in the residual lot.

Group 2:

Submission 754/27 requests the following:

The proposed lot size regime for clustered lots at 3000-4000m2 area per site is not sufficiently flexible and will not facilitate appropriate development patterns. The proposed lot sizes enabled in the subdivision rules should relate to the proposed or likely disposition, scale and form etc of buildings and may be sustainable at lot sizes as low as 500m2.

Submission 859/27 requests the following:

The proposed lot sizes enabled in the subdivision rules should relate to the proposed or likely disposition, scale and form etc of buildings and may be sustainable at lot sizes as low as 500m2.

Submissions 619/23, 618/80, 1287/7, 1288/51, 2670/23 request the following:

The proposed lot size regime in clause 12.9.4 for clustered lots at 3000-4000m2 area per site is not sufficiently flexible and will not facilitate appropriate development patterns.

Group 3:

Submissions 619/25, 754/29, 859/29, 1287/11 request the following:

Clause 12.9.4 should be amended to allow for a bonus density approach (similar to the methodology (but not detail) in the operative Plan for land unit 22).

Submission 1288/53 requests the following:

Allow for a bonus density approach within clause 12.9.4 (similar to the methodology but not detail in the Operative Plan for land unit 22). That approach should enable a higher density beyond that defined by a significant environmental feature type subdivision so that where cluster housing is proposed there can be more household units within a clearly defined set of environmental and strategic outcomes.

Submission 1288/63 requests the following:

Clause 12.9.4 should be amended to enable cluster development where resultant residential density can be established using the bonus significant environmental feature density provisions. The amended Rule should also include a comprehensive set of assessment criteria that ensure the location of dwellings using a bonus density regime is appropriate in a landscape and environmental / infrastructure sense. The cluster dwelling approach should not require common ownership in a large residual lot as proposed in clause 12.9.4.3(3). The residual lot can optionally be held as a separate freehold title providing for a dwelling.

Submission 1243/90 requests the following:

Retain clause 12.9.4

Submission 1250/81 requests the following:

Retain provisions for cluster subdivision in so far as the grouping of built structures in one area and expand it to all subdivision proposals not just protection of significant environmental features.

Submission 77/1 requests the following:

Tone down all this enviro nonsense and forget about cluster subdivision (see clause 12.9.1(4) 3.5ha lifestyle is more practical.

4.55.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.55.2.1 Group 1: 618/79, 619/22, 1287/6, 1288/50, 2670/22, 754/25, 859/25 and 754/26, 859/26.

The above submissions raise two matters which require analysis and recommendations.

These are as follows:

Framing and methodology

The above submissions state that while they support the intent of clause 12.9.4 which provided for cluster subdivision, the framing and methodology of the proposed rules are not supported.

The decision sought by the above submissions is considered too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to the Plan. However, there are a number of other submissions that raise more specific concerns about clause 12.9.4. These will be considered below and any recommended changes made to the Plan as a result of these other submissions may provide the framing and methodology envisaged by these submissions.

On this basis, submissions 618/79, 619/22, 1287/6, 1288/50, 2670/22, 754/25, 859/25 and 754/26, 859/26 are rejected.

The submitters are invited to provide clarification at the hearing as what changes are needed in order to improve the framing and methodology of the rules for cluster subdivision.

Equal and undivided share in the residual site

As part of the standards and terms for cluster subdivision, sites can be created as a cluster or a group of clusters. As stated in clauses 12.9.4.3(2) and 12.9.4.3(3), the number of sites subject to the cluster(s) will be limited to the number that would be allowed for a subdivision under clause 12.9.3.3 and table 12.2. One further site (additional to the site provided for in clause 12.9.4.3(2)) must therefore be created that will comprise the balance of the land subject to the subdivision and contain most of the significant environmental feature. Each site which is the subject of a cluster or group of clusters must hold an equal and undivided share in the balance site.

The above submitters request that the balance site should be available as a single freehold site. They state that the density will not change and will create administrative and enforcement issues in respect of any allied body incorporated society framework.

As already stated in section 4.11 above, by providing the balance area as a single freehold site, this will increase the density of the subdivision and increase the level of land modification through additional built forms and potential earthworks and tree modification. This density and additional development right is greater that what is anticipated within the land unit and is not consistent with the objectives of protecting the significant environmental feature nor of securing appropriate management of resources, and achieving sustainable land use development.

In addition, having a large protected balance site can lead to a better protection of the significant feature as it reduces the degree of environmental modification through the construction of driveways and built forms. It also ensures that the significant environmental features remain intact rather than being broken up through boundary alignments and built forms.

In terms of ensuring on going protection and enhancement of the balance site through an allied incorporated society, it is not anticipated that this will be problematic given that undivided shares and management in the ownership of common property can be effectively provided for by way of covenants, easements and unit titling. Indeed, the ongoing maintenance of a shared piece of land is not uncommon and can be found in the frequent establishment of Rights of Ways and unit title subdivision.

For reasons outline above, it is considered that submissions 618/79, 619/22, 1287/6, 1288/50, 2670/22, 754/25, 859/25 and 754/26, 859/26 are rejected as they relate to the creation of the balance site as a single freehold site.

4.55.2.2 Group 2: Submissions 754/27, 859/27, 619/23, 618/80, 1287/7, 1288/51, 2670/23

The above submissions consider that the minimum and maximum site sizes of 3000m ² and 5000m ² for a cluster or group of clusters is not sufficiently flexible and will not facilitate appropriate development patterns. Accordingly, these submissions consider that lower site sizes such as 500m ²are appropriate.

Section 4.11 has already analysed submissions which seek to provide cluster subdivision in all land units and to reduce the building area to 350m ². Submissions in section 4.11 also requested that reducing site sizes could be achieved through bonus density provisions whereby additional densities and/or clusters occur when environmental protection and enhancement is achieved.

It is considered that the decisions requested in section 4.11 are similar or the same to those requested by group 2 above. Overall, section 4.11 considered that it is not appropriate to reduce the site sizes for clusters as they would be unlikely to mitigate the visual effects generated through the massing of built forms. Cluster subdivision within smaller site sizes may result in the proliferation and massing of built forms within the landscape which may detract from the character and amenity of these areas.

Therefore, for reasons already outlined in section 4.11, it is recommended that submissions 754/27, 859/27, 619/23, 618/80, 1287/7, 1288/51, 2670/23 be rejected.

4.55.2.3 Groups 3: Submissions 619/25, 754/29, 859/29, 1287/11, 1288/53 and 1288/63.

The above submissions request that clause 12.9.4 be amended to provide for bonus density provisions whereby additional densities and/or clusters occur when environmental protection and enhancement is achieved. Submissions 619/25, 754/29, 859/29, 1287/11 and 1288/53 suggest a similar approach that was implemented in the operative Plan for land unit 22 (western landscape).

The above submissions raise two matters which require analysis and recommendations.

These are as follows:

Bonus density provisions

Bonus density provisions, including comprehensive management plans have already been considered in sections 4.9, 4.11, and 4.22 above. Accordingly, it is considered that the decision sought would fail to be consistent with the resource management strategy, objectives and policies of each land unit which seek to ensure that landscape and amenity values are not adversely affected. Therefore, while environmental protection and enhancement is a positive effect that is generated on the environment, the effects of additional built forms and the modification of the environment may adversely affect the landscape character of the area. By introducing additional built forms based solely on a quantitative area subject to protection, does not consider the effects on landscape amenity of the additional built forms.

In addition, it is considered that providing for bonus densities through the protection of environmental features will not generate greater environmental benefits above what can already be achieved through SEF subdivision contained in clauses 12.9.3 and 12.9.4 of the Plan. Moreover, the provision to take land for the purposes land and management and environmental enhancement can also be achieved through financial contributions and under section 230 of the Act (Requirement for esplanade reserves or esplanade strips).

For the same reasons outlined above and in sections 4.9, 4.11, and 4.22 above, it is recommended that submissions 619/25, 754/29, 859/29, 1287/11, 1288/53 and 1288/63 are rejected as they relate to bonus density provisions in clause 12.9.4.

Equal and undivided share in the residual site

Providing for the balance site as a freehold site has already been considered in section 4.55.2.1 above. Accordingly, it is not considered necessary to repeat this assessment.

Therefore, for reasons outlined in section 4.55.2.1 above, it is recommended that submissions 619/25, 754/29, 859/29, 1287/11, 1288/53 and 1288/63 are rejected as they relate to the creation of the balance site as a single freehold site.

4.55.2.4 Submission 1243/90

Submission 1243/90 requests that clause 12.9.4 be retained.

Therefore, the provisions in clause 12.9.4 seek to provide for clustered sites when features of ecological, heritage and/or landscape value are protected, maintained and enhanced in perpetuity. Such protection leads to preservation and enhancement in environmental quality and diversity. The visual effects of reducing site sizes are also addressed specifically within the criteria so that the landscape character of the land unit(s) and amenity value of environment are not adversely affected.

Protecting, and where possible, enhancing these areas, is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Act as set out within sections 6(b), 6(c), 6(e) 6(f), 7(f) and section 8.

For these reasons, it is recommended that the provisions in clause are retained and submission 1243/90 is accepted.

4.55.2.5 Submission 1250/81

Submission 1250/81 seeks to retain the provisions for cluster subdivision but also seeks to include cluster subdivisions to all subdivisions proposal (i.e. all land units).

Section 4.11 above has already analysed the effects of including cluster subdivision within all land units. Accordingly, it has already been considered that providing for cluster subdivision within land units which do not have the means to mitigate the clustering of built forms (large site sizes and the provision to accommodate significant environmental features), may generate adverse effects on landscape character through the massing of built forms and through modification of the environment (e.g. earthworks and vegetation removal). This may detract from the character and amenity of these areas and may not be consistent with the objectives for these land units.

On this basis and for reasons already outlined in section 4.11 above, it is recommended that submission 1250/81 be rejected as it relates to clause 12.9.4.

4.55.2.6 Submission 77/1

In responding to submission 77/1, it is considered appropriate to address the following:

Environmental Assessment

In response to submission 77/1, it is noted that the decision sought does not specifically identify any changes needed or state what advantages are likely to result if environmental assessment was "toned down".

In addition, the council is required to prepare, implement and administer a district plan to assist it to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (see s72, 73 of the RMA). Section 76(1) of the RMA states:

(1) A territorial authority may, for the purpose of�

(a) Carrying out its functions under this Act; and

(b) Achieving the objectives and policies of the plan,�

include rules in a district plan.

The level of environmental assessment within the Plan is necessary in order to achieve the purpose of sections 5(2), 6, 7 and 8 of the Act (refer to section 2.0 of this report).

In addition, Section 9(3) of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000, requires the council to ensure that:

... any part of a district plan that applies to the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, does not conflict with sections 7 and 8 of this Act.

Section 7 recognises the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf and Section 8 provides management direction for the Gulf. Section 10 of the Act requires that sections 7 and 8 be treated as a New Zealand coastal policy statement under the RMA.

It is considered that, any reduction in the level of environmental assessment would result in the Council not effectively carrying out its functions under the Act and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.

For reasons outlined above, it is recommended that submission 77/1 as it relates to environment assessment be rejected.

Please note that, submitter 77/1 is invited to provide clarification at the hearing as to what changes are needed, or state what advantages are likely to result if environmental assessment was "toned down".

Removal of Cluster Subdivision [Clause 12.9.4]

Submission 77/1 states that the ownership of large chunks of land in common as reserve is a waste and suggests that the Council "forget about" cluster subdivision. Submission 77/1 also states that land should be measured by its worth.

This decision is considered too general to be the basis of removing clause 12.9.4 from the Plan. In addition, the submission has not elaborated upon how land should be measured and what is deemed to be 'worth'. Accordingly, submitter 77/1 is invited to provide this information at the hearing.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submission 77/1 as it relates to the removal of clause 12.9.4 is rejected.

Reduce Minimum Site Size to 3.5 Hectares

While submission 77/1 states that " 3.5ha is a more practical lifestyle ", it does not specifically identify which land unit(s) it applies to or elaborate on what advantages are likely to result if minimum site size was reduced to 3.5ha.

Notwithstanding this, given that the submission is from a Great Barrier Island resident, it can be assumed that the minimum site size applies to all rural land units on this island being, landforms 1-7. Minimum sites sizes are outlined in table 12.1 of the Plan and range from 25ha (landforms 1, 2, 4, 5-7) to 3.5ha in landform 3.

It is considered that minimum site sizes within the Plan are set at a level that is consistent with the objectives and policies for the land units, which seek to maintain elements, features and patterns that contribute to the visual amenity, natural landscape character and amenity value of each land unit. The site sizes also take in account the physical characteristics of the land and its capacity to integrate development impacts.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submission 77/1 as it relates to reducing minimum site sizes to 3.5 ha be rejected.

Please note that submitter 77/1 is invited to provide clarification at the hearing as to what practical lifestyle advantages are likely to result if site sizes are reduced to 3.5ha.

It should also be noted that there are other submissions which seek to reduce site sizes in various land units and settlement areas. Accordingly, these submissions will be assessed elsewhere in this report.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.9.4

Group 1: Submissions 618/79, 619/22, 1287/6, 1288/50, 2670/22, 754/25, 859/25 and 754/26, 859/26 as they relate to the framing and methodology of clause 12.9.4 are rejected.
Group 1: submissions 618/79, 619/22, 1287/6, 1288/50, 2670/22, 754/25, 859/25 and 754/26, 859/26 are rejected as they relate to the creation of the balance site as a single freehold site.
Group 2: Submissions 754/27, 859/27, 619/23, 618/80, 1287/7, 1288/51, 2670/23 be rejected.
Group 3: Submissions 619/25, 754/29, 859/29, 1287/11, 1288/53 and 1288/63 are rejected as they relate to bonus density provisions in clause 12.9.4.
Group 3: Submissions 619/25, 754/29, 859/29, 1287/11, 1288/53 and 1288/63 are rejected as they relate to the creation of the balance site as a single freehold site.
It is recommended that the provisions in clause are retained and submission 1243/90 is accepted
Submission 1250/81 be rejected as it relates to clause 12.9.4.
Submission 77/1 rejected.

4.56 Submission about clause 12.9.4.3 (standards and terms for cluster subdivision).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 619/70, 618/123, 1288/122, 2670/69, 618/124, 1288/123, 619/71, 754/84, 859/84, 2670/70, 754/83, 859/83, 1098/6, 1099/6, 1405/13, 1406/13, 3084/1.

4.56.1 Decision requested

Submission 619/70 requests the following:

Clause 12.9.4.3 should be amended so that lots sizes can be reduced to facilitate proper clusters (down to 500m ²) and so that all lots do not need to have a share in any residual balance lot (significance ecological features lot). The residual or balance lot should include provision for a dwelling. The proposed rule has a potential to conflict with clause 12.9.3.3.

Submissions 618/123, 1288/122, 2670/69 request the following:

Clause 12.9.4.3 should be amended so that lot sizes can be reduced to facilitate proper clusters and so that all lots do not need to have a share in any residual balance lot (significant environmental feature lot). The residual or balance lot should include provision for a dwelling. The proposed rule has a potential to conflict with clause 12.9.3.3.

Submissions 754/83, 859/83 request the following:

Clause 12.9.4.3 should be amended so that lot sizes can be reduced to facilitate proper clusters (down to 500m2) and so that all lots do not need to have a share in any residual balance lot (significant environmental feature lot). The residual or balance lot should include provision for a dwelling. The proposed rule has a potential to conflict with clause 12.9.3.3. The approach to cluster development will need to vary for each proposal and the proposed rules are too generic and hinder good subdivision and development. A comprehensive application approach should be provided for in association with a bonus density provision as suggested elsewhere and that should have a set of key design principles that define appropriate outcomes in terms of natural environment, infrastructure and visual and landscape matters.

Submissions 1405/13, 1406/13 request the following:

That clause 12.9.4.3(1) be amended to: "The site sizes must be a minimum of 1500m ²or a lesser area where cluster wide waste infrastructure is provided."

Submission 3084/1 requests the following:

That the minimum lot size in clause 12.9.4.3 be reduced to 2000m ² and no greater than 5000m ².

Submissions 618/124, 1288/123, 619/71, 754/84, 859/84, 2670/70 request the following:

Clause 12.9.4.3(6) is inappropriate and it hinders a shift from a covenant regime to a reserve situation which may have better longevity and certainty. As drafted the rule implies that existing covenants no longer can exist with the area subject to any new subdivision proposal. The outcome sought should be clearly defined and the ability to take into account existing protection matters should simply be factored into the assessment criteria.

Submissions 1098/6, 1099/6 request the following:

That a subdivision provision of 3000-5000m ² site be provided for landform 6 (regenerating slopes) and landform 7 (forest and bush areas) allowing the balance of original site being retained in a lot with equal common share.

4.56.2 Planners analysis and recommendation

4.56.2.1 Submissions 619/70, 618/123, 1288/122, 2670/69, 754/83, 859/83, 1405/13, 1406/13, 3084/1

The above submissions raise matters pertaining to the following:

Reduced site sizes for a cluster or a group of clusters;
Balance site of a cluster being freehold;
Comprehensive management plans with allied criteria;
Bonus densities

The above decisions have already been requested and analysed in sections 4.9, 4.11, 4.22, and 4.55 of this report where it has been recommended that the decisions requested should be rejected. Accordingly, it is not considered necessary to repeat these assessments.

On this basis and for reasons already set out in sections 4.9, 4.11, 4.22, and 4.55 above, it is recommended that submissions 619/70, 618/123, 1288/122, 2670/69, 754/83, 859/83, 1405/13, 1406/13, 3084/1 be rejected.

4.56.2.2 Submissions 618/124, 1288/123, 619/71, 754/84, 859/84, 2670/70

The above submissions state that clause 12.9.4.3(6) does not provide for existing covenants to be legally protected as a reserve as part of cluster subdivision. The rule implies that existing covenants can no longer exist within the area subject to the subdivision proposal.

In addressing the above matter, it is necessary to turn to clause 12.9.4.3(6) which states:

6. Any existing areas that were covenanted as a requirement of a previous consent condition(s) must not be included or affected by any proposal under this clause (12.9.4).

The purpose of the above clause is to state that existing covenants must remain complete and independent to the design of any cluster subdivision. Therefore, in the event there is an existing covenant within the balance site, this must remain as a separate covenant and subject to the same conditions (if any) stated within the existing covenant agreement. The design of the subdivision must also take into account the location of the existing covenant and ensure that the subdivision itself does not affect the purpose of the existing covenant or the conditions therein.

The intent of the above clause is supported as it will ensure that existing covenants are not affected nor will they be considered part of the significant environmental feature which is subject to protection for the purposes of the subdivision (refer also to clause 12.9.3.3(6)).

Notwithstanding this, it is recognised that an applicant may wish to protect a significant environmental feature through a different legal mechanism such as placing it as a reserve under section 77 of the Reserves Act or by vesting the area in a public authority or the crown as public reserve (refer to clause 12.9.3.3(5)). In this situation, there may be circumstances when amalgamating an existing protected covenant into a reserve may result in more effective on-going protection and enhancement of the existing covenant.

For example, there is merit in amalgamating an existing bush covenant into a significant environmental feature area if the combined areas will be protected as a bush reserve under the Reserves Act. This will ensure that all features being protected in both the existing covenant and significant environmental feature are managed and maintained to the same standard by the public authority who owns and/or leases the reserve (the Crown, Auckland City Council or the Department of Conservation).

Conversely, there may be situations where amalgamating an existing covenanted area and a proposed significant environmental feature area may not be appropriate. This is because the existing covenant may have conditions and/or restrictions within the covenant agreement which would compromise the on-going protect of the area should it be turned into a reserve. For example, an existing covenant which protects a heritage feature and which was conditioned as part of the previous land-use and/or subdivision consent, may have conditions pertaining to ownership and/or maintenance which requires the registered owners of the site(s) to solely implement. Such conditions within the existing covenant may be overly onerous for a public authority to effectively implement, which could compromise the on-going protection and/or enhancement of the existing covenanted area.

On this basis, it is recognised that in certain circumstances existing covenants may be amalgamated into the area subject to significant environmental feature protection for the purposes of more effective protection and enhancement. Not withstanding this, applicants must be made aware that any existing covenants cannot be considered to contribute to the significant environmental feature subject to protection (refer to clause 12.9.3.3(6)) and any amalgamation will only be considered as part of cluster subdivision and for the purposes of improving management of the existing covenant. Such an assessment will be undertaken on a case by case basis.

In light of the above, it is recommended that submissions 618/124, 1288/123, 619/71, 754/84, 859/84, 2670/70 are accepted in part so that in certain circumstances, existing covenants may be amalgamated into areas subject to significant environmental protection. This may only be undertaken for the purposes of improving the management of the existing covenant.

Therefore, it is recommended that cause 12.9.4.3(6) is amended as follows:

6. Any existing areas that were covenanted as a requirement of a previous consent condition(s) must not be ~~included or~~ affected by any proposal under this clause (12.9.4). Allowances may be made for amalgamating existing covenanted areas into the balance area, provided that the amalgamation will continue to protect and where necessary enhance the existing covenanted area.

An additional assessment criterion is also recommended as a consequential amendment to support the amendment to clause 12.9.4.3(6). This is as follows:

Clause 12.12.2(8)

The extent to which the amalgamation of an existing covenanted area(s) into the balance area provides effective management of the existing covenant area and does not compromise the protection of the existing covenanted area(s) and the conditions within the covenant agreement .

4.56.2.3 Submissions 1098/6, 1099/6

The above submissions request that the provision of 3000-5000m ² sites be provided for landform 6 (regenerating slopes) and landform 7 (forest and bush areas) with the balance of original site being retained in a site with equal common share.

Upon reviewing the submissions in detail, it is unclear whether the above submissions are aware that cluster subdivision is already provided for within these landforms under clause 12.9.4. Alternatively, these submissions may be seeking the provision for cluster subdivision within landforms 6 and 7 without protecting significant environmental features. Accordingly, these submitters are invited to provide clarification on this matter during the hearing.

Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that the decision sought above is similar to those already analysed in sections 4.17 and 4.18 above. As stated within these sections, it is considered that the clustering of buildings as part of a subdivision design is provided for within landform 6 and 7 on the basis that there is an environmental benefit gained through the protection of significant features, and provided the effects on landscape character and amenity are not adversely affected. In many circumstances, often the significant environmental feature itself, such as extensive bush, will mitigate the effects of the clustering of built forms. This is because the massing of built forms in an isolated area can be broken up by specimen trees and by an extensive bush backdrop that surrounds the housing cluster.

It is not considered appropriate to provide for cluster subdivision in landform 6 (regenerating slopes) where there is not a significant environmental feature worthy of protection and there are no mitigating measures to integrate the built form into the landscape. It is considered that the effects generated by clustering built forms into a landscape which has high natural visual prominence (in both coastal locations and as a backdrop to settlement areas) and has unbroken expansive qualities will detract from the character and amenity of these areas if there are no mitigating measures in which to integrate the massing of buildings. Accordingly, such an approach is not consistent with the objectives and policies for landform 6.

With regard to landform 7 (forest and bush areas) in many circumstances, the characteristic forest and bush areas within this land unit forms the significant environmental feature itself, which also helps to mitigate the effects of clustering built forms. This is because the massing of built forms in an isolated area can be broken up by specimen trees and by an extensive bush backdrop that surrounds the housing cluster(s).

Therefore, for reasons already outlined in sections 4.17 and 4.18 above, it is recommended that the submissions 1098/6, 1099/6 be accepted however, no changes to the Plan is recommended. Clarification is sought in terms of whether these submissions seek cluster subdivision without protecting significant environmental features.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.9.4.3 (standards and terms)

Submissions 619/70, 618/123, 1288/122, 2670/69, 754/83, 859/83, 1405/13, 1406/13, 3084/1 be rejected.
Submissions 618/124, 1288/123, 619/71, 754/84, 859/84, 2670/70 are accepted in part and clause 12.9.4.3(6) is amended as follows:
1. Any existing areas that were covenanted as a requirement of a previous consent condition(s) must not be ~~included or~~ affected by any proposal under this clause (12.9.4). Allowances may be made for amalgamating existing covenanted areas into the balance area, provided that the amalgamation will continue to protect and where necessary enhance the existing covenanted area.
  An additional assessment criterion is also recommended as a consequential amendment to support the amendment to clause 12.9.4.3(6). This is as follows:
  Clause 12.12.2(8)
  The extent to which the amalgamation of an existing covenanted area(s) into the balance area provides more effective management of the existing covenant area and does not compromise the protection of the existing covenanted area(s) and the conditions within the covenant agreement.
Submissions 1098/6, 1099/6 be accepted however, no changes to the Plan is recommended. Clarification is sought in terms of whether these submissions seek cluster subdivision without protecting significant environmental features.

4.57 Submissions about clause 12.9.5.3 (Commercial 1- 5: Standards and terms).

Submission dealt with in this section: 3521/142

4.57.1 Decision requested

Submission 3521/142 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.9.5.3(2) as follows:

Each site must have the capacity to provide for effective onsite treatment and disposal of wastewater and stormwater in accordance with any regional standard, or be able to be connected to shared wastewater treatment and disposal facilities or a decentralised system for the subdivision".

4.57.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

As already stated in sections 4.5 and 4.43 of this report, the disposal of wastewater within the islands is controlled through a variety of techniques, including ARC rules and the ARC Technical Publication 58 - On-site Wastewater Systems: Design and Management Manual; the Building Act 2004; and the council's bylaw controlling wastewater.

While the Plan does not have specific wastewater rules, the impervious surface and building coverage controls ensure that there is sufficient permeable land for on-site wastewater disposal.

While the broad strategy for the Hauraki Gulf Islands is still to require existing and future development to satisfactorily dispose and treat wastewater on-site, it is recognised that the within the commercial 1 land unit only (Oneroa Village), there is already provision for a decentralised system. The connection to this system is also recognised in clause 10c.4.5 (Building Coverage) and table 10c.6 (Development controls for the relevant land unit or settlement area) which states that building coverage within the commercial 1 land unit only can be increase to 75% if the site is connected to the Owhanake wastewater treatment plant. Accordingly, as part of a proposed subdivision within a commercial 1 land unit, there may be provision for proposed sites to connect to the Owhanake wastewater treatment plant.

Given that the Oneroa village area already has provision to connect to a decentralised system, it is recommended that submission 3521/142 is accepted in part and clause 12.9.5.3(2) is amended as follows:

2. Each site must have the capacity to provide for effective onsite treatment and disposal of wastewater and stormwater in accordance with any regional standard, or be able to be connected to shared wastewater treatment and disposal facilities or the Owhanake wastewater treatment plant as it applies to the commercial 1 (Oneroa village) land unit.

Planner's recommendations about submission pertaining to clause 12.9.5.3 (standards and terms for commercial 1-3 land units)

Submission 3521/142 is accepted in part and clause 12.9.5.3(2) is amended as follows:
2. Each site must have the capacity to provide for effective onsite treatment and disposal of wastewater and stormwater in accordance with any regional standard, or be able to be connected to shared wastewater treatment and disposal facilities, or the Owhanake wastewater treatment plant as it applies to the commercial 1 (Oneroa village) land unit .

4.58 Submissions about clause 12.9.6.1 (Recreation 1- 3 and the conservation land unit: Provision).

Submission dealt with in this section: 3521/143

4.58.1 Decision requested

Submission 3521/143 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.9.6.1 to include the following:

"Where any of these land units is privately owned, subdivision of land is a non-complying activity".

4.58.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

In analysing the above submission, it is considered appropriate to turn to the following clauses:

12.9.6.1 Provision

Subdivision in recreation 1-3 and the conservation land unit is a discretionary activity subject to compliance with the general rules inclause 12.6 and the standards and terms inclause 12.9.6.3.

12.9.6.2 Assessment matters

The council's assessment of an application for subdivision in recreation 1-3 and the conservation land unit will include consideration of the matters set out inclause 12.11.

12.9.6.3 Standards and terms

The following standards and terms apply:

In the conservation land unit, subdivision must be in accordance with the provisions of any operative or proposed Conservation Management Strategy under the Conservation Act 1987; or
In recreation 1-3, subdivision must be in accordance with any operative or proposed reserve management plan under the Reserves Act 1977.

In accordance with the above clauses, subdivision within the conservation land unit can only occur as a discretionary activity if the land is subject to the Conservation Act 1987 or the Reserve Act 1977. Land subject to these provisions are owned or leased by the Department of Conservation or public authorities. Privately owned conservation sites are not subject to the Conservation Act or the Reserves Act and will not meet the above standards and terms. As such, they are non-complying activities in accordance with clause 12.10(8).

On this basis, it is recommended that submission 3521/143 is accepted however, no changes to the plan is recommended.

Planner's recommendations about clause 12.9.6.1 (Recreation 1- 3 and the conservation land unit: Provision).

Submission 3521/143 is accepted however, no changes to the plan is recommended.

4.59 Submissions about clauses 12.9.8 (Rural 3) and 12.9.8.3 (Standards and terms).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1050/4, 115/2, 444/1, 441/2, 1550/10, 2202/9, 2042/9, 3094/8, 3518/9, 3552/9, 3082/2, 3144/1, 3521/98.

4.59.1 Decision requested

Group 1:

Submissions 115/2 and 3082/2 request the following:

Revege for Rakino to be 25% to 35% to allow for lifestyle activities on the land.

Submission 444/1 requests the following:

Delete 80% revegetation requirement for subdivision in rural 3 (Rakino amenity) and reduce to 10%.

Submissions 1550/10, 2202/9, 2042/9, 3094/8, 3518/9, 3552/9 request the following:

Reduce vegetation requirement within clause 12.9.8.3 (2) to 30% to allow for lifestyle activities eg grapes, olives etc.

Group 2:

Submission 1050/4 requests the following:

Supports allowing subdivision on Rakino then enforcing a planting plan upon issuance of consent to build on the new lots.

Submission 3521/98 requests the following:

Retain the comprehensive revegetation programme required in clause 12.9.8.3 and consider specifying thresholds relating to species density per metre.

Group 3:

Submission 3144/1 requests the following:

Delete 80% requirement for revegetation in case of subdivision on Rakino.

Submission 441/2 requests the following:

Decrease the revegetation requirement to 0% (for subdivision within rural 3 (Rakino amenity). There should be no link between the right to sub-divide and revegetation whatsoever.

4.59.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.59.2.1 Group 1: Submissions 115/2, 444/1, 1550/10, 2202/9, 2042/9, 3094/8, 3518/9, 3552/9 and 3082/2

Group 1 submissions request that the standard and term in clause 12.9.8.3(2) is amended so that the percentage of revegetation on each proposed site is reduced. Clause 12.9.8.3(2) states:

The subdivision must implement a comprehensive revegetation programme which provides

for revegetation of 80 per cent of each proposed site.

Submissions 115/2 and 3082/2 request a reduction to between 25%-35%; submission 444/1 requests a reduction to 10%, while submissions 1550/10, 2202/9, 2042/9, 3094/8, 3518/9 request a reduction to 30%.

The purpose of this standard and term is to achieve the environmental outcome envisaged in objective 10a.21.3.2 which states:

10a.21.3.2 Objective

To encourage the replanting of indigenous vegetation on sites in order to enhance the ecological and visual amenity values of the island and allow for effective wastewater disposal.

Policy

1. By requiring the planting of sites for amenity and wastewater disposal and ecological enhancement purposes .

Additionally, the resource management strategy for the land unit seeks to:

..provide for predominantly residential uses and to manage the environmental and visual impacts of such activities.

The coastal environment within Rakino is particularly sensitive to the impact of development and this is recognised within the land unit. The objectives and policies also recognise that revegetation would improve the amenity and ecological value of the island.

While revegetation is considered a primary issue for Rakino Island particularly, as vegetation is typically limited to the coastal fringe of the island, it is considered that the large portions of sites which are grassed could also be suitable for small scale productive uses such as viticulture and horticultural. Providing for small scale productive uses on these open, grassed sites will provide for the social and economic wellbeing of the community and enhance the island's amenity. In addition, it is considered that requiring land owners to revegetation 80% of a 3ha site is not practical nor reasonably enforceable.

On this basis, it is considered appropriate that the percentage of revegetation per site is reduced to 30% of each proposed site. This reflects the majority of the submissions noted above and will ensure that the provisions protect and enhance the existing vegetation and ecological values on the island, whilst also providing for productive uses.

It is acknowledged that the above the rules and objectives and policies of this land unit are likely to require consequential amendments in order to reflect the above recommendation. It is therefore recommended that should the Panel accept the above recommendation, then consequential amendments to the land use rules and objectives and policies of Rakino 3 are made.

On this basis, it is recommended that submissions 115/2, 3082/2, 1550/10, 2202/9, 2042/9, 3094/8, 3518/9, 3552/9 are accepted and clause 12.9.8.3(2) is amended as follows:

The subdivision must implement a comprehensive revegetation programme which provides

for revegetation of 80 30 per cent of each proposed site.

With regard to submission 444/1, as this submission seeks to reduce the percentage of revegetation to 10%, this submission can only be accepted in part.

4.59.2.2 Group 2: Submissions 1050/4 and 3521/98

The above submissions support the provision for revegetation of 80% of the site

As outlined in section 4.59.2.1 above, it is considered that rural 3 has the capacity to accommodate productive activities and therefore a reduction to the percentage required for revegetation is recommended.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 1050/4 and 3521/98 are rejected.

4.59.2.3 Group 3: Submissions 3144/1 and 441/2

The above submission request the clause 12.9.8.3(2) be deleted in its entirety.

Submissions 3144/1 and 441/2 are not supported as providing for the replanting of indigenous vegetation on sites will enhance the ecological and visual amenity values of the island and allow for effective stormwater and wastewater disposal. In addition, revegetation will also mitigate the effects associated with the reduced minimum site size and the additional modification of the environment as a result of built forms, and earthworks.

It is considered appropriate that revegetation is assessed and required at the time of subdivision as this will provide some certainly that the resource management strategy for Rakino is being implemented. As a condition of a subdivision consent, the revegetation of parts of each proposed site will need to have been implemented in order for titles to be issued for each new site.

In addition, given that the minimum site size has reduced for the Rural 3 (when comparing with the operative plan provisions), there will be less open space per site in which to absorb landscape modification e.g. the construction of built forms and earthworks. Accordingly, it is considered that by requiring revegetation at the time of subdivision, this will aid in integrating additional built forms into the surrounding landscape.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 3144/1 and 441/2 are rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submission pertaining to clause 12.9.8.3 (standards and terms for Rural 3)

Submissions 115/2, 3082/2 , 1550/10, 2202/9, 2042/9, 3094/8, 3518/9, 3552/9 are accepted and clause 12.9.8.3(2) is amended as follows:
The subdivision must implement a comprehensive revegetation programme which provides for revegetation of 80 30 per cent of each proposed site.
With regard to submission 444/1, as this submission seeks to reduce the percentage of revegetation to 10%, this submission can only be accepted in part.
Submissions 1050/4 and 3521/98 are rejected.
Submissions 3144/1 and 441/2 are rejected.

4.60 Submissions about clause 12.9.9 (Pakatoa) and clause 12.9.9.3 (standards and terms for Pakatoa).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2001/37, 2001/39, 2001/40, 2001/41, 2001/42

4.60.1 Decision requested

Submission 2001/37 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.9.9 to reflect these submissions

Submission 2001/39 requests the following:

Delete clause 12.9.9.3(1).

Submission 2001/40 requests the following:

The minimum site areas as proposed in clause 12.9.9.3 should be deleted in their entirety and replaced by standards that allow for; clustered residential units to have separate title whether or not they have a share in any balance land beyond that land immediately associated with a dwelling which may be a minimum of 350m ² in area.

Submission 2001/41 requests the following:

The standards for subdivision in clause 12.9.9 for the visitor complex area should reference the density standards proposed by the submitter and also should enable separate title to be created for all existing, approved or permitted land use activities that are neither residential or visitor accommodation units

Submission 2001/42 requests the following:

Subdivisions that are within the standards proposed by the submitter for visitor complexes should be restricted discretionary activities. Any subdivision beyond that should be discretionary.

4.60.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

The above submissions request decisions relating the land use and subdivision provisions for Pakatoa. Given that the Pakatoa subdivision provisions are closely linked to the land use rules, it has been decided that all submissions relating to this island are heard at the same time. This will avoid confusion and ensure that consistency is achieved when analysing the land use and subdivision provisions for Pakatoa.

Therefore, the above submissions will be heard in the hearings report for Pakatoa. In the event amendments are made, consequential amendments to clause 12.9.9 may be considered necessary and will be addressed accordingly.

4.61 Submissions about clause 12.9.10 (Matiatia)

Submissions dealt with in this section: 692/7, 724/7, 746/7, 861/7, 898/8, 931/7, 1162/7, 1704/7, 1705/7, 1706/7, 2771/10, 3648/7.

4.61.1 Decision requested

Submissions 692/7, 724/7, 746/7, 861/7, 898/8, 931/7, 1162/7, 1704/7, 1705/7, 1706/7, 2771/10, 3648/7 request the following:

Tighten subdivision controls in clause 12.9.10 to achieve a more integrated and comprehensive development outcome for Matiatia.

4.61.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

Submissions 692/7, 724/7, 746/7, 861/7, 898/8, 931/7, 1162/7, 1704/7, 1705/7, 1706/7, 2771/10, 3648/7 being considered in this section of the report are too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to the Plan. In addition, the submissions do not specifically identify any changes needed to achieve a more integrated and comprehensive development outcome for Matiatia.

The above submitters are therefore invited to provide clarification at the hearing as to how clause 12.9.10 should be amended in order to achieve a more integrated and comprehensive development outcome for Matiatia.

Therefore, as the decision being considered in this section of the report is too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to clause 12.9.10, it is recommended that submissions 692/7, 724/7, 746/7, 861/7, 898/8, 931/7, 1162/7, 1704/7, 1705/7, 1706/7, 2771/10, 3648/7 are rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submission pertaining to clause 12.9.10 (Matiatia)

Submissions 692/7, 724/7, 746/7, 861/7, 898/8, 931/7, 1162/7, 1704/7, 1705/7, 1706/7, 2771/10, 3648/7 are rejected.

4.62 Submissions about clause 12.10 (Non-complying activities)

Submissions dealt with in this section:

Submissions 302/5, 308/3, 371/3, 374/5, 570/5, 573/3, 575/5, 630/3, 636/5, 639/5, 641/3, 643/5, 647/3, 652/5, 656/3, 672/5, 674/3, 685/5, 686/3, 697/3, 699/3, 711/3, 715/5, 719/3, 726/3, 732/5, 737/5, 740/3, 797/5, 798/3, 805/5, 806/5, 807/3, 812/3, 823/5, 824/3, 869/5, 873/3, 885/3, 888/5, 910/3, 911/5, 921/5, 926/5, 932/3, 955/5, 959/3, 960/3, 1015/3, 1019/5, 1040/5, 1055/24, 1055/48, 1133/3, 1153/5, 1166/12, 1231/5, 1236/3, 1240/5, 1815/3, 1816/3, 1817/3, 1818/3, 1819/3, 1820/3, 1821/3, 1822/3, 1823/3, 1825/3, 1826/3, 1827/3, 1828/3, 1829/3, 1830/3, 1831/3, 1832/3, 1833/3, 1834/3, 1835/3, 1836/3, 1720/5, 1721/5, 1722/5, 1723/5, 1724/5, 1725/5, 1726/5, 1727/5, 1728/5, 1729/5, 1730/5, 1731/5, 1732/5, 1733/5, 1734/5, 1735/5, 1736/5, 1737/5, 1738/5, 1739/5, 1740/5, 1741/5, 1742/5, 1814/3, 2113/5, 2116/5, 2281/5, 2285/3, 2462/3, 2704/3, 2783/5, 2794/3, 2831/5, 2833/3, 2992/5, 2995/3, 3004/5, 3005/3, 3189/5, 3217/5, 3190/3, 3203/5, 3209/3, 3218/3, 3224/5, 3228/3, 3236/3, 3239/5, 3244/5, 3253/3, 3256/5, 3266/5, 3267/3, 3272/5, 3276/5, 3278/3, 3282/5, 3289/3, 3305/3, 3308/5, 3314/3, 3318/3, 3326/5, 3328/5, 3336/3, 3339/5, 3340/3, 3353/5, 3356/3, 3363/5, 3366/3, 3368/5, 3371/3, 3383/5, 3386/3, 3404/3, 3417/5, 3559/3, 3562/5, 3623/5, 3624/3, 3646/3, 3700/2, 3818/5, 3823/3, 323/2, 618/139, 1288/126, 619/75, 754/87, 859/87, 618/140, 1288/127, 619/76, 754/88, 859/88, 619/72, 754/85, 619/74, 859/85, 2094/1, 3106/7, 2670/73, 2670/74, 618/125, 1288/124, 2670/71

4.62.1 Decision requested

Group 1:

Introduce non-complying activity status for all coastal amenity areas subdivision in excess of the minimum site areas in tables 12.1 and 12.2

Submissions 618/139, 1288/126, 619/75, 754/87, 859/87, 2670/73 request the following:

Clause 12.10(1) should be amended so that company leases and unit titles in all land units and settlement areas that do not meet the general rules contained in clause 12.6.3 are discretionary activities.

Submissions 618/140, 1288/127, 619/76, 754/88, 859/88, 2670/74 request the following:

Clause 12.10(2) should provide for additional stages to an approved subdivision consent, where the staging is not in general accordance with the scope and terms of the original consent as a discretionary activity.

Submissions 619/72 and 754/85 request the following:

Clause 12.10(3) should be deleted and replaced with a rule that provides for any subdivisions not meeting minimum areas or variations thereto such as significant environmental feature subdivisions or bonus density subdivisions as discretionary activities but only within the context of an application for a comprehensive development approval which can be re-defined as a rural property management plan but with amendments to the proposed definition to include subdivision and land use activities.

Submission 859/85 and 2670/71 request the following:

Submission 619/74 requests the following:

Any subdivision sought not falling within a comprehensive approach as proposed by the submitters definition of rural property management plan should be defined a non-complying activity.

Submission 618/125 1288/124, requests the following:

Clause 12.10.3 should be deleted and replaced with a rule that provides for any subdivisions not meeting minimum areas or variations thereto such as significant environmental feature subdivisions or bonus density subdivisions as discretionary activities but only within the context of an application for a comprehensive management plan (CMP).

Submission 323/2 requests the following:

Clause 12.10(3) needs to change so its discretionary to reduce areas in table 12.2 (subject to achieving certain environmental outcomes; including but not limited to restoration of degraded landscape from farming and other practices).

Submission 2094/1 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.10 Non-complying activities, by adding an additional subclause as follows:

'9. Any subdivision in the Matiatia land unit, for the purposes of creating additional sites, of any site previously created as a result of a comprehensive development under clause 12.9.10(1).

Or alternative wording to like effect .

Submission 3106/7 requests the following:

In Landform 1-7, make subdivision below the minimum site areas, prohibited activity status rather than non-complying.

4.62.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.62.2.1 Non-complying activity status

Before analysing the above submissions, it is considered necessary to outline what a non-complying activity is in relation to the Plan and why the activity status has been applied to certain types of subdivision within the Hauraki Gulf Islands.

A non-complying activity category is applied when either a district plan states that the activity is non-complying or if a discretionary application does not meet a district plan's performance standards. Many district plans will impose thresholds such as minimum site size, below which a subdivision becomes a non-complying activity. Non-complying subdivisions will be subject to the Resource Management Act's s104D test of either not being contrary with the objectives and policies, or having effects which are no more than minor.

The intent of the subdivision provisions is to encourage applicants to comply with the minimum site sizes in tables 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 and certain standards and terms. Therefore, it is assumed that subdivision applications, which meet minimum site sizes, the relevant standards and terms, assessment criteria and other statutory requirements, will be granted resource consent. Therefore, it is important that thresholds or standards and terms are identified within the Plan which provide the scope in which applications will be considered for approval.

Any freehold subdivision within any land unit and settlement area is subject to minimum site size requirements as outlined in tables 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3. In the event that the minimum site size is not met, then subdivision applications will become non-complying activities as they are outside the scope for which such applications have been considered in the plan. Given a non-complying activity is not anticipated within a land unit or settlement area, council considers it important that it is carefully assessed against the relevant objectives and policies, as required by section 104D of the Act.

In other circumstances, the proposed Plan has identified freehold subdivision in specific areas as non-complying. For example, non-complying activity consent is required for any freehold subdivision within the Aotea settlement area, the Rotoroa land unit and within the commercial 6 and 7 land units.

The non-complying activity status prescribed to these land units is directly linked to the resource management strategy for these land units or settlement areas, which does not envisage freehold subdivisions taking place in these areas. The reason for the non-complying activity status is because the plan envisages a comprehensive land use development within these areas so that the overall intensity of development and the scale, form and location of individual activities and buildings can be assessed in a comprehensive and integrated manner which results in better management of resources. Such an approach will provide greater public certainty over the extent to which subdivisions can be undertaken within these land units.

Additional subdivision thresholds within the proposed Plan are identified within clause 12.6 of the (general rules) and where appropriate, within the specific rules related to each land unit. These standards and terms have been arrived at so that subdivision within the Hauraki Gulf Islands can be robustly assessed in terms of the effect on the natural and physical resources of the islands. Many of these standards and terms provide linkages to other district plan related rules, particularly land use rules, to ensure consistency in the provisions of the Plan and to achieve other land use objectives within the Plan.

The following submissions have suggested amending the Plan to reflect an effects based approach rather than the prescriptive use of activity classification. Accordingly, many submitters seek that subdivisions which do not meet the standards and terms, including minimum site size, remain discretionary activities within the Plan. However, such an approach does not consider the importance of the standards and terms within the Plan and the fact that these thresholds, in conjunction with a discretionary activity assessment, provides the scope in which applications may be considered for approval.

4.62.2.2 Group 1

The decision sought by the group 1 submissions has already been analysed in section 4.14 above where it was considered that the panel can be satisfied that the objectives, policies and rules already contained in the Part 12 of the Plan have been written with the intention of achieving the decision sought by group 1 submissions.

Therefore, for reasons already outlined in section 4.14 above, it is recommended that the decision sought by group 1 submissions with respect to clause 12.10 is accepted however, no changes to the Plan is recommended.

4.62.2.3 Submissions 618/139, 1288/126, 619/75, 754/87, 859/87, 2670/73

Where company lease and units title applications comply with clause 12.6.3, then restricted discretionary activity consent is required pursuant to clause 12.8.1 of the Plan. In the event that clause 12.6.3 is not complied with, then the application requires consent for a non-complying activity.

The above submissions request that company leases and unit titles in all land units and settlement areas that do not meet the general rules contained in clause 12.6.3 are discretionary activities.

In analysing the above decision, it is considered necessary to turn to clause 12.6.3 which currently states:

12.6.3 Company leases and unit titles

All buildings subject to a company lease or unit title application must:

Have existing use rights; or
Comply with the provisions of the Plan; or
Have a valid resource consent.

The purpose of the above standard and term is to ensure that any application for company leases and/or unit titling must be based on an existing development that is either, permitted within the district plan or has been lawfully established by way of building consent and where necessary, a land use consent. This is because company leases and unit titles involve dividing a building or buildings into one or more parcels. Unit title subdivisions (or strata titles) generally occur where more than one dwelling or building is built on a single title and separate ownership is required. This includes multi-storey developments where the unit title allows for ownership to be defined in three dimensions.

Company lease or company titles occur where the owners of the units are shareholders in a private company with occupation rights only to an individual unit. This form of lease is now rarely used.

Therefore, in order to apply for a company lease or a unit title, they must relate to lawfully established structures. This is also reinforced in sections 223 and 224 of the Act which requires the authority (Council) to check that the scheme plan for company leases conforms with the subdivision consent already issued. Council must ensure that the subdivision layout and provisions are correct and that all conditions of the consent have been (or will be) satisfied.

Council is further required under section 224(c) to provide a certificate (on the plan or a document signed similarly as for the section 223 certificate) stating that all or any of the conditions of the subdivision consent have been complied with to the satisfaction of the authority.

In addition, in accordance with the Unit Titles Act 1971 and section 224(f) of the Act, every existing building or part of an existing building (including any part under construction) to which a company lease or unit title relates must comply with the provisions of section 46(4) of the Building Act 1991. A certificate by Council must be lodged with the Registrar General of Land before a company lease or unit title plan can be deposited. [Registar General of Land Group, Land Information New Zealand@ Crown Copyright RGL Guideline Number 19]

Once certification has been approved by Council, only then can the titles be lodged with Land Information New Zealand for approval, deposit, registration and issue of new titles. In the event a company lease or unit title fails to meet the approval and certification noted above, a requisition letter or rejection notice will be sent to the applicant outlining what is required to enable a successful deposit under section 223 and or 224 of the Act. For example, if a company lease was proposed within a building which had not been lawfully established, the rejection letter will state that the structure will require a building and/or land use consent before consideration of the 223 and 224 certificates.

Therefore, clause 12.6.3 is included in the Plan as it is a requirement within the Act and provides the standards and terms by which company lease and unit title applications will be assessed. Indeed, in the event a company lease or unit title application was granted that did not meet clause 12.6.3, then the titles could never be lodged with Land Information new Zealand until such time as the building(s) was lawfully established.

A non-complying activity status of a company lease or unit title application therefore highlights that such an application is not provided for within the Plan and is well outside the scope for assessment. Such an approach will provide greater public over the extent to which company lease and unit title subdivisions can be undertaken within these land units

For reason outlined above, it is therefore recommended that submissions 618/139, 1288/126, 619/75, 754/87, 859/87, 2670/73 be rejected.

4.62.2.4 Submissions 618/140, 1288/127, 619/76, 754/88, 859/88, 2670/74

With the exception of company lease and unit titles, a subdivision application can be staged provided it proceeds in accordance with clause 12.6.4 which is defined as follows:

1. Where a subdivision (except for a company lease or unit title) is to be carried out in stages, the applicant must include detail of the staging and the expected time period for completion of the subdivision as part of the consent application.

2. The council will grant approvals under sections 223 and 224 of the RMA for each stage subject to the requirements of those sections, and will issue completion certificates under section 224 of the RMA, when the conditions applying to each stage have been met.

Clause 12.8.1(2) (restricted discretionary activities) states the following:

Additional stages to an approved subdivision consent, where the staging is in general accordance with the scope and terms of the original consent.

Submissions 618/140, 1288/127, 619/76, 754/88, 859/88, 2670/74 request that clause 12.10(2) should provide for additional stages to an approved subdivision consent, where the staging is not in general accordance with the scope and terms of the original consent as a discretionary activity.

The decision requested by the above submissions is not supported. An application and its approval is bound by the scope of the application details. Any application outside the scope and terms of the original consent will require a new subdivision consent as the scope and terms by which consent was approved has changed. This could generate effects which were not considered in the original application and which must be assessed within a new application.

A non-complying activity status prescribed to staged developments that are outside the scope of the original consent, is therefore considered appropriate as it seeks to demonstrate that such as application is not provided for within the Plan. Such an approach will provide greater public certainty over the extent to which staged subdivisions can be undertaken within these land units.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 618/140, 1288/127, 619/76, 754/88, 859/88, 2670/74 be rejected.

4.62.2.5 Submissions 619/72, 754/85, 859/85, 2670/71, 619/74, and 618/125, 1288/124.

Bonus density provisions, including comprehensive management plans (CMPs) have already been considered in sections 4.9, 4.11, and 4.22 above where is was considered that providing for bonus density provisions and CMPs is not consistent with the objectives of securing appropriate management of resources, nor is it consistent with achieving sustainable land use development.

For the same reasons outlined above and in sections 4.9, 4.11, and 4.22 above, it is recommended that submissions: 619/72, 754/85, 859/85, 2670/71, 619/74, and 618/125, 1288/124 are rejected as they relate to bonus density provisions and comprehensive management plans. The consequential amendments requested to clause 12.10 are therefore rejected.

4.62.2.6 Submission 323/2

Clause 12.10(3) states the following:

Submission 323/2 requests that clause 12.10(3) is amended so that any subdivision which does not meet the minimum site sizes specified in Tables 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 is a discretionary activity provided, there are certain environmental outcomes, including the restoration of degraded landscapes from farming and other practices.

The above submission raises two matters which require analysis, these are as follows:

Discretionary activities for subdivision below minimum site sizes

The decision requested by submission 323/2 is not supported as allowing for subdivisions below minimum site sizes undermines the purpose of having minimum site sizes, which seek to preserve the natural character of the land units settlement areas and relate minimum areas based on their physical and natural character, use and potential.

Such an approach does not consider the importance of these standards and terms within the Plan and the fact that these thresholds, in conjunction with a discretionary activity assessment, provides the scope in which applications may be considered for approval. Infringing the standards and terms relevant to the application may also be contrary to the wider resource management strategies envisaged throughout the Plan and specifically, the character of the environment and the objectives and policies for each land unit.

Moreover, by maintaining a discretionary activity status for subdivisions that infringe the minimum site sizes, does not provide any certainty to the public as to what types of subdivision are considered appropriate within the environment. Therefore, changing the activity status of a discretionary subdivision application (to non-complying) will inform the community as to the scope in which subdivisions will be considered. Such an approach will also provide greater certainly over the extent to which subdivisions can be undertaken within the Hauraki Gulf Islands.

Therefore, a non-complying activity is not anticipated within a land unit or settlement area as it is outside the scope for which such applications have been considered in the plan. On this basis, council considers it important that such applications are carefully assessed against the relevant objectives and policies, as required by section 104D of the Act. It is therefore considered appropriate that discretionary activities, which do not meet the minimum site sizes, are treated as non-complying activities.

Environmental enhancement

Submission 323/2 requests that where subdivisions do not meet minimum site sizes, provided they undertake enhancements programmes such as the restoration of degraded landscapes from farming and other practices, they should remain discretionary activities.

It is considered that this decision is similar to submission which seek bonus density provisions which have already been considered in sections 4.9, 4.11, and 4.22 above. Accordingly, it is considered the bonus density provision would fail to be consistent with the resource management strategy, objectives and policies of each land unit which seek to ensure that landscape and amenity values are not adversely affected. Therefore, while environmental protection and enhancement is a positive effect that is generated on the environment, the effects of additional built forms and the modification of the environment may adversely affect the landscape character of the area.

In addition, it is considered that providing for subdivisions which do not meet minimum site sizes (i.e. bonus densities) through the cessation of farming and replanting will not generate greater environmental benefits above what can already be achieved through SEF subdivision contained in clauses 12.9.3 and 12.9.4 of the Plan.

Submission 323/2 also links to submissions considered in section 4.39.2 and 4.54.2.6 above, whereby the submitters request that the retirement of active framing with landscape plantings and enhancement should qualify for consideration as a significant environmental feature and therefore a reduction in minimum site sizes as outlined in table 12.1.

For the same reasons outlined above and in sections 4.9, 4.11, 4.22, 4.39.2 and 4.54.2.6 above, it is recommended that submission 323/2 is rejected.

4.62.2.7 Submission 2094/1

Submission 2094/1 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.10 Non-complying activities, by adding an additional subclause as follows:

'9. Any subdivision in the Matiatia land unit, for the purposes of creating additional sites, of any site previously created as a result of a comprehensive development under clause 12.9.10(1).

Or alternative wording to like effect .

In analysing the above submission it should be noted that the Matiatia land unit is in the ownership of the council and it is intended that it will be comprehensively redeveloped to create a safe and efficient transport network and a mixed use development that will serve both residents and visitors to the island. Matiatia has some notable assets such as its ferry terminal, coastal landscape and the regenerating wetland. However, in order to create a truly effective and attractive 'gateway' to Waiheke, a comprehensive redevelopment of the land on the valley floor needs to be undertaken.

In light of this, the land use and subdivision provisions have been written so that subdivision is subject to a comprehensive development in accordance with the general rules inclause 12.6 and the specific standards and terms inclause 12.9.10.3. Subdivision must therefore be assessed in one application and in a comprehensive and integrated manner in order to create a safe and attractive mixed use development that will meet the needs of the residents and visitors using the area, while maintaining the landscape character of Matiatia. This will also provide greater certainty over the extent to which subdivision and land use development can be undertaken in this land unit and ensure that the redevelopment of Matiatia is not undertaken in an ad hoc manner and meets the objectives and policies of the land unit.

The above submission is therefore supported as it is considered that changing the activity status of a subdivision application where the site has already been comprehensively developed, will direct the Council and any lessees of the land to develop the land in an integrative manner and in accordance with the objectives and policies of this land unit.

On this basis, it is recommended that submission 2094/1 is accepted and clause 12.10 is amended as follows:

'9. Any freehold subdivision in the Matiatia land unit of any site previously created as a result of a comprehensive development under clause 12.9.10(1).

4.62.2.8 Submission 3106/7

Submission 3106/7 requests that subdivision below the minimum site areas are prohibited activities rather than non-complying activities.

The issue of prohibited activities has recently been addressed in the Court of Appeal decision Coromandel Watchdog of Hauraki Incorporated vs Ministry for Economic Development & Anor CA 285/05. This decision found that the High Court had erred in holding that a prohibited activity can only be used when a planning authority is satisfied that, during the time span of the Plan, the activity in question should in no circumstances be allowed in the area under consideration. This essentially means that prohibited activity status can be used in circumstances where it may be more appropriate for the issue to be considered through a plan change process, rather than through a resource consent. Therefore, councils have a broader discretion to classify activities as prohibited than previously thought.

Notwithstanding the above, prohibiting subdivision does not take into account the need to enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing, and for their health and safety (section 5(2) of the Act). Indeed, the RMA seeks to ensure that development is undertaken in a sustainable manner and that an assessment of subdivision is undertaken on its merits and on a case by case basis.

It is considered that the Plan adequately addresses these issues through its objectives, policies, activity statuses, developments controls, standards and terms and assessment criteria. The objectives, policies and rules ensure that subdivision should only occur on sites where there is adequate physical capacity and capability to integrate development impacts. Subdivision must relate to the unique physical and environmental values present in the islands and maintain those elements, patterns and features of the landscape that comprise each land unit or settlement area. The objectives, policies and rules provide the scope in which applications may be considered for approval and as stated previously, all forms of subdivision (with the exception of permitted activities in clause 12.7), including restricted discretionary activities, can be declined if the effects on the environment are more than minor.

A non-complying activity status therefore reflects that the Plan does not generally envisage a reduction in minimum site sites as such a reduction can lead to potential adverse effects, which can undermine the resource management strategy for the land units themselves. However, it is considered that there may be situations or locations where a reduction below minimum site sizes may be acceptable and that such applications should be considered through a consent process.

For reasons outlined above, it is recommended that submission 3106/7 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submission pertaining to clause 12.10 (Non-complying activities)

Group 1 with respect to clause 12.10 are accepted however, no changes to the Plan are recommended.
Submissions 618/139, 1288/126, 619/75, 754/87, 859/87, 2670/73 be rejected.
Submissions 618/140, 1288/127, 619/76, 754/88, 859/88, 2670/74 be rejected.
Submissions 619/72, 754/85, 859/85, 2670/71, 619/74, and 618/125, 1288/124 be rejected.
Submission 323/2 is rejected.
Submission 2094/1 is accepted and clause 12.10 is amended as follows:
(9). Any freehold subdivision in the Matiatia land unit of any site previously created as a result of a comprehensive development under clause 12.9.10(1).
Submission 3106/7 be rejected

4.63 Submissions about clause 12.11 (General assessment criteria for discretionary applications).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2001/43, 618/84, 619/29, 754/33, 859/33, 1288/84, 2670/28, 2001/44, 1093/74, 1243/91, 618/85, 619/30, 754/34, 859/34, 1288/85, 2670/29, 1093/75, 618/86, 619/31, 754/35, 859/35, 1288/86, 2670/30, 2001/46, 618/87, 619/32, 1288/87, 2001/47, 2670/31, 754/36, 859/36, 754/37, 859/37, 316/1, 754/38, 859/38, 618/88, 619/33, 1288/88, 2670/32, 537/14, 618/90, 619/35, 754/40, 859/40, 1288/90, 2670/34, 2001/45, 618/89, 619/34, 1288/89, 2670/33, 754/39, 859/39, 859/41, 2670/35, 2001/48, 618/92, 619/37, 754/42, 859/42, 1288/92, 2670/36, 618/94, 619/39, 754/44, 754/45, 1288/94, 2670/38, 618/93, 619/38, 754/43, 859/43, 1288/93, 2670/37, 859/44, 859/45, 618/95, 619/40, 754/46, 859/46, 1288/95.

4.63.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 618/84, 619/29, 754/33, 859/33, 1288/84, 2670/28 request the following:

Clause 12.11.2 should be amended to reference ARC publication TP 124 and not the HGI development code which is not a suitable guideline .

Submissions 2001/44 and 2001/45 requests the following:

Reference to the HGI development code in clause 12.11.2 and 12.11.8 should be deleted because it is not consistent with TP124 and not relevant to Pakatoa.

Submissions 618/87, 619/32, 1288/87, 2001/47, 2670/31 request the following:

Clause 12.11.6 needs amendment as while the intent of the provision is generally supported the requirement to covenant is not appropriate if it prevents a subsequent application for suitable vehicle access. Sub clause 8 requires clarification as the purpose of the criterion is not clear and it introduces matters that go outside of the RMA process such as sale of land.

Submissions 754/36, 859/36 request the following:

Submissions 754/37, 859/37 request the following:

Clause 12.11.6(8) requires clarification as the purpose of the criterion is not clear and it introduces matters that go outside of the RMA process such as sale of land.

Submission 316/1 requests the following:

If a road considered by the council to be unnecessary for future roading use, it cannot be offered by the council to anybody or company without the consent of all property owners of land contiguous to or bordering the road.

Submissions 754/38, 859/38 request the following:

Clause 12.11.7 requires amendment so that sub clause 1 is focussed on the intent to ensure water systems are not adversely affected - which is not the case with the current wording.

Submissions 618/88, 619/33, 1288/88, 2670/32 request the following:

Clause 12.11.7(1) requires amendment so that it is focussed on the intent to ensure water systems are not adversely affected.

Submissions 618/89, 619/34, 1288/89, 2670/33 request the following:

Clause 12.11.10 requires amendment to so that it is focussed on the intent to ensure water systems are not adversely affected.

Submissions 754/39, 859/39 request the following:

Clause 12.11.10 requires amendment so that sub clause 1 is focussed on the intent to ensure water systems are not adversely affected - which is not the case with the current wording.

Submissions 618/94, 619/39, 754/44, 754/45, 1288/94, 2670/38 request the following:

Clauses 12.11.13 and 12.11.14 could be amalgamated.

Submission 859/44 requests the following:

Could be amalgamated with clause 12.11.14

Submission 859/45 requests the following:

Could be amalgamated with clause 12.11.13

Submissions 618/85, 619/30, 754/34, 859/34, 1288/85, 2670/29 request the following:

Clause 12.11.4 should be amended as it is not relevant whether a dwelling is within productive land or elsewhere on a site.

Submissions 618/86, 619/31, 754/35, 859/35, 1288/86, 2670/30 request the following:

Clause 12.11.5 needs amendment as the criteria are imprecise and subject to varying interpretation and will cause administrative difficulties and conflicts.

Submission 2001/46 requests the following:

Clause 12.11.5 should be amended to reflect the fact that subdivision may follow the erection of building and reflect activities that are consented or proposed.

Submission 537/14 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.11.8 - point 2 as follows:

"The extent to which the subdivision provides for an adequate and reliable supply of emergency water supply to each site in accordance with the New Zealand Fire Service Water Suppliers Code of Practice NZ4509:2003 in event of fire".

Submissions 618/90, 619/35, 754/40, 859/40, 1288/90, 2670/34 request the following:

Clause 12.11.8(2) may be overly onerous as in many cases that will require additional water storage tanks and if not potable water will become a health hazard.

Submissions 859/41, 2670/35 request the following:

Clause 12.11.11(3) should refer to the extent to which cables can be placed underground.

Submission 2001/48 requests the following:

Clause 12.11.12 should be amended to include reference to any circumstances where the provision of coastal reserves, public access and open space as defined in the Plan provisions exceed the requirements of the RMA and how credits may be applied to the calculations of financial contributions.

Submissions 618/92, 619/37, 754/42, 859/42, 1288/92, 2670/36 request the following:

Clause 12.11.12(3) should refer to potential mechanisms whether it be easement, covenant, esplanade strip or reserve to make clear that those represent acceptable methods.

Submissions 618/93, 619/38, 754/43, 859/43, 1288/93, 2670/37 request the following:

Clause 12.11.13(4) needs to be amended to integrate with the submitters requests relating to definition of significant environmental feature, bonus density rules for subdivision and should reference vegetation re-planting/enhancements .

Submissions 618/95, 619/40, 754/46, 859/46, 1288/95 request the following:

Clause 12.11.15 should also reference stability.

Submission 2001/43 requests the following:

The assessment criteria in clause 12.11 should be amended to reflect other submissions by the submitter in respect of the Pakatoa provisions.

Submissions 1093/74, 1243/91 request the following:

Retain clause 12.11.3.

Submission 1093/75 requests the following:

Retain paragraph 12.11.4 Land suitable for rural production.

4.63.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.63.2.1 Submissions 618/84, 619/29, 754/33, 859/33, 1288/84, 2670/28, 2001/44 and 2001/45

The above submissions request the clause 12.11.2 (Low impact design) and clause 12.11.8 (Water supply) be amended to reference Auckland Regional Council publication 124 and not the Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Code.

The decision sought by the above submission has already been analysed in section 4.45.2.1 above. As already stated in this foregoing section, the Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Code has been written as a tool for the persons wishing to undertake development in a sustainable manner within the Hauraki Gulf Islands.

Overall, it is considered that while the Hauraki Gulf Island Development Code is a draft document, the information contained within this code is more relevant to the community and environment of the Hauraki Gulf Islands (including Pakatoa).

For these reasons, submissions 618/84, 619/29, 754/33, 859/33, 1288/84, 2670/28, 2001/44 and 2001/45 are rejected.

4.63.2.2 Submissions 1093/74, 1243/91

The above submissions request that clause 12.11.3 (Reverse Sensitivity) is retained.

As outlined in section 4.36.2.2, clause 12.11.3 seeks to assess the extent to which subdivisions may create situations where incompatible land uses are sited next to each other, resulting in conflict between property users. This is particularly common in rural areas, and on Waiheke Island where vineyards are located adjacent to residential land units. Property owners on the smaller residential land units can be affected by noise from machinery, bird scarers and spray drift. Visual impacts of land use activities can also affect neighbours.

Reverse sensitivity is a consequential effect of land use development which requires assessment as part of any subdivision. This will ensure that subdivisions are granted which enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety.

It is recommended that submissions 1093/74, 1243/91 are accepted and clause 12.11.3 is retained.

4.63.2.3 Submissions 618/85, 619/30, 754/34, 859/34, 1288/85, 2670/29

The above submissions request that clause 12.11.4 (Land suitable for rural production) should be amended as it should not be relevant whether a dwelling is within productive land or located elsewhere on the site.

Clause 12.11.4 is outlined as follows:

The extent to which the site sizes and design of a proposed site containing land for rural production retains as much of this land around the building platform as practicable.

Where subdivision proposals seek to utilise land for rural production, consideration should be made to the location of dwellings and ancillary buildings to the area envisaged for rural production. Locating a dwelling and ancillary buildings near the area proposed for rural production, will reduce the need for rural farm tracks throughout the site. Such tracks are often a requirement for productive sites and link the main dwelling with ancillary buildings and the land utilised for productive use. These tracks often involve removing vegetation and undertaking earthworks which modifies the environment and fragments areas of indigenous vegetation. Therefore, by reducing the distance of a dwelling from a site's productive use, this will reduce the degree of environmental modification and provide areas of vegetation that are contiguous.

It should be noted that the assessment criteria are inclusive, not exclusive, nor are they standards and terms which must be complied with. Assessment matters need to relate to the issue or effect the activity may have on the environment, and/or the aspect of non-compliance that has triggered the requirement for an application. They should also set the direction council is seeking in considering an activity. Moreover, some criteria may not be relevant to a proposal and therefore, will not necessarily be considered by every subdivision application. They ensure that the applicant and council have turned their minds to certain issues which may be relevant to a proposal.

The approach applies to the assessment matters contained in clause 12.11 of the Plan. While clause 12.11.4 may be relevant to one application, it will not necessarily be considered in another. Therefore, some sites may have landscape features (such as in landforms 3 and 5) which mean that a dispersed pattern of buildings on sites using land for rural production will be suitable. Conversely, there may be productive sites that have large areas of vegetation which prevents a dispersed pattern of buildings being undertaken on these sites.

Given that criterion contained in clause 12.11.4 may be relevant to certain applications, it is considered necessary that the criteria is retained in the plan without amendment. As such, it is recommended that submissions 618/85, 619/30, 754/34, 859/34, 1288/85, 2670/29 are rejected.

4.63.2.4 Submission 1093/75

Submission 1093/75 requests that clause 12.11.4 (Land suitable for rural production) is retained.

As stated in section 4.63.2.3 above, clause 12.11.4 considers the extent to which sites are designed so that land for rural production retains as much of this land around a building platform as practicable. While the criteria may not be relevant to certain applications, it may be a consideration for proposed productive sites which have large areas of vegetation.

Therefore, for reasons already outlined above, it is recommended that submission 1093/75 be accepted and clause 12.11.4 is retained.

4.63.2.5 Submissions 618/86, 619/31, 754/35, 859/35, 1288/86, 2670/30

The above submissions request that clause 12.11.5 (Site design and layout) is amended as the

criteria are imprecise and subject to varying interpretation and will cause administrative difficulties and conflicts.

Clause 12.11.5 is outlined as follows:

The extent to which the subdivision addresses site design and layout by:

Locating site boundaries so that associated development protects and preserves elements, patterns and features that contribute to the natural landscape character, visual amenity and amenity value of each land unit or settlement area.
Locating site boundaries so that associated development can be visually integrated within the coastal landscape without adversely affecting the natural character and amenity value of the coastal environment and wider visual catchment.
Locating site boundaries so that they integrate with the topography and the usability of the site(s).
Locating proposed site boundaries so that they integrate and locate the building platforms in relation to existing buildings and adjoining sites.
Locating proposed site boundaries so that they identify the likely location of buildings and accessways in order to minimise potential visual impacts.
Avoiding adverse effects on landscape and visual amenity values within the wider visual catchment.
Avoiding any non-compliance with the rules associated with existing buildings. This includes considering the extent to which subdivision is designed so that any level of non-compliance that already exists is not increased.
Ensuring that the layout of reserves and accessways provides for adequate public access.

The purpose of the above criteria is to ensure that the site design and layout of a subdivision proposal takes into consideration the visual amenity, natural landscape character and amenity value of each land unit as well as the effects on the existing natural and built environment. The subdivision provisions, including the assessment criteria, must therefore link to the resource management strategy envisaged throughout the Plan.

It is acknowledged that the assessment of effects on visual amenity, natural landscape character and amenity value is a subjective one and subject to varying interpretations however, it is an important consideration in all subdivisions applications and must be undertaken. Without such an assessment, no regard can be made to the consequential effects associated with future land use development which can cause adverse effects on the environment.

In response to the above submissions, it is considered that the decision sought is too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to clause 12.11.5. In addition, submissions 618/86, 619/31, 754/35, 859/35, 1288/86, 2670/30 do not specifically identify any changes needed to clause 12.11.5 so that the criteria are more precise and less likely to be varying in interpretation. For this reason, submissions 618/86, 619/31, 754/35, 859/35, 1288/86, 2670/30 are rejected.

The above submitters are invited to provide clarification at the hearing as to how clause 12.11.5 should be amended so that the criteria are more precise and less likely to vary in interpretation.

4.63.2.6 Submission 2001/46

Submission 2001/46 requests that Clause 12.11.5 should be amended to reflect the fact that subdivision may follow the erection of building and reflect activities that are consented or proposed.

The rationale of submission 2100/46 is supported as subdivision can follow after the erection of building and activities which have been lawfully established. In particular, a freehold subdivision is often applied for on sites which have lawfully established multiple dwellings and activities. It is considered that such forms of subdivision must still be assessed based on whether there is adequate physical capacity and capability to integrate development impacts. This is because additional development rights such as increased site coverage can occur as a result of creating two freehold sites where previously there was one.

In addition, such forms of subdivision must take into consideration the location of the existing buildings so that the proposal avoids any non-compliance with land use rules. For example, a height in relation to boundary infringement may occur where previously there was none.

It is considered that clause 12.11.5 already takes into account of these types of subdivision by way of clauses 12.11.5(4), 12.11.5(7) as follows:

4. Locating proposed site boundaries so that they integrate and locate the building platforms in relation to existing buildings and adjoining sites.

7. Avoiding any non-compliance with the rules associated with existing buildings. This includes considering the extent to which subdivision is designed so that any level of non-compliance that already exists is not increased.

The above clauses take into consideration any existing buildings that are already located on the parent site. This is to ensure that boundaries are located around existing structures so that non-compliances with the land use and subdivision rules are not created. In addition, consideration is given to any existing non-compliance with the rules which may be exacerbated.

On this basis, it is considered that the decision sought by submission 2001/46 is already an assessment matter in clause 12.11.5. On this basis, submission 2001/46 is accepted however, no changes to clause 12.11.5 is recommended.

4.63.2.7 Submissions 618/87, 619/32, 1288/87, 2001/47, 2670/31, 754/36, 859/36 and 754/37, 859/37

Submissions 618/87, 619/32, 1288/87, 2001/47, 2670/31, 754/36, 859/36 and 754/37, 859/37 seek decisions in relation to clause 12.11.6 (Access to sites).

As stated in clause 4.40.2.1 above, the subdivision provisions do not seek to restrict access to sites; instead, the provisions recognise that as part of subdivision, each proposed site must have adequate physical capacity and capability to integrate development impacts. This includes having the capacity to safely accommodate on-site car parking and access which is a requirement of Part 13 (connectivity and linkages).

While vehicle access to sites is required as part of the development controls for all land units and settlement areas, such access often involves earthworks and the modification of the landscape. By locating and where necessary, restricting the location of access to sites at the time of subdivision, this will ensure that the natural character and landscape values of the environment are not adversely affected.

The policies also directly relate to clause 12.6.1 (bulk, location and access controls for buildings) whereby each site must demonstrate where a building, access and parking can be constructed which complies with specific development controls. The provision for shared access to sites is also provided for (right of ways in clause 12.8.1(5)) and special purpose sites in clause 12.9.2, and is even a standard required for cluster subdivision in clause 12.9.4.

Assessment criteria in clauses 12.11.6 (Access to sites) and 12.11.15 (Earthworks and land disturbance) seek to ensure that the access to sites is practical, legal and safe while also ensuring that that the natural character and landscape values of each land unit and settlement area are not adversely affected through the modification of the environment.

Where vehicle access to sites cannot be provided for without adversely affecting natural character and landscape values, policy 3 of objective 12.3.4 (Access roads and tracks) and criterion 12.11.6(2) considers alternative measures such as legal foot access or access by sea. In the event that legal vehicular access to a site(s) is deemed either unnecessary or impractical or where sea access is possible, then these alternative forms of access will be accepted. Criterion 12.11.6(b)(iii) states that if the Council approves sites with legal foot access only, then such sites will be required to have this registered on their titles through a consent notice or other suitable legal instrument.

Submissions 618/87, 619/32, 1288/87, 2001/47, 2670/31, 754/36, 859/36 and 754/37, 859/37 state that while they generally support the intent of criterion 12.11.6, the requirement to covenant areas as part of subdivision is not appropriate if it prevents vehicle assess.

It is unclear as to exactly what the above submitters are seeking in relation to their submission. Notwithstanding this, it is assumed that the submissions are referring to clause 12.11.6(b)(iii) which requires the registration of a consent notice (or covenant) in the event that foot access is provided to the sites.

Submissions 618/87, 619/32, 1288/87, 2001/47, 2670/31, 754/36, 859/36 and 754/37, 859/37 do not take into consideration that all forms of access and their associated effects should have been considered as part of the subdivision proposal itself. The provision for foot access would have been considered only where is has been demonstrated that vehicular access to each proposed site would generate adverse effects on the environment. Foot access is also a practicable solution for sites which are already land locked.

It is not considered necessary to remove the statement relating to the registration of a consent notice on titles where only foot access is provided. Such legal instruments will ensure that all subsequent purchasers of each site are aware of the limitations of access. It will also serve to discourage individual owners in applying for land use applications for the purposes of providing vehicular access.

In the event that changes in the environment occur (e.g. a paper road is formed, Right's of Ways are negotiated) then potential purchasers can still apply for vehicular access by removing or varying the consent notice under section 213(C) of the RMA and applying for land use consent. Therefore, registering a consent notice or covenant on titles which limits foot access does not prevent people from eventually providing vehicular access if environmental circumstances changes.

Therefore, for reasons outlined above, submissions 618/87, 619/32, 1288/87, 2001/47, 2670/31, 754/36, 859/36 and 754/37, 859/37 are rejected as they relate to clause 12.11.6(b)(iii).

Point (8) being outside the scope of the RMA

Submissions 618/87, 619/32, 1288/87, 2001/47, 2670/31 and 754/37, 859/37 also states that Clause 12.11.6 (8) requires clarification as the purpose of the criterion is not clear and it introduces matters that go outside of the RMA process such as sale of land.

Clause 12.11.6(8) states:

8. The extent to which there is/are existing unformed legal road(s) contiguous with or within land subject to subdivision, that are not required for future roading use.

Such roads may be closed under the Local Government Act 1974 and consideration given to vesting them as reserve, transferring ownership to adjacent administering bodies of reserves or offering them for sale to adjacent landowners at market value. In the case of the latter, the selection of buyer(s) and the terms of sale will be managed by the council.

The purpose of the above clause is to indicate how any unformed legal road, surplus to council roading requirements, that is contiguous or within land subject to subdivision, may be dealt with if adjacent land is to be subdivided. Closing roads that will not be used for roading purposes will ensure that all proposed sites have an area that is not fragmented by more than one piece of land. It also reduces the problems associated with sites that are divided by roads, particularly in terms of land use development and when owners wish to farm the land and must contain livestock. The clause also serves as an advice note with regard to how roads are closed. It therefore provides greater certainly to the public as to the considerations made with regard to unformed legal roads. It also directs council planners to consider the potential land use effects that can arise when sites are fragmented by unformed roads.

Submissions 618/87, 619/32, 1288/87, 2001/47, 2670/31 and 754/37, 859/37 are correct in that clause 12.11.6(8) is outside the scope of the RMA as it relies upon another legislative framework as part of its assessment. Notwithstanding this, in the event sites are created which are divided by roads, there are resource management implications which can arise particularly, when owners wish to develop their site.

It is considered that retaining clause 12.11.6(8) ensures that a holistic assessment of the effects of the subdivision are taken into account. Moreover, by closing roads where deemed necessary and as part of a subdivision proposal, this will remove any future land use problems that can arise from fragmented sites.

Therefore, for reasons outlined above, it is recommended that submissions 618/87, 619/32, 1288/87, 2001/47, 2670/31 and 754/37, 859/37 are rejected as they relate to clause 12.11.6(8).

4.63.2.8 Submission 316/1

Submission 316/1 states the following:

The above statement is made by submission 316/1 in relation to clause 12.11.6(8) (Access to sites). This clause in outlined in section 4.63.2.7 above.

Submission 316/1 considers that roads should be vested as reserves if they are not required for future road use and that all adjacent property owners must be notified and give their consent.

As stated above, closing a road is undertaken in accordance with the Local Government Act 1974. Specifically, section 342 'stopping and closing of roads' states:

(1) The council may, in the manner provided in Schedule 10 to this Act,�

(a) Stop any road or part thereof in the district:

Provided that the council (not being a borough council) shall not proceed to stop any road or part thereof in a rural area unless the prior consent of the Minister of Lands has been obtained; or

[[(b) Close any road to traffic or any specified type of traffic (including pedestrian traffic) on a temporary basis in accordance with that Schedule and impose or permit the imposition of charges as provided for in that Schedule.]]

Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974 outlines the procedure in which roads are stopped or closed and in accordance with parts 2 and 3, public notice must be served on owners and occupiers of all land adjoining the road proposed to be stopped or closed.

In the event objections are received, council must send the objections together with plans and a full description of the proposal to the Environment Court. The proposal will also include information as to whether the road will be vested as reserve or offered for sale to adjacent landowners. The Environment Court will consider the district plan, the plan of the road to be stopped or closed and all objections and either confirm, modify or reverse the decision of the council.

It is evident that the decision sought by submission 316/1 is already provided for in some form. In particular, all roads which are proposed to be stopped or closed must undergo public notification whereby notice is served on all property owners/occupiers of land adjoining the road. Any objections will be heard by the Environment Court and a decision made. This process however, does not necessarily result in the consent of all property owners/occupiers adjoining the road as requested by the submitter. The Environment Court will make a decision based on all information presented which may not be in favour of all property owners who may also have differing views.

In light of the above, it is recommended that submission 316/1 be accepted in part as the existing provisions of the Local Government Act 1974 ensure that all adjoining landowners and occupiers are notified of council's intention to stop or close a road. However, while public participation is available to all adjoining owners/occupiers who may object to the proposal, the Local Government Act and the RMA do not need to obtain the consent of all adjoining property owners before a decision is made in relation to a proposal. On this basis, submission 316/1 cannot be accepted in full. In addition, no further amendments to the Plan are recommended in relation to submission 316/1.

4.63.2.9 Submissions 754/38, 859/38 and 618/88, 619/33, 1288/88, 2670/32

Submissions 754/38, 859/38 and 618/88, 619/33, 1288/88, 2670/32 state that clause 12.11.7 requires amendment so that 12.11.7(1) focuses on ensuring that water systems are not adversely affected.

Clause 12.11.7 (Natural water systems) is outlined as follows:

The extent to which there is sufficient capacity and treatment to provide for the safe and efficient disposal of stormwater and wastewater from the subdivision and possible future development.
The extent to which the design of stormwater and wastewater disposal systems incorporate measures to reduce runoff rates where there may be damage caused to natural waterway systems.
The extent to which any subdivision proposal demonstrates how any natural water system on the site will be managed, protected or enhanced.

The above criteria seek to ensure that the effects on natural water systems particularly, from the disposal of stormwater and wastewater are assessed as part of all subdivision applications.

Submissions 754/38, 859/38 and 618/88, 619/33, 1288/88, 2670/32 are accepted as clause 12.11.7(1) does not clearly link to the issue or effect that Council is seeking to assess. The current wording of clause 12.11.7(1) does not reference 'natural water systems' nor consider the effects on water systems from stormwater and wastewater disposal.

Therefore, in order to provide clarity to clause 12.11.7(1) and to link the criterion to the direction council is seeking in considering this clause, it is recommended that submissions 754/38, 859/38 and 618/88, 619/33, 1288/88, 2670/32 are accepted and clause 12.11.7(1) of the Plan is amended as follows:

1. The extent to which there is sufficient capacity and treatment to provide for the safe and efficient disposal of stormwater and wastewater from the subdivision and possible future development without adversely affecting natural water systems .

In addition to the above, it is recommended that a consequential amendment is made to clause 12.2 (resource management issues) so that the disposal of stormwater and wastewater from subdivision do not adversely affect natural water systems. This amendment to clause 12.2 is as follows:

(20) How to ensure that the disposal of stormwater and wastewater from subdivision and possible future development do not adversely affect natural water systems .

4.63.2.10 Submission 537/14

Submission 537/14 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.11.8 - point 2 as follows:

Clause 12.11.8 (water supply) is currently worded as follows:

The extent to which the subdivision provides for an adequate and reliable supply of potable water to each proposed site. The requirements of the Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Code may be used as a guide for achieving this outcome.
The extent to which the subdivision provides for an adequate and reliable supply of emergency water supply to each site in the event of fire.

The New Zealand Fire Service Water Suppliers Code of Practice establishes the minimum fire fighting water supply that is required for fire hazards. To comply with the code of practice, it must be shown that this minimum supply is designed to be available at all times. If it is not, then either the supply must be increased or the fire hazard in the premise must be reduced (i.e. by installing sprinkler systems).

The code provides formulae which determine the degree of a fire hazard on a premise and the volume of water required to safely control and extinguish the hazard. For reticulated sites the code considers the location of the water from the fire hazard and the maximum number of fire hydrants to provide flow and water volume.

The objective of submission 537/14 is supported as it is vital that each site has an adequate amount of water storage on the site or near by for the purposes of extinguishing a fire. The intent of clause 12.11.8(2) is to ensure that the applicant and council consider the amount of water supply on each site for the purposes of fires hazards. Within the Hauraki Gulf Islands, alternative forms of water supply is often taken in the form of nearby water systems and most commonly, water tanks.

While the intent of submission 537/14 is supported, it is not considered appropriate to reference the New Zealand Fire Service Water Suppliers Code of Practice NZ4509:2003 as part of the criteria. This is because the code does not expressly state the minimum available water storage volume for non-reticulated sites. The code does reference alternative fire fighting water sources such as dams, water tanks and grey water, however the minimum available water storage volume for non-reticulated sites is based on a complex formulae contained in table 2 and Appendix F of the code. Furthermore, the adequacy of the flow from the alternative fire fighting source must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Chief Fire Officer of the Urban Fire District.

Following such a formulae will result in difficulties in interpreting and applying the code and assessing clause 12.11.8, particularly if a proposal does not meet table 2 and/or Appendix F. Given the complexity of the formulae in determining the minimum amount of water for adequate fire fighting supply, it is recommended that submission 537/14 is rejected as it applies to clause 12.11.8.

4.63.2.11 Submissions 618/90, 619/35, 754/40, 859/40, 1288/90, 2670/34

The above submissions consider that clause 12.11.8(2) (Water supply) may be overly onerous as it may require additional water storage tanks which can become a health hazard.

Clause 12.11.8(2) (outline above) seeks to ensure that the applicant and council consider the amount of water supply on each site for the purposes of fires hazards. This is particularly important for sites which are located in bush areas or are isolated in rural areas. Consideration of the criteria may result in additional water tanks being required on sites particularly, where there are no alternative forms of water supply such as neighbouring tanks and water systems.

Future land use development associated with any subdivision invariably increases the potential for fire hazards within the environment. Consequently, subdivision must consider that extent to which sites have the capacity to service development on the land and this includes a site's ability to cope with fire hazards. Without a sufficient water supply, buildings and landforms can be destroyed.

On this basis, submissions 618/90, 619/35, 754/40, 859/40, 1288/90, 2670/34 are rejected as the consideration of fire hazards on each site must be considered as part of any subdivision proposal.

With regard to potable water supply becoming a health hazard, provided regular maintenance of a tank is undertaken, including cleaning of the water using chlorine tablets, potable water supply should not become a health and safety hazard

4.63.2.12 Submissions 618/89, 619/34, 1288/89, 2670/33 and 754/39, 859/39

The above submissions request that clause 12.11.10 (Sewage treatment and disposal) is amended so that it is ensures that water systems are not adversely affected by sewage treatment and disposal.

Clause 12.11.10 is outlined as follows:

The extent to which the subdivision has sufficient capacity for the disposal of any effluent or other wastewater flow within the boundaries of each proposed site regardless of seasonal variations and loading (this may require an assessment of soil types, and as necessary, percolation tests).
Where more than one site will be created, the extent to which a shared or individual wastewater treatment and disposal system is considered the most appropriate, having regard to any existing problems within the vicinity of the site.
The extent to which easements and consent notices may be applied to protect the integrity of wastewater disposal systems.

The intent of the decision sought by the above submissions is supported, as it is important that the effects of wastewater disposal from each proposed site does not adversely affect natural water systems. However, in light of the recommendation made in section 4.63.2.9 above, it is not considered necessary to amend clause 12.11.10 to consider the effects on water systems. Clause 12.11.7 (Natural water systems) as amended, is considered to adequately assess the effects of wastewater disposal on natural water systems. Referencing water systems within clause 12.11.10 will lead to repetition in council's assessment and possible confusion over the direction council is seeking in considering each criterion.

Clause 12.11.10 focuses on whether each proposed site has the capacity to safely dispose of effluent or other wastewater flows to within the boundaries each site. Clause 12.11.7 focuses directly on the effects of stormwater and wastewater disposal on natural water systems. Therefore, in the event that natural water systems are located on or near proposed sites, then the effects on these systems will be considered as part of the assessment criteria contained in 12.11.7 (natural water systems). Accordingly, the assessment matters in clauses 12.11.7 and 12.11.10 relate to a different effect that subdivision may have on the environment.

On this basis, it is recommended that submissions 618/89, 619/34, 1288/89, 2670/33 and 754/39, 859/39 are accepted however, in light of recommendation made to clause 12.11.7 (Natural water systems) no further changes to clause 12.11.10 is recommended.

4.63.2.13 Submissions 859/41, 2670/35

Clause 12.11.11 (Network utility services) is outlines as follows:

The extent to which access easements provide for lines, including electric lines, telecommunication lines and other lines, where such lines or cables are or may be located within any private property and serve other properties or sites.
The extent to which sites can be connected to services such as telecommunications and electricity.
The extent to which cables must be placed underground with minimal disturbance to the environment.
The extent to which the provision of utility services to any site is of an appropriate design for the potential uses and the particular characteristics of the area.
The extent to which the installation of utility services does not adversely affect natural landscape and amenity qualities.

Submissions 859/41, 2670/35 request that Clause 12.11.11(3) is amended as follows:

The extent to which cables ~~must~~ can be placed underground with minimal disturbance to the environment.

The objectives, polices and assessment criteria in clause 12.11.11 (Network utility services) considers the design of subdivision within all land units and settlement areas and how each can be serviced by network utilities without adversely affecting the natural landscape and amenity qualities of the environment. Matters to consider include shared services (easements) and the extent to which services can be placed underground.

Criteria in clause 12.11.11 considers whether the provision of network utility services are appropriate given the potential uses and particular characteristics of an area. For example, rural sites may not be able to connect to network utility services due an absence of these services in the area or because providing such services may adversely affect the landscape character of the area. As such, alternative measures can be considered such as generators. Consideration of these matters will enable sites that are capable of accommodating additional land use development, to be subdivided without having to modify the landscape.

It is therefore accepted that certain sites may not be able to place services underground without adversely affecting the environment. On this basis, submissions 859/41, 2670/35 are supported as the current wording implies that it is a requirement of a subdivision to place cables underground (much like a standard and term). This is not the intent of the criteria which seeks to consider whether each subdivision can place cables under ground.

It is recommended that submissions 859/41, 2670/35 are supported and clause 12.11.11(3) is amended as follows:

3. The extent to which cables ~~must~~ can be placed underground with minimal disturbance to the environment

4.63.2.14 Submission 2001/43

The above submission requests that the assessment criteria in clause 12.11 should be amended to reflect other submissions by the submitter in respect of the Pakatoa provisions.

The above submission request decisions relating the land use and subdivision provisions for Pakatoa. Given that the Pakatoa subdivision provisions are closely linked to the land use rules, it has been determined that all submissions relating to this island are heard at the same time. This will avoid confusion and ensure that consistency is achieved when analysing the land use and subdivision provisions for Pakatoa.

Therefore, the above submission will be heard in the hearings report for Pakatoa. In the event amendments are made, consequential amendments to clause 12.11 may be considered necessary and will be addressed accordingly.

4.63.2.15 Submission 2001/48

Clause 12.11.12 (open space, recreation and financial contributions) is outlines as follows:

The extent to which land and/or financial contributions provide for open space and recreation that is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Plan.
The extent to which adverse effects generated from the subdivision and associated development can be adequately avoided, remedied, mitigated or off-set by providing works and services on or off the site(s) and/or by paying or providing a financial contribution.
The extent to which the subdivision where possible, provides for public access to and alongside the coast, streams, lakes and wetlands.

Notes:

The council may require a report from an appropriately qualified independent person to assess whether any open space or recreational facilities provided as a financial contribution (eg walkways) are in accordance with the consent conditions.
The council's parks officers will be consulted regarding the suitability and practicality of any proposed public reserves or pedestrian linkages.
All proposed reserves must be vested and any easements created before titles are issued.

Submission 2001/48 requests that Clause 12.11.12 should be amended to include reference to any circumstances where the provision of coastal reserves, public access and open space as defined in the Plan provisions exceed the requirements of the RMA and how credits may be applied to the calculations of financial contributions.

The above submission alludes to the requirement for taking esplanade areas where sites less than 4ha are created. Section 230 of the RMA states that where any site of less than 4ha is created when land is subdivided, the RMA requires an esplanade reserve 20m in width to be set aside from that site along the mark of mean high water springs of the sea, and along the bank of any river whose bed has an average width of 3m or more, or along the margin of any lake whose bed has an area of 8ha or more. The purpose of this requirement is to facilitate public access to the coast, rivers and lakes.

The provisions for taking esplanade areas is contained in clause 12.13 (Esplanade reserves) of Part 12. Provision is also made to reduce, waive, cancel or vary an esplanade area as well as increase the width of an esplanade area and/or take esplanade areas for sites of 4ha or more.

Guidelines for increasing the width of an esplanade area are outlined in section 12.13.6 (Guidelines for increasing the width of an esplanade area). A note is provided below clause 12.13.6(4) which states:

An esplanade reserve or esplanade strip greater than 20m requires the council to purchase the extra land in accordance with section 237E(2) of the RMA. Alternatively, any esplanade area that requires compensation in accordance with section 237E(2) of the RMA can be used as part of the financial contribution required by part 6 - Financial contributions.

The above note expressly states that for subdivisions which exceed the esplanade requirements of the RMA either compensation will be given to the applicant or the additional land areas can be used as part of the financial contribution requirements.

It is considered that this approach is supported by clause 12.11.12 which considers the extent to which land and/or financial contributions provide for open space and recreation that is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Plan. These objectives and policies particularly, those contained in clause 12.3.3 (public access to and along the coastline), seek to provide for esplanade areas and/or financial contributions to achieve public access to the coast, rivers and lakes.

On this basis, while submission 2001/48 is supported, it is considered that the current provisions already provide for the consideration of "c redits" as requested by submission 2001/48. This provision is outlined in several clauses of part 12 which when read in their entirety, provides for subdivisions which exceed the requirements of 230 of the RMA to use the additional land as part of a financial contribution.

For reasons outline above, it is considered that submission 2001/48 be accepted however, no changes to clause 12.11.12 is recommended.

4.63.2.16 Submissions 618/92, 619/37, 754/42, 859/42, 1288/92, 2670/36

The above submissions request that clause 12.11.12(3) be amended to refer to potential mechanisms such as easements, covenants, esplanade strip or reserves which facilitate public access alongside the coast, streams, lakes and wetlands. This is to make it clear to the public that these represent acceptable methods.

Submissions 618/92, 619/37, 754/42, 859/42, 1288/92, 2670/36 are supported as including mechanisms in which public access is achieved will provide greater clarity to the public as to what methods council will consider acceptable in order to achieve this outcome.

On this basis, it is recommended that submissions 618/92, 619/37, 754/42, 859/42, 1288/92, 2670/36 are accepted and clause 12.11.12(3) is amended as follows:

3. The extent to which the subdivision where possible, provides for public access to and alongside the coast, streams, lakes and wetlands. Suitable mechanisms for achieving public access may include easements, covenants, esplanade strips and esplanade reserves .

4.63.2.17 Submissions 618/94, 619/39, 754/44, 754/45, 1288/94, 2670/38 and 859/44, 859/45

The above submissions recommend that clauses 12.11.13 (protecting vegetation and landscape) and 12.11.14 (Preserving and enhancing heritage features) are amalgamated.

Clauses 12.11.13 and 12.11.14 are outlined as follows:

12.11.13 Protecting vegetation and landscape

The extent to which the natural features, patterns and character of the landscape including but not limited to ridgelines, headlands, dunes and wetlands are adversely affected.
The extent to which the size and shape of sites maximise the protection of indigenous vegetation.
The extent to which the proposed subdivision maximises the use of areas that are already cleared for vehicle access and building sites.
The extent to which the subdivision provides for ecological restoration and enhancement where appropriate. Ecological enhancement may include enhancement of existing indigenous vegetation, replanting and weed and pest control.

12.11.14 Preserving and enhancing heritage features

The extent to which the subdivision and subsequent land use on the proposed site(s) adversely affects the historical, cultural or spiritual significance of any site or waahi tapu of significance to iwi.
The extent to which the subdivision design and layout preserves and enhances areas of archaeological, cultural or spiritual significance.
The extent to which the landscape integrity of the heritage feature(s) is maintained and enhanced

It is accepted that the assessment criteria outlined in clauses 12.11.13 and 12.11.14 above are similar in that they seek to protect, preserve and enhance natural features, patterns and character of the landscape. Accordingly, it is considered that features of the landscape will also include heritage features. Notwithstanding this, it is considered necessary that heritage features are separated out in their assessment as the effects on heritage sites are different to effects on the natural environment.

To provide clarity and set the direction council is seeking in considering subdivision, separate issues or effects have been separated into different headings. This will ensure that the specific effect that Council is assessing can be addressed more directly and without it being confused with effects that appear similar but actually relate to different environmental issues.

Clause 12.11.13 seeks to protect natural features, patterns and character of the landscape. These primarily relate to natural features which have significance in terms of the natural environment (e.g. landforms, geological features and ecological features). This is highlighted in clauses 12.11.12(2), 12.11.13(3) and 12.11.13(4) which focus on indigenous vegetation clearance and ecological restoration and enhancement.

Heritage sites are protected not necessarily by their physical landform but by their historical, cultural and spiritual significance they have to iwi (these include waahi tapu sites). The effects on heritage sites are therefore different to those on the natural environment. Given the importance of protecting historic heritage (section 6(f)) of the RMA) and taking into the account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti O Waitangi) as required under section 8 of the RMA, it is considered important that the effects on heritage sites are assessed separately and under a different clause. This will provide clarity and ensure that an applicant and the council will directly assess the effects on the historical, cultural and spiritual significance they have to iwi (these include waahi tapu sites).

For reasons outlined above, it is recommended that submissions 618/94, 619/39, 754/44, 754/45, 1288/94, 2670/38 and 859/44, 859/45 are rejected.

4.63.2.18 Submissions 618/93, 619/38, 754/43, 859/43, 1288/93, 2670/37

Submissions 618/93, 619/38, 754/43, 859/43, 1288/93, 2670/37 request the following:

Currently, clause 12.11.13(4) is worded as follows:

4. The extent to which the subdivision provides for ecological restoration and enhancement where appropriate. Ecological enhancement may include enhancement of existing indigenous vegetation, replanting and weed and pest control.

The above submissions raise three matters which require analysis. These are as follows:

Definition of a Significant Environmental Feature

The definition of a Significant Environmental Feature will be assessed within hearing report for definitions. Indeed, some of these submitters have lodged other submissions requesting that the definition of a SEF is amended. These submissions will be considered and the council may make some amendments in response.

Bonus density rules

Bonus density provisions have already been considered in sections 4.11 and 4.22 above where it was considered that providing for bonus density provision is not consistent with the objectives of securing appropriate management of resources, nor is it consistent with achieving sustainable land use development.

Accordingly, it is recommended that submissions 618/93, 619/38, 754/43, 859/43, 1288/93, 2670/37 are rejected as they relate to bonus density provisions. The consequential amendments requested to clause 12.11.13(4) are therefore rejected.

Vegetation and enhancement

The decision sought by the above submitters must be read in conjunction with other subparts for which these submitters have sought decisions on. In particular, submissions 618, 619, 754, 859 and 1288 have requested that the objectives, policies and rules need to reflect that re-plantings also contribute to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and the provisions for protecting significant environmental features should take in account re-plantings. In addition, consideration should be given to the cessation of active farming and revegetation of the landscape.

Submissions 618/93, 619/38, 754/43, 859/43, 1288/93, 2670/37 link to submissions considered in section 4.39.2 and 4.54.2.6 above. As stated in section 4.39.2, subdivision for the purposes of protecting SEF's do not seek to create a SEF. The feature itself must already exist and must be any distinct natural feature or landscape which makes a significant contribution to the quality of the local natural environment and amenity (refer to Part 14 - definitions). Therefore, while an applicant can enhance an existing significant feature, they cannot replant an area and state that it is a Significant Environmental Feature.

It is considered that clause 12.11.13(4) adequately addresses the extent to which ecological enhancement can be achieved through subdivision (whether it is for protecting significant environmental features or not). Furthermore, the clause expressly states that the enhancement of existing indigenous vegetation and replanting is an appropriate way in which to meet this criteria.

Therefore, for the same reasons outlined in sections 4.39.2 and 4.54.2.6 above, it is recommended that submissions 618/93, 619/38, 754/43, 859/43, 1288/93, 2670/37 are rejected as they relate to vegetation and enhancement. The consequential amendments requested to clause 12.11.13(4) are therefore rejected.

4.63.2.19 Submissions 618/95, 619/40, 754/46, 859/46, 1288/95

Clause 12.11.15 (Earthworks and land disturbance) is currently worded as follows:

The extent to which the earthworks can be undertaken in a manner which mitigates and remedies adverse effects from soil erosion and the generation of sediments into receiving environments.
The extent to which the earthworks are likely to have adverse effects on visual or other landscape qualities which cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Submissions 618/95, 619/40, 754/46, 859/46, 1288/95 request that the above clause is amended to reference 'stability'.

Submissions 618/95, 619/40, 754/46, 859/46, 1288/95 are supported as earthworks can generate adverse effects on land stability particularly on steep sites. On this basis, it is recommended that submissions 618/95, 619/40, 754/46, 859/46, 1288/95 are accepted and clause 12.11.15 is amended as follows:

The extent to which the earthworks can be undertaken in a manner which mitigates and remedies adverse effects from soil erosion and the generation of sediments into receiving environments .
The extent to which the earthworks are likely to have adverse effects on visual or other landscape qualities which cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated .
The extent to which the earthworks can be undertaken in a manner which avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse effects on soil stability .

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.11 (General assessment criteria for discretionary activities).

Submissions 618/84, 619/29, 754/33, 859/33, 1288/84, 2670/28, 2001/44 and 2001/45 are rejected as they relate to clause 12.11.2.
Submissions 1093/74, 1243/91 are accepted and clause 12.11.3 is retained.
Submissions 618/85, 619/30, 754/34, 859/34, 1288/85, 2670/29 are rejected as they relate to 12.11.4.
Submission 1093/75 be accepted and clause 12.11.4 is retained.
Submissions 618/86, 619/31, 754/35, 859/35, 1288/86, 2670/30 are rejected as they relate to clause 12.11.5.
Submission 2001/46 is accepted however, no changes to clause 12.11.5 is recommended.
Submissions 618/87, 619/32, 1288/87, 2001/47, 2670/31, 754/36, 859/36 and 754/37, 859/37 are rejected as they relate to clause 12.11.6(b)(iii).
Submissions 618/87, 619/32, 1288/87, 2001/47, 2670/31 and 754/37, 859/37 are rejected as they relate to clause 12.11.6(8).
Submission 316/1 is accepted in part however, no changes are recommended to clause 12.11.6(8).
Submissions 754/38, 859/38 and 618/88, 619/33, 1288/88, 2670/32 are accepted and clause 12.11.7(1) of the Plan is amended as follows:
1. The extent to which there is sufficient capacity and treatment to provide for the safe and efficient disposal of stormwater and wastewater from the subdivision and possible future development without adversely affecting natural water systems.
In addition to the above, it is recommended that a consequential amendment is made to clause 12.2 (resource management issues) so that the disposal of stormwater and wastewater from subdivision do not adversely affect natural water systems. This amendment to clause 12.2 is as follows:

(21) How to ensure that the disposal of stormwater and wastewater from subdivision and possible future development do not adversely affect natural water systems .
Submissions 537/14 is rejected as it applies to clause 12.11.8.
Submissions 618/90, 619/35, 754/40, 859/40, 1288/90, 2670/34 are rejected.
Submissions 618/89, 619/34, 1288/89, 2670/33 and 754/39, 859/39 are accepted however, in light of recommendation made to clause 12.11.7 (Natural water systems) no further changes to clause 12.11.10 is recommended
Submissions 859/41 and 2670/35 are supported and clause 12.11.11(3) is amended as follows:
1. The extent to which cables ~~must~~ can be placed underground with minimal disturbance to the environment.
Submission 2001/43 request decisions relating the land use and subdivision provisions for Pakatoa. Given that the Pakatoa subdivision provisions are closely linked to the land use rules, it has been determined that all submissions relating to this island are heard at the same time. This will avoid confusion and ensure that consistency is achieved when analysing the land use and subdivision provisions for Pakatoa.
Therefore, the above submission will be heard in the hearings report for Pakatoa. In the event amendments are made, consequential amendments to clause 12.11 may be considered necessary and will be addressed accordingly.
Submission 2001/48 is accepted however, no changes to clause 12.11.12 are recommended.
Submissions 618/92, 619/37, 754/42, 859/42, 1288/92, 2670/36 are accepted and clause 12.11.12(3) is amended as follows:
1. The extent to which the subdivision where possible, provides for public access to and alongside the coast, streams, lakes and wetlands. Suitable mechanisms for achieving public access may include easements, covenants, esplanade strips and esplanade reserves .
Submissions 618/94, 619/39, 754/44, 754/45, 1288/94, 2670/38 and 859/44, 859/45 are rejected as they relate to clause 12.11.13.
Submissions 618/93, 619/38, 754/43, 859/43, 1288/93, 2670/37 are rejected as they relate to clause 12.11.13(4).
Submissions 618/95, 619/40, 754/46, 859/46, 1288/95 are accepted and clause 12.11.15 is amended as follows:
1. The extent to which the earthworks can be undertaken in a manner which mitigates and remedies adverse effects from soil erosion and the generation of sediments into receiving environments.
2. The extent to which the earthworks are likely to have adverse effects on visual or other landscape qualities which cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
3. The extent to which the earthworks can be undertaken in a manner which avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse effects on soil stability.

4.64 Submissions about clause 12.12.1 (Specific assessment criteria for subdivisions to protect significant environmental features).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/96, 619/41, 1288/96, 2670/40, 618/97, 619/42, 1288/97, 2670/41, 618/98, 619/43, 1288/98, 2670/42, 754/47, 859/47, 754/48, 859/48, 754/49, 859/49.

4.64.1 Decision requested

Submissions 618/96, 619/41, 1288/96, 2670/40, 754/48, 859/48, 754/47, 859/47 request the following:

Clause 12.12.1(1) should be amended to include reference to re-plantings as well as regenerating vegetation. It also should be amended so that where no buildings are proposed as part of a subdivision then the potential buildings enabled by the permitted activity standards are assumed unless otherwise stated.

Submissions 618/97, 619/42, 1288/97, 2670/41, 754/49, 859/49 request the following:

Where there is subdivision either at a scale or in locations where a landscape visual assessment may not be needed, the requirement for such reports should only be mandatory where the proposal places building areas within the defined significant ridgeline areas - otherwise a determination on need for such a report should be made as part of the initial s92 assessment process (clause 12.12.1(1)).

Submissions 618/98, 619/43, 1288/98, 2670/42 request the following:

Clause 12.12.1(2) should be amended to reflect the fact that existing access may be inappropriate and a new access may have less impact.

4.64.2 Planners analysis and recommendation

4.64.2.1 Submissions 618/96, 619/41, 1288/96, 2670/40, 754/48, 859/48, 754/47, 859/47

Clause 12.12.1 is outlined as follows:

The extent to which the proposed sites provide for buildings that will be visually integrated with the landscape, as supported by a report from a landscape architect. The report must assess the likely effects of development in relation to the landscape character and amenity value of the site and wider visual catchment. Particular regard must be made to the spatial extent of the significant environmental feature(s), the pattern of regenerating indigenous vegetation, low impact design, and placement of buildings within the natural landscape.
The extent to which access to the new sites is taken from any existing access or provided as a common access in order to reduce visual and environmental effects, including minimising earthworks and vegetation removal.
The extent to which the elements, patterns and features that contribute to the natural character of any outstanding natural landscape(s) are preserved.
The extent to which the site(s) retains and enhances the feature(s) in its landscape context.
The extent to which the feature(s) determine the proposed site boundaries.
The extent to which the feature(s) determine the extent of legal protection.

Submissions 618/96, 619/41, 1288/96, 2670/40, 754/48, 859/48, 754/47, 859/47 raise two matters which require analysis. These are as follows:

Amend clause 12.12.1(1) to include reference to re-plantings and regeneration vegetation.

The decision sought by the above submitters must be read in conjunction with other subparts for which these submitters have sought decisions on. In particular, submissions 618, 619, 754, 859 and 1288 have requested that the objectives, policies and rules associated with the protection of significant environmental features need to reflect that re-plantings also contribute to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and the provisions for protecting significant environmental features should take in account re-plantings. In addition, consideration should be given to the cessation of active farming and revegetation of the landscape.

Submissions 618/93, 619/38, 754/43, 859/43, 1288/93, 2670/37 link to submissions considered in section 4.39.2 and 4.54.2.6 above. As stated in the analysis in section 4.39.2, subdivision for the purposes of protecting SEFs do not seek to create a SEF. The feature itself must already exist and must be any distinct natural feature or landscape which makes a significant contribution to the quality of the local natural environment and amenity (refer to Part 14 - definitions). Therefore, an applicant cannot replant an area and state that it is a Significant Environmental Feature.

Enhancement of the significant environmental feature is provided for in clause 12.9.3(4) which states:

The application must detail the attributes of the feature(s) recommended for protection. This must include an on-going management programme that details any protection and enhancement.

On this basis, it is not considered appropriate to amend clause 12.12.1(1) which specifies re-plantings and regeneration vegetation. This would place greater weighting and value to such forms of enhancement and may imply that applicants can create a significant environmental feature as opposed to replanting to enhance an existing significant feature.

In addition to the above, clause 12.12.1(1) also links to assessment criteria contained in clause 12.11.13 � protecting vegetation and landscape which states:

The extent to which subdivision provides for ecological restoration and enhancement. Ecological enhancement may include enhancement of existing indigenous vegetation, replanting and weed and pest control .

On this basis, it is considered that the rules associated with the protection of significant environmental features already recognise that re-planting regeneration vegetation contributes to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

Therefore, for the same reasons outlined in sections 4.39.2 and 4.54.2.6 above, it is recommended that submissions 618/96, 619/41, 1288/96, 2670/40, 754/48, 859/48, 754/47, 859/47 are rejected as they relate to vegetation and enhancement. The consequential amendments requested to clause 12.12.1(1) are therefore rejected.

Where no buildings are proposed as part of a subdivision, then it is assumed that all future buildings will meet the permitted activity standards.

Submissions 618/96, 619/41, 1288/96, 2670/40, 754/48, 859/48, 754/47, 859/47 are not supported as they relate to the above provision. Applicants must demonstrate that each proposed site can accommodate a dwelling which meets certain land use rules. The reason for assessing the land use matters at the time of subdivision is outlines as follows:

As already outlined in section 4.9.2.2 of this report, the provisions of Part 12 recognise the relationship between subdivision and the effects on landscape character from associated built forms that may arise from land use activities within the relevant land unit. An assessment of land use matters is required as part of any subdivision assessment as subdivision provides opportunities and expectations for future development which may cause adverse effects.

For example, as part of any subdivision assessment, including applications for the protection of significant environmental features, it is anticipated that each proposed site will later contain a building such as a dwelling. Such buildings will have the potential to develop to the full extent allowed under the permitted bulk and location controls for the relevant land unit. On this basis, clause 12.6.1 (bulk, location and access controls for buildings) has been included as part of the general rules for subdivision (refer to clause 12.6).

Clause 12.6.1 (bulk, location and access controls for buildings) states that each site must demonstrate where a building, access and parking can be constructed which complies with specific development controls. In the event a subdivision proposal for the protection of environmental features meets the requirements of clause 12.6.1 (including all other general rules), then the application will remain a discretionary activity.

Notwithstanding the above, as outlined in section 4.44, it is recommended that subdivision applications seeking to protect significant environmental features, or to subdivide in Settlement areas, Commercial 1-5, Recreation 1-3, Conservation, Rural 2, Rural 3, Matiatia and the Pakatoa land units, and which do not comply with clause 12.6.1(1), should remain discretionary activities. A discretionary activity for these forms of subdivision will adequately assess the actual and potential effects of the proposal should the proposal be unable to demonstrate compliance with all stated bulk and location controls for access and dwelling location. In addition, a discretionary activity will still enable council to decline an application if the effects of the subdivision are more than minor.

In the event that subdivision does not meet the requirements of the clause 12.6.1, council may, in accordance with section 91 of the RMA, defer considering the subdivision application and request the applicant to lodge a land use consent at the time of subdivision. A joint land use/subdivision application can be assessed at the same time. Council therefore has full discretion to assess the effects on the environment and can restrict building platforms on each proposed site if considered necessary to mitigate adverse effects.

It is considered that this approach is particularly important for subdivisions which seek to protect significant environmental features as the marked reduction in minimum site size reduces the open space in which to absorb future land use development.

On this basis, the panel can be satisfied that as part of any subdivision application, including proposals to protect significant environmental features, consideration is given to the effects of establishing built forms on each proposed site. This approach, will provide a better understanding of the nature of the proposal, achieve integrated resource management outcomes and effectively assess the actual and potential effects of the proposed development.

For these reasons, submissions 618/96, 619/41, 1288/96, 2670/40, 754/48, 859/48, 754/47, 859/47 are rejected as they relate to 12.12.1(1).

4.64.2.2 Submissions 618/97, 619/42, 1288/97, 2670/41, 754/49, 859/49

With regard to clause 12.12.1(1), the above submissions consider that a landscape visual assessment may not be needed for every application and that the requirements for such reports should only be mandatory where the proposal places buildings within defined ridgeline areas. In addition, a determination for a landscape report prepared by a landscape architect should be made as part of the section 92 assessment process.

The above submissions raise two matters which require analysis. These are as follows:

Landscape visual assessment

To ensure that a comprehensive assessment of the effects are undertaken with regard to subdivisions seeking to protect significant environmental features, it is considered vital that the visual effects on the environment are assessed. Such an assessment will provide a better understanding of the nature of the proposal, achieve integrated resource management outcomes and effectively assess the actual and potential effects of the proposed subdivision.

For reasons outline above, it is recommended that submissions 618/97, 619/42, 1288/97, 2670/41, 754/49, 859/49 are rejected as they relate to requiring an assessment of visual effects only where a proposal places buildings within defined ridgeline areas.

Landscape visual report prepared by a landscape architect.

Criteria 12.12.1(1) states that the visual landscape assessment can only be undertaken by a landscape architect. The above submissions request that this requirement be removed and a determination on the need for such a report is undertaken as part of the section 92 process.

While it is important that the landscape character of the land unit(s) and amenity value of environment are not adversely affected by a subdivision seeking to protection significant environmental features, it is considered that in certain circumstances some applications particularly those which may be notified may require a more comprehensive assessment of landscape effects to be undertaken by a landscape architect.

Notwithstanding this, it is accepted that not every application seeking to protect significant environmental features will need a report from a landscape architect. A determination for such a report can be made once the reporting officer has assessed the application against section 93 and 94 of the RMA. In the event that the landscape effects on the environmental cannot be adequately determined, then a landscape architect can be requested to undertake the visual assessment pursuant to section 92 of the RMA.

In addition to the above, it is noted that the provision of a landscape report being prepared by a landscape architect could create uncertainty over how the criteria is to be assessed particularly when an applicant may elect to not provide a landscape report prepared by a landscape architect. This could result in confusion over whether the criteria has been met and whether this changes the activity status of the application.

On this basis, it is recommended that submissions 618/97, 619/42, 1288/97, 2670/41, 754/49, 859/49 are accepted and clause 12.12.1(1) is amended as follows:

The extent to which the proposed sites provide for buildings that will be visually integrated with the landscape ~~, as supported by a report from a landscape architect~~ . ~~The report~~ This assessment must ~~assess~~ consider the likely effects of development in relation to the landscape character and amenity value of the site and wider visual catchment. Particular regard must be made to the spatial extent of the significant environmental feature(s), the pattern of regenerating indigenous vegetation, low impact design, and placement of buildings within the natural landscape.

4.64.2.3 Submissions 618/98, 619/43, 1288/98, 2670/42

Submissions 618/98, 619/43, 1288/98, 2670/42 request that clause 12.12.1(2) should be amended to reflect the fact that existing access may be inappropriate and a new access may have less impact.

Clause 12.12.1(2) seeks to minimise the effects of earthworks and vegetation removal within the landscape by encouraging the applicant and Council to consider existing accesses within the sites. By utilising existing accesses this will reduce the degree of environmental modification and provide areas of vegetation that are contiguous.

As stated in section 4.63.2.3 above, the assessment criteria within the Plan are inclusive, not exclusive nor are they standards and terms which must be complied with. Assessment matters need to relate to the issue or effect the activity may have on the environment, and/or the aspect of non-compliance that has triggered the requirement for an application. They should also set the direction council is seeking in considering an activity. Moreover, some criteria may not be relevant to a proposal and therefore, will not necessarily be considered by every subdivision application. They ensure that the applicant and council have turned their minds to certain issues which may be relevant to a proposal.

This approach applies to the assessment matters contained in clause 12.12.1(2). While clause 12.12.1(2) may be relevant to one application, it will not necessarily be considered in another. Therefore, some sites may have existing accesses which are steep and if upgraded, may adversely affect the environment by removing additional significant vegetation or modifying the landform through earthworks or modifying a heritage feature. In these circumstances, it would be considered appropriate that new access tracks were formed which did not adversely affect the environment.

Given that criterion contained in clause 12.12.1(2) may be relevant to certain applications, it is considered necessary that the criteria is retained in the plan without amendment. As such, it is recommended that submissions 618/98, 619/43, 1288/98, 2670/42 are rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.12.1 (Specific assessment criteria for subdivision to protect significant environmental features)

Submissions 618/96, 619/41, 1288/96, 2670/40, 754/48, 859/48, 754/47, 859/47 are rejected as they relate to vegetation and enhancement. The consequential amendments requested to clause 12.12.1(1) are therefore rejected.
Submissions 618/96, 619/41, 1288/96, 2670/40, 754/48, 859/48, 754/47, 859/47 are rejected as they relate to 12.12.1(1).
Submissions 618/97, 619/42, 1288/97, 2670/41, 754/49, 859/49 are rejected as they relate to requiring an assessment of visual effects only where a proposal places buildings within defined ridgeline areas.
Submissions 618/97, 619/42, 1288/97, 2670/41, 754/49, 859/49 are accepted and clause 12.12.1(1) is amended as follows:
1. The extent to which the proposed sites provide for buildings that will be visually integrated with the landscape ~~, as supported by a report from a landscape architect~~ . ~~The report~~ This assessment must ~~assess~~ consider the likely effects of development in relation to the landscape character and amenity value of the site and wider visual catchment. Particular regard must be made to the spatial extent of the significant environmental feature(s), the pattern of regenerating indigenous vegetation, low impact design, and placement of buildings within the natural landscape.
Submissions 618/98, 619/43, 1288/98, 2670/42 are rejected

4.65 Submissions about clause 12.12.2 (Specific assessment criteria for cluster subdivision).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/99, 619/44, 754/51, 859/51, 1288/99, 2670/43, 618/100, 619/45, 1288/100, 2670/44, 618/101, 619/46, 754/55, 859/55, 1288/101, 2670/45, 754/52, 859/52, 754/53, 859/53, 754/54, 859/54.

4.65.1 Decision requested

Submissions 618/99, 619/44, 754/51, 859/51, 1288/99, 2670/43, 618/100, 619/45, 1288/100, 2670/44 request the following:

Clause 12.12.2(1) should be amended as it is too prescriptive and should instead focus on integration of buildings into landscape and seeking a coherent built form.

Submissions 618/101, 619/46, 754/55, 859/55, 1288/101, 2670/45 request the following:

Clause 12.12.2(7) should be amended to state bonds and consent notices may be applied - and should reference proposed plantings rather than appropriate plantings and also should refer to mitigate rather than reduce potential adverse visual effects.

Submissions 754/52, 859/52 request the following:

Clause 12.12.2(2) should be amended to include reference to re-plantings as well as regenerating vegetation.

Submissions 754/53, 859/53 request the following:

Clause 12.12.2(2) should be amended so that where no buildings are proposed as part of a subdivision then the potential buildings enabled by the permitted activity standards are assumed unless otherwise stated.

Submissions 754/54, 859/54 request the following:

4.65.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.65.2.1 Submissions 618/99, 619/44, 754/51, 859/51, 1288/99, 2670/43, 618/100, 619/45, 1288/100, 2670/44

The above submissions request that clause 12.12.2(1) is amended as it is too prescriptive and should focus on the integration of buildings into the landscape and seeking a coherent built form.

Clause 12.12.2(1) is currently worded as follows:

1. The extent to which the sites created avoid a linear form or repetitive patterns of buildings and infrastructure.

The purpose of the above criteria is to ensure that the site design and layout of a cluster subdivision proposal takes into consideration the visual amenity, natural landscape character and amenity value of each land unit and the effects from clustering built forms into a smaller space. Discussions with a landscape architect noted that clustering housing development will inevitably result in some form of cumulative effect, at least within the site itself. Linear forms or repetitive patterns of built forms within a cluster can also result in adverse effects on the landscape.

In order to reduce the potential impact of clustering built forms, the proposed sizes subject to cluster subdivision range from 3000m ² to 5000m ² and limit site coverage to 200m ² per site. This will provide a degree of open space throughout the cluster itself which will reduce the adverse visual effects associated with the massing of buildings and infrastructure. These clustered sites will provide sufficient space to locate dwellings so that linear forms or repetitive patterns of buildings and infrastructure are reduced.

It is acknowledge that assessing the extent of linear forms or repetitive patterns as part of a cluster subdivision is a subjective one and subject to varying interpretations however, it is an important consideration to undertake when assessing the effects of clustered sites. It is further considered that criteria 12.12.2(1) outlines a more specific direction that council is seeking in considering the effects of clustering (i.e. linear and repetitive patterns). The wording suggested by the above submitters ( integrating buildings into the landscape and seeking a coherent built form ) is considered more subjective in its interpretation and will not add any value to the specific effect that is being considered on the environment.

Overall, the decision sought by the above submissions is too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to clause 12.12.2(1). For this reason, submissions 618/99, 619/44, 754/51, 859/51, 1288/99, 2670/43, 618/100, 619/45, 1288/100, 2670/44 are rejected with respect to clause 12.12.2(1).

4.65.2.2 Submissions 618/101, 619/46, 754/55, 859/55, 1288/101, 2670/45

Clause 12.12.2(7) is currently worded as:

The extent to which appropriate planting may be used to reduce potential visual effects. Such planting will be subject to bonds and consent notices should consent be granted.

Submissions 618/101, 619/46, 754/55, 859/55, 1288/101, 2670/45 request that clause 12.12.2(7) should be amended as follows:

to state bonds and consent notices may be applied;
should reference proposed plantings rather than appropriate plantings; and
should refer to mitigate rather than reduce potential adverse visual effects.

With regard to the above, the following is noted:

State bonds and consent notices may be applied

The use of bonds and consent notices are often applied to applications for the purposes of compliance monitoring and to ensure that all subsequent purchasers are aware of any limitations and ongoing conditions (such as pest and weed control) associated with revegetated land.

It is acknowledged that in certain circumstance, bonds and/or consent notices may not be necessary where the planting proposed is not extensive and is not reliant upon mitigating the effects of future land use development. The imposition of bonds and/or consent notices should therefore be assessed on a case by case basis.

Therefore, it is recommended that submissions 618/101, 619/46, 754/55, 859/55, 1288/101, 2670/45 are accepted within regard to the wording associated with bonds and covenants.

Proposed plantings rather than appropriate planting

The term appropriate planting has been used to ensure that plants which are chosen are suited to the soils and climate of each site. This will ensure that the plants proposed will grow to a height and breadth which will buffer and/or screen built forms.

Notwithstanding this, it is accepted that the term "appropriate" does add ambiguity to the criteria. Accordingly, it is considered that by removing the term "appropriate" and replacing it with "proposed" will improve the clarity of clause 12.12.2(7) while still enabling council to assess the extent that the proposed planting will reduce the visual effects from clustered built forms.

Therefore, it is recommended that submissions 618/101, 619/46, 754/55, 859/55, 1288/101, 2670/45 are accepted with regard to the term "appropriate".

The clause should refer to mitigate rather than reduce potential adverse visual effects

It is considered that by replacing the word "reduce" to "mitigate" within clause 12.12.2(7) be accepted as section 5(2)(c)of the RMA states "... Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment." Therefore, by including the term " mitigate " within issue 12.1.2(7) will ensure greater consistency with the terminology in both the proposed Plan and the RMA.

In light of the above, it is recommended that submissions 618/101, 619/46, 754/55, 859/55, 1288/101, 2670/45 are accepted and clause 12.12.2(7) be amended as follows:

The extent to which ~~appropriate~~ proposed planting may be used to ~~reduce~~ mitigate potential visual effects. Such planting ~~will~~ may be subject to bonds and consent notices should consent be granted.

4.65.2.3 Submissions 754/52, 859/52

Clause 12.12.2(2) is currently worded as follows:

The extent to which the proposed sites provide for buildings that will be visually integrated with the landscape, as supported by a report from a landscape architect. The report must assess the likely effects of development in relation to the landscape character and amenity value of the site and wider visual catchment. Particular regard must be made to the spatial extent of the significant environmental feature(s), the pattern of regenerating indigenous vegetation, low impact design, and placement of buildings within the natural landscape.

Submissions 754/52, 859/52 request that clause 12.12.2(2) be amended to include reference to re-plantings as well as regenerating vegetation.

The decision sought by the above submitters must be read in conjunction with other subparts for which these submitters have sought decisions on. In particular, these submissions have requested that the objectives, policies and rules associated with the protection of significant environmental features need to reflect that re-plantings also contribute to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and the provisions for protecting significant environmental features should take in account re-plantings.

Referencing re-plantings and regenerating vegetation has already been considered in sections 4.39.2, 4.54.2.6, 4.63.2.18 and 4.64.2.1 whereby it was not considered appropriate to amend the significant environmental feature provisions to specify re-plantings and regeneration vegetation. This would place greater weighting and value to such forms of enhancement and imply that applicants can create a significant environmental feature as opposed to replanting to enhance an existing significant feature.

Therefore, for reasons already outlined in sections 4.39.2 and 4.54.2.6, 4.63.2.18 and 4.64.2.1 above, it is recommended that submissions 754/52, 859/52 are rejected as they relate to clause 12.12.2(2).

4.65.2.4 Submissions 754/53, 859/53

Submissions 754/53, 859/53 request that clause 12.12.2(2) should be amended so that where no buildings are proposed as part of a subdivision, then it is assumed that all future buildings will meet the permitted activity standards.

The decision sought by submissions 754/53, 859/53 has already been considered in section 4.64.2.1 above whereby it was considered that applicants must demonstrate that each proposed site can accommodate a dwelling and access which meets certain land use rules. This approach will provide a better understanding of the nature of the proposal, achieve integrated resource management outcomes and effectively assess the actual and potential effects of the proposed development.

On this basis, for reasons outlined in section 4.64.2.1 above, it is recommended that submissions 754/53, 859/53 are rejected as they relate to 12.12.2(2).

4.65.2.5 Submissions 754/54, 859/54

With regard to clause 12.12.2(2), the above submissions consider that a landscape visual assessment may not be needed for every application and that the requirements for such reports should only be mandatory where the proposal places buildings within defined ridgeline areas. In addition, a determination for a landscape report prepared by a landscape architect should be made as part of the section 92 assessment process

The decision sought by submissions 754/54, 859/54 has already been considered in section 4.64.2.2 above whereby it was considered that not every application seeking to protect significant environmental features (by way of clustering) will need a report from a landscape architect. A determination for such a report can be made once the reporting officer has assessed the application against section 93 and 94 of the RMA. In the event that the landscape effects on the environmental cannot be adequately determined, then a landscape architect can be requested to undertake the visual assessment pursuant to section 92 of the RMA.

In addition to the above, it is noted that the provision of a landscape report being prepared by a landscape architect could create uncertainly over how the criteria is to be assessed particularly when an applicant may elect to not provide a landscape report prepared by a landscape architect.

Therefore, for reasons outlined in section 4.64.2.2 it is recommended that submissions 754/54, 859/54 are accepted and clause 12.12.2(2) is amended as follows:

2. The extent to which the proposed sites provide for buildings that will be visually integrated with the landscape ~~, as supported by a report from a landscape architect~~ . ~~The report~~ This assessment must ~~assess~~ consider the likely effects of development in relation to the landscape character and amenity value of the site and wider visual catchment. Particular regard must be made to the spatial extent of the significant environmental feature(s), the pattern of regenerating indigenous vegetation, low impact design, and placement of buildings within the natural landscape.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.12.2(Specific assessment criteria for cluster subdivision).

Submissions 618/99, 619/44, 754/51, 859/51, 1288/99, 2670/43, 618/100, 619/45, 288/100, 2670/44 are rejected with respect to clause 12.12.2(1).
Submissions 618/101, 619/46, 754/55, 859/55, 1288/101, 2670/45 are accepted and clause 12.12.2(7) be amended as follows:
The extent to which appropriate proposed planting may be used to reduce mitigate potential visual effects. Such planting ~~will~~ may be subject to bonds and consent notices should consent be granted.
Submissions 754/52, 859/52 are rejected as they relate to the inclusion of the words "re-plantings and regenerating vegetation" within clause 12.12.2(2).
Submissions 754/53, 859/53 are rejected as they relate to 12.12.2(2).
Submissions 754/54, 859/54 are accepted and clause 12.12.2(2) is amended as follows:
1. The extent to which the proposed sites provide for buildings that will be visually integrated with he landscape ~~, as supported by a report from a landscape architect~~ . ~~The report~~ This assessment must ~~assess~~ consider the likely effects of development in relation to the landscape character and amenity value of the site and wider visual catchment. Particular regard must be made to the spatial extent of the significant environmental feature(s), the pattern of regenerating indigenous vegetation, low impact design, and placement of buildings within the natural landscape.

4.66 Submission about clause 12.12.5 (Specific assessment criteria for subdivisions in rural 3).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3521/99

4.66.1 Decision requested

Submissions 3521/99 requests the following:

Retain clause 12.12.5(3) relating to conditions, covenants, bonds or similar measures to facilitate revegetation.

4.66.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

In order to ensure that revegetation is adequately implemented on the island, clause 12.12.5(3)

considers the extent to which legal mechanisms can be used which facilitates such planting.

On this basis, it is considered that the retention of clause 12.12.5(3) will assist in achieving the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for this land unit.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submission 3521/99 is accepted and clause 12.12.5(3) is retained.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.12.5 (Specific assessment criteria for subdivisions in rural 3).

Submission 3521/99 is accepted and clause 12.12.5(3) is retained

4.67 Submissions about clause 12.12.6 (Specific assessment criteria for comprehensive development on Pakatoa).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2001/49, 2001/50, 2001/51, 2001/52

4.67.1 Decision requested

Submission 2001/49 requests the following:

The specific assessment criteria in clause 12.12.6 should be amended to reflect the submitter's concerns and to separate out additional restricted discretionary assessment criteria and association conditions.

Submission 2001/50 requests the following:

Clause 12.12.6(1) references a report by a landscape architect which isn't in itself a criterion and that should be included as a rule if deemed necessary at all.

Submission 2001/51 requests the following:

The criteria in clause 12.12.6 to be reworded to more clearly express the relevant matters for consideration and in particular replace the term the extent to which with whether the proposal will.

Submission 2001/52 requests the following:

Clause 12.12.6 (3) in being reworded or amended should reference the extent to which protection and public good outcomes exceed Plan requirements and constitute a financial contribution.

4.67.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

The above submissions request decisions relating the land use and subdivision provisions for Pakatoa. Given that the Pakatoa subdivision provisions are closely linked to the land use rules, it has been determined that all submissions relating to this island are heard at the same time. This will avoid confusion and ensure that consistency is achieved when assessing the land use and subdivision provisions for Pakatoa.

4.67.2.1 Submission 2001/52

Submission 2001/52 requests a decision similar to that which was considered in section 4.63.2.15 above.

As outlined in section 4.63.2.15, it is considered that the current provisions in clause 12.13 (Esplanade reserves) already provide for the consideration of financial contributions where good outcomes exceed Plan requirements . This provision is outlined in several clauses of part 12 which, when read in their entirety, provides for subdivisions which exceed the requirements of 230 of the RMA to use the additional land greater than 20 metres in width as part of a financial contribution.

In addition, as outlined in clause 6.5.2.2 (level and form of contribution � subdivision consents) of the proposed Plan, financial contributions may be taken in the form of money, land or both. Therefore, alternative forms of financial contribution can be given depending on the merits of the application. Moreover, under clause 6.5.2.4, Council must consider whether a maximum financial contribution is payable particularly if the subdivision will be of benefit either to the physical and/or natural environment or the local and/or wider community, having regard to the extent to which the proposal protects environmental and heritage features as part of the overall development.

Additional assessment criteria for reducing financial contributions also considers the extent to which any adverse effect of subdivision have been or will be avoided, remedied or mitigated through mechanisms other than a financial contribution such as a works and services conditions under section 108(2)(c) of the RMA.

On this basis, while submission 2001/52 is supported, it is considered that the current provisions already provide for alternative forms of financial contributions where a subdivision benefits the environment and proposed mitigation measures are in excess of that required to mitigate adverse effects.

For reasons outline above, it is considered that submission 2001/52 be accepted however, no changes to clause 12.12.6(3) is recommended.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.12.6 (Specific assessment criteria for comprehensive development on Pakatoa).

The above submissions request decisions relating the land use and subdivision provisions for Pakatoa. Given that the Pakatoa subdivision provisions are closely linked to the land use rules, it has been determined that all submissions relating to this island are heard at the same time. This will avoid confusion and ensure that consistency is achieved when assessing the land use and subdivision provisions for Pakatoa.
Therefore, the above submission will be heard in the hearings report for Pakatoa. In the event amendments are made, consequential amendments to clause 12.9.9 may be considered necessary and will be addressed accordingly.
Submission 2001/52 be accepted however, no changes to clause 12.12.6(3) is recommended.

4.68 Submissions about clause 12.12.8 (Specific criteria for subdivisions in settlement areas).

Submission dealt with in this section: 2504/10

4.68.1 Decision requested

Submission 2504/10 requests that two additional criteria are included in clause 12.12.8 as follows:

6. The extent to which the subdivision layout maintains and protects the conservation and ecological values of adjoining or peripheral land that is either within the Conservation Land Unit or land identified as being a site of Ecological Significance or Sensitive Area.

7. The extent to which additional controls (by way of covenant or similar measures) are adopted to protect the high ecological values that may exist with land adjoining settlement areas from predation by domestic pets or other predatory animals".

4.68.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.68.2.1 Criteria (6)

As stated previously, settlement areas have historically been areas of settlement and they are important centres of community for the people of Great Barrier. Some of these settlements have the capability to grow into the future, while others are recognised as needing to be contained within existing areas due to the fragile or sensitive nature of the surrounding environment.

With regard to criteria (6), submission 2504/10 recognises that particularly on Great Barrier Island, there are large tracks of land which are classified as having conservation value (conservation land unit) including other areas of land which are noted as being ecologically significant (i.e. Sensitive Areas, Sites of Ecological Significance). Many of the settlement areas are either adjoining or near these ecological sites.

With respect to the addition of criteria (6), submission 2504/10 is accepted as the criteria takes into consideration the large areas of ecological sites which have been identified on Great Barrier Island and seeks to ensure that these areas of land are not adversely affected by subdivisions within the settlement areas. The addition of this criterion will ensure that applicants and council turn their minds to the wider ecological values in the environment and not the ecological values that exist within the site itself. Such an approach is in accordance with section 6(b), 6(c), 6(e) 6(f), 7(f) and section 8 of the RMA.

Therefore, it is recommended that submission 2504/10 is accepted and clause 12.12.8 is amended to include the following criteria:

6. The extent to which the subdivision layout maintains and protects the conservation and ecological values of adjoining or peripheral land that is either within the conservation land unit or land identified as being a site of Ecological Significance or Sensitive Area.

4.68.2.2 Criteria (7)

The additional criteria requested by the submitter seeks to include additional controls which lead to the protection of ecological values that exist within land adjoining settlements areas from predation by domestic pets or other predatory animals.

The intent of the criteria is supported as it will ensure that applicants and council turn their minds to the wider ecological values in the environment and the ways in which these values can be protected and maintained.

Notwithstanding this, while pest eradication can include the removal of feral cats, the Plan cannot restrict the ownership of domestic pets and the eradication of them. Such a matter is outside the scope of the RMA.

On this basis, submission 2504/10 as it relates to criteria (7) is accepted in part and clause 12.12.8 is amended to include the following criteria:

7. The extent to which additional controls (by way of covenant or similar measures) are adopted to protect ~~high~~ ecological values that may exist ~~with~~ on land adjoining settlement areas from ~~predation by domestic pets or other~~ predatory animals".

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.12.8 (Specific assessment criteria for subdivisions in settlement areas).

Submission 2504/10 is accepted and clause 12.12.8 is amended to include the following criteria:
1. The extent to which the subdivision layout maintains and protects the conservation and ecological values of adjoining or peripheral land that is either within the conservation land unit or land identified as being a site of Ecological Significance or Sensitive Area.
Submission 2504/10 as it relates to criteria (7) is accepted in part and clause 12.12.8 is amended to include the following criteria:
1. The extent to which additional controls (by way of covenant or similar measures) are adopted to protect ~~high~~ ecological values that may exist ~~with~~ on land adjoining settlement areas from ~~predation by domestic pets or other~~ predatory animals".

4.69 Submission about clause 12.13.2 (Rules [for Esplanade Reserves]).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1243/92, 2094/2, 2758/1, 2758/2, 2758/3, 2758/4, 2758/5, 2758/6, 2758/7, 2758/8, 2758/9, 3521/144.

4.69.1 Decision requested

Submission 1243/92 request the following:

Specify more fully in clause 12.13.2(2) the locations where esplanade reserves and esplanade strips will be required for sites of 4 ha or more.

Submission 2094/2 requests the following:

Amend subclause (2) of clause 12.13.2 Rules, to read as follows (deletions shown with strikethrough, insertions with underlining):

2. Where a site of more than 4ha or more is to be created.

Submission 2758/1 requests the following:

Existing uses and upgrades of such uses by owners of esplanade strips should be fully protected.

Submission 2758/3 requests the following:

There is a social and practical need to maintain viable coastal locations for marine - related activities, boating, recreational use, etc that do not affect public pedestrian access. Boatsheds, ramps and other boating activities by esplanade strip owners, including necessary vehicle access to these should be permitted, including rescue, haulage, boat repair, etc.

Submission 2758/5 requests the following:

Amenities which are an essential part of the lifestyles, or resources upon which occupants of esplanade strips depend on are to be permitted.

Submission 2758/6 requests the following:

Structures which do not impede pedestrian access, and are associated with traditional coastal land uses and human activity to be permitted by owners of esplanade strips.

Submission 2758/9 requests the following

Transport of water, electricity etc, and access to these utilities in esplanade strips to be permitted for land owners or users.

Submission 2758/4 requests the following:

All access to esplanade strips for maintenance and vegetation protection should be allowed.

Submission 2758/7 requests the following:

The removal of invasive or exotic trees to be permitted on esplanade strips.

Submission 2758/8 requests the following:

Pest control to be allowed in esplanade strips.

Submission 2758/2 requests the following:

Recognition of social cultural and economic value of access to the sea and uses of esplanade strips to occupiers and other users of the coastal areas.

Submission 3521/144 requests the following:

Amend clause 12.13.2.(1)(b) by starting with the following:

In unusual circumstances a discretionary activity application can be made to reduce, vary or waive the requirement for esplanade reserves or esplanade strips by way of an application for a discretionary activity that must be submitted together with any subdivision application.

4.69.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.69.2.1 Submissions 1243/92 and 2094/2

The above submissions seek to amend the wording of clauses 12.13.2(2) to clarify what site size triggers the need to take an esplanade area in accordance with section 230 of the RMA.

The current wording of clauses 12.13.2(1) and 12.13.2(2) are as follows:

(1) Where any site of 4ha or less is created, an esplanade reserve 20m in width must be set aside from that site along the mark of mean high water springs of the sea, and along the bank of any river whose bed has an average width of 3m or more, or along the margin of any lake whose bed has an area of 8ha or more, except that:...

(2) Where a site of 4ha or more is to be created, an esplanade reserve or esplanade strip will be required only when the land concerned is demonstrably important for the protection of conservation values, recreation or public access or for the mitigation of natural hazards. The council's assessment as to whether such an esplanade reserve or esplanade strip should be required will include consideration of the matters contained in clause 12.13.5.

Based on the above clauses, it is unclear whether an exact 4 hectare site triggers the requirement to take an esplanade area. In order to resolve this matter, it is considered necessary to turn to section 230 (requirements for esplanade reserves or esplanade strips) of the RMA. Specifically, section 230(3) and section 230(5) state the following:

(3) Except as provided by any rule in a district plan made under section77(1), or a resource consent which waives, or reduces the width of, the esplanade reserve, where any allotment of less than 4 hectares is created when land is subdivided, an esplanade reserve 20 metres in width shall be set aside from that allotment along the mark of mean high water springs of the sea, and along the bank of any river or along the margin of any lake, as the case may be, and shall vest in accordance with section231.

(5) If any rule made under section 77(2) so requires, but subject to any resource consent which waives, or reduces the width of, the esplanade reserve or esplanade strip, where any allotment of 4 hectares or more is created when land is subdivided, an esplanade reserve or esplanade strip shall be set aside or created from that allotment along the mark of mean high water springs of the sea and along the bank of any river and along the margin of any lake, and shall vest in accordance with section 231 or be created in accordance with section 232, as the case may be.

It is evident that the requirement to take an esplanade area is based on sites less than 4 hectares and where sites are 4 hectares or more, then discretion shall be used when considering whether an esplanade reserve or strip is required.

It is recommended that submissions 1243/92 and 2094/2 are accepted in part as they have highlighted a discrepancy in the Plan which requires an amendment to be made. However, as clause 12.13.2(2) reflects the actual wording of section 230 of the RMA, it is not considered necessary to amend this clause.

It is evident that clause 12.13.2(1) requires amendment in order to provide clarity to these provisions and to reflect the exact wording contained in section 230 of the RMA. All other clauses which reference the requirement to take esplanade areas in clause 12.13.1 (Requirement for an esplanade reserve or esplanade strip) and clause 12.13.5 (Guidelines for requiring an esplanade area for sites of 4ha or more) do not require amendment.

The amendments to clause 12.13.2(1) is as follows:

Clause 12.13.2(1):

(1) Where any site of less than 4ha ~~or les~~ s is created, an esplanade reserve 20m in width must be set aside from that site along the mark of mean high water springs of the sea, and along the bank of any river whose bed has an average width of 3m or more, or along the margin of any lake whose bed has an area of 8ha or more, except that: ...

4.69.2.2 Submissions 2758/1, 2758/3, 2758/5, 2758/6 and 2758/9

Esplanade strips are created by instruments on the title of the land, remain in private ownership and have boundaries that move with any changes resulting from erosion or accretion.

While council recognises that esplanade strips can benefit the community, particularly when land has low conservation values or is subject to instability and public access should be restricted, council generally prefers taking esplanade reserves rather than strips in order to increase the amount of public open space within the community. The taking of reserve areas also enables council to exclusively manage the reserve in accordance with a specific management plan that enables public access and recreation.

The proposed Plan requires restricted discretionary activity consent where an applicant applies for an esplanade strip rather than an esplanade reserve. This approach will provide both council and the applicant with an understanding of the matters to consider when taking an esplanade strip.

The above submissions request that all existing structures, amenities, uses and rights enjoyed by owners of an esplanade strip are protected. For example, existing vehicle accesses and buildings for the purposes of boating activities that are included within the 20-metre strip, should continue to be enjoyed by owners of the strip and made a permitted activity in the Plan.

Submissions 2758/1, 2758/3, 2758/5, 2758/6 and 2758/9 are not supported in their entirety as it may not be appropriate in all circumstances to allow for the continuation of existing uses and buildings along esplanade strips. Such uses may compromise the intent for which esplanade reserves and strips are created. This is outlined in sections 229 of the RMA as follows:

An esplanade reserve or an esplanade strip has one or more of the following purposes:

(a) To contribute to the protection of conservation values by, in particular,�

(i) Maintaining or enhancing the natural functioning of the adjacent sea, river, or lake; or

(ii) Maintaining or enhancing water quality; or

(iii) Maintaining or enhancing aquatic habitats; or

(iv) Protecting the natural values associated with the esplanade reserve or esplanade strip; or

(v) Mitigating natural hazards; or

(b) To enable public access to or along any sea, river, or lake; or

(c) To enable public recreational use of the esplanade reserve or esplanade strip and adjacent sea, river, or lake, where the use is compatible with conservation values.]

Providing for the continuation of existing uses within an esplanade strip by the owners and occupiers, could impede public access, compromise the public recreational use of the strip and adversely affect the conservational values for which the strip is protecting.

Notwithstanding the above, it is recognised that there may be circumstances where existing or uses (e.g. buildings and accesses) may not compromise public access along the coast, river or lake and will not adversely affect the conservational values and natural values associated with the strip and the adjacent waterbodies.

Therefore, it is considered that the retention of any existing lawful activities and/or structures within a strip should be assessed as part of the matters of discretion contained in clause 12.13.3 (Matters for considering an esplanade strip rather than an esplanade reserve) when considering the taking of an esplanade strip rather than an esplanade reserve. Each application can therefore be assessed on its merits and on a case by case basis.

Both the applicant and the council would need to consider the existing use of the proposed strip by the owners and occupiers of the site. Such a consideration is in fact a requirement in section 232(5)(d) of the RMA when considering what provisions are applicable to an esplanade strip.

By providing an additional matter of discretion in clause 12.13.3 which directs the applicant and the council in assessing existing buildings and activities contained within the proposed strip, will ensure that where appropriate, owners and occupiers of strips can continue to enjoy the use of existing buildings and activities, provided they do not adversely affect the function of the esplanade strip itself.

On this basis, it is recommended that submissions 2758/1, 2758/3, 2758/5, 2758/6 and 2758/9 are accepted in part and an additional matter of discretion is included in clause 12.13.3 as follows:

5. The extent to which the proposed esplanade strip provides for the continued use of lawfully established buildings and activities without compromising the purposes for which the strip has been taken in accordance with section 229 of the RMA.

4.69.2.3 Submissions 2758/4, 2758/7 and 2758/8

The above submissions request that access and maintenance to esplanade strips by owners and occupiers should be allowed including the rights to remove invasive or exotic tree and pests.

It is noted that esplanade strips remain in private ownership however, the public may have a right to access these strips. Often there are restrictions placed on these strips to ensure that the purpose for which they have been taken (refer to section 229 of the RMA) is achieved.

Therefore, owners of the strip have the right to access the land in the same manner as the public. Owners of the land can also undertake pest and weed eradication which is a permitted activity in all land units (refer to clause 4.12 (Pest control)) provided the use of any hazardous substance complies with Part 9 (Hazardous facilities and contaminated sites) and any ARC requirements.

Access strips for maintenance and vegetation protection such as pest and weed eradication may also be a requirement for owners/occupiers of an esplanade strip, particularly when the strip is being taken for the purposes of conservation values. Such a requirement can be made a condition of consent in accordance with sections 232(4)-(5) of the RMA.

With regard to the removal of exotic trees species, provided the exotic tree is not generally protected in accordance with clause 10c.5.2 (Exotic tree protection), then the removal of such trees from within an esplanade strip can be undertaken as a permitted activity.

In light of the above, it is considered that the provisions with RMA and the proposed Plan already enable owners/occupiers of land, which are subject to esplanade strips, to access these areas for maintenance and vegetation protection such as pest and weed eradication.

Therefore, it is recommended that submissions 2758/4, 2758/7 and 2758/8 are accepted with no changes made to clause 12.13.2.

4.69.2.4 Submission 2758/2

The above submission requests that clause 12.13.3 be amended so that there be r ecognition of social, cultural and economic value of access to the sea and uses of esplanade strips to occupiers and other users of the coastal areas.

The above submission is considered to be too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to clause 12.13.2 of the Plan. In addition, submission 2758/2 does not specifically identify any changes needed to clause 12.13.2 so that it recognises the social, cultural and economic value of access to the sea to occupiers and other users of the coastal areas.

It is unclear as to what the above submission is seeking particularly as esplanade reserves and strips seek to provide for public recreation and to facilitate public access to and alongside the coasts, streams, lakes and rivers. When reading section 229 (Purposes of esplanade reserves and strips) of the RMA, it is considered that the purpose of esplanade reserves and strips seek to recognise the social and cultural value of these coastal areas.

In addition, the existing use of the proposed strip by the owners and occupiers of the land is a requirement in section 232(5)(d) of the RMA when considering what provisions are applicable to an esplanade strip. Recommendations made in section 4.69.2.2 above will also ensure that at the time of taking an esplanade strip, consideration is given to existing lawful buildings and activities within the strip, and whether owners/occupiers can continue to enjoy the use of these buildings and/or activities.

As outlined above, submission 2758/2 is considered to be too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to clause 12.13.2. As such, submission 2758/2 is rejected.

4.69.2.5 Submission 3521/144

Submission 3521/144 requests an amendment to clause 12.13.2(1)(b) as follows:

(b) In unusual circumstances, a discretionary activity An application can be made to reduce, vary or waive ~~, vary or cancel~~ the requirement ~~rules requiring provision~~ for esplanade reserves or esplanade strips by way of an application for a discretionary activity that must be submitted together with any subdivision application. The council's assessment of an application for a discretionary activity to reduce, waive, vary or cancel an esplanade reserve or esplanade strip will include consideration of the matters contained in clause 12.13.4.

The decision requested above is not supported as the term 'unusual circumstances' is ambiguous and open to a variety of interpretations. It may result in applications seeking to reduce, vary, waive an esplanade area being subject to a standard which requires an application to have unusual circumstances before it can apply for reducing, varying and waiving an esplanade area.

The submitter should be made aware that as a discretionary activity, the application can be notified and declined should the effects on reducing, varying and/or waiving an esplanade areas be consider more than minor, particularly if the application is not in accordance with the matters of consideration contained in clause 12.13.4 (Specific assessment criteria for reducing, waiving, cancelling or varying an esplanade area).

On this basis, it is recommended that submission 3521/144 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.13.2 (Rules [for esplanade areas]).

1. Submissions 1243/92 and 2094/2 are accepted in part and clause 12.13.2(1) is amended as follows:
(1) Where any site of less than 4ha ~~or less~~ is created, an esplanade reserve 20m in width must be set aside from that site along the mark of mean high water springs of the sea, and along the bank of any river whose bed has an average width of 3m or more, or along the margin of any lake whose bed has an area of 8ha or more, except that:...
Submissions 2758/1, 2758/3, 2758/5, 2758/6 and 2759/9 are accepted in part and an additional matter of discretion is included in clause 12.13.3 as follows:
5. The extent to which the proposed esplanade strip provides for the continued use of lawfully established buildings and activities without compromising the purposes for which the strip has been taken in accordance with section 229 of the RMA.
Submissions 2758/4, 2758/7 and 2758/8 are accepted with no changes made to clause 12.13.2.
Submission 2758/2 is rejected.
Submission 3521/144 is rejected.

4.70 Submission about clause 12.13.4 (Specific assessment criteria for reducing, waiving, cancelling or varying an esplanade area).

Submission dealt with in this section: 2522/1

4.70.1 Decision requested

Submission 2522/1 requests the following:

That the following assessment criteria be added to clause 12.13.4

17. When considering any application for a reduction or waiver of an esplanade reserve, regard shall be given to sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (refer to clause 2.3.2 and appendix 10).

4.70.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

All islands covered by the Plan are subject to the provisions of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (HGMPA). This is reflected in clause 2.3.2 of the plan (The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000) which states that the plan provisions, including subdivision, accord with those of the HGMPA. Council must have regard to sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA when considering any application for a resource consent (land use and subdivision consent) that may reasonably impact on the Hauraki Gulf, its islands and catchments.

As outlined in section 4.7.2.2 of this report, it is considered that the objectives, policies and rules within Part 12 give effect to sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA. Accordingly, it is not considered necessary to specifically reference the HGMPA within Part 12 when the objectives, policies and rules of the Plan already combine to give effect to sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA.

For reasons in section 4.7.2.2, it is recommended that the decision sort with respect to the above submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.13.4 (Specific assessment criteria for reducing, waiving, cancelling or varying an esplanade area).

Submission 2522/1 is rejected.

4.71 Submissions about clause 12.13.5 (Guidelines for requiring an esplanade area for sites of 4ha or more).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2094/3, 2094/4.

4.71.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2094/3 requests the following:

Amend the heading 12.13.5 Guidelines for requiring for requiring an esplanade area for sites of 4ha or more, to read as follows (deletions shown with strikethrough, insertions with underlining):

12.13.5 Guidelines for requiring for requiring an esplanade area for sites of more than 4ha ~~or more.~~

Submission 2094/4 requests the following:

Amend 12.13.5 so that the introductory sentence reads as follows (deletions shown with strikethrough, insertions with underlining):

'The council will use the following guidelines when considering whether to require an esplanade reserve or esplanade strip for sites of more than 4ha or more:'

4.71.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

As stated in section 4.69.2.1 above, the current wording of the provisions for esplanade reserves and strips requires amending in order to provide clarity to these provisions and reflect the exact wording contained in section 230 of the RMA. Accordingly, a recommendation has been made to amend clause 12.13.2 so that sites of 4ha are not subject to rule 12.13.2(1).

The current wording of clause 12.13.5 is as follows:

12.13.5 Guidelines for requiring an esplanade area for sites of 4ha or more

The council will use the following guidelines when considering whether to require an esplanade reserve or esplanade strip for sites of 4ha or more:

The above wording (i.e. 4ha or more ) is consistent with the provisions of section 230 of the RMA which states that the requirement to take an esplanade area is based on sites less then 4 hectares and where sites are 4 hectares or more, then discretion shall be used when considering whether an esplanade reserve or strip is required.

The amendment requested by submissions 2094/3 and 2094/4 would result in sites that are 4ha in size being subject to rule 12.13.2(1) which is not the intent of section 230 of the RMA.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 2094/3 and 2094/4 are rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions pertaining to clause 12.13.5 (Guidelines for requiring an esplanade area for sites of 4ha or more).

Submissions 2094/3 and 2094/4 are rejected.

4.71.3 General submissions about table 12.1 (Minimum site sizes for land units).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 354/1, 1405/10, 1406/10, 1015/7, 1287/8, 1250/78, 2769/1, 2769/2, 333/1, 669/2, 2878/107, 2713/4, 2717/3, 3053/1.

4.71.4 Decision requested

Submission 354/1 requests the following:

Rewrite part 12 in consultation with land owners so that subdivision down to 3 - 4ha can be achieved with a minimum of obstacles (with particular reference to Great Barrier).

Submissions 1405/10, 1406/10 request the following:

That table 12.1 provide 3.5ha minimum lot size, with no average lot size, for all Great Barrier Island landforms.

Submission 1015/7 requests the following:

That the minimum lot size is to be 1/2 acre anywhere on Waiheke.

Submission 1287/8 requests the following:

Opposes the subdivision standards in Table 12.1.

Submission 1250/78 requests the following:

Retain the minimum lot sizes in table 12.1 provided they are no smaller than that provided for in the operative Plan.

Submission 2769/1 requests the following:

Any minimum site areas for all land units (in Table 12.1) must be determined on the basis of recommendations (following debate and discussion) from working parties or committees comprising interested persons from each community within the land units.

Submission 2769/2 requests the following:

Minimum site areas (in table 12.1) that are not determined by communities, should reflect the existing patterns of development fairly and equitably, depending primarily on landscape character and integration of buildings within the landscape.

Submission 333/1 requests the following:

Reconsider the minimum figure (site size) of 25 ha and come up with a more realistic figure for landform 6 (regenerating slopes) and landform 7 (forest and bush areas).

Submission 669/2 requests the following:

Objects to the council setting a minimum site size for residential development of 2000m2.

Submission 2713/4 requests the following:

There is need for rural cluster or 4ha subdivision on Great Barrier

Submission 2717/3 requests the following:

Lots of 4 ha or more should be able to be halved if good land use attributes can be proven e.g horticulture or grazing of animals.

Submission 3053/1 requests the following:

That allowed housing density on all areas except landform 3 (alluvial flats) is too low.

4.71.5 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.71.5.1 Submissions 354/1, 1405/10, 1406/10, 1015/7, 1287/8, 1250/78, 2769/1, 2769/2, 333/1, 669/2

The above submissions either do not specifically identify which land unit(s) their decisions relate to or they do not recommend alternative site sizes which would reflect their request. Moreover, the submissions do not elaborate on what advantages are likely to result if minimum site size was reduced or amended to reflect the decisions requested. Accordingly, they are too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to the Plan.

It is noted that minimum site sizes within the Plan are set at a level that is consistent with the objectives and policies for the land units, which seek to maintain elements, features and patterns that contribute to the visual amenity, natural landscape character and amenity value of each land unit. The site sizes also take in account the physical characteristics of the land and its capacity to integrate development impacts. These factors governing the minimum site sizes are outlined more fully in section 4.72 below.

It should also be noted that there are other submissions which seek to reduce and increase site sizes in various land units and settlement areas. These submissions will be assessed in the following sections of the report and council may make amendments in response. In the event amendments are made, the decisions requested by the above submitters may be supported. However, as the above submissions are too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to the plan, it is recommended that submissions 354/1, 1405/10, 1406/10, 1015/7, 1287/8, 1250/78, 2769/1, 2769/2, 333/1 and 669/2 as they relate to table 12.1 are rejected.

Please note that the submitters are invited to provide clarification at the hearing as to what advantages are likely to result if site sizes were amended to reflect the decisions requested.

4.71.5.2 Submission 2713/4

In responding to the above submission, it is considered necessary to assess the matter pertaining to rural clustering and 4ha site sizes separately.

Rural cluster

Given that the submission relates to Great Barrier Island, it can be assumed that the need to provide for the rural clustering of sites applies to all rural land units on this island being, landforms 1-7.

As stated in section 4.9 above, the Plan provides for the clustering of sites through clause 12.9.4 (cluster subdivision associated with the protection of significant environmental features). This provision applies only to landforms 2-7 and rural 1 provided there is a significant environmental feature worthy of protection.

It is not considered appropriate to provide for cluster subdivision where there is not a significant environmental feature worthy of protection and there are no mitigating measures in which to integrate the built form into the landscape. The effects generated by clustering built forms into a landscape which does not meet the above requirements may detract from the character and amenity of these areas and is not consistent with the objectives for the land units.

Accordingly, the clustering of buildings as part of a subdivision design is already provided for on Great Barrier Island but only if there is an environmental benefit gained through the protection of significant features, and provided the effects on character and amenity are not adversely affected.

4ha site sizes

Minimum site size are outlined in table 12.1 of the Plan and range from 25ha (landforms 1, 2, 4, 5-7) to 3.5ha in landform 3 for the rural land units on Great Barrier Island.

Minimum site sizes within the Plan are set at a level that is consistent with the objectives and policies for the land units, which seek to maintain elements, features and patterns that contribute to the visual amenity, natural landscape character and amenity value of each land unit. The site sizes also take in account the physical characteristics of the land and its capacity to integrate development impacts.

Reducing minimum site size in landforms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-7 from 25ha to 4ha would increase the modification of the environment, through additional built forms, earthworks and vegetation removal. This can lead to adverse amenity effects which detract from the character of the environment and undermine the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for these land units.

It should be noted that there are other submissions which seek to reduce site sizes in various land units and settlement areas. Accordingly, these submissions will be assessed elsewhere in this report.

For reasons outlined above, it is recommended that submission 2713/4 be rejected.

4.71.5.3 Submission 2717/3

After reviewing the submission in further detail, the above submission specifies landforms 5 (productive land), 6 (regenerating slopes), 7 (forest and bush areas) which need to have " some relaxation ".

Landform 5 applies to land with pasture cover as the main vegetation type. Overall, productive land is an expansive rural landscape that contributes to the lifestyle, economy (in terms of productive uses) and identity of the islands.

Landform 6 applies to extensive areas of regenerating bush where kanuka and manuka are the predominant vegetation. Overall, regenerating slopes makes a significant contribution to the natural character, ecological and the visual amenity value of the islands.

Landform 7 includes extensive podocarp and broadleaf forest areas, areas of secondary regenerating forest and some isolated areas of manuka and kanuka. Overall, forest and bush areas make a significant contribution to the natural character, conservation, ecological and visual amenity value of the islands.

While reducing site sizes below 25 hectares will provide for smaller scale productive uses, such site sizes may detract from the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of these land units. Of particular importance is the need to provide for productive activities, such as pastoral farming and horticulture within landform 5 and the need to retain the regenerating bush associated with landform 6.

The conservation values associated with landform 7 and protecting the extensive podocarp and broadleaf forest areas, areas of secondary regenerating forest and some isolated areas of manuka and kanuka within this land unit is also of significant importance.

In addition, 25ha site sizes recognise the need to provide for productive activities that require large site sizes. These site sizes seek to provide and encourage pastoral farming and horticulture that will provide a greater economic return and positively contribute to the lifestyle of Great Barrier Island. Reducing site sizes within these land units will also increase the modification of the environment, through additional built forms, earthworks and vegetation removal. This can lead to adverse amenity effects which detract from the character of the environment and undermine the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for the land units.

Therefore, reducing minimum site size could lead to adverse cumulative effects within these land units through the proliferation of built forms and modification of the ecological values, particularly within landform 7. More detailed analysis of these landforms and their minimum site sizes is outlined in sections 4.77, 4.78 and 4.79 below.

On this basis, it is recommended that submission 2717/3 be rejected.

4.71.5.4 Submission 3053/1

Submission 3053 states that the "children of owners of larger areas" are unable to have their own dwelling and live on their parent's land as the housing densities (minimum site sizes) are too low within the Plan. It is also unlikely that retirees and "children of owners of larger areas" will be able to obtain a site within a settlement area as the price of these properties are "well beyond the reach of average wage earners".

Submission 3053/1 does not specifically identify which land unit(s) it applies to or identify alternative minimum site sizes for these land units. Accordingly, submitter 3053 is invited to provide clarification at the hearing as to which land units apply to this submission as well as alternative minimum site sizes for these land units.

Notwithstanding this, given that the submission is from a Great Barrier Island resident, it is assumed that the submission relates to all rural land units on Great Barrier Island being, landforms 1-7. In addressing the above submission, it is considered appropriate to discuss two matters which the submitter raises; land value and minimum site size.

Land value

The land value of properties and general housing affordability is a complex issue which is influenced by a wide range of factors not controlled by the district plan. Those factors include household incomes; inflation; overseas exchange rates; finance availability; compliance with Building Act regulations; costs associated with construction materials, transport and labour.

Minimum site size

Minimum sites sizes are outlined in table 12.1 of the Plan and range from 25ha (landforms 1, 2, 4, 5-7) to 3.5ha in landform 3. These site sizes are set at a level that is consistent with the objectives and policies for the land units, which seek to maintain elements, features and patterns that contribute to the visual amenity, natural landscape character and amenity value of each land unit. The site sizes also take in account the physical characteristics of the land and its capacity to integrate development impacts.

Reducing minimum site size in landforms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-7 may increase the modification of the environment, through additional built forms, earthworks and vegetation removal. This can lead to adverse amenity effects, which detract from the character of the environment and undermine the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for these land units.

For reasons outlined above, it is recommended that submission 3053/1 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about general submissions pertaining to table 12.1 (minimum site sizes for land units).

Submissions 354/1, 1405/10, 1406/10, 1015/7, 1287/8, 1250/78, 2769/1, 2769/2 and 333/1 and 669/2 as they relate table 12.1 be rejected.
Submission 2713/4 be rejected.
Submission 2717/3 be rejected.
Submission 3053/1 be rejected.

4.72 Introduction to minimum site size analysis

Many submissions have requested a change to the site sizes as outlined in tables 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3. Often these submissions do not specifically identify what advantages are likely to result if the minimum site sizes were amended nor have the submissions provided an analysis of how the amended site sizes will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources as outlined in section 5(2) of the RMA.

In order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the minimum site sizes for each land unit, it is considered important to provide an introduction to several matters which need to be considered when determining the minimum site size for the land units. These comments are as follows:

The Plan recognises that the physical and natural environment in the islands creates major constraints on subdivision. In particular, there is a need to preserve the natural environment, visual character, amenity, and heritage values and to have regard to drainage capability. Furthermore, the significant ecological and landscape values of the islands require that subdivision should only occur on sites where there is adequate physical capacity and capability to integrate development impacts. As such, the proposed objectives, policies and rules give particular emphasis to ensuring a proper assessment of such effects when subdivision applications are evaluated.

The site sizes within tables 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 are set at a level that is consistent with the resource management strategy for the land units and settlement areas which seek to maintain elements, features and patterns that contribute to the visual amenity, natural landscape character and amenity value of each land unit. The site sizes also take into account the physical characteristics of the land and its capacity to integrate development impacts.

Determining the resource management strategy and minimum site size for each land unit and settlement areas has also been undertaken after considerable landscape analysis from a registered landscape architect, Mr John Hudson. This work helped determine the appropriate minimum site areas for land units and settlement areas, based upon the physical characteristics of the land and its capacity to integrate development impacts, as well as consideration of natural character, visual character and amenity values.

The subdivision rules work together with more specific land use rules to ensure that the overall resource management strategy for the land unit achieved. Therefore, submissions requesting a change to the minimum site size must be aware that such change may compromise the resource management strategy for the land unit or settlement area, and require consequential changes to the objectives and policies for the land unit or settlement area.

It should be noted that some submissions recommend a reduction in the site sizes on the basis that the current site sizes are not an economically sustainable productive use of the property .

As stated previously, 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:

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

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

Accordingly, the economic wellbeing of people and communities must be considered as part of the sustainable management of resources however, it is considered that a balance also needs to be struck between providing greater densities, environmental protection and retaining natural character, visual character and amenity values of the land units.

In terms of social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, providing for this is only part of the definition of sustainable management contained in section 5(2) of the RMA. The full definition of sustainable management is set out in section 2.0 of this report. It is a complex definition which requires balancing of a range of factors and includes both managing and enabling functions. Social, economic and cultural wellbeing needs to be provided for in a manner which does not compromise the matters set out in section 5(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the RMA.

The land use rules and subdivision rules have therefore been written so that they are consistent with the objectives of securing appropriate management of natural and physical resources and in achieving sustainable management. Economic opportunities are provided for within the subdivision rules by providing site sizes that are commensurate with the land use activities permitted in the land units and settlement areas.

For example, 25ha site sizes in landform 5 (productive land) is considered to be consistent with providing for larger scale rural activities on the land. Such rural activities contribute to the economy of the islands and enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety.

Visitor accommodation facilities are also provided for at a permitted level in many of these rural land units which also provide for greater economic return for the community. The larger sites sizes associated with these rural land units seek to ensure that the activities and buildings have sufficient capacity in which to accommodate the development while ensuring that the elements, features and patterns that contribute to the visual amenity, natural landscape character and amenity value of each land unit are maintained.

Overall, it is considered that the minimum site sizes for each land unit must be set at a level which achieves the objectives and policies sought within each land unit and settlement area. A balance must therefore be made so that the economic wellbeing of the community is achieved as well as the protection of the natural and physical resources of the environment. Retaining natural character, visual character and amenity values of the land units and settlement areas will also contribute to the overall character of the Hauraki Gulf Islands, and makes it a desirable place to live.

The following sections analyse submissions relating to the minimum and where appropriate, the average site sizes of the land units and settlements areas. Some submissions have requested multiple changes in one sentence (e.g. Amend the minimum site size in table 12.1 for landforms 1, 2 and 4 from 25ha to 4ha.). Where this situation occurs, the submission will be repeated and considered in each of the landforms it references.

4.73 Submissions about minimum site size for landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 878/1, 1306/1, 1353/1, 1407/1, 1923/1, 2140/1, 2144/1, 2154/1, 2182/1, 2206/1, 2229/1, 2234/1, 2270/1, 2316/1, 2337/1, 2356/1, 2362/1, 2388/1, 2410/1, 2419/1, 2731/1, 3676/1, 3754/1, 3781/1, 1121/1, 1333/1, 2851/1, 1512/1, 1243/86.

4.73.1 Decision requested

Submissions 878/1, 1306/1, 1353/1, 1407/1, 1923/1, 2140/1, 2144/1, 2154/1, 2182/1, 2206/1, 2229/1, 2234/1, 2270/1, 2316/1, 2337/1, 2356/1, 2362/1, 2388/1, 2410/1, 2419/1, 2731/1, 3676/1, 3754/1, 3781/1 request the following:

Amend the minimum site size in table 12.1 for landforms 1, 2 and 4 from 25ha to 8ha.

Submissions 1121/1, 1333/1, 2851/1 request the following:

Amend the minimum site size in table 12.1 for landforms 1, 2 and 4 from 25ha to 4ha.

Submission 1512/1 requests the following:

Amend minimum site areas for landform 1 & 2 (table 12.1 to 8 hectares).

Submission 1243/86 requests the following:

Retain table 12.1 as it applies to landforms 1-7.

4.73.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

In analysing the above submissions, it is considered necessary to first turn to the resource management strategy envisaged for this land unit.

Landform 1 is applied to steep coastal cliffs, exposed coastal slopes and offshore islets and stacks. Minimum site size in the Plan is 25 hectares.

Coastal cliffs and slopes is characterised by:

A steep, rugged, wild and dynamic landscape which defines the coastal margins.
Visual prominence due to its exposed coastal location.
Sparse vegetation, including cliff associations and unprotected remnant gully vegetation.
Small pockets of grazed land, some of which is regenerating.
Instability, exposure, and varying degrees of erosion.
An absence of buildings or structures.

Overall, coastal cliffs and slopes has high natural character values and a rugged, visually prominent landscape.

The resource management strategy for this land unit states:

The visual prominence and natural character value of this land unit is so high, that the resource management strategy is to not specifically provide for activities and buildings to occur at all and to require a large minimum site size for subdivision within the land unit.

The objective and policies for this land unit is as follows:

10a.2.3 Objective

To protect the natural character and visual prominence of the coastal cliffs and slopes from the adverse effects of activities and buildings.

Policies

By protecting the coastal cliffs and slopes from modification by activities and buildings.
By requiring new sites to be of a size and nature that avoids adverse effects on the natural character and the visual prominence of the land unit.

The Plan provisions recognise the potential for adverse effects that may arise from subdivision within and associated with the coastal environment. This in reflected in the objective and policies of the land unit as well as the objectives within Part 12 of the plan which seek to control subdivision in order to preserve the natural character, landscape values, heritage and amenity values of the coastal environment. This is highlighted within objective 12.3.1 � natural character and landscape values and the associated policies (3) and (4) which state:

(3) By avoiding subdivision and development in the coastal environment where it would result in sprawling or sporadic development.

4.73.2.1 Submissions 878/1, 1306/1, 1353/1, 1407/1, 1923/1, 2140/1, 2144/1, 2154/1, 2182/1, 2206/1, 2229/1, 2234/1, 2270/1, 2316/1, 2337/1, 2356/1, 2362/1, 2388/1, 2410/1, 2419/1, 2731/1, 3676/1, 3754/1, 3781/1, 1121/1, 1333/1, 2851/1, 1512/1

The above submissions request a reduction in the minimum site size of 25ha to 4ha or 8ha.

The minimum site size of 25ha for landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) is considered to be consistent with the objective and policies of the land unit which seek to protect the natural character and visual prominence of the coastal cliffs and slopes from the potential adverse effects of activities and buildings. Within landform 1, subdivision for the purposes of protecting significant environmental features is not provided for as this form of subdivision can reduce site sizes to a minimum of 4ha with an average of 7.5ha.

In addition, land use controls are placed on activities within this land unit so that all activities other than ecosourced plantings are non-complying activities. Therefore, maintaining minimum site sizes of 25ha and requiring most land use activities and building construction to be assessed as non-complying activities, will preserve the natural character of the coast and reduce the modification of this environment through additional built forms, earthworks and tree removal.

Twenty-five hectare site sizes is also consistent with sections 6(a) and 6(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 1994, the Regional Policy Statement and plans and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. These pieces of legislation seek to avoid subdivision and development in the coastal environment where it would result in sprawling and/or sporadic development and where natural character and landscape values are adversely affected.

It is noted that while buildings and activities are not permitted within this land unit, a review of landform 1 on the planning maps shows that sites are unlikely to comprise entirely of landform 1. In most cases, sites have other rural land units (landforms 3, 5, 6 and 7) which have land use rules that provide for buildings and activities. Therefore, the proposed site sizes for this land unit is also based around the principle that there are dual land units on a site with provision to develop on other land units.

For reasons outlines above, submissions 878/1, 1306/1, 1353/1, 1407/1, 1923/1, 2140/1, 2144/1, 2154/1, 2182/1, 2206/1, 2229/1, 2234/1, 2270/1, 2316/1, 2337/1, 2356/1, 2362/1, 2388/1, 2410/1, 2419/1, 2731/1, 3676/1, 3754/1, 3781/1, 1121/1, 1333/1, 2851/1, 1512/1 be rejected as they relate to landform 1.

4.73.2.2 Submission 1243/86

Submission 1243/86 requests that minimum site size for landform 1 as outlined in table 12.1 is retained.

As already outlined in section 4.73.2.1 above, it is considered that the existing 25ha minimum site size is consistent with achieving the resource management strategy envisaged for landform 1. This will provide for the appropriate management of resources and achieve sustainable land use development.

As such, it is recommended that submission 1243/86 be accepted and minimum site size for landform 1 is retained.

Planner's recommendations about submissions minimum site size for landform 1.

Submissions 878/1, 1306/1, 1353/1, 1407/1, 1923/1, 2140/1, 2144/1, 2154/1, 2182/1, 2206/1, 2229/1, 2234/1, 2270/1, 2316/1, 2337/1, 2356/1, 2362/1, 2388/1, 2410/1, 2419/1, 2731/1, 3676/1, 3754/1, 3781/1, 1121/1, 1333/1, 2851/1, 1512/1 are rejected as they relate to landform 1.
Submission 1243/86 be accepted.

4.74 Submissions about minimum site size for landform 2 (Dune systems and sand flats).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 69/1, 878/1, 1306/1, 1353/1, 1407/1, 1923/1, 2140/1, 2144/1, 2154/1, 2182/1, 2206/1, 2229/1, 2234/1, 2270/1, 2316/1, 2337/1, 2356/1, 2362/1, 2388/1, 2410/1, 2419/1, 2731/1, 3676/1, 3754/1, 3781/1, 1121/1, 1333/1, 2851/1., 1243/86.

4.74.1 Decision requested

Submission 69/1 requests the following:

3.5ha minimum permitted lot size for landforms 2 (dune systems)

Amend the minimum site size in table 12.1 for landforms 1, 2 and 4 from 25ha to 8ha

Submissions 1121/1, 1333/1, 2851/1 request the following:

Amend the minimum site size in table 12.1 for landforms 1, 2 and 4 from 25ha to 4ha.

Submission 1243/86 requests the following:

Retain table 12.1 as it applies to landforms 1-7.

4.74.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

In analysing the above submissions, it is considered necessary to first turn to the resource management strategy envisaged for this land unit.

Landform 2 is applied to open dune systems and to sand flats which may be covered in pasture or other vegetation. Minimum site size in the Plan is 25 hectares.

Dune systems and sand flats is characterised by:

High natural character and visual amenity value due to the open expansive qualities of the landscape, the coastal location and the general absence of buildings and structures. This is especially apparent in the dune systems area.
A dynamic and variable nature, meaning that the dune systems and sand flats continually change over time, though some areas change faster than others.
High ecological value due to the wildlife habitats and plant species present.
Sensitivity to modification by activities and buildings, especially in the dune systems area.
Varying degrees of instability, for example, in some locations there are mobile sand dunes and in other locations there are stable sand flats with regenerating vegetation cover.
Pastoral farming as the dominant activity if there is any activity at all.

Overall, the land unit has a dynamic and variable natural environment, with high natural character, ecological and visual amenity values.

The resource management strategy for this land unit states:

As the dune systems area of the land unit needs a higher degree of protection than the sand flats area, the resource management strategy is to divide the land unit into two parts; the dune systems area and the sand flats area.

In the dune systems area, the natural character, ecological and visual amenity values are so high that buildings and activities are not specifically provided for at all. In the sand flats area, the range of activities is limited to those with a low intensity and buildings require an assessment to ensure that there will be no adverse effects on the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of the land unit.

The objective and policies for this land unit is as follows:

10a.3.3 Objective

To protect the natural character and the ecological and visual amenity value of the dune systems and sand flats from the adverse effects of activities and buildings.

Policies

By protecting the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of the dune systems area of the land unit from modification by activities and buildings.
By limiting the activities that can occur in the sand flats area of the land unit to those which avoid adverse effects on the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of the land unit.
By ensuring that the scale, form, colour and location of new buildings in the sand flats area will not have adverse effects on the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of the land unit.
By requiring new sites to be of a size and nature that avoids adverse effects on the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of the land unit.

4.74.2.1 Submissions 69/1, 878/1, 1306/1, 1353/1, 1407/1, 1923/1, 2140/1, 2144/1, 2154/1, 2182/1, 2206/1, 2229/1, 2234/1, 2270/1, 2316/1, 2337/1, 2356/1, 2362/1, 2388/1, 2410/1, 2419/1, 2731/1, 3676/1, 3754/1, 3781/1, 1512/1, 1121/1, 1333/1, 2851/1

The above submissions request a reduction in the minimum site size of 25ha to either 3.5ha, 4ha, or 8ha.

The minimum site size of 25ha for landform 2 (dune systems and sand flats) is considered to be consistent with the above objective and policies. The site size will help avoid adverse effects on the natural character, ecological and visual value of the land unit while also protecting the quality and diversity of the natural environment, particularly the migratory dune processes. Within landform 2, subdivision for the purposes of protecting significant environmental features is provided for given the significant of the dunes systems within the environment. In some circumstances, protection and enhancements of these dune systems could be offered as part of subdivision for the purposes of protecting significant environmental features.

In addition, land use controls are placed on activities within dune systems so that all activities other than ecosourced plantings are non-complying activities. The sand flats areas provide for low intensity activities and buildings which require a land use consent to ensure that there will be no adverse effects on the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of the land unit.

Such an approach within both the land use and subdivision provisions is considered to be consistent with resource management strategy envisaged for this environment. Therefore, maintaining minimum site sizes of 25ha and providing for most land use activities and building construction as non-complying activities in dunes systems, will protect the natural character as well as the ecological and visual amenity values of the dune systems area from modification by activities and buildings.

Twenty-five hectare site sizes for the sand flats will also provide for low intensity buildings which do not have an adverse effects on the natural character, ecological and visual amenity values of the land unit. This site size is also consistent with the sections 6(a) and 6(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 1994, the Regional Policy Statement and plans and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.

For reasons outlines above, submissions 69/1, 878/1, 1306/1, 1353/1, 1407/1, 1923/1, 2140/1, 2144/1, 2154/1, 2182/1, 2206/1, 2229/1, 2234/1, 2270/1, 2316/1, 2337/1, 2356/1, 2362/1, 2388/1, 2410/1, 2419/1, 2731/1, 3676/1, 3754/1, 3781/1, 1121/1, 1333/1, 2851/1, 1512/1 be rejected as they relate to landform 1.

4.74.2.2 Submission 1243/86

Submission 1243/86 requests that minimum site size for landform 2 as outlined in table 12.1 is retained.

As already outlined in section 4.74.2.1 above, it is considered that the existing 25ha minimum site size is consistent with achieving the resource management strategy envisaged for landform 2. This will provide for the appropriate management of resources and achieve sustainable land use development.

As such, it is recommended that submission 1243/86 be accepted and minimum site size for landform 2 is retained.

Planner's recommendations about submissions minimum site size for landform 2.

Submissions 69/1, 878/1, 1306/1, 1353/1, 1407/1, 1923/1, 2140/1, 2144/1, 2154/1, 2182/1, 2206/1, 2229/1, 2234/1, 2270/1, 2316/1, 2337/1, 2356/1, 2362/1, 2388/1, 2410/1, 2419/1, 2731/1, 3676/1, 3754/1, 3781/1, 1121/1, 1333/1, 2851/1, 1512/1 be rejected as they relate to landform 2.
Submission 1243/86 be accepted.

4.75 Submissions about minimum site size for landform 3 (alluvial flats).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 69/1, 382/1, 1093/76, 3106/5, 1288/59, 1243/86.

4.75.1 Decision requested

Submission 382/1 requests the following:

For landform 3 (alluvial flats), provide for further subdivision on land blocks larger than 4ha with the usual provisos for appearance, services etc.

Submission 1288/59 requests the following:

Amend the minimum site area in table 12.1 for landform 3 to 2.5ha.

Submission 1093/76 requests the following:

Amend table 12.1 to provide for a minimum site area of 5.0 ha within landform 3 (alluvial flats).

Submission 3106/5 requests the following:

In Landform 3, increase the minimum site area to 10ha.

Submission 69/1 requests the following:

3.5ha minimum permitted lot size for landforms 2 (dune systems), 3 (alluvial flats).

Submission 1243/86 requests the following:

Retain table 12.1 as it applies to landforms 1-7.

4.75.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

In analysing the above submissions, it is considered necessary to first turn to the resource management strategy envisaged for this land unit.

This land unit is applied to low-lying pasture land that is often located near dune systems and sand flats and wetland systems. Minimum site size is 3.5 hectares.

Alluvial flats is characterised by:

Low-lying land with pasture as the main vegetation cover.
Pastoral farming and horticultural activities that use the high productive capability of the alluvial soil. These are often of a smaller scale than the productive activities occurring within other land units.
The character and amenity associated with a rural landscape.
High water tables and various water bodies such as streams and wetlands.
A working landscape with various built elements such as farm buildings, houses and drainage systems.

Overall, alluvial flats provides for small scale rural activities which contribute to the lifestyle, economy and identity of the islands.

The resource management strategy for this land unit states:

The resource management strategy is to provide for productive activities, such as pastoral farming and horticulture, so that these activities can continue to contribute to the economy, the lifestyle and the identity of the islands.

The smaller minimum site size in this land unit recognises that moderate to large scale farming operations may not always be viable in the islands, and as such, landowners may need to diversify into a wider range of productive activities, including those which do not require large sites.

A limited range of non-productive activities is also provided for, subject to ensuring that the rural character of the landscape and general amenity values of the area are maintained. Provision for such activities is appropriate given that the income from productive activities may need to be supplemented and as the majority of this land unit is located near settlement areas.

Visitor accommodation for up to 10 people is provided for as a permitted activity. Visitor accommodation for more than 10 people is a discretionary activity so that adverse effects on the rural character of the landscape and general amenity values of the locality can be assessed.

The flooding issues associated with the land unit will be managed through rules inpart 8 - Natural hazards. This may mean that while buildings are provided for in these land unit rules, they may not be provided for under the natural hazard rules.

The objective and policies for this land unit is as follows:

10a.4.3 Objective

To provide for smaller scale productive activities and a limited range of non-productive activities where they do not detract from the rural character of the landscape or the general amenity of the locality.

Policies

By providing for productive activities, such as pastoral farming and horticulture, to establish and operate in the land unit.
By requiring new sites to be of a size and nature that ensures smaller scale rural activities can occur and which maintains the rural character of the landscape.
By ensuring that the scale, nature and location of non-productive activities will not have adverse effects on the rural character of the landscape or the general amenity of the locality.

4.75.2.1 Submissions 382/1 and 1288/59

The above submissions request a reduction in the minimum site size to 2ha or 2.5ha. While reducing site sizes below 3.5 hectares may continue to provide for smaller scale productive uses and a limited range of non-productive land uses, such a reduction may adversely affect the rural character of the landscape and the general amenity of the locality.

Landform 3 seeks to provide for activities such as horticulture, so that these activities can continue to contribute to the economy, the lifestyle and the identity of the islands. The site size for this land unit must therefore be set at a level which enables communities to effectively utilise the land for economic gain whilst also ensuring that the rural character of the landscape is not adversely affected.

Within landform 3, subdivision for the purposes of protecting significant environmental features is provided given the significance of the alluvial flats within the environment. In some circumstances, the protection and enhancements of these alluvial systems could be offered as part of subdivision for the purposes of protecting significant environmental features. In applying for significant environmental feature subdivision, this will reduce and in circumstances, inhibit land being available for productive use however, protecting significant alluvial features will protect and where possible, enhance these areas, and therefore achieve the purpose of the Act as set out within sections 6(b), 6(c), 6(e) 6(f), 7(f) and section 8.

Reducing site sizes below 3.5ha without protecting significant environmental features will reduce productive capacity of the land and therefore, the land unit's ability to contribute to the economy of the islands. Reducing the site size will also affect a site's ability to integrate built forms in the environment. As such, the rural character of the landscape and general amenity of the locality could be adversely affected.

In addition to the above, reducing site sizes can lead to the creation or exacerbation of natural flood hazards associated with high water tables. It could also adversely affect the quality and diversity of the natural environment, particularly the high water tables and various small water bodies such as streams and wetlands associated with landform 3.

Overall, it is considered that reducing minimum site sizes for landform 3 below 3.5 ha will potentially result in adverse amenity effects which detract from the character of the environment, compromise the productive capacity of the land and generally undermine the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for the land unit.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 382/1 and 1288/59 are rejected.

4.75.2.2 Submissions 1093/76 and 3106/5

The above submissions request that the minimum site size for landform 3 is increased to 5ha or 10ha.

Increasing minimum site sizes will increase the amount of open space within each site which will help protect the visual amenity of the landscape and protect the quality and diversity of the natural environment. In addition, large site sizes will increase the productive capacity of the land thereby potentially providing a greater economic return.

Notwithstanding this, it is considered that increasing minimum site size does not recognise the need to diversify into a wider range of productive activities that do not require large sites. As outlined in the resource management strategy for landform 3, t he smaller minimum site size in this land unit recognises that moderate to large scale farming operations may not always be viable in the islands, and as such, landowners may need to diversify into a wider range of productive activities, including those which do not require large sites

This strategy is also reflected in the land use rules for landform 3 which do not require land use consent for buildings and/or additions and alterations to them if they are within the permitted development controls of the plan. The intent of this is to encourage productive uses and their associated buildings within landform 3 without requiring a comprehensive effects assessment in terms of the scale, nature and location of the buildings in the landscape. A land use consent is only required when the permitted development controls are infringed or where non-productive uses are proposed.

Such an approach within both the land use and subdivision provisions is considered consistent with resource management strategy envisaged for this environment. Therefore, maintaining minimum site sizes of 3.5ha and providing for productive land use activities, including visitor accommodation for up to 10 people as permitted activities, will ensure that smaller scale rural activities can occur which maintains the character of the landscape while also providing a reasonable level of economic return for the landowner. It is also considered that the 3.5ha size will provide sufficient open space in which to integrate non-productive activities such as forestry, outdoor adventure activities and camping facilities, which are provided for at a discretionary level in the land unit.

Therefore, the minimum site size of 3.5ha for landform 3 (alluvial flats) is considered consistent with the objective and policies for the land unit. The site size will provide for smaller scale productive activities and a limited range of non-productive activities where they do not detract from the rural character of the landscape or the general amenity of the locality.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 1093/76 and 3106/5 are rejected.

4.75.2.3 Submission 69/1 and 1243/86

Submissions 69/1 and 1243/86 requests a minimum site size of 3.5ha for landform 3.

As already outlined in section 4.75.2.2 above, it is considered that the existing 3.5ha minimum site size is consistent with achieving the resource management strategy envisaged for landform 3. This will provide for the appropriate management of resources and achieve sustainable land use development.

As such, it is recommended that submission 69/1 and 1243/86 be accepted and minimum site size for landform 3 is retained.

Planner's recommendations about submissions minimum site size for landform 3.

Submissions 382/1 and 1288/59 are rejected.
Submissions 1093/76 and 3106/5 are rejected.
Submission 69/1 and 1243/86 be accepted.

4.76 Submissions about minimum site size for landform 4 (Wetland systems).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 19/1, 878/1, 1306/1, 1353/1, 1407/1, 1923/1, 2140/1, 2144/1, 2154/1, 2182/1, 2206/1, 2229/1, 2234/1, 2270/1, 2316/1, 2337/1, 2356/1, 2362/1, 2388/1, 2410/1, 2419/1, 2731/1, 3676/1, 3754/1, 3781/1, 1121/1, 1333/1, 2851/1, 1288/58, 1591/1, 2654/1, 526/12, 527/12, 528/12, 529/12, 539/12, 1091/9, 1243/86, 1250/79.

4.76.1 Decisions requested

Amend the minimum site size in table 12.1 for landforms 1, 2 and 4 from 25ha to 8ha.

Submissions 1121/1, 1333/1, 2851/1 request the following:

Amend the minimum site size in table 12.1 for landforms 1, 2 and 4 from 25ha to 4ha.

Submission 1288/58 requests the following:

Amend the minimum site area in table 12.1 for landform 4-7 to 15ha.

Submission 1591/1 requests the following:

Landforms 4-7 minimum site area amended to 10ha from 25ha in Table 12.1 .

Submission 2654/1 requests the following:

Amend table 12.1 so that the minimum site area for landforms 4-7 is changed from 25ha to 5ha.

Submissions 526/12, 527/12, 528/12, 529/12, 539/12, 1091/9 request the following:

Reinstate the minimum site areas for subdivision for landforms 4 (wetland systems) and 5 (productive land) at 15ha as in the operative Plan.

Submission 19/1 requests the following:

Reduce the proposed lot size for landforms 4 to 7, from 25 ha to 20 ha.

Submission 1243/86 requests the following:

Retain table 12.1 as it applies to landforms 1-7.

Submission 1250/79 requests the following:

Retain any proposed increase in existing minimum lot sizes in table 12.1

4.76.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

In analysing the above submissions, it is considered necessary to first turn to the resource management strategy envisaged for this land unit.

This land unit is applied to fresh water wetlands that drain to rivers, streams or estuaries and to areas of land that support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Minimum site size is 25ha.

Wetland systems is characterised by:

Expansive, largely unmodified wetland systems in low-lying areas.
Smaller wetland systems, some of which have been modified by land management practices on surrounding areas of land.
Wildlife and plant habitats, which result in high ecological value in a local, regional and in some cases a national context. This is particularly apparent where the wetland system is unmodified.
High hydrological importance within water catchments, particularly in terms of flood mitigation and sediment control.
High natural character, especially where the wetland system is unmodified.

Overall, wetland systems are an important natural environment, which makes a significant contribution to the natural character, ecological and hydrological values of the islands.

The resource management strategy for this land unit states:

The natural character, ecological and hydrological values of this land unit are so high, that the resource management strategy is to not specifically provide for activities and buildings to occur at all and to require a large minimum site size for subdivision within the land unit.

The objective and policies for this land unit is as follows:

10a.5.3 Objective

To protect the natural character and the ecological and hydrological value of the wetland systems from the adverse effects of activities and buildings.

Policies

By protecting wetland systems from modification by activities and buildings.
By requiring new sites to be of a size and nature that avoids adverse effects on the natural character, ecological and hydrological value of the land unit.

4.76.2.1 Submissions 878/1, 1306/1, 1353/1, 1407/1, 1923/1, 2140/1, 2144/1, 2154/1, 2182/1, 2206/1, 2229/1, 2234/1, 2270/1, 2316/1, 2337/1, 2356/1, 2362/1, 2388/1, 2410/1, 2419/1, 2731/1, 3676/1, 3754/1, 3781/1, 1121/1, 1333/1, 2851/1, 1288/58, 1591/1, 2654/1, 526/12, 527/12, 528/12, 529/12, 539/12 and 1091/9.

The above submissions seek to reduce the minimum site size of landform 4. These reductions range from a minimum site size of 4ha, 5ha, 8ha, 10ha or 15ha. In reading these submissions, the most common reasons for this reduction relates to the existing site size of 25ha not being an economically sustainable use of the property.

As already outlined in section 4.72 above, the economic well being of people and communities must be considered as part of the sustainable management of resources however, it is considered that a balance also needs to be struck between providing greater densities, environmental protection and retaining natural character, visual character and amenity values of the land units.

It is noted that the minimum site size for landform 4 (wetland systems) was increased from 15ha to 25ha in the proposed Plan. This is because it is considered that the 25ha site size reflects the natural character, ecological and hydrological values of this land unit and is consistent with the resource management strategy, which does not provide for activities or buildings in this land unit. In addition, this increased site size will be more effective in protecting the high hydrological importance of these water catchment systems, particularly in terms of flood mitigation and sediment control.

In addition, land use controls are placed on activities within this land unit so that all activities other than ecosourced plantings are non-complying activities. Within landform 4, subdivision for the purposes of protecting significant environmental features is provided for given the significant of the wetland systems within the environment. In some circumstances, protection and enhancements of these wetland systems could be offered as part of subdivision for the purposes of protecting significant environmental features.

It is noted that while buildings and activities (other than ecosourced planting) are not permitted within this land unit, a review of landform 4 on the planning maps shows that sites are unlikely to comprise entirely of landform 4. In most cases, sites have other rural land units (landforms 3, 5, 6 and 7) which have land use rules that provide for buildings and activities. Therefore, the proposed site sizes for this land unit are also based around the principle that there are dual land units on a site with the provision to develop on other land units. The site sizes around the wetland areas are therefore consistent with the minimum site sizes associated with these other rural land units.

Therefore, increasing minimum site sizes to 25ha and requiring most land use activities and building construction to be assessed as non-complying activities, will help protect the natural character and the ecological and hydrological value of the wetland systems from the adverse effects of activities and buildings.

Overall, it is considered that reducing the minimum site size of landform 4 may adversely affect wildlife and plant habitats, which contribute to the high ecological value in a local, regional and in some cases a national context. This is particularly apparent where the wetland system is unmodified. The high hydrological importance within water catchments, particularly in terms of flood mitigation and sediment control may also be adversely affected. This is not consistent with the resource management strategy for the land unit nor sections 6(a)-(b) of the RMA which seeks the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment wetlands, lakes and rivers and their margins and the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 878/1, 1306/1, 1353/1, 1407/1, 1923/1, 2140/1, 2144/1, 2154/1, 2182/1, 2206/1, 2229/1, 2234/1, 2270/1, 2316/1, 2337/1, 2356/1, 2362/1, 2388/1, 2410/1, 2419/1, 2731/1, 3676/1, 3754/1, 3781/1, 1121/1, 1333/1, 2851/1, 1288/58, 1591/1, 2654/1, 526/12, 527/12, 528/12, 529/12, 539/12 and 1091/9 are rejected.

4.76.2.2 Submission 19/1

The above submission seeks a reduction in the minimum site sizes to 20ha within landforms 4 to 7. This submitter has not specifically identified what advantages are likely to result if the minimum site size was reduced to 20ha, nor has submitter provided an analysis of how the amended site sizes will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources as outlined in section 5(2) of the RMA.

Submitter 19/1 requests such a reduction on the basis that it will enable his property at 45ha to be subdivided. The submitter states that the proposed plan does not provide for any form of subdivision on his land however, he should be made aware that in the event that the minimum site size is not achieved, then a non-complying activity application can be applied for. As stated previously, each application is assessed on its merits and on a case by case basis.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submission 19/1 is rejected.

4.76.2.3 Submissions 1243/86 and 1250/79

Submissions 1243/86 and 1250/79 request that the increase to minimum site size for landform 4 as outlined in table 12.1 is retained.

As already outlined in section 4.76.2.1 above, it is considered that the 25ha minimum site size is consistent with achieving the resource management strategy envisaged for landform 4. This will provide for the appropriate management of resources and achieve sustainable land use development.

As such, it is recommended that submission 1243/86 and 1250/79 be accepted and minimum site size for landform 4 is retained.

Planner's recommendations about submissions minimum site size for landform 4.

Submissions 878/1, 1306/1, 1353/1, 1407/1, 1923/1, 2140/1, 2144/1, 2154/1, 2182/1, 2206/1, 2229/1, 2234/1, 2270/1, 2316/1, 2337/1, 2356/1, 2362/1, 2388/1, 2410/1, 2419/1, 2731/1, 3676/1, 3754/1, 3781/1, 1121/1, 1333/1, 2851/1, 1288/58, 1591/1, 2654/1, 526/12, 527/12, 528/12, 529/12, 539/12 and 1091/9 are rejected.
Submission 19/1 is rejected.
Submissions 1243/86 and 1250/79 be accepted.

4.77 Submissions about minimum site size for landform 5 (productive land).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 19/1, 69/1, 1288/58, 1591/1, 2654/1, 526/12, 527/12, 528/12, 529/12, 539/12, 382/2, 1335/1, 1344/1, 1357/1, 1391/1, 1399/1, 1893/1, 1924/1, 1971/1, 1987/1, 2158/1, 2183/1, 2201/1, 2222/1, 2328/1, 2367/1, 2403/1, 2409/1, 2466/1, 2467/1, 3029/1, 3103/1, 3111/1, 3112/1, 3675/1, 3755/1, 3782/1, 1091/10, 3118/1, 3121/1, 1284/8, 1539/1, 3140/1, 2717/1, 1093/77, 1243/86.

4.77.1 Decision requested

Submission 19/1 requests the following:

Reduce the proposed lot size for landforms 4 to 7, from 25 ha to 20 ha.

Submission 69/1 requests the following:

3.5ha minimum permitted lot size for landforms 2 (dune systems), 3 (alluvial flats), 5 (productive land), 6 (regenerating slopes), 7 (forest and bush areas).

Submission 1288/58 requests the following:

Amend the minimum site area in table 12.1 for landform 4-7 to 15ha.

Submission 1591/1 requests the following:

Landforms 4-7 minimum site area amended to 10ha from 25ha in Table 12.1 .

Submission 2654/1 requests the following:

Amend table 12.1 so that the minimum site area for landforms 4-7 is changed from 25ha to 5ha.

Submissions 526/12, 527/12, 528/12, 529/12, 539/12 request the following:

Reinstate the minimum site areas for subdivision for landforms 4 (wetland systems) and 5 (productive land) at 15ha as in the operative Plan.

Submission 382/2 requests the following:

For landform 5 (productive land), provide for further subdivision on land blocks larger than 4ha with the usual provisos for appearance, services etc.

Submissions 1335/1, 1344/1, 1357/1, 1391/1, 1399/1, 1893/1, 1924/1, 1971/1, 1987/1, 2158/1, 2183/1, 2201/1, 2222/1, 2328/1, 2367/1, 2403/1, 2409/1, 2466/1, 2467/1, 3029/1, 3103/1, 3111/1, 3112/1, 3675/1, 3755/1, 3782/1 request the following:

Amend the minimum site size in table 12.1 for landform 5 from 25ha to 3.5ha.

Submission 1091/10 requests the following:

Reinstate the minimum site areas for subdivision (table 12.1) for landform 5 (productive land) to 15 hectares as in the Operative Plan.

Submissions 3118/1, 3121/1 request the following:

Amend the minimum site size in table 12.1 for landform 5 from 25ha to 2ha.

Submission 1284/8 requests the following:

The minimum lot size for landform 5 (productive land) and landform 6 (regenerating slopes) should be reduced and provide for a range of lot sizes with a minimum of 4ha and an average lot size of 15ha.

Submission 1539/1 requests the following:

Amend the minimum site area in table 12.1 for landform 5 and 6 from 25ha to 3.5ha.

Submission 3140/1 requests the following:

Change minimum site size in table 12.1 and other sections to permit 3.5 ha lifestyle blocks in Landform 5 (productive land) and landform 6 (regenerating slopes).

Submission 2717/1 requests the following:

Greater opportunity to subdivide in landforms 5, 6 and 7 (for lots of 4 ha or more).

Submission 1093/77 requests the following:

Retain the minimum site area for landform 5 (productive land) as currently provided for in table 12.1.

Submission 1243/86 requests the following:

Retain table 12.1 as it applies to landforms 1-7.

4.77.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

In analysing the above submissions, it is considered necessary to first turn to the resource management strategy envisaged for this land unit.

Landform 5 applies to land with pasture cover as the main vegetation type. Overall, productive land is an expansive rural landscape that contributes to the lifestyle, economy and identity of the islands. Minimum site size is 25ha.

Productive land is characterised by:

Pastoral and horticultural activities, these are often of a moderate to large scale as compared to the productive activities occurring within other land units.
Varying contours, with some areas being characterised as 'rolling to moderately sloping' and others being 'steep slopes'.
An expansive landscape with an open pattern and a rural character.
A range of pasture quality and productive capability due to the varying soil types.
A number of natural features such as smaller wetlands and water systems.
A working landscape with various built elements such as farm buildings, houses and drainage systems.

Overall, productive land provides for large scale rural activities which contribute to the lifestyle, economy and identity of the islands.

The resource management strategy for this land unit states:

Provision for non-productive activities is limited and the minimum site size is large so that the objective of using the land for productive activities will be achieved.

The objective and policies for this land unit is as follows:

10a.6.3 Objective

To provide for productive activities and to ensure that the expansive nature, the open pattern and rural character of the landscape is maintained.

Policies

By providing for productive activities, such as pastoral farming and horticulture to establish and operate within the land unit.
By limiting the non-productive activities that can occur so that the rural use and character of the landscape is maintained.
By requiring new sites to be of a size and nature which ensures that moderate to large scale productive activities can occur and which protects the expansive nature, open pattern and rural character of the landscape.

4.77.3 Planner's analysis and recommendation

4.77.3.1 Submissions 19/1, 69/1, 1288/58, 1591/1, 2654/1, 526/12, 527/12, 528/12, 529/12, 539/12, 382/2, 1335/1, 1344/1, 1357/1, 1391/1, 1399/1, 1893/1, 1924/1, 1971/1, 1987/1, 2158/1, 2183/1, 2201/1, 2222/1, 2328/1, 2367/1, 2403/1, 2409/1, 2466/1, 2467/1, 3029/1, 3103/1, 3111/1, 3112/1, 3675/1, 3755/1, 3782/1, 1091/10, 3118/1, 3121/1, 1284/8, 1539/1, 3140/1, 2717/1.

In the operative district Plan there are two land units which relate to areas of pastoral land; land unit 5 � foothills and lower slopes and land unit 6 � steep pastured slopes. These land units provide for activities that benefit from the productive capability of the land and recognised its sensitivity. Both land units are located on Great Barrier, Ponui and Waiheke.

In the proposed district Plan the provisions of each of these two land units are rolled together to create one land unit which relates to all areas of pastoral land (landform 5 (productive land)). The combining of these land units to form landform 5 (productive land) is considered to be appropriate as each of these land units:

have expansive rural landscapes
are used for productive purposes such as pastoral farming
contains a range of built elements
contribute the character and identity of the islands

It is noted that submission 1091/10 requests that the minimum site size for landform 5 is reinstated at 15ha. This is because the minimum site size for land unit 5 (foot hills and lower slopes) within the operative plan is 15ha. However, landform 5 within the proposed plan has been introduced as a new land unit, albeit a combination of land unit 5 and 6 in the operative district Plan, and as such, there is no minimum site size that currently exists for this land unit in the operative plan.

The above submissions seek to reduce the minimum site size of landform 5. These reductions range from a minimum site size of 2ha, 3.5ha, 5ha, 10ha, 15ha and 20ha. In reading these submissions, the most common reasons for this reduction relates to the existing site size of 25ha not being an economically sustainable use of the property.

It is considered that the 25ha minimum site size for landform 5 (productive land) will provide for productive uses that will not detract from the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of this land unit. Of particular importance is the need to provide for productive activities, such as pastoral farming and horticulture while protecting the expansive nature, open pattern and rural character of the landscape. Within landform 5, subdivision for the purposes of protecting significant environmental features is also provided for given the significance of some of the natural and/or cultural features within this land unit. Such a form of subdivision provides for a minimum site size of 4ha with an average of 7.5ha.

The overall resource management strategy for this land unit is also reflected in the land use rules for landform 5 which do not require land use consent for buildings and/or additions and alterations to them if they are within the permitted development controls of the plan. The intent of this is to encourage productive uses and their associated buildings within landform 5 without requiring a comprehensive effects assessment in terms of the scale, nature and location of the buildings in the landscape. A land use consent is only required when the permitted development controls are infringed or where non-productive uses are proposed.

Such an approach within both the land use and subdivision provisions is considered consistent with resource management strategy envisaged for this environment. Therefore, maintaining minimum site sizes of 25ha and providing for productive land use activities, including visitor accommodation for up to 10 people as permitted activities, will ensure that larger scale rural activities can occur which maintains the character of the landscape and contributes to the lifestyle, economy and identity of the islands. It is also considered that the 25ha size will provide sufficient open space in which to integrate activities such as forestry and commercial firewood harvesting, which are provided for at a discretionary level in the land unit.

Overall, it is considered that reducing the minimum site size of landform 5 may adversely affect the expansive landscape which comprises an open pattern and a rural character. Moreover, smaller site sizes will not be able to provide for medium to large-scale productive activities, such as pastoral farming and horticulture. A reduced minimum site size does not maintain the character of the landscape nor contribute to the lifestyle, economy and identity of the islands. In addition, it is not consistent with the objective and policies for the land unit nor is it consistent with the objectives of securing appropriate management of resources and achieving sustainable land use development.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 19/1, 69/1, 1288/58, 1591/1, 2654/1, 526/12, 527/12, 528/12, 529/12, 539/12, 382/2, 1335/1, 1344/1, 1357/1, 1391/1, 1399/1, 1893/1, 1924/1, 1971/1, 1987/1, 2158/1, 2183/1, 2201/1, 2222/1, 2328/1, 2367/1, 2403/1, 2409/1, 2466/1, 2467/1, 3029/1, 3103/1, 3111/1, 3112/1, 3675/1, 3755/1, 3782/1, 1091/10, 3118/1, 3121/1, 1284/8, 1539/1, 3140/1, 2717/1 are rejected.

4.77.3.2 Submission 1093/77 and 1243/86

Submissions 1093/77 and 1243/86 request that the minimum site size of 25ha is retained.

As already outlined in section 4.77.3 above, it is considered that the existing 25ha minimum site size is consistent with achieving the resource management strategy envisaged for landform 5. This will provide for the appropriate management of resources and achieve sustainable land use development.

As such, it is recommended that submissions 1093/77 and 1243/86 be accepted and minimum site size for landform 5 is retained.

Planner's recommendations about submissions minimum site size for landform 5 (productive land).

Submissions 19/1, 69/1, 1288/58, 1591/1, 2654/1, 526/12, 527/12, 528/12, 529/12, 539/12, 382/2, 1335/1, 1344/1, 1357/1, 1391/1, 1399/1, 1893/1, 1924/1, 1971/1, 1987/1, 2158/1, 2183/1, 2201/1, 2222/1, 2328/1, 2367/1, 2403/1, 2409/1, 2466/1, 2467/1, 3029/1, 3103/1, 3111/1, 3112/1, 3675/1, 3755/1, 3782/1, 1091/10, 3118/1, 3121/1, 1284/8, 1539/1, 3140/1, 2717/1 are rejected.
Submissions 1093/77 and 1243/86 be accepted.

4.78 Submissions about minimum site size for landform 6 (regenerating slopes)

Submissions dealt with in this section: 19/1, 69/1, 1288/58, 1591/1, 2654/1, 1284/8, 1539/1, 3140/1, 2717/1, 460/1, 461/1, 514/1, 1303/1, 1336/1, 1341/1, 1346/1, 1356/1, 1568/1, 1925/1, 1950/1, 2134/1, 2166/1, 2187/1, 2211/1, 2221/1, 2318/1, 2333/1, 2369/1, 2387/1, 2412/1, 2445/1, 2471/1, 3031/1, 3113/1, 3122/1, 3125/1, 3150/1, 3163/1, 3608/1, 3738/1, 3783/1, 1400/1, 1948/1, 3071/1, 3102/1, 3673/1, 1243/86.

4.78.1 Decision requested

Submission 19/1 requests the following:

Reduce the proposed lot size for landforms 4 to 7, from 25 ha to 20 ha.

Submission 69/1 requests the following:

3.5ha minimum permitted lot size for landforms 2 (dune systems), 3 (alluvial flats), 5 (productive land), 6 (regenerating slopes), 7 (forest and bush areas).

Submission 1288/58 requests the following:

Amend the minimum site area in table 12.1 for landform 4-7 to 15ha.

Submission 1591/1 requests the following:

Landforms 4-7 minimum site area amended to 10ha from 25ha in Table 12.1 .

Submission 2654/1 requests the following:

Amend table 12.1 so that the minimum site area for landforms 4-7 is changed from 25ha to 5ha.

Submission 1284/8 requests the following:

Submission 1539/1 requests the following:

Amend the minimum site area in table 12.1 for landform 5 and 6 from 25ha to 3.5ha.

Submission 3140/1 requests the following:

Change minimum site size in table 12.1 and other sections to permit 3.5 ha lifestyle blocks in Landform 5 (productive land) and landform 6 (regenerating slopes).

Submission 2717/1 requests the following:

Greater opportunity to subdivide in landforms 5, 6 and 7 (for lots of 4 ha or more).

Submissions 460/1, 461/1 request the following:

A minimum area of 2ha for landform 6 (regenerating slopes) would be a more realistic size.

Submissions 1303/1, 1336/1, 1341/1, 1346/1, 1356/1, 1568/1, 1925/1, 1950/1, 2134/1, 2166/1, 2187/1, 2211/1, 2221/1, 2318/1, 2333/1, 2369/1, 2387/1, 2412/1, 2445/1, 2471/1, 3031/1, 3113/1, 3122/1, 3125/1, 3150/1, 3163/1, 3608/1, 3738/1, 3783/1 request the following:

Amend the minimum site size in table 12.1 for landforms 6 and 7 from 25ha to 8ha

Submissions 1948/1, 3071/1, 3102/1 request the following:

Amend the minimum site size in table 12.1 for landforms 6 and 7 from 25ha to 4ha.

Submission 3673/1 requests the following:

Amend the minimum site size in table 12.1 for landforms 6 and 7 from 25ha to 2ha

Submission 514/1 requests the following:

Subdivision in landform 6 (regenerating slopes) around the Tryphena Harbour should be permitted, with a minimum site size of 1.5 ha, so long as there is compliance with other proposed environmentally-focussed development restrictions.

Submission 1400/1 requests the following:

Amend the minimum site area for landforms 6 and 7 to 1 dwelling per 1 hectare. Remove 1 hectare per 25 hectares off my property and change to 1 dwelling per hectare.

Submission 1243/86 requests the following:

Retain table 12.1 as it applies to landforms 1-7.

4.78.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

In analysing the above submissions, it is considered necessary to first turn to the resource management strategy envisaged for this land unit.

Landform 6 applies to extensive areas of regenerating bush where kanuka and manuka are the predominant vegetation. Minimum site size is 25ha.

Regenerating slopes is characterised by:

High natural character and visual amenity value, as a result of its visual prominence (in both coastal locations and as a backdrop to settlement areas) and its unbroken expansive qualities.
Varying rates of regeneration due to differences in factors such as soil quality and stability, aspect and exposure.
High ecological values, especially in areas where the regenerating vegetation has been long established and consequently there is an increased diversity of podocarp and broadleaf species and wildlife habitats.
Small, scattered and unobtrusive buildings, if there are buildings at all.
Isolated pockets of erosion particularly on north facing slopes.

Overall, regenerating slopes makes a significant contribution to the natural character, ecological and the visual amenity value of the islands.

The resource management strategy for this land unit states:

The resource management strategy is to limit activities to those of a low intensity and to require buildings to be assessed to ensure that there will be no adverse effects on the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of the land unit.

The objective and policies for this land unit is as follows:

10a.7.3 Objective

To protect the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of the regenerating slopes from the adverse effects of activities and buildings.

Policies

By limiting the activities that can occur to those which avoid adverse effects on the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of the land unit.
By ensuring that the scale, form, colour and location of new buildings does not have adverse effects on the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of the land unit.
By requiring new sites to be of a size and nature that protects the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of the land unit.

4.78.2.1 Submissions 19/1, 69/1, 1288/58, 1591/1, 2654/1, 1284/8, 1539/1, 3140/1, 2717/1, 460/1, 461/1, 1303/1, 1336/1, 1341/1, 1346/1, 1356/1, 1568/1, 1925/1, 1950/1, 2134/1, 2166/1, 2187/1, 2211/1, 2221/1, 2318/1, 2333/1, 2369/1, 2387/1, 2412/1, 2445/1, 2471/1, 3031/1, 3113/1, 3122/1, 3125/1, 3150/1, 3163/1, 3608/1, 3738/1, 3783/1, 1948/1, 3071/1, 3102/1 and 3673/1.

The above submissions seek to reduce the minimum site size of landform 6 to either, 1.0ha, 1.5ha, 2ha, 3.5ha, 4ha, 5ha, 8ha, 10ha, 15ha or 20ha. In reading these submissions, the most common reasons for this reduction relates to the existing site size of 25ha not being an economically sustainable use of the property.

It is considered that the 25ha minimum site size for landform 6 (regenerating slopes) will ensure that the scale, form, colour and location of new buildings do not have adverse effects on the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of the land unit. In addition, it is considered that 25ha site sizes will retain the expansive quality of landform 6 as well as protect the diversity of podocarp and broadleaf species and wildlife habitats.

As detailed in section 4.17 above, within landform 6, subdivision for the purposes of protecting significant environmental features is also provided for given the significance of some of the extensive vegetation within this land unit. Such a form of subdivision provides for a minimum site size of 4ha with an average of 7.5ha.

The overall resource management strategy for this land unit is also reflected in the land use rules for landform 6 which require land use consent for buildings and/or additions and alterations to them even if they are within the permitted development controls of the plan. The intent of this is to ensure that the scale, form, colour and location of new buildings do not have adverse effects on the natural character, ecological values and visual amenity values of the land unit. Permitted land use activities relate primarily to residential uses such as home occupations and homestay accommodation however, horticulture and visitor accommodation for up to ten people is provided for in this land unit as a permitted activity.

Such an approach within both the land use and subdivision provisions is considered to be consistent with resource management strategy envisaged for this environment. Therefore, maintaining minimum site sizes of 25ha and providing for horticulture and visitor accommodation for up to 10 people as permitted activities, will provide sufficient open space in which to integrate such activities while protecting the high natural character and visual amenity values of this land unit.

Overall, it is considered that reducing the minimum site size of landform 6 may adversely affect the natural character and the ecological and visual amenity values of the land unit. This is not consistent with the resource management strategy for the land unit nor sections 6(a)-(b) of the RMA, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 1994, the Regional Policy Statement and plans and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 19/1, 69/1, 1288/58, 1591/1, 2654/1, 1284/8, 1539/1, 3140/1, 2717/1, 460/1, 461/1, 1303/1, 1336/1, 1341/1, 1346/1, 1356/1, 1568/1, 1925/1, 1950/1, 2134/1, 2166/1, 2187/1, 2211/1, 2221/1, 2318/1, 2333/1, 2369/1, 2387/1, 2412/1, 2445/1, 2471/1, 3031/1, 3113/1, 3122/1, 3125/1, 3150/1, 3163/1, 3608/1, 3738/1, 3783/1, 1948/1, 3071/1, 3102/1 and 3673/1 are rejected.

4.78.2.2 Submission 514/1

The above submitter requests that the minimum site size for landform 6 is reduced to 1.5ha particularly as it relates to Tryphena harbour on Great Barrier Island. The above submitter considers that this will enable Great Barrier Island to become a more economically and socially viable part of Auckland.

As outlined above, the economic well being of people and communities must be considered as part of the sustainable management of resources however, it is considered that a balance also needs to be struck between providing greater densities, environmental protection and retaining natural character, visual character and amenity values of the land units.

In addition, it is considered that reducing site sizes of landform 6 around the Tryphena Settlement Area will undermine the resource management strategy of the land unit which seeks to provide high natural character and visual amenity values. This landform will also serve as a backdrop to the settlement areas and its unbroken expansive qualities will provide a rural buffer in which to mitigate the impact of smaller site sizes located within the settlement areas.

As such, it is recommended that submission 514/1 is rejected.

4.78.2.3 Submission 1400/1

Submitter 1400/1 seeks a reduction in the minimum site sizes to 1ha within landforms 6 and 7 on the basis that it will enable his property to be subdivided.

This submitter has not specifically identified what advantages are likely to result if the minimum site size was reduced to 1ha, nor has the submitter provided an analysis of how the amended site sizes will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources as outlined in section 5(2) of the RMA. Accordingly, it is recommended that submission 1400/1 is rejected.

4.78.2.4 Submission 1243/86

Submission 1243/86 requests that minimum site size for landform 6 as outlined in table 12.1 is retained.

As already outlined in section 4.78.2.1 above, it is considered that the 25ha minimum site size is consistent with achieving the resource management strategy envisaged for landform 6. This will provide for the appropriate management of resources and achieve sustainable land use development.

As such, it is recommended that submission 1243/86 be accepted and minimum site size for landform 6 is retained.

Planner's recommendations about submissions minimum site size for landform 6 (regenerating slopes)

Submissions 19/1, 69/1, 1288/58, 1591/1, 2654/1, 1284/8, 1539/1, 3140/1, 2717/1, 460/1, 461/1, 1303/1, 1336/1, 1341/1, 1346/1, 1356/1, 1568/1, 1925/1, 1950/1, 2134/1, 2166/1, 2187/1, 2211/1, 2221/1, 2318/1, 2333/1, 2369/1, 2387/1, 2412/1, 2445/1, 2471/1, 3031/1, 3113/1, 3122/1, 3125/1, 3150/1, 3163/1, 3608/1, 3738/1, 3783/1, 1948/1, 3071/1, 3102/1 and 3673/1 are rejected.
Submission 1400/1 is rejected.
Submission 19/1 is rejected.
Submission 1243/86 be accepted.

4.79 Submissions about minimum site size for landform 7 (Forest and bush areas).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 19/1, 69/1, 1288/58, 1591/1, 2654/1, 2717/1, 1303/1, 1336/1, 1341/1, 1346/1, 1356/1, 1568/1, 1925/1, 1950/1, 2134/1, 2166/1, 2187/1, 2211/1, 2221/1, 2318/1, 2333/1, 2369/1, 2387/1, 2412/1, 2445/1, 2471/1, 3031/1, 3113/1, 3122/1, 3125/1, 3150/1, 3163/1, 3608/1, 3738/1, 3783/1, 1400/1, 1948/1, 3071/1, 3102/1, 3673/1, 1243/86 .

4.79.1 Decision requested

Submission 19/1 requests the following:

Reduce the proposed lot size for landforms 4 to 7, from 25 ha to 20 ha.

Submission 69/1 requests the following:

3.5ha minimum permitted lot size for landforms 2 (dune systems), 3 (alluvial flats), 5 (productive land), 6 (regenerating slopes), 7 (forest and bush areas).

Submission 1288/58 requests the following:

Amend the minimum site area in table 12.1 for landform 4-7 to 15ha.

Submission 1591/1 requests the following:

Landforms 4-7 minimum site area amended to 10ha from 25ha in Table 12.1 .

Submission 2654/1 requests the following:

Amend table 12.1 so that the minimum site area for landforms 4-7 is changed from 25ha to 5ha.

Submission 2717/1 requests the following:

Greater opportunity to subdivide in landforms 5, 6 and 7 (for lots of 4 ha or more).

Amend the minimum site size in table 12.1 for landforms 6 and 7 from 25ha to 8ha

Submission 1400/1 requests the following:

Amend the minimum site area for landforms 6 and 7 to 1 dwelling per 1 hectare. Remove 1 hectare per 25 hectares off my property and change to 1 dwelling per hectare.

Submissions 1948/1, 3071/1, 3102/1 request the following:

Amend the minimum site size in table 12.1 for landforms 6 and 7 from 25ha to 4ha.

Submission 3673/1 requests the following:

Amend the minimum site size in table 12.1 for landforms 6 and 7 from 25ha to 2ha

Submission 1243/86 requests the following:

Retain table 12.1 as it applies to landforms 1-7.

4.79.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

In analysing the above submissions, it is considered necessary to first turn to the resource management strategy envisaged for this land unit.

Landform 7 includes extensive podocarp and broadleaf forest areas, areas of secondary regenerating forest and some isolated areas of manuka and kanuka. Minimum site size is 25ha.

Forest and bush areas are characterised by:

Steep upper slopes and valley systems with some gently sloping areas.
High conservation and ecological value as these areas have either survived or significantly recovered from milling activity in the past.
High natural character and visual amenity due to the sheer dominance, scale and age of the vegetation cover.
An absence of built structures.

Overall, forest and bush areas make a significant contribution to the natural character, conservation, ecological and visual amenity values of the islands

The resource management strategy for this land unit states:

The resource management strategy is to limit activities to those of a low intensity and to require buildings to be assessed to ensure that there will be no adverse effects on the natural character and the conservation, ecological and visual amenity value of the land unit.

The objective and policies for this land unit is as follows:

10a.8.3 Objective

To protect the natural character and the conservation, ecological and visual amenity values of forest and bush areas from the adverse effects of activities and buildings.

Policies

By limiting the activities that can occur to those which avoid adverse effects on the natural character and the conservation, ecological and visual amenity value of the land unit.
By ensuring that the scale, form, colour and location of new buildings will not have adverse effects on the natural character and the conservation, ecological and visual amenity value of the land unit.
By requiring new sites to be of a size and nature that protects the natural character and the conservation, ecological and visual amenity value of the land unit.

4.79.2.1 Submissions 19/1, 69/1, 1288/58, 1591/1, 2654/1, 2717/1, 1303/1, 1336/1, 1341/1, 1346/1, 1356/1, 1568/1, 1925/1, 1950/1, 2134/1, 2166/1, 2187/1, 2211/1, 2221/1, 2318/1, 2333/1, 2369/1, 2387/1, 2412/1, 2445/1, 2471/1, 3031/1, 3113/1, 3122/1, 3125/1, 3150/1, 3163/1, 3608/1, 3738/1, 3783/1, 1400/1, 1948/1, 3071/1, 3102/1, 3673/1.

The above submissions seek to reduce the minimum site size of landform 7 to either, 1.0ha, 2ha, 3.5ha, 4ha, 5ha, 8ha, 10ha, 15ha and 20ha. In reading these submissions, the most common reasons for this reduction relates to the existing site size of 25ha not being an economically sustainable use of the property.

It is considered that the 25ha minimum site size for landform 7 (forest and bush areas) will ensure that the scale, form, colour and location of new buildings will not have adverse effects on the natural character and visual amenity values as well as the conservation and ecological values of this land unit. In addition, it is considered that 25ha site sizes will protect the extensive podocarp and broadleaf forest areas, areas of secondary regenerating forest and some isolated areas of manuka and kanuka that are of significant importance.

As detailed in section 4.18 of this report, within landform 7, subdivision for the purposes of protecting significant environmental features is also provided for given the significance of some of the extensive vegetation within this land unit. Such a form of subdivision provides for a minimum site size of 4ha with an average of 7.5ha.

The overall resource management strategy for this land unit is also reflected in the land use rules for landform 7 which requires land use consent for buildings and/or additions and alterations to them even if they are within the permitted development controls of the Plan. The intent of this is to ensure that the scale, form, colour and location of new buildings do not have adverse effects on the natural character and ecological and visual amenity values of the land unit. Permitted land use activities relate primarily to residential uses such as are home occupations and homestay accommodation. Given the significance of the vegetation within this land unit, productive uses are not provided for.

Such an approach within both the land use and subdivision provisions is considered consistent with resource management strategy envisaged for this environment. Therefore, maintaining minimum site sizes of 25ha will mitigate the effects of built forms while protecting the natural character and the conservation, ecological and visual amenity values of the land unit.

Overall, it is considered that reducing the minimum site size of landform 7 may adversely affect the natural character, ecological and visual amenity values of the land unit. This is not consistent with the resource management strategy for the land unit nor sections 6(a)-(c) of the RMA, the Regional Policy Statement and plans and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 19/1, 69/1, 1288/58, 1591/1, 2654/1, 2717/1, 1303/1, 1336/1, 1341/1, 1346/1, 1356/1, 1568/1, 1925/1, 1950/1, 2134/1, 2166/1, 2187/1, 2211/1, 2221/1, 2318/1, 2333/1, 2369/1, 2387/1, 2412/1, 2445/1, 2471/1, 3031/1, 3113/1, 3122/1, 3125/1, 3150/1, 3163/1, 3608/1, 3738/1, 3783/1, 1400/1, 1948/1, 3071/1, 3102/1, 3673/1 are rejected.

4.79.2.2 Submission 1243/86

Submission 1243/86 requests that minimum site size for landform 7 as outlined in table 12.1 is retained.

As already outlined in section 4.79.2.1 above, it is considered that the existing 25ha minimum site size is consistent with achieving the resource management strategy envisaged for landform 7. This will provide for the appropriate management of resources and achieve sustainable land use development.

As such, it is recommended that submission 1243/86 be accepted and minimum site size for landform 7 is retained.

Planner's recommendations about submissions minimum site size for landform 7 (forest and bush areas)

Submissions 19/1, 69/1, 1288/58, 1591/1, 2654/1, 2717/1, 1303/1, 1336/1, 1341/1, 1346/1, 1356/1, 1568/1, 1925/1, 1950/1, 2134/1, 2166/1, 2187/1, 2211/1, 2221/1, 2318/1, 2333/1, 2369/1, 2387/1, 2412/1, 2445/1, 2471/1, 3031/1, 3113/1, 3122/1, 3125/1, 3150/1, 3163/1, 3608/1, 3738/1, 3783/1, 1400/1, 1948/1, 3071/1, 3102/1, 3673/1 are rejected.
Submission 1243/86 be accepted.

4.80 Submissions about minimum site size for island residential 1 (traditional residential).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 368/2, 368/2, 530/1, 1198/3, 1198/1.

4.80.1 Decision requested

Submission 530/1 requests the following:

To keep the subdivision rules for island residential 1 (traditional residential) and island residential 2 (bush residential) unchanged from the operative Plan, but with an improved definition and application of special rules of clause 8.5.6.3 of the operative Plan. This especially applies to an improved definition of "visual amenity values".

Submission 1198/1 requests the following:

The reduction of the minimum section size for island residential 1 land unit to a size between 1250m2 and 1500m2.

Submission 1198/3 requests the following:

The development of a formula for the subdivision of sections existing at the date of the acceptance of the District Plan or the subdivision of sections formed by the amalgamation before or after that date of such sections.

Such a formula might look like this;

Minimum size of 1250m2 from the subdivision of a 2500m2 plus section

Minimum size of 1333m2 from the subdivision of a 4000m2 plus section

Minimum size of 1500m2 from the subdivision of a 7500m2 plus section

Minimum size of 1600m2 from the subdivision of a 9600m2 plus section

Minimum size of 1750m2 from the subdivision of a 14000m2 plus section

Minimum size of 2000m2 from the subdivision of a 20000m2 plus section

(Refers to island residential 1 and 2)

Submission 368/2 requests the following:

Supports the new minimum size area of 2000m ² for island residential 1 and 2 in table 12.1.

4.80.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

In analysing the above submissions, it is considered necessary to first turn to the resource management strategy envisaged for this land unit.

Island residential 1 is located in western Waiheke adjoining or close to the commercial centre of villages and on four distinct areas in Rakino. It contains the most intensive form of residential development within the islands. The land unit also includes coastal terraces adjacent to the more accessible and heavily used beaches on Waiheke. Overall, the land unit is important as a residential area with an open and spacious character. The minimum site size is 2000m ².

The characteristics of the land unit are:

Low intensity residential development (compared with the Auckland isthmus) containing stand alone dwellings.
A highly modified, open and spacious landscape (in most of the land unit a large proportion of each site is covered in grass).
A low proportion of indigenous vegetation.
Flat or a moderate sloped topography.

The resource management strategy for this land unit states:

The resource management strategy for the land unit is to provide for predominantly residential uses in the land unit and to recognise the need to more carefully manage the environmental impacts of such activities.

Coastal areas within the land unit are especially sensitive to the effects of future development. This is controlled by identifying a coastal amenity area which is shown on the planning maps. Development within this area requires a resource consent.

The objectives and policies for this land unit is as follows:

10a.9.3.1 Objective

To provide for residential development at a scale and intensity which maintains the relatively spacious character, increases the indigenous vegetation cover and allows for effective stormwater and wastewater disposal within the land unit.

Policies

By controlling the intensity, bulk, scale and location of buildings on sites in order to retain the character of the land unit.
By requiring the planting of sites for amenity and wastewater disposal purposes.

10a.9.3.2 Objective

To provide for appropriate non-residential activities where their scale, intensity and location are compatible with the residential character of the area.

Policies

By providing for activities which have functions which are compatible with, and support residential activities.
By ensuring that the character and scale of buildings used for non-residential activities are compatible with the amenities and character of the surrounding residential area.
By restricting the type and intensity of non-residential activities to those which are compatible in visual amenity terms and in other generated effects (eg traffic, noise, hours of operation) with surrounding residential uses.

10a.9.3.3 Objective

To maintain the amenity and landscape qualities of beach front locations at Oneroa, Palm Beach, Blackpool and Onetangi.

Policies

By imposing additional controls on all buildings in the coastal amenity area so they do not compromise the character and amenity of the coast.
By only allowing non-residential activities within coastal areas where they are compatible with the character and amenity of these locations.

It should be noted that section 12.1 (Introduction) states the following:

In the past, subdivision rules within residential areas resulted in small site sizes that were appropriate to a village scale. However, the historic pattern of subdivision that occurred in the islands did not relate to specific natural characteristics of the land and the need to accommodate on-site effluent disposal systems. Accordingly, historical subdivision patterns on the islands (and on Waiheke, Rakino and Great Barrier in particular), are not necessarily consistent with the objectives of securing appropriate management of resources and sustainable land use development.

4.80.2.1 Submission 530/1

Submission 530/1 does not request a change to the minimums site size for island residential 1 are retained however, it seeks to retain the variation to minimum site sizes as provided for in the current operative Plan.

Within the operative Plan, the minimum site sizes for land units 1-12 and 20 can be varied in accordance with section 8.5.6.2 provided the site sizes meet the criteria set out in 8.6 and comply with the standards set out in Table 8.3.

Land units 1-10 and 20 (now landforms 1-7 and rural 1) have a specified variation to the minimum site size however, land units 11 and 12 (island residential 1 (traditional residential) and island residential 2 (bush residential)) have no quantified variation and must be assessed in accordance with the following criteria.

8.5.6.3 LAND UNITS 11 AND 12

(a) Land Units 11 and 12

i) Each lot must provide for an area where a dwelling can be erected as a permitted activity in terms of the Rules and standards in Part 6B for the land unit.

The application must demonstrate that each proposed lot has particular drainage characteristics, such that it can accommodate an on-site effluent disposal system based on discharge to the ground which conforms with the Council bylaws and Regional rules.

ii) For the purposes of clause (i) above the application must demonstrate that the drainage capability of any proposed lot is such that a dwelling constructed to the permitted maximum gross dwelling area in terms of Rule 6B.1.1.1 can be serviced. Where a consent is also needed from the Auckland Regional Council it must be obtained either prior to or in conjunction with an application under these rules.

iii) Any reduction in lot sizes must not lead to any reduction in amenity or environmental values of the area through cumulative impacts such as loss of either drainage capability or visual amenity values.

Submission 530/1 therefore seeks to retain the provision for varying minimum site sizes in island residential 1 on the basis that an improved definition of "visual amenity values" is obtained.

As already outlined in the section 32 report, it is considered that the variation to minimum site sizes is not consistent with the RMA's objectives of securing appropriate management of resources, nor is the provision consistent with achieving sustainable land use development.

The reasons for this are summarised as follows:

The variation to minimum site sizes undermines the purpose of having minimum site sizes, which seek to preserve the natural character of the land units and settlement areas and relate minimum areas based on their physical and natural character, use and potential.
While land units 1-10 and 20 (now landforms 1-7 and rural 1) had a specified variation to the minimum site size in the operative plan, land units 11 and 12 (island residential 1 (traditional residential) and island residential 2 (bush residential)) had no quantified variation and had to be assessed in accordance with criteria relating to wastewater and amenity value.
The subjective nature of the criteria, particularly in relation to visual amenity values results in difficulties in interpreting and applying the subdivision rule to these land units.
The objective and policies for island residential 1 seek to provide for an open and spacious landscape while also providing for appropriate non-residential activities where their scale, intensity and location are compatible with the residential character of the area. The variation to the minimum site sizes does not reflect the objective and policies for this land unit.
Meeting the variation to minimum site size does not result in a better environmental outcome or better management of resources.
Reduces protection of the natural character by modifying the environment through additional built forms, earthworks and vegetation removal. This is not consistent with the Resource Management Act 1991, the Regional Policy Statement and plans, the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 and Essentially Waiheke.

In light of the above, it considered that retaining the variation to minimum size within island residential 1 will undermine purpose of having minimum site sizes which seek to preserve the natural character of the land units and settlement areas and relate minimum areas based on their physical and natural character, use and potential.

Moreover, it is considered that an improved definition of amenity values will not remove the difficulties in interpreting and applying these criteria as the definition of amenity values will always be open to a variety of different interpretations. This will add confusion and uncertainty for both the community and delegated authorities when assessing proposals and consent applications.

For reasons outlined above, it is recommended that submission 530/1 is rejected.

4.80.2.2 Submission 1198/1

The above submission requests a reduction to the minimum site size of island residential 1 to between 1250m ² and 1500m ².

As already noted in section 12.1 of Part 12, in the past, subdivision rules within residential areas resulted in smaller site sizes that were in appropriate to the village scale. In addition, the historic pattern of subdivision that has occurred within both island residential 1 and 2 did not relate to the natural characteristics of the land to accommodate on-site effluent disposal systems. These reduced site sizes have increased the modification of the environment, through additional built forms, earthworks and vegetation removal.

It is acknowledged that the existing pattern of development within this landscape includes many sites which are as small as 809m ². Such a site size does not create an open and spacious landscape nor does it provide for effective on-site wastewater disposal, impervious surface control and complying car parking requirements. Cumulatively, these site sizes have resulted in a proliferation of built forms and a highly modified environment.

The key characteristics of Island residential 1 is its highly modified, open and spacious landscape (in most of the land unit a large proportion of each site is covered in grass). In addition, this landscape is generally located on flat to moderate topography and has a low proportion of indigenous vegetation. These characteristics are distinctly different to those of island residential 2 (refer to section 4.81 below).

In assessing whether the minimum site size of island residential 1 should be reduced, it is important to note that the proposed plan has extended this land unit to the Tiri Road frontage on land at 34 & 36 Tiri Road and Lot 8, DP 53686, CT 5D/65 Ocean View Road, Oneroa, and part of the land at 1a Erua Road southwards to 166 Ostend Road. The reclassification of these sites will be assessed in the hearings report for island residential 1.

Appendix 5 illustrates the location of sites currently classified as island residential 1 and 2 and which are greater than or equal to 6000m ². Based on this map, it is evident that there are island residential 1 sites which have site sizes in excess of 6000m ² and have the potential to be subdivided. There are also larger sites classified as island residential 1 such as, 92 The Esplanade (19540m ²), 37-39 Natzka Road (24446m ²), 8 Victoria Road North (7066m ²) and 7-11 Donald Bruce Road (172036m ²). While these sites are large, their current freehold subdivision opportunities are restricted due to the existing land use development on these sites. Indeed, 92 The Esplanade and 37-39 Natzka Road are existing retirement villages, 7-11 Donald Bruce Road covers the Te Huruhi School and 8 Victoria Road North already contains 8 dwellings by way of a leasehold subdivision.

The subdivision potential for island residential 1 lies predominately in land which has been reclassified as island residential 1 in the proposed plan and sites which have sizes ranging from 3300m ²-2500m ². Te Huruhi School is currently designated however, in the event that this designation is removed (by way of a notified plan change), the underlying classification of the land will be restored. While this is an unlikely possibility in the near future, this could result in 172036m ²of land subject to the island residential 1 classification.

The overall resource management strategy for this land unit is reflected in the land use rules for island residential 1 which requires land use consent for buildings and/or additional and alterations to them only where they are located in coastal amenity areas. The intent of this is to maintain the amenity and landscape qualities of beach front locations at Oneroa, Palm Beach, Blackpool and Onetangi. Permitted land use activities relate primarily to residential uses such as home occupations and homestay accommodation however, non-residential uses such as dairies, care centres, art galleries and healthcare services are provided for as a discretionary activity. There are also specific development controls for the land unit which require landscaping within the 4.0 metre front yard and on all wastewater disposal areas. Additional landscaping within these areas will improved landscape amenity while facilitating effective on-site wastewater disposal.

It is considered that the 2000m ² minimum site size for island residential 1 is not necessarily consistent with the overall resource management strategy of this land unit. This is because the land unit generally does not comprise significant stands of vegetation which can be adversely affected by reduced site sizes (unlike island residential 2- see section 4.81 below). This land unit already contains the most intensive form of residential development and provides for appropriate non-residential activities where their scale, intensity and location are compatible with the residential character of the area. Additional land use controls will ensure that landscape amenity is enhanced over time and evapotranspiration associated with wastewater disposal is accelerated through additional vegetation.

The objectives and policies seek to maintain and retain the character and amenity of the area which comprise sites that are well below 2000m ². A 2000m ² site size is not considered to maintain and retain the character of the area. In order to achieve this environmental outcome, site sizes would have to better reflect the existing character of the area.

As such, it is considered that a reduction in the minimum site size would better reflect the resource management strategy of this land unit. However, a balance needs to be achieved between maintaining the character of the existing landscape while also providing spacious and open character. In addition, minimum site size must be able to accommodate built forms while providing for on-site car-parking and manoeuvring and effective stormwater and wastewater disposal.

Accordingly, it is considered that a minimum site size of 1500m ² will better reflect the resource management strategy for this land unit. This site size is still larger than many of its counterparts but it is more consistent with maintaining the character of this landscape and reflects the objectives and policies of providing a spacious character and increasing indigenous vegetation cover. In addition, the 1500m ² size will provide sufficient capacity to service land use developments in terms of wastewater and stormwater disposal as well as provide for on site carparking. This site size will also create open space in which to integrate activities such as care centres, boarding centres or hostels which are provided for at a discretionary level in the land unit.

Overall, it is considered that reducing the minimum site size of island residential 1 to 1500m ² will be consistent with the objectives and policies of this land unit which seek to maintain and retain the character of this land unit while providing for non-residential activities where their scale, intensity and location are compatible with the residential character of the area. In addition, as this site size is larger than many sites located in beach front locations, it is considered that 1500m ² will maintain the amenity and landscape qualities of beach front locations at Oneroa, Palm Beach, Blackpool and Onetangi.

Such as approach is consistent with the Resource Management Act 1991, the Regional Policy Statement and plans, the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 and Essentially Waiheke.

Submission 1198/1 requests a reduction to the minimum site size that is less than or equal to 1500m ². As it is recommended that the minimum site size be reduced to 1500m ² only, it is considered that submission 1198/1 should be accepted in part.

In light of the recommendation made above, it is considered that a consequential amendment is required for policy (1) of objective 12.3.9 � the character of the inner islands as follows:

By setting minimum site sizes of 2000m ² (island residential 2) and 1500m ² (island residential 1) for subdivision which is consistent with achieving low residential densities that preserve spaciousness, the natural landscape and amenity.

4.80.2.3 Submission 1198/3

The above submitter requests a change to the minimum site sizes that increases as the parent site increases. Therefore, for parent sites that are smaller, the minimum site size is reduced. The smallest site size proposed is 1250m ² based on a parent site of 2500m ² while the largest minimum site size is 2000m ² based on a parent site of 20000m ².

As already outlined in section 4.80.2.2 above, it is considered that reducing the minimum site size of island residential 1 to 1500m ² will be consistent with the objectives and policies of this land unit which seek to maintain and retain the character of this land unit, while providing for non-residential activities where their scale, intensity and location are compatible with the residential character of the area.

It is considered that any further reductions in the minimum site size of 1500m ² will not necessarily achieve a spacious and open character with increased indigenous vegetation cover. Moreover, sites which are less than 1500m ² will compromise a site's ability to adequately service land use developments and create open space in which to integrate non-residential activities.

The general intent of submitter 1198/3 is to reduce the minimum site size. Accordingly, the recommended minimum site size of 1500m ² is reflected within the decision sought. Therefore, it is recommended that submitter 1198/3 is accepted in part and the minimum site size of island residential 1 is reduced to 1500m ².

4.80.2.4 Submission 368/2

The above submission seeks to retain the minimum site size of 2000m ² for island residential 1. While such a site size will increase the amount of open space around built forms and provide for the adequate treatment of stormwater and wastewater generated from sites, as outlined in sections 4.80.2.2 and 4.80.2.3 above, it is considered that a minimum site size of 1500m ² will better reflect the resource management strategy for this land unit. This site size is still larger than many of its counterparts but it is more consistent with maintaining and retaining the character of this landscape. This reduced site size reflects the existing modification of this land unit and will provide a spacious character which integrates residential and non-residential activities into this landscape.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submitter 368/2 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions minimum site size for island residential 1 (traditional residential).

Submission 530/1 is rejected.
Submission 1198/1 be accepted in part and table 12.1 be amended to state the minimum site size for island residential 1 (traditional residential) is 1500m ².
A consequential amendment is required for policy (1) of objective 12.3.9 � the character of the inner islands as follows:
1. By setting minimum site sizes of 2000m ² (island residential 2) and 1500m ² (island residential 1) for subdivision which is consistent with achieving low residential densities that preserve spaciousness, the natural landscape and amenity.
Submitter 1198/3 is accepted in part and the minimum site size of island residential 1 is reduced to 1500m ².
Submitter 368/2 be rejected.

4.81 Submissions about minimum site size for island residential 2 (bush residential).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 368/2, 530/1, 1198/3, 1094/7, 1170/1, 1198/2, 2666/1.

4.81.1 Decision requested

Submission 530/1 requests the following:

Submission 1198/3 requests the following:

Such a formula might look like this;

Minimum size of 1250m2 from the subdivision of a 2500m2 plus section

Minimum size of 1333m2 from the subdivision of a 4000m2 plus section

Minimum size of 1500m2 from the subdivision of a 7500m2 plus section

Minimum size of 1600m2 from the subdivision of a 9600m2 plus section

Minimum size of 1750m2 from the subdivision of a 14000m2 plus section

Minimum size of 2000m2 from the subdivision of a 20000m2 plus section

(Refers to island residential 1 and 2)

Submission 1094/7 requests the following:

Reduce the minimum site area in island residential 2 (bush residential) (table 12.1) to either 500m2, or such other area (less than 2000m2).

Submission 1198/2 requests the following:

The reduction of the minimum section size for island residential 2 (bush residential) to 1500m2.

Submission 2666/1 requests the following:

Retain a minimum site area of 2000m2 in island residential 2 in table 12.1.

Submission 368/2 requests the following:

Supports the new minimum size area of 2000m ² for island residential 1 and 2 in table 12.1.

Submission 1170/1 requests the following:

To implement the mandatory minimum subdivision size of 2000m2 for the proposed Island Residential 2 (bush residential).

4.81.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

In analysing the above submissions, it is considered necessary to first turn to the resource management strategy envisaged for this land unit.

Island residential 2 is located in western Waiheke and generally adjoins the island residential 1 land unit. The land unit is an important residential area with a character which is strongly influenced by indigenous vegetation. Most dwellings blend into the dominant natural character of the indigenous vegetation. Overall, the land unit is an important residential area with a character which is strongly influenced by indigenous vegetation. The minimum site size is 2000m ².

The characteristics of the land unit are:

Moderate to relatively steep slopes.
Low intensity residential development (compared with the Auckland isthmus) containing stand alone dwellings.
Heavily bush covered with generally indigenous vegetation.
High ecological values.
Dwellings which are a secondary component of the landscape. Most dwellings blend into the dominant natural character of the indigenous vegetation.

The resource management strategy for this land unit states:

The resource management strategy for the land unit is to provide for residential development at an intensity and scale, and of an appearance, which does not detract from the dominant indigenous bush clad character of the land unit. To ensure that this is achieved, building development within this land unit requires a resource consent

The objectives and policies for this land unit are as follows:

10a.10.3.1 Objective

To control residential development and limit non-residential activities to a scale, location, intensity and appearance which is complementary to the bush clad character of the natural environment.

Policies

By controlling the intensity of development and the bulk, scale and location of buildings to ensure that they are compatible with the natural environment.
By assessing the design and appearance of buildings to ensure that they are integrated with the natural environment.
By restricting the type and intensity of non-residential activities to those which are compatible in visual amenity terms and in other generated effects (eg traffic, noise, hours of operation) with surrounding residential uses and the natural environment.

10a.10.3.2 Objective

To ensure that development of sites retains indigenous vegetation cover.

Policies

By requiring the maximum amount of indigenous vegetation to be retained.
By ensuring that any development is located on portions of the site that are of lower ecological value.

It should be noted that section 12.1 (Introduction) states the following:

Several submitters state that the section 32 analysis for Part 12 does not explain and identify the reasons for " significantly increasing the threshold for subdivision in this zone " (refer to submission 1094). However, many of the above submitters are unaware that the 1996 operative Plan also requires a minimum site size for island residential 2 of 2000m ².

4.81.2.1 Submission 530/1

The decision requested by the above submitter has already been analysed in section 4.80.2.1 above where it has been recommended that the decision requested should be rejected. Accordingly, it is not considered necessary to repeat this assessment.

On this basis and for reasons already set out in sections 4.80.2.1 above, it is recommended that submission 530/1 be rejected.

4.81.2.2 Submissions 1198/3, 1094/7 and 1198/2

The above submissions seek to reduce the minimum site size of island residential 2. These reductions range from a minimum site of 1250m ² to a minimum site size of 500m ².

Some of these submissions consider that the existing 2000m ² minimum site size does not reflect the existing subdivision pattern in the environment and that a reduced minimum site size should reflect the existing site sizes of island residential 2 which are typically less than 2000m ².

The key characteristics of Island residential 2 is its extensive bush cover primarily of indigenous vegetation. This creates a landscape which is strongly influenced by indigenous vegetation with high ecological values. These characteristics are distinctly different to those of island residential 1 (refer to section 4.80 above).

It is considered that the 2000m ² minimum site size for island residential 2 will ensure that the scale, form, colour and location of new buildings will not have adverse effects on the natural character and the ecological and visual amenity values of the land unit. In particular, it is considered that 2000m ² site size will protect the high ecological values of the bush vegetation and enable dwellings to be located so they are a secondary component of the landscape and blend into the dominant natural character of the indigenous vegetation.

While it is accepted that this site size is not consistent with the historic pattern of subdivision development within this land unit, it is considered that reducing the minimum site size for the purpose of reflecting the existing pattern does not take into account the full definition of sustainable management in section 5(2) of the RMA. It is a complex definition which requires balancing of a range of factors and includes both managing and enabling functions. Social, economic and cultural wellbeing needs to be provided for in a manner which does not compromise the matters set out in section 5(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the RMA. As already stated above, the historical pattern of subdivision development within this land unit is not considered to have promoted the sustainable management of natural and physical resources as outlined in section 5(2) of the RMA.

The overall resource management strategy for this land unit is also reflected in the land use rules for island residential 2 which requires land use consent for buildings and/or additions and alterations to them even if they are within the permitted development controls of the Plan. The intent of this is to ensure that the scale, location, intensity and appearance is complementary to the bush clad character of the natural environment. Permitted land use activities relate primarily to residential uses such as are home occupations and homestay accommodation however, non-residential uses such as dairies, care centres, art galleries and healthcare services are provided for as a discretionary activity.

Such an approach within both the land use and subdivision provisions is considered consistent with resource management strategy envisaged for this environment. Therefore, maintaining minimum site sizes of 2000m ² will mitigate the adverse effects of built forms while protecting the natural character and the ecological and visual amenity values of the land unit. In addition, the 2000m ² size will also provide sufficient space in which to integrate activities such as care centres, boarding centres or hostels which are provided for at as a discretionary activity in the land unit.

Overall, it is considered that reducing the minimum site size of island residential 2 may adversely affect the natural character and the ecological and visual amenity values of the land unit. Indeed, the historic pattern of subdivision has already demonstrated that the cumulative effects of reduced site sizes leads to extensive vegetation removal and the built forms becoming a dominate feature of the landscape. The 2000m ² minimum site size therefore continues to reflect and support the resource management strategy envisaged in the 1996 operative Plan and is consistent with the Resource Management Act 1991, the Regional Policy Statement and plans, the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 and Essentially Waiheke.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 1198/3, 1094/7 and 1198/2 are rejected.

In light of the recommendation made above, it is considered that a consequential amendment is required for policy (1) of objective 12.3.9 � the character of the inner islands as follows:

(1) By setting minimum site sizes of 2000m ² (island residential 2) and 1500m ² (island residential 1) for subdivision which is consistent with achieving low residential densities that preserve spaciousness, the natural landscape, ecological values and amenity.

The inclusion of the words 'ecological values' is to highlight the key characteristic of the island residential 2 land unit which differentiates it to that of island residential 1. It is also a key reason why the minimum site size for this land unit has not decreased. Accordingly, the 2000m ² site size will protect the high ecological values of the bush vegetation and enable dwellings to be located so they are a secondary component of the landscape and blend into the dominant natural character of the indigenous vegetation.

4.81.2.3 Submissions 2666/1, 368/2 and 1170/1

Submissions 2666/1, 368/2 and 1170/1 requests that minimum site size for island residential 2 as outlined in table 12.1 is retained.

As already outlined in section 4.81.2.2 above, it is considered that the existing 2000m ²minimum site size is consistent with achieving the resource management strategy envisaged for island residential 2. This will provide for the appropriate management of resources and achieve sustainable land use development.

As such, it is recommended that submissions 2666/1, 368/2 and 1170/1 be accepted and minimum site size for island residential 2 is retained.

Planner's recommendations about submissions minimum site size for island residential 2 (bush residential).

Submission 530/1 is rejected.
Submissions 1198/3, 1094/7 and 1198/2 are rejected.
In light of the recommendation made above, it is considered that a consequential amendment is required for policy (1) of objective 12.3.9 � the character of the inner islands as follows:

(1) By setting minimum site sizes of 2000m ² (island residential 2) and 1500m ² (island residential 1) for subdivision which is consistent with achieving low residential densities that preserve spaciousness, the natural landscape, ecological values and amenity.
Submissions 2666/1, 368/2 and 1170/1 be accepted.

4.82 Submissions about minimum site size for rural 1 (rural amenity).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 489/1, 368/1, 534/1, 1093/78, 1101/5, 1199/2, 3583/4, 1286/74, 1289/6, 1591/2, 2045/1, 2878/74, 3409/1, 3526/1, 3526/2, 1243/86, 1250/79.

4.82.1 Decision requested

Submission 534/1 requests the following:

That the minimum size for the rural 1 (rural amenity) be returned to 3.5ha.

Submission 1591/2 requests the following:

Rural 1 minimum site area amended to 3.5 ha (from 5 ha) in Table 12.1 .

Submission 2045/1 requests the following:

Restore the minimum lot size of 3.5ha to rural 1 in table 12.1.

Submission 489/1 requests the following:

Change minimum lot size to 1.5ha in rural 1 (rural amenity) with building platform of 250m2. Reclassify as rural residential lots.

Submission 1101/5 requests the following:

The minimum lot sizes for Rural 1 areas set out in Table 12.1 be reduced and provide for a range of lot sizes with a minimum of 2 ha and an average lot size of 4 ha .

Submissions 1199/2, 3583/4 request the following:

That a minimum lot size of 2 Ha be implemented for Rural 1 (rural amenity).

Submissions 1286/74, 1289/6 request the following:

The minimum lot sizes for rural 1 areas set out in Table 12.1 be reduced and provide for a range of lot sizes with a minimum of 2ha and an average lot size of 3 ha.

Submission 2878/74 requests the following:

The minimum lot sizes for Rural 1 areas set out in table 12.1 be reduced and provide for a range of lot sizes with a minimum of 2ha and an average lot size of 3ha.

Submission 3409/1 requests the following:

In subdivision, table 12.1, minimum site area for land units Rural 1 (rural amenity) should change from 5 hectares down to 1 hectare average minimum site area.

Submission 3526/1 requests the following:

Reduce the minimum site size in Rural 1 to 2 ha .

Submission 3526/2 requests the following:

Reduce the minimum site size for subdivision in Rural 1 at the western end of Palm Beach north of Cory Road to 2 ha.

Submission 368/1 requests the following:

Supports the new minimum size area of 5ha for rural 1 (rural amenity) in table 12.1.

Submission 1093/78 requests the following:

Retain table 12.1 to provide the minimum site area for rural 1 (rural amenity) as 5.0ha.

Submission 1243/86 requests the following:

Retain table 12.1 as it applies to landforms 1-7 and rural 1.

Submission 1250/79 requests the following:

Retain any proposed increase in existing minimum lot sizes in table 12.1 [applies to landform 4 and rural 1]

4.82.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

In analysing the above submissions, it is considered necessary to first turn to the resource management strategy envisaged for this land unit.

This land unit is applied to pockets of small scale, rural land located between the village areas of western Waiheke. The area of the land unit adjoining Onetangi Road differs from the other areas of rural amenity land in that it contains activities that may be considered 'non-rural' in their character, such as wineries and tourist complexes. The scale of this area of the land is sufficiently large to accept these activities, while still maintaining a rural landscape with an open pattern. Overall, the land unit has high visual amenity value, largely due to the contrast of its rural landscape with the village style development that occurs throughout western Waiheke. The minimum site size is 5.0ha in the proposed Plan.

The characteristics of the land unit are:

Small scale farming and horticulture activities.
Flat to rolling land.
A rural landscape with built elements but also the openness, features and patterns created by productive activities.
The contrast of its rural landscape with the intensity and nature of the surrounding village development.

The resource management strategy for this land unit states:

As the Onetangi Road area of the land unit is different in scale to the other areas of the land unit, the resource management strategy is to divide the land unit into two parts; 'Onetangi Road' and 'other areas'. The location of the Onetangi Road area is identified on figure 10a.2.

In the 'other areas' the rural character and the general amenity of the land unit is protected by limiting the range of non-productive activities that can occur.

In the 'Onetangi Road' area of the land unit a wider range of non-productive activities are provided for in recognition of the fact that this area of the land unit is of a significantly larger scale than the other areas and can therefore potentially accommodate activities of a more intensive nature and larger scale. Notwithstanding, an assessment of such activities is required to ensure that there are no adverse effects on the rural character, visual amenity and general amenity of the land unit.

An assessment of buildings is required in both the 'Onetangi Road' and 'other areas' of the land unit to ensure that there are no adverse effects on the rural character and the visual amenity of the landscape.

The objective and policies for this land unit is as follows:

10a.19.3 Objective

To provide for rural activities and a limited range of non-rural activities while protecting the rural character and visual amenity of the land unit.

Policies

By providing for productive activities, such as pastoral farming and horticulture to establish and operate within the land unit.
By limiting the non-productive activities that can occur in the 'other areas' of the land unit to those which avoid adverse effects on the rural character and on the general and visual amenity of the locality.
By ensuring that the non-productive activities in the 'Onetangi Road' area will not have adverse effects on the rural character and the general and visual amenity of the land unit when viewed from Onetangi Road and surrounding locations.
By ensuring that the scale, form, colour and location of new buildings will not have adverse effects on the visual amenity and rural character of the land unit.
By requiring new sites to be of a size and nature that ensures small scale rural activities can occur and which maintains the rural character and visual amenity of the landscape.

4.82.2.1 Submissions 534/1, 1591/2 and 2045/1

The minimum site size for this land unit was increased from 3.5ha (1996 operative Plan) to 5.0ha in the 2006 proposed Plan. The above submissions seek to restore the minimum site size for rural 1 to 3.5ha. Indeed, submitter 534/1 states that the increase in minimum site size for this land unit is not justified as both the operative and proposed Plan seek to provide for small scale productive activities while maintaining rural amenity value. Submitter 534/1 considers that as the objective for this land unit has not changed, then the minimum site size should not have been increased. Submitter 534/1 therefore considers that a 3.5ha minimum site size will provide for productive activities while retaining the rural character of the environment.

In assessing a reduction in the minimum site size for this land unit, it is important to note that the resource management strategy for this land unit divides the land unit into two parts; 'Onetangi Road' and 'other areas'. In the 'Onetangi Road' area of the land unit, a wider range of non-productive activities are provided for in recognition of the fact that this area of the land unit is of a significantly larger scale than the other areas and already includes larger scale intensive activities such as wineries and tourist complexes. In the 'other areas' the rural character and the general amenity of the land unit is protected by limiting the range of non-productive activities that can occur.

Like landform 3 (alluvial flats), the rural 1 land unit generally seeks to provide for small scale productive activities such as farming and horticulture so that these activities can continue to contribute to the economy, the lifestyle and the identity of the islands. The site size for this land unit must therefore be set at a level which enables communities to effectively utilise the land for economic gain whilst also ensuring that the general rural character and visual amenity of the landscape is not adversely affected.

It is considered that restoring the minimum site size for rural 1 to 3.5ha within 'other areas' of the land unit will be consistent with the resource management strategy envisaged for these areas at Kennedy Point, Palm Beach and Oneroa. Within these areas the land use provisions seek to provide for small scale productive activities as well as visitor accommodation for up to 10 people as permitted activities. A 3.5ha site size will ensure that smaller scale rural activities can occur which maintains the character of the landscape while a reasonable level of economic return for the landowner is achieved. This site size is also consistent with the landform 3 land unit, which also seeks to provide for small scale productive uses within the environment. However unlike landform 3, land use consent for buildings and/or additions and alterations to them is required as a restricted discretionary activity within rural 1 to ensure that the scale, form and location of buildings do not adversely affect the visual amenity and rural character of the land unit.

With regard to the 'Onetangi Road' area of the land unit, it is considered that restoring the minimum site size to 3.5ha will be inconsistent with the resource management strategy envisaged for this area. This is due to the large scale activities that already exist within this area and the wider range of non-rural activities that are provided for along Onetangi Road as discretionary activities. These activities include entertainment facilities, function facilities, wineries, restaurants and tourist complexes. Accordingly, it is considered that 5ha sites sizes will accommodate activities of a more intensive nature and which require additional open space in order to mitigate the effects associated with this form of development.

Overall, a minimum site size of 3.5ha for the 'other areas' of the rural 1 land unit is consistent with the objective and policies for the land unit, as the site size will provide for smaller scale productive activities and visitor accommodation that do not detract from the rural character of the landscape or the general amenity of the locality.

Minimum site size of 5ha for the 'Onetangi Road' area is considered consistent with the resource management strategy for this area which seeks to provide for larger scale, non-rural activities within this specific location. The larger site size reflects these more intensive land use activities by providing greater open space in which to absorb these activities and maintain the amenity of the area.

Submissions 534/1, 1591/2 and 2045/1 have requested that the minimum site size within both 'Onetangi Road' and 'other areas' are reduced to 3.5ha however, as it is recommended that minimum site size is reduced to 3.5ha for 'other areas' of this land unit only, it is considered that these submissions can only be accepted in part.

Therefore, for reasons outlined above, it is recommended that submissions 534/1, 1591/2 and 2045/1 are accepted in part and table 12.1 be amended so that minimum site size for 'other areas' of rural 1 is reduced to 3.5ha.

4.82.2.2 Submissions 489/1, 1101/5, 1199/2, 3583/4, 1286/74, 1289/6, 2878/74, 3409/1, 3526/1 and 3526/2

The above submissions seek to reduce the minimum site size of rural 1. These reductions range from a minimum site size of 1.0ha to a minimum site size of 2.0ha with average site sizes of 3-4ha. Many of these submissions do not specifically identify what advantages are likely to result if the minimum site sizes were amended nor have the submissions provided an analysis of how the amended site sizes will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources as outlined in section 5(2) of the RMA.

Submission 1199 states that where an activity cannot be successfully sustained on a rural amenity land unit it may be more appropriate to subdivide this economically unsustainable land into more sustainable units used as rural residential unit which would retain the inherently rural nature of the landscape....2ha be implemented as this is a reasonable size to be maintained as a non-productive rural unit not requiring an economically sustainable activity.

In accordance with section 4.82.2.1 above, it is considered that restoring the minimum site size of 3.5ha for sites identified as 'other areas' will be consistent with the resource management strategy for these areas within rural 1. However, this site size is not recommended for areas identified as 'Onetangi Road' given the existing large scale activities on these sites and the non-rural activities proposed as discretionary activities within the land use provisions.

In assessing a further reduction in the minimum site size for this land unit, it is important to note that the key characteristics of the rural 1 land unit is its rural landscape with built elements, as well as its openness and features and patterns that are created by productive activities within these areas. This landscape also provides a contrast to the intensity of the surrounding village development that is represented by the island residential 1 and 2 land units.

It should also be noted that within rural 1, subdivision for the purposes of protecting significant environmental features is provided for as a discretionary activity. This can potentially create sites with a minimum size of 1.5ha and an average size of 2.0ha. In applying for significant environmental feature subdivision, this will reduce and in some circumstances, inhibit the land available for productive use however, protecting significant features will protect and where possible, enhance these areas, and therefore achieve the purpose of the Act as set out within sections 6(b), 6(c), 6(e) 6(f), 7(f) and section 8.

Therefore, given the existing provision to reduce minimum site sizes, it is considered that a further reduction in the minimum site size of 3.5ha for 'other areas' which does not protect significant environmental features will reduce productive capacity of the land and therefore, the land unit's ability to contribute to the economy of the islands. Reducing the site size will also affect a site's ability to integrate built forms and large scale land use activities in the 'Onetangi Road' areas nor will it retain the openness and the features and patterns that are created by productive activities. As such, the rural character of the landscape and general amenity of the locality could be adversely affected.

Overall, it is considered that reducing the minimum site size of all areas within rural 1 below the 3.5ha site size recommended in section 4.82.2.1 above, may adversely affect the natural character and visual amenity values of the land unit. This is not consistent with the resource management strategy for the land unit nor sections 6(b), 7(b)-(c) and 7(f) of the RMA, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 1994, the Regional Policy Statement and plans and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.

In light of this, is it recommended that submissions 489/1, 1101/5, 1199/2, 3583/4, 1286/74, 1289/6, 2878/74, 3409/1, 3526/1 and 3526/2 are rejected.

It should be noted that submission 489/1 requests decisions relating to the reclassification of sites identified as rural 1 and the provision of a maximum building platform of 250m ². These decisions will be considered in hearings report for Part 10a and Part 10b and the council may make some amendments in response. In the event amendments are made, consequential amendments to table 12.1 may be considered necessary and will be addressed accordingly.

Submission 3526/2 also requests a change to the minimum site size for rural 1 or at the western end of Palm Beach north of Cory Road. For the same reasons outlined above, it is considered that a reduction in the minimum site size below 3.5ha in any area identified as rural 1 will not be consistent with the resource management strategy for the land unit.

4.82.2.3 Submissions 368/1, 1093/78, 1243/86 and 1250/79

The above submissions seek to retain the minimum site size of 5.0ha for all areas within rural 1. While such a site size will increase the amount of open space around built forms and protect the natural character and amenity of the land unit, as outlined in sections 4.82.2.1 and 4.82.2.2 above, it is considered that restoring the minimum site size of 3.5ha for sites identified as 'other areas' will be consistent with the resource management strategy for these areas within rural 1. However, a 3.5ha site size is not recommended for areas identified as 'Onetangi Road' given the existing large scale activities on these sites and the non-rural activities proposed at a discretionary level within the land use provisions.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submitters 368/1, 1093/78, 1243/86 and 1250/79 are accepted in part as the minimum site size for the 'Onetangi Road' areas will be retained at 5.0ha while it is recommended that the minimum site size for 'other areas' are reduced to 3.5ha.

Planner's recommendations about submissions minimum site size for rural 1 (rural amenity).

Submissions 534/1, 1591/2 and 2045/1 are accepted in part and table 12.1 be amended so that minimum site size for 'other areas' of rural 1 is reduced to 3.5ha.
Submissions 489/1, 1101/5, 1199/2, 3583/4, 1286/74, 1289/6, 2878/74, 3409/1, 3526/1 and 3526/2 are rejected
Submitters 368/1, 1093/78, 1243/86 and 1250/79 are accepted in part.

4.83 Submissions about minimum site size for rural 2 (Western landscape).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 560/16, 83/1, 520/1, 520/2, 618/102, 619/47, 618/72, 2670/46, 754/56, 859/56, 1093/79, 1172/1, 1287/23, 2060/1, 520/3.

4.83.1 Decision requested

Submission 560/16 requests the following:

Reduce the minimum site area in the rural 2 (western landscape) to 4 ha, in accordance with the operative Plan.

Submission 83/1 requests the following:

Seeks a change in table 12.1 so that the minimum lot size in rural 2 (western landscape) is 3ha with an average of 5ha as allowed for in the Thompson Point area, and all such consequential changes to other parts of the Plan necessary to give effect to the request.

Submission 520/1 requests the following:

Delete the minimum site area of 25ha for rural 2 (western landscape) and replace with a minimum site area of 5ha and amend all references in the Plan accordingly.

Submission 520/2 requests the following:

Delete the minimum site area of 25ha for rural 2 (western landscape) and replace with that specified in clause 12.9.7.3 for Thompsons Point (i.e 4ha) and amend all references in the Plan accordingly.

Submissions 618/102, 619/47, 2670/46, 618/72 request the following:

Table 12.1 should be amended so that the minimum areas for rural 2 (western landscape) is 5ha.

Submissions 754/56, 859/56 request the following:

Table 12.1 should be amended so that the minimum area for rural 2 (western landscape) is 4.5ha.

Submission 1287/23 requests the following:

Amend Rural 2 subdivision rules in Table 12.1 applicable to 306 Sea View Road, Thompsons Point and Rural 2 generally to a 5ha lot size minimum.

Submission 520/3 requests the following:

the land around Owhanake within DP's 183454, 183455, and 183456 as a sub-area within rural 2 to which special rules under part 12 apply specifying the minimum site area for subdivision as 5ha.

Submission 2060/1 requests the following:

The wording "to Thompsons Park" be added after the words "special rules apply" in the minimum site area box of Rural 2 in Table 12.1 minimum site area.

Submission 1093/79 requests the following:

Retain table 12.1 to provide the minimum site area for rural 2 (western landscape) as proposed at 25ha.

Submission 1172/1 requests the following:

Implement the preferred minimum subdivision size of 25ha for rural 2 (western landscape) and enforce controls to prevent any further subdivision of existing lots within rural 2 (western landscape).

4.83.2 Planners analysis

In analysing the above submissions, it is considered necessary to first turn to the resource management strategy envisaged for this land unit.

This land unit comprises distinct areas on Waiheke; land at Owhanake, Church Bay and Park Point and land at Te Whau peninsula. Thompson's Point is located on an eastern headland between Palm Beach and Onetangi Beach. The headland with surrounding ridges is now classified as western landscape and has not been extensively subdivided although land use consents have been approved for four dwellings. Overall, western landscape provides for a rural-residential style of living with high natural character and landscape values. The minimum site size in the 2006 proposed plan is 25ha with the exception of Thompsons Point which is subject to comprehensive development provisions in clause 12.9.7 of the Plan.

The characteristics of the land unit are:

Its coastal location in that all land within the land unit either adjoins the coastline or is part of the wider coastal environment.
Large areas of environmental significance, in particular wetland areas and areas of native vegetation.
High natural character and visual amenity due to the large areas of regenerating native bush, and the coastal cliffs and slopes.
A rural-residential style of living at Owhanake, Church Bay, Park Point and Te Whau. Thompsons Point is currently farmed.
Small scale rural activities, primarily with a horticulture focus.
The landscape values of the land unit are those of a cultural landscape containing four key elements:

The openness and productivity of a rural landscape.
The natural character of a regenerating landscape.
The amenity of a low density residential landscape.
The visual prominence of a coastal landscape.

The resource management strategy for this land unit states:

As the land at Owhanake, Church Bay, Park Point and Te Whau is largely developed to capacity, the focus of the resource management strategy for these areas is to provide for the continued operation of rural-residential activities and maintain the natural character and landscape values of the land unit.

As Thompsons Point has not yet been developed to capacity, comprehensive development is provided for in this area. Comprehensive development will provide for a rural-residential style of living in the context of a landscape enhanced by regenerating vegetation. Refer topart 12 - Subdivision for the provisions relating to comprehensive development at Thompsons Point. The location of Thompsons Point is identified onfigure 12.1 Thompsons Point.

The general amenity of the land unit is protected by limiting the activities provided for to those of a residential or rural nature and thereby avoiding activities that might generate significant amounts of noise or traffic.

The objective and policies for this land unit is as follows:

10a.20.3 Objective

To provide for and protect the rural-residential style of living while avoiding the adverse effects of activities and buildings on the natural character and landscape values of the land unit.

Policies

By providing for rural and residential activities to establish and operate in the land unit.
By limiting the range of non-rural and non-residential activities that can establish within the land unit to avoid adverse effects on the landscape values and the general amenity of the locality.
By requiring new sites to be of a size and nature that ensures that small scale rural activities can occur and which protects the natural character and landscape values of the land unit.
By ensuring that the scale, form, colour and location of new buildings will not have adverse effects on the natural character and landscape values of the land unit.
By providing for comprehensive development to occur at Thompsons Point.

4.83.2.1 Submissions 560/16, 83/1, 520/1, 520/2, 618/102, 619/47, 2670/46, 618/72, 754/56, 859/56 and 1287/23.

The above submissions seek to reduce the minimum site size of rural 2. These reductions range from a minimum site size of 4ha to 5ha, or 3ha with an average of 5ha.

A number of recent subdivision applications for western Waiheke have highlighted some issues with the current provisions:

While the minimum site size for these sites is 25ha, the objectives and policies do not reflect nor support this site size. Therefore, applications applying to significantly reduce this site size are supported through the objectives and policies. On this basis, the resource management strategy for this land unit in both the operative and proposed Plans could potentially be achieved through smaller site sizes;
The existing development pattern within the Church Bay area, which has been achieved through comprehensive development plans, does not reflect some of the objectives and policies for the land unit. Indeed, many of the sites are unable to be used for productive purposes due to the covenanted bush areas on the sites;
Site sizes in Church Bay are not consistent with other smaller sites which have also been classified as rural 2 in the proposed Plan (i.e. Te Whau and Owhanake).

For these reasons, it is recommended that the minimum site size of the rural 2 should be amended to better reflect the objectives and policies of this land unit.

Landscape assessment

As contained in Appendix 6, consultant Landscape Architect, Mr John Hudson has undertaken a comprehensive analysis of this land unit in order to assess the landscape characteristics and to determine the appropriate minimum site size that will meet the resource management strategy and objectives and policies of the land unit.

In his report, Mr Hudson identifies the three distinct areas classified of rural 2 as being Thompson's Point, Te Whau and Western Waiheke. The latter can be broken into five contiguous parts, being Owhanake, Matiatia, Church Bay, Cable Bay and Park Point. With the exception of Thompson's Point, Mr Hudson considers that the historic provisions for Te Whau and Western Waiheke aimed to protect the natural environment or enhance landscape qualities while allowing subdivision for low density housing and rural residential activities. Through comprehensive development subdivisions, the resulting landscape was developed so that four key elements were protected. These are as follows:

The openness and productivity of a rural landscape;
The natural character of re-generating landscape
The amenity of a low density residential landscape; and
The visual prominence of a coastal landscape.

Each of these elements have been assessed by Mr Hudson who considers that the rural 2 landscape largely incorporates these characteristics. These are outlined in paragraphs 9 to 19 of his report.

Overall, Mr Hudson concludes as follows:

28. Having reviewed the landscape character throughout Western Waiheke, and having assessed it in terms of the key elements identified as intrinsic values of the area, it is my opinion that the density could be reduced from 25ha while still retaining these characteristics. I recommend that a minimum lot size of 5ha is appropriate for Western Waiheke, when the landscape constraints are considered. This minimum foresees the possible potential subdivision that could occur with neighbours combining their lots. While a total of 20 additional lots would not be inappropriate in terms of landscape effects, additional subdivision below the 5ha minimum is not supported as part of this assessment. The strength of the objectives and polices will be critical in limiting subdivision below the minimum lot size.

I also recommend that there be no provision for bonus density through Significant Natural Features, as these features have already been used to justify the extra density to date and reusing them would amount to double dipping.

There will be a need for significant new planting if some of the more open lots are subdivided, and this should be achieved through the rules 12.9.7.3 (2c) "Standards and Terms". This particularly relates to Lot 1 DP 154784 of 41ha, which is currently open pasture and if subdivided, would need substantial revegetation to integrate the houses into the landscape.

4.83.2.2 Planner's recommendation

The overall resource management strategy for this land unit is reflected in the land use rules for rural 2 which requires land use consent for buildings and/or additions and alterations to them. The intent of this is to provide for and protect the rural-residential style of living while avoiding the adverse effects of activities and buildings on the natural character and landscape values of the land unit. This includes providing for rural and residential activities and a limited range of non-rural and non-residential activities. Site size must also be of a size and nature that ensures that small scale rural activities can occur and which protects the natural character and landscape values of the land unit.

Accordingly, permitted land use activities relate primarily to productive and residential uses such as horticulture, pastoral farming, home occupations and homestay accommodation however, non-residential uses such visitor accommodation for up to 10 people is also permitted.

In light of recent subdivision applications on western Waiheke, it is evident that the desired outcomes for this land unit as contained in the resource management strategy and objectives and policies are inconsistent with the minimum site size for this land unit. Indeed, the resource management strategy for this land unit in both the operative and proposed Plans could potentially be achieved through smaller site sizes (i.e. less than 25ha). In addition, it is evident that rural 2 sites within Western Waiheke are not consistent with other rural 2 areas such as Owhanake and Te Whau which do not have sites greater than 10.6ha. The sites within these areas appear to have a smaller range, from 1.4ha to 10.6ha at Te Whau with the majority of sites being between 2ha-5ha and 0.9218ha to 12.0ha at Owhanake with an approximate average of 4ha. By classifying these areas as rural 2, it must be acknowledged that these site sizes display the same characteristics as Western Waiheke.

In terms of Thompsons Point, Mr Hudson has identified that as this land has not been fully developed, this landscape displays slightly different character. Consequently, this landscape has the potential for comprehensive development which utilises different provisions to that of other rural 2 areas.

Therefore, to ensure consistency in the classification of the rural 2 land unit and to better reflect the existing development pattern and the objectives and policies of the land unit, it is considered that the minimum site size for rural 2 land at Owhanake, Church Bay, Park Point and Te Whau should be reduced (i.e. all areas outside of Thompsons Point). In addition, it is recommended that the objectives and policies for this land unit are amended in the hearings report for Part 10a in order to better reflect the existing development pattern. It is considered that the existing development pattern within the Church Bay area, which has been achieved through comprehensive development plans, does not reflect some of the objectives and policies for the land unit. Indeed, many of the sites are unable to be used for productive purposes due to the extensive covenanted bush areas on the sites however, the objective, policies and land use rules emphasise this aspect of the land unit. This is reinforced by Mr Hudson, who notes that productivity of the land has not been universally undertaken.

On this basis, it recommended that the minimum site size for the rural 2 land unit as it applies to land at Owhanake, Church Bay, Park Point, and Te Whau peninsula be reduced to 5ha as recommended by Mr Hudson. This site size is considered to be consistent with other sites classified as rural 2 and would still retain the desired landscape values for rural 2 as outlined in the objectives and policies.

To ensure that the natural character and visual prominence of the coastal landscape is fostered and maintained, it is further recommended that specific standards are drafted for these rural 2 sites as well as specific standards and terms similar or identical to those recommended for Thompsons Point.

On this basis, it is recommended that submissions 560/16, 83/1, 520/1, 520/2, 618/102, 619/47, 2670/46, 618/72, 754/56, 859/56 and 1287/23 are accepted in part and table 12.1 is amended so that the minimum site size for rural 2 is 5ha.

Consequential amendments to the standards and terms and specific assessment criteria are also recommended in draft form as follows:

12.9.7 Rural 2

12.9.7.1 Provisions

The following are discretionary activities in rural 2:

Subdivision outside of Thompsons Point which complies with the general rules in clause 12.6 and the standards and terms in clause 12.9.7.3(1) ; or
Comprehensive development at Thompsons Point (see figure 12.1) subject to compliance

with the general rules in clause 12.6 and the standards and terms in clause 12.9.7.3(2).

12.9.7.2 Assessment matters

The council's assessment of an application for subdivision in rural 2 will include consideration of

the matters set out in clause 12.11~~. For comprehensive development at Thompsons Point,~~ as well as the

specific criteria in clause 12.12.4 ~~will also be considered~~ .

12.9.7.3 Standards and terms

The following standards and terms apply:

Subdivision outside of Thompsons Point:
1. The subdivision must meet the standards for minimum areas specified in table 12.1: Minimum site areas for land units; and
2. The application must detail revegetation on each proposed site. This must include an ongoing management programme that specifies any protection and enhancement.
Comprehensive development at Thompsons Point (see figure 12.1):
1. The subdivision must provide for sites at an average of one site per 7.5ha of gross site area; and
2. All sites created must have a minimum area of 4.0ha, other than those sites created for the purpose of reserves, public accessways or jointly owned access sites ; and
3. The application must detail revegetation on each proposed site. This must include an ongoing management programme that specifies any protection and enhancement.

12.12.4 Specific assessment criteria for subdivisions within rural 2 including comprehensive development at Thompsons Point (rural 2)

The council's assessment of an application for a discretionary activity under clause 12.9.7 will

include consideration of the following matters:

4.83.2.3 Submission 1287/23

The above submitter has been considered in section 4.83.2.1 above however, the submitter also requests that the minimum site size for Thompsons Point is reduced to 5ha.

Section 4.10 of this report already outlines the subdivision provisions associated with comprehensive development for Thompsons Point. Accordingly, given the high visual prominence of the headland from a wide visual catchment, a comprehensive development will protect features of outstanding value, provide a better understanding of the nature of a proposal, achieve integrated resource management outcomes and effectively assess the actual and potential effects of the proposed development.

The rules and specific assessment criteria focus upon preserving natural character and amenity values of the land unit and wider coastal environment with particular regard to the pattern of indigenous vegetation, productive rural land, low impact design and placement of buildings within the environment. Revegetation of indigenous vegetation is also assessed as well as the extent to which protective legal instruments are proposed.

The overall resource management strategy for this land unit is also reflected in the land use rules for rural 2 (Thompsons Point) which require land use consent for buildings and/or additions and alterations to them even if they are within the permitted development controls of the plan. The intent of this is to ensure that the scale, form, colour and location of new buildings do not have adverse effects on the natural character, ecological and visual amenity values of the land unit. Permitted land use activities relate primarily to residential uses such as home occupations and homestay accommodation however, horticulture, pastoral farming and visitor accommodation for up to ten people is provided for in this land unit as a permitted activity.

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the operative and proposed Plan provisions would not achieve the best outcomes on the site. However, further discussion with the landowner (preferably all landowners on Thompsons Point) will be required in order to address the provisions more appropriately in the Plans.

For these reasons, it is recommended submission 1287/23 is rejected.

4.83.2.4 Submission 520/3

Submission 520/3 requests that the land around Owhanake within DP's 183454, 183455, and 183456 are reclassified as a sub-area within rural 2 to which special rules under part 12 apply specifying the minimum site area for subdivision as 5ha. These sites range from 1.0ha to 5ha with three sites reaching 7.14ha, 7.59ha and 12.0ha.

Upon reading the entire submission, it is evident that the decision requested should be read in conjunction with submissions 520/1 and 520/2 (section 4.83.2.2) which requests a general reduction to the minimum site size of rural 2. Submissions 520/3 is requested in the event that submissions 520/1 and 520/2 are rejected. This submitter has also requested that in the event the submissions 520/1, 520/2 and 520/3 are not accepted, then these sites should be reclassified as rural 1.

For reasons already outlined in section 4.83.2.2 above, it is considered that reducing the minimum site size of rural 2 to 5ha is consistent with other sites classified as rural 2 and would still retain the desired landscape values for rural 2 as outlined in the objectives and policies. On this basis, it is recommended that submission 520/3 is accepted.

In terms of the reclassification of these sites as rural 1 or a sub-area of rural 2, this will be considered in hearings report for rural 2.

4.83.2.5 Submission 2060/1

Submission 2060/1 requests that the wording " to Thompsons Point " be added after the words "special rules apply" in Table 12.1 minimum site area.

The words 'special rules apply' are included within table 12.1 where there are specific standards and terms that relate to the land unit. Within table 12.1, the clause relating to the standards and terms are also referenced.

In light of the recommendation made in section 4.83.2.2 above, it is considered that submission 2060/1 can be supported in part. This is because for subdivisions within Owhanake, Church Bay, Park Point, and Te Whau, specific standards and terms now apply to these areas as well as Thompsons Point. Consequently, table 12.1 has been amended to state that special rules apply to both Thompsons Point and areas within Owhanake, Church Bay, Park Point, and Te Whau.

On this basis, submission 2060/1 is supported in part in light of recommendations made in section 4.83.2.2 above. Amendments to the Plan are outlined in Appendix 3.

4.83.2.6 Submissions 1093/79 and 1172/1

The above submissions seek to retain the minimum site size of 25ha for all areas within rural 2. While this site size is more suited to providing for productive purposes and preventing further subdivision in rural 2 areas outside of Thompsons Point, as outlined in section 4.83.2.2 above, it is evident that the desired outcomes for this land unit as contained in the resource management strategy and objectives and policies are inconsistent with the minimum site size for this land unit. Moreover, the existing development pattern within the Church Bay area, which has been achieved through comprehensive development plans, does not reflect some of the objectives and policies for the land unit. Indeed, many of the sites are unable to be used for productive purposes due to the extensive covenanted bush areas on the sites however, the objective, policies and land use rules emphasise this value in the land unit.

Therefore, to ensure consistency in the classification of the rural 2 land unit and to better reflect the existing development pattern and the objectives and policies of the land unit, it is recommended that the minimum site size for rural 2 is reduced to 6ha. Specific standards and terms and assessment criteria should also be drafted which seek to protect and maintain the natural character and visual prominence of the coastal landscape.

On this basis and for reasons outlined in section 4.83.2.2 above it is recommended that submissions 1093/79 and 1172/1 are rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions minimum site size for rural 2 (western landscape).

Submissions 560/16, 83/1, 520/1, 520/2, 618/102, 619/47, 2670/46, 618/72, 754/56 , 859/56 and 1287/23 are accepted in part and table 12.1 is amended so that the minimum site size for rural 2 is 5ha.
Consequential amendments to clauses 12.9.7, 12.9.7.2, 12.9.7.3 and 12.12.4. These are outlined above and in Appendix 3.
Submission 1287/23 is rejected.
Submission 520/3 is accepted.
Submission 2060/1 is accepted in part in light of recommendations made in section 4.83.2.2 above.
Submissions 1093/79 and 1172/1 be rejected.

4.84 Submissions about minimum site size for rural 3 (Rakino amenity).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 441/1, 444/2, 1550/9, 2042/8, 2202/8, 3082/1, 3094/7, 3518/8, 3552/8, 2591/1, 3106/6, 115/1, 3144/2.

4.84.1 Decision requested

Submission 441/1 requests the following:

Decrease the subdivision size to 2ha (in rural 3 Rakino amenity).

Submission 444/2 requests the following:

Allow 2ha subdivision size (within rural 3 (Rakino amenity).

Submissions 1550/9, 2042/8, 2202/8, 3082/1, 3094/7, 3518/8, 3552/8 request the following:

Change minimum site areas in table 12.1 within rural 3 to 2.5 hectares.

Submission 115/1 requests the following:

Minimum site size in table 12.1 to come down to 2.5 ha for Rakino to allow some of the largest blocks that are long and narrow to be cut in two to give better management of properties.

Submission 3144/2 requests the following:

Allow 2 ha subdivision size on Rakino.

Submission 2591/1 requests the following:

Retain 2.5ha as the minimum site area for rural 3 on Rakino.

Submission 3106/6 requests the following:

In Rural 3, increase the minimum site area to 10ha.

4.84.2 Planners analysis and recommendation

In analysing the above submissions, it is considered necessary to first turn to the resource management strategy envisaged for this land unit.

This land unit was previously classified as land unit 20 (Landscape Protection) and is located on Rakino Island only. The land unit represents sites with undulating topography descending towards the coastline. The land unit also comprises limited existing indigenous vegetation with large portions of sites (ranging from 4-5 hectares) being grass covered, although coastal frontages of sites generally contain remnants of indigenous vegetation, including regenerating and mature pohutukawa trees. Overall, the land unit has a unique coastal character which has high amenity values. The minimum site size for this land unit is 3.0ha.

The characteristics of the land unit are:

Sites of generally 4-5ha in size.
Most of the sites have coastal frontage.
Most of the coastline of Rakino being within this land unit.
Limited existing indigenous vegetation with large portions of sites being grass covered, although coastal frontages of sites generally contain remnants of indigenous vegetation, including regenerating and mature pohutakawa.
The high amenity, character and ecological value of the coastline.
Sites which generally contain dwellings and operate as 'lifestyle blocks' with holidays homes or permanent dwellings, although some are vacant.
Undulating topography with a general downwards slope towards the coastline.

The resource management strategy for this land unit states:

The resource management strategy for the land unit is to provide for predominantly residential uses and to manage the environmental and visual impacts of such activities.

The objectives and policies for this land unit are as follows:

10a.21.3.1 Objective

To provide for residential buildings and small scale visitor accommodation in a manner which protects the unique coastal character and amenity of the land unit.

Policies

By controlling the scale, form, colour and location of new buildings to ensure that they are visually compatible with, and do not dominate, the coastal environment.
By restricting the type and size of visitor accommodation within the land unit.

10a.21.3.2 Objective

To encourage the replanting of indigenous vegetation on sites in order to enhance the ecological and visual amenity values of the island and allow for effective wastewater disposal.

Policy

By requiring the planting of sites for amenity and wastewater disposal and ecological enhancement purposes.

4.84.2.1 Submissions 441/1, 444/2, 1550/9, 2042/8, 2202/8, 3082/1, 3094/7, 3518/8, 3552/8, 2591/1, 115/1 and 3144/2.

The above submissions seek to reduce the minimum site size of Rural 3. These reductions range from a minimum site size of 2ha to 2.5ha. Submission 2591/1 states that the minimum site size should be retained at 2.5ha however, it should be noted that this land unit was previously classified in the 1996 operative Plan as land unit 20 (Landscape Protection) which had a minimum site size of 3.5ha. While land unit 20 provided for subdivision for the purposes of protecting significant environment features which reduced the site sizes further, the minimum site size for rural 3 as outlined in table 12.1 in the proposed 2006 Plan has been reduced by 0.5ha.

The proposed Plan has reclassified these areas on Rakino as a discrete land unit in order to better reflect the characteristics of the island. The specific standards and terms contained in clause 12.9.8.3 state that a comprehensive re-vegetation of the land unit is required as part of any subdivision. In accordance with section 4.59 of this report, it is recommended that the percentage of revegetation on each proposed site is reduced from 80% to 30%.

In assessing whether the minimum site size of rural 3 should be reduced, it is important to note the above recommendation as the reduction in revegetation within the land unit will not serve to effectively mitigate the modification of the environment through additional built forms. Therefore, large portions of rural 3 sites will still be grass covered along the coastal frontages of the island.

It is further noted that there are approximately 26 sites classified as rural 3 on Rakino island. These sites range from 1.6205ha to 5.7389ha with the majority being between 4-5ha. The total area of rural 3 equates to approximately 119ha. Given that there are already 26 sites comprising rural 3 on the island, the following table outlines the potential increase in sites based on a reduction in minimum site size:

Minimum site size	Current number of sites comprising rural 3	Approximate combined area of rural 3	Number of proposed sites based on minimum site size.	Number of additional sites above the existing.
2.0ha	26	119ha	59 sites	33 additional sites
2.5ha	26	119ha	47 sites	21 additional sites
3.0ha	26	119ha	39 sites	13 additional sites

Please note that, the above table is based on an approximate calculation of the existing site sizes. The potential number of additional sites does not take into account the characteristics of each site nor does it consider the existing land uses on each existing site. In addition, based on the current development pattern on the island, the above calculations are dependent on neighbours amalgamating their sites and applying collectively for a subdivision in order comply with the minimum site size. Such an approach can be applied for in one application.

It is considered that rural 3 has the capacity to accommodate further sites however, a balance needs to be achieved which provides for additional sites and development without adversely affecting the high amenity values of this coastal environment. Accordingly, it is considered that the 3.0ha minimum site size for Rural 3 is in accordance with the resource management strategy for this land unit which seeks to provide for a residential 'lifestyle' activity on larger blocks of land in a manner which protects the character and coastal amenity of the island. It is recognised that the existing site sizes on Rakino island generally range from 4-5ha sites. Therefore, owners of sites will have to rely on subdividing with neighbouring sites in order to achieve sites which meet the minimum site size.

The overall resource management strategy for this land unit is also reflected in the land use rules for rural 3 which require land use consent for buildings and/or additions and alterations to them even if they are within the permitted development controls of the plan. The intent of this is to ensure that the scale, form, colour and location of new buildings do not have adverse effects on the natural character and coastal amenity of the island. Permitted land use activities relate primarily to residential uses such as home occupations and homestay accommodation however, visitor accommodation for up to ten people is provided for in this land unit as a permitted activity.

Such an approach within both the land use and subdivision provisions is considered consistent with resource management strategy envisaged for this environment. In addition, re-vegetating 30% of each proposed site is still consistent with objective 10a.21.3.2 which seeks replanting of indigenous vegetation on sites in order to enhance the ecological and visual amenity values of the island, and allow for effective stormwater and wastewater disposal.

Therefore, providing for minimum site sizes of 3.0ha throughout this coastal land unit will provide sufficient open space in which to integrate 13 potential new sites and their associated land use development, while also protecting the unique character and high amenity values of the island.

Overall, it is considered that reducing both the percentage of revegetation within the land unit as well as the minimum site size of rural 3 may adversely affect the natural character, coastal amenity value of the land unit. Such as approach may also result in a proliferation of buildings in the coastal landscape which is not consistent with the resource management strategy for the land unit nor sections 6(a)-(b) of the RMA, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 1994, the Regional Policy Statement and plans and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 as well as the Rakino Way Strategy.

For these reasons, it is recommended that the minimum site size of 3.0ha remains in the proposed plan and submissions 441/1, 444/2, 1550/9, 2042/8, 2202/8, 3082/1, 3094/7, 3518/8, 3552/8, 2591/1, 115/1 and 3144/2 are rejected.

4.84.2.2 Submission 3106/6

The above submission seeks to increase the minimum site size of rural 3 to 10ha. Given that the majority of the site sizes are between 4-5ha, a 10ha minimum site size will effectively prevent any further subdivision within this land unit. Such a site size would therefore maintain the existing number of sites for the island and retain the existing characteristics of the land unit.

As outlined in section 4.84.2.1 above, it is considered that rural 3 has the capacity to accommodate further subdivision and a minimum site size of 3ha will reflect the resource management strategy for this land unit. While this site size is still smaller than many of its current counterparts, it is considered that with revegetation as a requirement, the unique character and high amenity values of the island will be protected.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submitter 3106/6 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions minimum site size for rural 3 (Rakino amenity.

Submissions 441/1, 444/2, 1550/9, 2042/8, 2202/8, 3082/1, 3094/7, 3518/8, 3552/8 2591/1, 115/1 and 3144/2 are rejected.
Submission 3106/6 be rejected.

4.85 Submissions about minimum and average site sizes as they relate to table 12.2 (minimum site areas for protecting significant environmental features).

Submission dealt with in this section: 323/1, 533/1, 618/74, 619/48, 754/57, 859/57, 2670/47, 1098/5, 1099/5, 1101/7, 1250/82, 1286/76, 1287/9, 1287/25, 1288/60, 1288/61, 1289/8, 1405/11, 1406/11, 2878/76, 3262/2.

4.85.1 Decision requested

Submission 323/1 requests the following:

That subdivision significant environmental features and the protection provision rules for landforms 4-7, specifically landform 6 (regenerating slopes), be lowered to a 2ha minimum and 3ha average (table 2.2).

Submission 533/1 requests the following:

That the minimum average site area for a significant natural feature in landform 5 (productive land) is reduced from 7.5ha in the Plan back to 5ha, as was originally in the operative Plan.

Submissions 1098/5, 1099/5 request the following:

That the provisions in table 12.2 be amended to allow for an average subdivided site area of 4 hectares (not 7.5 hectares) for landform 6 (regenerating slopes) and landform 7 (forest and bush areas).

Submission 1288/60 requests the following:

Amend the minimum site area in table 12.2 for landform 3 to 1.0ha and the minimum average site area to 1.5ha.

Submission 1288/61 requests the following:

Amend the minimum site area in table 12.2 for landform 4-7 to 3ha and the minimum average site area to 5ha.

Submission 618/74 requests the following:

Amend table 12.2 to include rural 2 (western landscape) sites with a minimum lot size of 3 to 3.5ha and an average lot size of 5ha. Also to provide for bonus density development regimes for rural 2 sites over 5ha.

Submissions 619/48, 754/57, 859/57, 2670/47 request the following:

Table 12.2 should be amended so that rural 2 (western landscape) is included (to reflect the operative provisions) with a minimum lot size of 3ha and an average lot size of 5ha.

Submission 1287/25 requests the following:

Amend table 12.2 to include Rural 2 land with a minimum area and a 3.5ha average, and a baseline requirement of 50% of the parent site sustainably managed / protected / enhanced.

Submission 1101/7, 1286/76, 1289/8 and 2878/76 requests the following:

Amend table 12.2 to include to include rural 1 sites (of 1ha and 1.5ha) and to provide for bonus density development regimes for rural 1 sites over 4ha.

Submission 1250/82 requests the following:

Remove table 12.2 entirely and amend table 12.4 to reflect this.

Submission 1287/9 requests the following:

Opposes the subdivision standards in table 12.2.

That table Submissions 1405/11, 1406/11 request the following:

12.2 provide 1.5ha minimum lot size, with no average lot size, for all subdivisions to protect significant environmental features in all landforms for Great Barrier Island.

Submission 3262/2 requests the following:

That table 12.2 remain unaltered (with specific reference to rural 1).

4.85.2 Planners analysis and recommendation

4.85.2.1 Submissions 323/1, 533/1, 1098/5, 1099/5, 1288/60 and 1288/61

The above submissions seek to reduce the minimum site size and average site size of landforms 3-7. These reductions range from minimum site sizes of 1.0ha- 3ha with average site sizes of 1.5ha-5ha.

It is noted that submission 533/1 requests that the average site size for landform 5 in table 12.2 is reinstated at 5ha. This is because the average site size for land unit 5 (foot hills and lower slopes) within table 8.2 of the operative plan is 5ha. However, submission 533/1 should be made aware that land unit 5 (foothills and lower slopes) in the operative plan has not been included in the proposed plan. Indeed, as stated in section 4.77.3, landform 5 within the proposed plan has been introduced as a new land unit (a combination of land units 5 and 6 of the operative plan) and as such, there is technically no average site size, for subdivision for the purposes of protecting significant environmental features, that currently exists for this land unit in the operative Plan.

In assessing whether the minimum site size and average site size for landforms 3-7 should be reduced, it is important to note that subdivision for the purposes of protecting significant environmental features provides for a marked decrease in site size on the basis that there is an environmental benefit gained, and the additional built forms can be effectively integrated into the landscape. In determining the minimum and average site sizes for these provisions, a balance needs to be struck between environmental protection, providing greater densities and retaining natural character, visual character and amenity values of the land units. It is also the character of the locality that contributes to the overall character of the Hauraki Gulf Islands, and makes it a desirable place to live.

The standards and terms and specific assessment criteria for protecting significant environmental features ensure that applicants applying for this form of subdivision are aware, that in order for a Council to consider a marked reduction in density, they must have a significant environmental feature worthy of protection. Accordingly, evidence must be provided which supports the application and ensures that there will be on-going protection and enhancement of the protected feature. The site sizes for this form of subdivision must therefore be of a size which enables effective protection and enhancement of the feature.

It is therefore considered that the minimum and average site size contained in table 12.2 of the proposed Plan for landforms 3-7 provides for sizes which can effectively manage and protect significant environmental features whilst also maintaining natural character. Moreover, the proposed site sizes will ensure that a larger area of a significant environmental feature can be protected without being adversely modified through subsequent land use development such as vegetation removal, earthworks and built forms. It is therefore considered that reducing the minimum and average site sizes in table 12.2 will not protect and enhance significant environmental features as effectively.

Moreover, reducing the site sizes in table 12.2 will increase densities and generally result in a proliferation of built forms and further modification of the environment (e.g. earthworks and vegetation removal). This may detract from the character and amenity of these areas and is likely to be inconsistent with the objectives for these land units and in securing appropriate management of resources and achieving sustainable land use development.

To this end, it is not considered appropriate to reduce the minimum and average site sizes in table 12.2 for landforms 3-7 as greater densities will result in further modification of the landform and of the features which are the subject of protection. In addition, it is considered that reducing the site sizes may result in the proliferation of built forms within the landscape which may detract from the character and amenity of these areas.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 323/1, 533/1, 1098/5, 1099/5, 1288/60 and 1288/61 are rejected.

4.85.2.2 Submissions 618/74, 619/48, 754/57, 859/57, 2670/47 and 1287/25

The above submissions request the rural 2 land unit is included within the provisions for protecting significant environmental features. In addition, bonus density provisions should be provided for rural 2.

The decision requested above have already been requested and analysed in section 4.52.2.2 where it has been recommended that the decisions requested should be rejected. Accordingly, it is not considered necessary to repeat these assessments.

On this basis and for reasons already set out in section 4.52.2.2 above, it is recommended that submissions 618/74, 619/48, 754/57, 859/57, 2670/47 and 1287/25 be rejected.

4.85.2.3 Submissions 1101/7, 1286/76, 1289/8 and 2878/76.

The above submissions request a reduction in the minimum and average site size for rural 1 and to provide for bonus densities for rural 1 sites which are over 4ha.

As already outlined in section 4.85.2.1 above, it is considered that a reduction in the minimum and average site sizes within table 12.2 will not protect and enhance significant environmental features as effectively and may result in the proliferation of built forms within the landscape which may detract from the character and amenity of these areas.

For these reasons, it is recommended that the minimum and average site sizes in table 12.2 as they relate to rural 1 remain the same. As such, submissions 1101/7, 1286/76, 1289/8 and 2878/76 are rejected.

With regard to the provision of bonus densities, this has already been assessed in sections 4.22.2.2 and 4.52.2.2, where it is considered that such relief would fail to be consistent with the resource management strategy and objectives and policies of each land unit which seek to ensure that landscape and amenity values are not adversely affected. Therefore, while environmental protection and enhancement is a positive effect that is generated on the environment, the effects of higher densities (additional built forms and the modification of the environment) may adversely affect the landscape character of the area. By introducing additional built forms based solely on a quantitative area subject to protection does not consider the effects on landscape amenity.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 1101/7, 1286/76, 1289/8 and 2878/76 are rejected.

4.85.2.4 Submission 1250/82

The above submission seeks the removal of table 12.2. This would also require the consequential removal of clauses 12.9.3 and 12.9.4 which provides for the protection of significant environmental features.

Submission 1250/82 considers that significant environmental features should already have existing measures of protection and do not require subdivision provisions to further protect these features. Moreover, providing for a reduction in the minimum site sizes will undermine the visual integrity of the landscape in which the environmental feature is located. It will change the nature of the area through the provision if additional built structures and more intensive development and activities. This in itself may place additional pressures on the environmental feature .

It is accepted that areas such as vegetation will be subject to the general tree protection rules and may already be classified as being a Site of Ecological Significance or a heritage site within the Plan. Accordingly, these areas of vegetation are already afforded some protection through these rules. While these rules offer some protection over these areas, they do not necessarily provide continued mitigation and on going protection and enhancement of these sites. For example, the removal of several trees within a known Site of Ecological Significance (SES) requires a discretionary assessment and subsequent mitigation of the effects associated with the removal. Often mitigation is provided in the form of replanting and weed control however, it is generally applied around the area that is subject to the tree removal. This is because the degree of mitigation must be commensurate with the level of effect associated with the removal.

Therefore, it would be difficult for Council to insist on enhancement and weed eradication throughout an entire SES if the level of effect does not warrant such extensive mitigation. Subdivision for the purposes of protection significant environmental features provides for a reduction in site sizes only on the basis that there is significant protection of the feature and ongoing enhancement in perpetuity. Smaller sites will also enable better protection by individual owners as the area becomes more manageable and with more owners, there will be a greater number of resources available to ensure that the feature is protection in perpetuity.

Protecting significant environmental features will also enable sites which have not been identified in the planning maps and which are worthy of protection to be enhanced and protected in perpetuity. Clause 12.9.3.3 also provides for protection of the feature through a QEII National Trust, a conservation covenant or by the vesting in a public authority. In some circumstances, public authorities may be able to manage and protect the features more effectively.

In addition, it is acknowledged that providing for greater housing densities in areas may result in subsequent development, which intrude into the features themselves however, the rules have been written so that the effect from land use development must not adversely affect the feature that is subject to protection. Indeed, the entire feature as it relates to the subject site must be protected in order to meet the standards and terms in clause 12.9.3.3. These standards and terms ensure that the features are of a quality and maturity that are worthy of protection, while the specific assessment criteria ensures that the creation of such sites do not adversely affect the landscape character and amenity value of the site and wider visual catchment.

Overall, it is considered that providing for subdivision with reduced site sizes but which protects significant environmental features in perpetuity, will in some circumstances, provide adequate mitigation which is commensurate with the level of effect associated with greater densities in the natural environment. Moreover, as stated in section 4.85.2.1 above, it is considered that the minimum and average site sizes contained in table 12.2 will provide for sizes which can effectively manage and protect significant environmental features whilst also maintaining natural character. Moreover, the proposed site sizes will ensure that a larger area of a significant environmental feature can be protected without being adversely modified through subsequent land use development such as vegetation removal, earthworks and built forms.

The RMA seeks to protect outstanding features and areas of significant indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna as well as facilitating public access along the coastal marine area, lakes and rivers. Outstanding natural features and landscapes include significant areas of indigenous vegetation and fauna, and sites of archaeological, historical or cultural significance, including waahi tapu. Protecting and where possible, enhancing these areas, is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Act as set out within sections 6(b), 6(c), 6(e) 6(f), 7(f) and section 8 and in facilitating access along the coast, lakes and rivers where possible under section 230 of the RMA.

It should also be noted that an application to subdivide to protect significant environmental features is subject to specific standards and terms, and assessment criteria. This approach, in conjunction with a discretionary activity application, will effectively assess the actual and potential effects of the proposed development, achieve integrated resource management outcomes and achieve sustainable land use development.

Overall, it is considered that while protecting significant environmental features will potentially provide greater densities, it is considered that the effects associated with these densities can, in some circumstances, be off-set through the extensive protection and enhancement of these features in perpetuity. This will achieve the purposes of the RMA and provide integrated resource management outcomes.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submission 1250/82 be rejected.

4.85.2.5 Submission 1287/9

The above submission opposes the subdivision standards in table 12.2. A review of the submission outlines the reasons for this request as the submitter seeks amendments to the proposed plan relating to the following:

Reclassification part of Thompsons Point into two new land units (Rural 2A and 2B);
Reduced site sizes for a cluster or a group of clusters;
Balance site of a cluster being freehold;
Comprehensive management plans with allied criteria;
Bonus density provisions (particularly as they relate to rural 2).

The re-classification of this area, including the classification of land use developments on the site must be considered in other part of the plans. Indeed, the other subparts of submission 1287 seek amendments to parts 1-4, 6, 10a, 10c, 13 and 14 of the Plan. Those subparts will be considered in the hearing reports for those parts of the Plan and should be read in conjunction with this section.

The above decisions have already been requested and analysed in sections 4.9, 4.11, 4.22, 4.55 and 4.83.2.3 of this report where it has been recommended that the decisions requested should be rejected. Accordingly, it is not considered necessary to repeat these assessments.

On this basis and for reasons already set out in sections 4.9, 4.11, 4.22, 4.55 and 4.83.2.3 above, it is recommended that submission 1287/9 be rejected and no further amendment to table 12.2 is made.

4.85.2.6 Submissions 1405/11, 1406/11

The above submissions request that table 12.2 is amended so that minimum site size for Significant Environment Feature subdivision is 1.5ha with no average site size required for Great Barrier Island only.

As already outlined in section 4.85.2.1 above, it is not considered appropriate to reduce the minimum and average site sizes in table 12.2, as greater densities will result in further modification of the landform and of the features which are the subject of protection. In addition, it is considered that reducing the site sizes may result in the proliferation of built forms within the landscape which may detract from the character and amenity of these areas. It is considered that this will not provide for the appropriate management of resources and achieve sustainable land use development on Great Barrier Island.

As such, it is recommended that submissions 1405/11 and 1406/11 are rejected.

4.85.2.7 Submission 3262/2

The above submission requests that table 12.2 remain unaltered (with specific reference to rural 1).

For reasons already outlined in sections 4.85.2.1 and 4.85.2.3 above, it is considered that the existing minimum and average site sizes for rural 1 will ensure that a larger area of a significant environmental feature can be protected without being adversely modified through subsequent land use development such as vegetation removal, earthworks and built forms. This will provide for the appropriate management of resources and achieve sustainable land use development in rural 1.

For this reason, it is recommended that submission 3262/2 is approved and table 12.2 remain unaltered with respect to rural 1.

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to minimum and average site sizes in table 12.2 (minimum site areas for protecting significant environmental features

Submissions 323/1, 533/1, 1098/5, 1099/5, 1288/60 and 1288/61 are rejected.
Submissions 618/74, 619/48, 754/57, 859/57, 2670/47 and 1287/25 are rejected.
Submissions 1101/7, 1286/76, 1289/8 and 2878/76 are rejected.
Submission 1250/82 be rejected.
Submission 1287/9 be rejected.
Submissions 1405/11 and 1406/11 are rejected.
Submission 3262/2 is approved.

4.86 Submissions about minimum and average site sizes for settlement areas � Great Barrier in table 12.3.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 278/1, 283/1, 619/77, 859/90, 618/141, 1288/128, 754/90, 2670/75, 754/89, 859/89, 942/2, 1284/30, 1405/12, 1406/12, 1408/1, 1408/2, 3089/2 , 1408/4, 1408/6, 1408/7, 1408/8, 1408/9, 1422/1, 1447/1, 1485/1, 1521/1, 1937/1, 1992/1, 2164/1, 2225/1, 2250/1, 2305/1, 2320/1, 2364/1, 2376/1, 2379/1, 2747/1, 2862/1, 3609/1, 3678/1, 3753/1, 3780/1, 1921/1, 2713/1, 2595/1, 2846/5, 3046/1, 2905/1, 3046/3.

4.87 Decision requested

General

Submissions 1405/12, 1406/12 request the following:

That table 12.3 provide for a minimum site area of 1500sqm in all settlement areas with no average site area.

Submissions 1422/1, 1447/1, 1485/1, 1521/1, 1937/1, 1992/1, 2164/1, 2225/1, 2250/1, 2305/1, 2320/1, 2364/1, 2376/1, 2379/1, 2747/1, 2862/1, 3609/1, 3678/1, 3753/1, 3780/1, 1921/1 request the following:

Amend minimum site areas in table 12.3 to read 1500m ² as the minimum site area and 2000m ² as the minimum average site area for all settlement areas.

Submissions 2713/1 request the following:

Seeks smaller minimum lot sizes for settlement areas.

Submissions 2846/5 request the following:

That the following subdivision controls shall be included in table 12.3 and apply to the 'Orama settlement area' (being the Orama Christian Fellowship Trust land at 300 Karaka Bay Road, Great Barrier):

Settlement area	Minimum site area	Minimum average site area
Orama settlement area where there are existing buildings	2000m ²	2000m ²
Orama settlement area in the bush area	10 hectares	10 hectares

Submissions 754/89, 859/89 request the following:

Table 12.3 should be amended so that it provides for reduced minimum site areas within local retail areassuch as at Tryphena when a comprehensive approach to wastewater is adopted.

Submission 1284/30 requests the following:

Amend the provisions of table 12.3 to be as follows;

Settlement area	Minimum site area	Minimum average site area
Tryphena (local retailing area)	1500m ²#	1500m ²#
Tryphena (headland protection and residential amenity areas)	2000m ²*	3000m ²*
Tryphena (Mulberry Grove School, reserves and coastal margin areas)	NC	NC
Medlands (residential amenity area)	2000m ²*	2000m ²*
Medlands (quarry, dune and wetland conservation areas)	NC	NC
Claris (local retailing area)	1500m ²#	1500m ²#
Claris (residential amenity area)	1500m ²*	1500m ²*
Claris (light industry area)	2000m ²	2000m ²
Claris (airport, dune and wetland conservation areas)	NC	NC
Okupu (residential amenity area)	2000m ²*	2000m ²*
Okupu (reserve and dune protection area)	NC	NC
Whangaparapara (residential amenity and visitor accommodation areas)	2000m ²*	3000m ²*
Awana (residential amenity area)	2000m ²*	2000m ²*
Okiwi (local retailing area)	1500m ²#	1500m ²#
Okiwi (residential amenity area)	2000m ²*	4000m ²*
Okiwi (Okiwi school and domain area)	NC	NC
Port Fitzroy (residential amenity area	5000m ²*	7000m ²*
Port Fitzroy (local retailing area)	1500m ²#	1500m ²#
Aotea	NC	NC

# or where clustered or abutting buildings are proposed there is no minimum lot size provided that sufficient land area is available to provide for complying parking and wastewater disposal requirements.

* Lot sizes may be reduced to an average lot size per dwelling of 1000m2 where a discretionary application as a Comprehensive management Plan (or similar process) is sought for cluster development where communal wastewater systems and parking are to be provided on separate communally owned lots.

Tryphena

Submission 1408/1 requests the following:

Tryphena (headland protection and residential amenity area) - Increase the minimum site area of 3000m ² to 5000m ² .

Submissions 283/1, 2595/1 request the following:

Change the minimum lot size from 2000m2 to 1200m2 to allow for the subdivision of the sum of Lot 3 and Lot 6 DP 41332 (Medland Road, Tryphena) into 3 lots with a minimum area of 1200m2 for any lot.

Medlands

Submission 278/1 requests the following:

Reduce the land sites (for the Medlands residential amenity area) from 2000m ² to 1000m ² as in keeping with the rest of Sandhills Road.

Submission 1408/2 requests the following:

Medlands (residential amenity area) - Increase the minimum site area of 2000m ² to 7000m ².

Submission 3089/2 requests the following:

Allow for further subdivision in Medlands Settlement Area.

Claris

Submissions 619/77, 859/90, 618/141, 1288/128, 754/90, 2670/75 request the following:

Table 12.3 should be amended so that it provides for reduced minimum site areas within local retail areas and within the Claris light industry area, when a comprehensive approach to wastewater is adopted.

Submission 1408/9 requests the following:

Claris (light industry area) increase the minimum site area of 2000m ² to 4000m ².

Submission 2905/1 requests the following:

Retain the subdivision controls applicable to the Claris Light Industrial Area within the Claris Settlement area under Part 12.

Okupu

Submission 1408/4 requests the following:

Okupu (residential amenity area) - Increase the minimum site area of 2000m ² to 5000m ².

Whangaparapara

Submission 1408/6 requests the following:

Whangaparapara (residential amenity area)- Increase the minimum site area of 2000m ² to 5000m ².

Okiwi

Submission 942/2 requests the following:

For the four large lots within the Okiwi settlement area, increase the minimum subdivision size where the lot borders or contains a stream to 1ha.

Submission 1408/8 requests the following:

Okiwi (residential amenity area) - Increase the minimum site area of 2000m ² to 6000m ².

Submission 3046/1 requests the following:

In Table 12.3 for the Okiwi residential amenity area, increase the minimum site area from 2000m ² to 7000m ²; increase the minimum average from 4000m ² to 10,000m ² (1ha).

Submission 3046/3 requests the following:

Provide for "ecological subdivision" in the Okiwi residential amenity area, which should include a minimum lot size criteria (as per submission 3046/1) and restricted ownership of pets - with no cats.

Port Fitzroy

Submission 1408/7 requests the following:

For Port Fitzroy (residential amenity area) increase the minimum site area of 5000m ² to 7000m ².

4.87.1 Planners analysis

In analysing the above submissions, it is considered necessary to first outline the settlement areas envisaged for Great Barrier Island.

There are nine settlement areas identified within Great Barrier island only:

Tryphena
Medlands
Claris
Okupu
Whangaparapara
Awana
Okiwi
Port Fitzroy
Aotea (encompassing Motairehe and Kaoa).

These areas have historically been areas of settlement and they are important centres of community for the people of Great Barrier. Some of these settlements have the capability to grow into the future, while others are recognised as needing to be contained within existing areas due to the fragile or sensitive nature of the surrounding environment.

There is an overall objective and policies for each settlement area. Each sub-area also has its own set of objectives and policies that relate to the particular characteristics of that area. The specific densities for each sub-area as well as the standards and terms and criteria proposed for the settlement areas, reflect the existing built development, the proposed development envisaged for these areas as well as the landscape and amenity values identified within these areas. Indeed, Auckland City has undertaken a land-use survey that identifies development and subdivision potential in each of the settlement areas.

The settlement plans have therefore been developed to enable an integrated approach to resource management for the settlement areas. They recognise issues around reverse sensitivity by locating similar activities in the same locations, and enable a framework for sustainable management for activities on the island. Where growth, including subdivision, is to occur, it is encouraged within or around the settlement areas rather than compromising the landscape values of outlying areas.

The resource management strategy for the settlement areas states:

Each settlement area has a settlement plan which focuses on existing areas where development has occurred. The settlement plans have been developed to enable an integrated approach to resource management for the settlement areas. They recognise issues around reverse sensitivity by locating similar activities in the same locations, and enable a framework for sustainable management for activities on the island. Where growth is to occur, it is encouraged within or around the settlement areas rather than compromising the landscape values of outlying areas.

The framework recognises the need to enable the community of Great Barrier to undertake activities that will assist with sustaining and maintaining an economy on the island, while also recognising that the key asset to the island is its natural environment and unique position in the gulf. The settlement plans recognise that an element of the islands is the human environment, and that people and the community play an important part in giving the island its unique character.

Where appropriate, each settlement area has identified sub-areas within where specific activities can take place. There is an overall objective, and policies for each settlement area. Each sub-area also has its own set of objectives and policies that relate to the particular characteristics of that area. Subdivision is also controlled based on the particular characteristics of the surrounding land through part 12 - Subdivision.

The objectives and policies for all the settlement areas are as follows:

Objective

To provide for limited growth in existing settlements while protecting the natural environment.

Policies

By identifying areas in which additional subdivision can occur within the Okiwi and Claris settlement areas.
By identifying boundaries that limit the expansion of the settlements into surrounding areas in order to avoid the spread of development into sensitive natural areas.

Objective

To facilitate appropriate development in suitable places throughout the settlement areas, based on the type of existing activities.

Policies

By identifying areas within the settlement areas that have common characteristics, so that these activities can support each other and limit adverse effects on more sensitive activities.
By ensuring that development maintains or enhances the high landscape and ecological values of Great Barrier.
By limiting adverse effects of activities and encouraging or requiring low impact design methods including:
1. Onsite management and re-use of stormwater and wastewater.
2. Noise insulation.
3. Minimising impermeable surfaces.
4. Using renewable energy sources.
5. Maintaining or increasing indigenous biodiversity.
6. Mitigation of visual impacts of development.

4.87.2 General submissions for all settlement areas

4.87.2.1 Submissions 1405/12, 1406/12, 1422/1, 1447/1, 1485/1, 1521/1, 1937/1, 1992/1, 2164/1, 2225/1, 2250/1, 2305/1, 2320/1, 2364/1, 2376/1, 2379/1, 2747/1, 2862/1, 3609/1, 3678/1, 3753/1, 3780/1, 1921/1, 2713/1

The above submissions request a reduction to the minimum site size within all the settlement areas. These reductions include a minimum site size of 1500m ² with no average site size, to a minimum site size of 1500m ² with a 2000m ² average site size. Submission 2713/1 requests a general amendment to reduce site sizes. Several of these submissions seek a reduction in order to encourage development opportunities through subdivision, increase population numbers and provide for social and economic growth on the Island.

The settlement areas have been identified as having the capability to grow into the future and to provide centres of community for the people of Great Barrier. However, as already outlined in section 4.72 above, the economic well being of people and communities must be considered as part of the sustainable management of resources however, a balance also needs to be struck between providing greater densities, environmental protection and retaining natural character, visual character, amenity and ecological values of the settlement areas.

In analysing the above submissions is it is important to note that each settlement area has different characteristics. Therefore, the minimum and average site sizes for these areas should take in consideration the particular characteristics of the sub-area and the objectives and policies applicable to them.

It is not considered that the minimum site size for all settlement areas should be reduced to 1500m ² due to the fact that certain sub areas, such as headland protection and reserve and coastal margin areas, have high visual amenity and ecological values which should be protected. Reducing the site sizes within these areas may adversely affect the amenity and ecological values and be contrary to the objectives and policies for these areas. Moreover, in certain sub areas, it is important to provide minimum and average site sizes which are consistent with the land use rules for the settlement area. For example, in the residential amenity areas, there are several non-residential activities such as care centres, community facilities, art galleries and museums, which require a degree of open space around the building/activity to ensure that any reverse sensitivity effects are not adverse on neighbouring residential sites.

Therefore, after reviewing the minimum and average site sizes in table 12.3, it is considered that two sub-areas within two of the settlement areas should be reduced to 1500m ². These are in the Tryphena residential amenity area and the Claris residential amenity area. In addition, it is recommended that average site size for the Whangaparapara residential amenity and visitor accommodation areas is removed. Reasons for these amendments are as follows:

Tryphena residential amenity area

The proposed minimum site size for the Tryphena residential amenity area is 3000m ² with a 7000m ² minimum average site size. In analysing the minimum site sizes for the Tryphena residential amenity area, it is considered necessary to first turn to the relevant objectives and policies envisaged for sub area:

Objective - Tryphena settlement area

To allow for continued development of existing sites in Tryphena in a way that does not compromise the bush covered character of the settlement.

Policies

By limiting the adverse visual effects of buildings through standards on colour, and ensuring that the natural landscape remains the dominant element in terms of visual amenity.
By ensuring that development is subject to bulk, coverage and location standards, and where these standards are exceeded, that the adverse effects are avoided or mitigated.
By limiting removal of indigenous vegetation in order that drainage, stormwater and sedimentation effects are reduced or avoided and landscape values are maintained.
By protecting riparian areas around streams and where activities affect riparian areas, requiring planting to maintain or enhance water quality.
By controlling the scale and form of buildings within the headland protection areas and reserves and coastal margin areas, to ensure that buildings integrate with the landscape.

Objective - Tryphena residential amenity area

To maintain the low impact, bush covered, and residential character of the Tryphena residential amenity area.

Policies

By limiting the footprint of buildings to ensure that the size of buildings is of a residential scale.
By providing for home occupations and homestays as a permitted activity to enable an economic use of appropriate scale for residential sites.
By limiting activities that are likely to have a detrimental effect on residential amenity due to effects such as noise or traffic

The residential amenity area within the Tryphena settlement area has been intensively settled and comprises a mix of commercial, residential and visitor activities, which are nestled into the bush environment that surrounds the settlement area. The Tryphena settlement area is considered an appropriate location for future development given that the area comprises a mixture of development and is the main sea access to Great Barrier. Providing for growth within this area is consistent with the existing provisions in the area and the need to provide for an important centre of community for the people of Great Barrier. The characteristics of the Tryphena residential amenity area are different to those within the Medlands residential amenity area, which has adjoining dune and wetland conservation areas (refer to section 4.87.2.7 below).

The overall resource management strategy for this sub-area is reflected in the land use rules for the residential amenity area which provides for the construction of buildings as permitted activities provided they are in accordance with the permitted standards within the Plan. These standards include clause 10c.4.8 (Colour of building material in settlement areas) which provides a range of colours and materials to be used within these areas at a permitted level. Permitted land use activities include residential uses such as home occupations and homestay accommodation as well as care centres, community facilities, art galleries and museums. Discretionary activity consent is required for visitor accommodation, camping facilities, entertainment facilities, dairies, care centres, art galleries and healthcare services.

The site sizes within the Tryphena residential amenity area range from 809m ² to 9420m ² with the majority of sites being between 850m ² � 1300m ². This is significantly less that the site sizes within the proposed Plan however, as already noted in section 12.1, in the past, subdivision rules within residential areas resulted in smaller site sizes that were inappropriate to the village scale. In addition, the historic pattern of subdivision that has occurred on Great Barrier Island did not relate to the natural characteristics of the land to accommodated on-site effluent disposal systems.

It is considered that the proposed site sizes (3000m ²minimum site size with 7000m ² average site size) for the Tryphena residential amenity area are not consistent with the objective and polices of this sub-area. The objectives and policies seek to maintain the low impact, bush covered, and residential character of the Tryphena residential amenity area. The proposed site sizes are not considered to maintain the character of the area particularly, as existing site sizes are significantly less that the proposed and this sub-area already contains an intensive form of residential and non-residential development.

It is considered that a 1500m ² minimum site size for the residential amenity area (with no average site size) within the Tryphena settlement area will encourage growth within this area and ensure that the new building sizes are of a residential scale that will not have adverse effects on the natural character and the visual amenity values of the area. In addition, this site size is still larger than many of its counterparts but it is more consistent with maintaining the character of this landscape. The 1500m ² size will also provide sufficient capacity to service land use developments and create open space in which to integrate activities such as care centres, boarding centres or hostels which are provided for at a permitted level in this sub-area. Moreover, this minimum site size will accommodate built forms while providing for on-site car-parking and manoeuvring and effective stormwater and wastewater disposal.

Overall, it is considered that reducing the minimum site size to 1500m ² and removing the average site size of the Tryphena residential amenity area will be consistent with the objectives and policies, which seek to maintain the character of this sub-area, while providing for non-residential activities where their scale, intensity and location are compatible with the residential character of the area.

The general intent of submissions 1405/12, 1406/12, 1422/1, 1447/1, 1485/1, 1521/1, 1937/1, 1992/1, 2164/1, 2225/1, 2250/1, 2305/1, 2320/1, 2364/1, 2376/1, 2379/1, 2747/1, 2862/1, 3609/1, 3678/1, 3753/1, 3780/1, 1921/1, 2713/1 is to reduce the minimum site size for all the settlement areas, which includes the Tryphena residential amenity area. As the minimum and average site sizes of some of the settlement areas will not change, these submissions can only be accepted in part.

It is therefore considered that the above submissions should be accepted in part and table 12.3 of Part 12 is amended so that the minimum site size for the Tryphena residential amenity sub-area is reduced to 1500m ² with no average site size requirement

Claris residential amenity area

The proposed minimum site size for the Claris residential amenity area is 1500m ² with an average of 2000m ². In analysing the minimum site sizes for this residential amenity, it is considered necessary to first turn to the relevant objectives and policies envisaged for sub area:

10b.7.2.1 Objective

To consolidate similar activities in the areas identified to ensure that effects of activities do not affect the function of the airport and surrounding activities .

Policies

By preventing any building or land use activity which may compromise the operation of the airport by being sensitive to effects from the operation of the airport, with particular regard to noise sensitivity and safety.
By not providing for the construction, alteration of, or addition to, any building that exceeds the height limits for the airport protection fans identified for Claris airfield.
By limiting the adverse visual effects of buildings through standards on colour, and ensuring that the natural landscape remains the dominant element in terms of visual amenity.

10b.7.2.2 Objective

To create a functioning centre for Great Barrier.

Policies

By providing for retail premises and further development to reinforce the role of the area as a gateway to the island.
By protecting activities in their respective areas from reverse sensitivity effects.

Objective - Claris residential amenity area

To maintain and enhance amenity and the existing patterns of residential development to the south of Claris township.

Policies

By limiting the footprint of buildings to ensure that building sizes are of a residential scale.
By providing for home occupations and homestays as a permitted activity to enable an economic use of appropriate scale for residential sites.
By limiting activities that are likely to have a detrimental effect on residential amenity due to effects such as noise or traffic.

The Claris settlement area has been intensively settled and contains the council service centre, industrial activities, medical and community centres, and the main grouping of shops on the east side of the island. It adjoins the island's main airport, which is the arrival and departure point for most travellers on regular flights to and from Auckland throughout the year. This settlement area is considered an appropriate location for future development given that the area comprises a mixture of development and is the main transportation corridor to Great Barrier. Providing for growth within this area is also consistent with the existing provisions in the area and the need to provide for an important centre of community for the people of Great Barrier. The characteristics of the Claris residential amenity area are different to those within the Tryphena residential amenity area and the Medlands residential amenity area, which has adjoining dune and wetland conservation areas (refer to section 4.87.2.7 below).

As outlined above, the overall resource management strategy for this sub-area is reflected in the land use rules for the residential amenity area which provides for the construction of buildings as permitted activities provided they are in accordance with the permitted standards within the Plan. These standards include clause 10c.4.8 (Colour of building material in settlement areas) which provides a range of colours and materials to be used within these areas at a permitted level and a maximum permitted building coverage of 15%. Permitted land use activities include residential uses such as home occupations and homestay accommodation as well as care centres, community facilities and art galleries and museums. Discretionary activity consent is required for visitor accommodation, camping facilities, entertainment facilities, dairies, care centres, art galleries and healthcare services.

The residential amenity area within the Claris settlement area is located to the south of the settlement area along Hector Sanderson Road. Site sizes range from 809m ² to 1760m ² with the majority of sites being between 809m ² -1100m ². These proposed site sizes are significantly less than the site sizes within the proposed Plan and therefore do not reflect the existing pattern of development.

It is considered that the proposed site sizes (1500m ²minimum site size with 2000m ² average site size) for the Claris residential amenity area are not consistent with the objective and polices of this sub-area. The objectives and policies seek to maintain and enhance amenity and the existing patterns of residential development to the south of Claris township however, the proposed site sizes are not considered to maintain the existing patterns of development particularly, as existing site sizes are significantly less than the site sizes in the proposed plan.

It is considered that having no average site sizes for the residential amenity area within the Claris settlement area will encourage growth within this area and ensure that the new building sizes are of a residential scale that will not have adverse effects on the natural character and the visual amenity values of the area. In addition, this site size is still larger than many of its counterparts but it is more consistent with maintaining the character of this landscape. The 1500m ² minimum site size site will also provide sufficient capacity to service land use developments and create open space in which to integrate activities such as care centres, boarding centres or hostels which are provided for at a permitted level in this sub-area. Moreover, this minimum site size will accommodate built forms while providing for on-site car-parking and manoeuvring and effective stormwater and wastewater disposal.

Overall, it is considered that removing the average site size requirement for the Claris residential amenity area will be consistent with the objectives and policies of this area which seek to maintain the existing development pattern of this sub-area, while providing for non-residential activities where their scale, intensity and location are compatible with the residential character of the area. This site size will also reflect the modified nature of this area and provide for a greater level of growth.

The general intent of submissions 1405/12, 1406/12, 1422/1, 1447/1, 1485/1, 1521/1, 1937/1, 1992/1, 2164/1, 2225/1, 2250/1, 2305/1, 2320/1, 2364/1, 2376/1, 2379/1, 2747/1, 2862/1, 3609/1, 3678/1, 3753/1, 3780/1, 1921/1, 2713/1 is to reduce the minimum site size for all the settlement areas, which includes the Claris residential amenity area. As the minimum and average site sizes of some of the settlement areas will not change, these submissions can only be accepted in part.

It is therefore considered that the above submissions should be accepted in part and table 12.3 of Part 12 is amended so that there is no average site size for the Claris residential amenity sub-area.

Whangaparapara residential and visitor accommodation areas.

The proposed minimum and average site sizes for the Residential and visitor accommodation sub-areas are 2000m ² and 3000m ² respectively. In analysing the minimum and average site sizes for this sub-area, it is considered necessary to first turn to the relevant objectives and policies envisaged the area:

10b.9.2 Objective - Whangaparapara settlement area

To maintain the high value natural character of the wider Whangaparapara area, and protect the function of the visitor accommodation.

Policies

By limiting the adverse visual effects of buildings through standards on colour, and ensuring that the natural landscape remains the dominant element in terms of visual amenity.
By controlling adverse effects of buildings on the environment through bulk, coverage and location controls, and where these standards are exceeded, ensuring that the adverse effects are avoided or mitigated.
By limiting the removal of indigenous vegetation so that drainage, stormwater and sedimentation problems are mitigated or avoided, and landscape values are maintained.
By protecting riparian areas around streams and requiring replanting to maintain or
enhance water quality.
By only including existing development within the Whangaparapara settlement area.

10b.9.3 Objective - Whangaparapara residential amenity area

To maintain the low impact, bush covered character of the Whangaparapara residential amenity area .

Policies

By limiting the footprint of buildings to ensure building sizes are of a residential scale.
By providing for home occupations and homestays as a permitted activity to enable an economic use of appropriate scale for residential sites.
By limiting activities that are likely to have a detrimental effect on residential amenity due to effects such as noise or traffic.

Objective - Whangaparapara visitor accommodation area

To provide for the long term function of the existing visitor accommodation and associated

activities at Whangaparapara .

Policies

By providing for activities that will support the function of the tourist complex.
By ensuring that residential activities are only allowed where they are required for the management of tourist complex.

The Whangaparapara area provides for visitor accommodation and small scale residential living within an area of high natural character and landscape value. The future for Whangaparapara involves protecting the wharf and visitor accommodation, maintaining the high landscape qualities, and providing for the existing residential area without any further expansion into the surrounding catchment.

The Whangaparapara residential amenity area sub-area is integrated amongst regenerating vegetation on the slopes above the bay. Consequently, these areas have high natural character and landscape value. This settlement area is considered an appropriate location for future development provided it is contained to within the existing settlement area. Therefore, the larger sites to the south of this settlement area have the potential to be subdivided.

The resource management strategy for the Whangaparapara residential amenity area is reflected in the land use rules for the residential amenity area which provides for the construction of buildings as permitted activities provided they are in accordance with the permitted standards within the Plan. Permitted land use activities include residential uses such as home occupations and homestay accommodation as well as care centres, community facilities and art galleries and museums. Discretionary activity consent is required for visitor accommodation, camping facilities, entertainment facilities, dairies, care centres, art galleries and healthcare services.

The visitor accommodation area is an isolated site located at 735 Whangaparapara Road (3081m ²) and has been classified for its current use as a motel and residence. The resource management strategy for the visitor accommodation area also enables camping facilities, function facilities, restaurants and tourist complexes as permitted activities.

The site sizes within the Whangaparapara residential amenity area range from 822m ² to 21271m ² with the majority of sites being between 1000m ² � 2500m ². It is considered that while the minimum site size reflects the existing pattern of development, the average site size of 3000m ² will not necessarily provide for the maintenance of the existing settled area as envisaged in the objectives and policies. It is considered that the average minimum site size could be removed in its entirety as this will ensure that the low impact, bush cover of the area is maintained, while also providing for a limited level of growth within this area for sites that are greater than 4000m ².

In addition, while this site size is still larger than many of its counterparts, it is more consistent with maintaining the character of this landscape and providing for growth. The 2000m ² minimum site size will also provide sufficient capacity to service land use developments and create open space in which to integrate activities such as care centres, boarding centres or hostels which are provided for at a permitted level in this sub-area. Moreover, this minimum site size will accommodate built forms while providing for on-site car-parking and manoeuvring and effective stormwater and wastewater disposal.

Overall, it is considered that removing the average site size requirement for the Whangaparapara residential amenity area and visitor accommodation area will be consistent with the objectives and policies of these areas. These provisions seek to provide for the long term function of the existing visitor accommodation, the maintenance of the bush environment and a limited level of growth.

The general intent of submissions 1405/12, 1406/12, 1422/1, 1447/1, 1485/1, 1521/1, 1937/1, 1992/1, 2164/1, 2225/1, 2250/1, 2305/1, 2320/1, 2364/1, 2376/1, 2379/1, 2747/1, 2862/1, 3609/1, 3678/1, 3753/1, 3780/1, 1921/1, 2713/1 is to reduce the minimum site size for all the settlement areas, which includes the Whangaparapara residential amenity area and visitor accommodation area. As the minimum and average site sizes of some of the settlement areas will not change, these submissions can only be accepted in part.

It is therefore considered that the above submissions should be accepted in part and table 12.3 of Part 12 is amended so that the average site size for the Whangaparapara residential amenity sub-area and visitor accommodation is removed in its entirety so that minimum site size is 2000m ².

4.87.2.2 Submission 2846/5

The above submission requests that the three sites owned by the Orama Christian Fellowship at 300 Karaka Road on Great Barrier Island is classified as the "Orama Settlement Area". The submission has drafted a comprehensive set of provisions to support this submission including proposed sites sizes as follows:

*Settlement area*	*Minimum site area*	*Minimum average site area*
Orama settlement area where there are existing buildings	2000m ²	2000m ²
Orama settlement area in the bush area	10 hectares	10 hectares

The reclassification of 300 Karaka into a new settlement area will be considered in hearings report for the settlement areas. In the event amendments as a result of submission 2846, then consequential amendments to Part 12 may be considered necessary and will be addressed at the time of the hearing.

4.87.2.3 Submission 1284/30

The above submission seeks amendments to table 12.3 as follows:

Settlement area	Minimum site area	Minimum average site area
Tryphena (local retailing area)	1500m ²#	1500m ²#
Tryphena (headland protection and residential amenity areas)	2000m ²*	3000m ²*
Tryphena (Mulberry Grove School, reserves and coastal margin areas)	NC	NC
Medlands (residential amenity area)	2000m ²*	2000m ²*
Medlands (quarry, dune and wetland conservation areas)	NC	NC
Claris (local retailing area)	1500m ²#	1500m ²#
Claris (residential amenity area)	1500m ²*	1500m ²*
Claris (light industry area)	2000m ²	2000m ²
Claris (airport, dune and wetland conservation areas)	NC	NC
Okupu (residential amenity area)	2000m ²*	2000m ²*
Okupu (reserve and dune protection area)	NC	NC
Whangaparapara (residential amenity and visitor accommodation areas)	2000m ²*	3000m ²*
Awana (residential amenity area)	2000m ²*	2000m ²*
Okiwi (local retailing area)	1500m ²#	1500m ²#
Okiwi (residential amenity area)	2000m ²*	4000m ²*
Okiwi (Okiwi school and domain area)	NC	NC
Port Fitzroy (residential amenity area	5000m ²*	7000m ²*
Port Fitzroy (local retailing area)	1500m ²#	1500m ²#
Aotea	NC	NC

It should be noted that, in terms of minimum and average site size, submitter 1284/30 recommends changing the minimum site sizes to the Tryphena (headland protection and residential amenity areas) from a minimum site size of 3000m ² and an average of 7000m ² to a minimum of 2000m ² with an average of 3000m ². In addition, the submitter recommends reducing the average site size of Claris's residential amenity area from 2000m ² to 1500m ².

The above submission therefore raises four matters which require consideration. These are addressed as follows:

Reducing the minimum site size of Tryphena's headland protection and residential amenity areas from 3000m ² with an average of 7000m ² to a minimum of 2000m ² with an average of 3000m ².

The objectives and policies for the Tryphena residential amenity area are outlined in section 4.87.2.1 above.

As already outlined in section 4.87.2.1 above, it is considered that removing the average site size of this sub-area will be consistent with the objectives and policies, which seek to maintain the character of this sub-area, while providing for non-residential activities where their scale, intensity and location are compatible with the residential character of the area.

While the above recommendation does not specifically reflect the submitter's request, it is considered that as the general intent of submission 1284/30 is to reduce the minimum and average site size for the Tryphena residential amenity area, then this submission can be accepted in part.

As such, it is recommended that submission 1284/30 be accepted in part and table 12.2 is amended so that the average site size for the Tryphena residential amenity area is removed in its entirety.

In terms of the specific objectives and policies for the Tryphena headland protection area, these as follows:

10b.5.5 Objective - Tryphena headland protection area

To retain the high amenity value of the headland protection area as a means of separating the Mulberry Grove and Gooseberry Flat residential areas.

Policies

By discouraging buildings from being located on significant ridgelines identified on the planning maps.
By protecting established podocarp forests, through restricting vegetation removal in the headland protection area.

With regard to the Tryphena headland protection sub-area, it is considered that these areas have the greatest potential for subdivision given that sizes of some of the sites which comprise 43,554m ² (29 Mulberry Grove Road), 45088m ² (398 Mulberry Grove Road), 11891m ² (5 Mulberry Grice Road), 46397m ²(256B Shoal bay Road), 407245m ² (120 Shoal Bay Road) and 22880m ² (9 Cape Barrier Road).

This strategy is also reflected in the land use rules for headland and protection areas which restricts indigenous vegetation removal to 50m ². In addition, the construction of buildings are permitted activities provided they are in accordance with the permitted standards within the Plan. These standards include clause 10c.4.8 (Colour of building material in settlement areas) which provides a range of colours and materials to be used within these areas at a permitted level. Permitted land use activities relate primarily to residential uses such as are home occupations and homestay accommodation however, visitor accommodation is provided for at a discretionary level.

Such an approach within both the land use and subdivision provisions is considered consistent with objectives and policies for sub-area. Therefore, providing minimum site sizes of 3000m ² with an average of 7000m ² and restricting vegetation removal will retain the high amenity value of the headland protection area and protect established podocarp forests. Ridgeline controls contained in clause 10c.4.7 will also ensure that the location of buildings above the ridge will require a comprehensive assessment of environmental effects with the provision for notification and/or decline should the effects on the environment be more than minor. These rules, in conjunction with the land use provisions will provide for growth in this area while ensuring that the headland and bush environment are not adversely affected. The larger site sizes will also act to separate the Mulberry Grove and Gooseberry Flat residential areas.

For reasons outlines above, it is considered that the minimum and average site sizes for the headland protection area be retained so that minimum site sizes are 3000m ² and average sites sizes are 7000m ². Accordingly, is recommended that submission 1284/30 be rejected as it relates to the minimum and average site sizes for the Tryphena headland protection area.

Reducing the average site size of Claris's residential amenity area from 2000m ² to an average size of 1500m ².

The objectives and policies for the Claris residential amenity area is outlined in section 4.87.2.1 above.

As already outlined in section 4.87.2.1 above, it is considered that removing the average site size for this sub-area will be consistent with the objectives and policies of this area, which seek to maintain the existing development pattern of this sub-area, while providing for non-residential activities where their scale, intensity and location are compatible with the residential character of the area. This site size will also reflect the modified nature of this area and provide for a greater level of growth.

As such, it is recommended that submission 1284/30 be accepted and table 12.2 is amended so that the average site size for the Claris residential amenity area is removed in its entirety.

No minimum site size in all settlement areas where there is a clustering of buildings with sufficient land area available for complying parking and wastewater disposal requirements.

The clustering of buildings on sites have already been requested and analysed in section 4.11, of this report where it has been recommended that the decisions requested should be rejected. Accordingly, it is not considered necessary to repeat this assessment.

It is further noted that the above decision is not supported as it is subjective in nature and resembles a criterion. By having discretion to consider minimum and average site sizes at it relates to each subdivision proposal is open to a variety of different interpretations and does not provide certainly over the extent to which the subdivision can be undertaken within the environment.

On this basis and for reasons already set out in section 4.11, it is recommended that submission 1284/30 be rejected as it relates to no minimum site sizes in all settlement areas where there is a clustering of buildings.

A reduction of average site size to 1000m ² per dwelling where a discretionary application is made for a Comprehensive Management Plan for cluster development. This is subject to communal wastewater facilities and car parking on separate sites.

Cluster subdivision and comprehensive management plans have already been considered in sections 4.9 and 4.11 above. Accordingly, it is not considered necessary to repeat these assessments.

Therefore, for the same reasons outlined above and in sections 4.9 and 4.11 it is recommended that submission 1284/30 is rejected it relates to cluster development and comprehensive management plans. The consequential amendments requested to table 12.2 is therefore rejected.

4.87.2.4 Submissions 754/89, 859/89

The above submissions request that Table 12.3 should be amended so that it provides for reduced minimum site areas within local retail areas such as at Tryphena when a comprehensive approach to wastewater is adopted.

For similar reasons outlined in section 4.87.2.3 above, the above decision is not supported as it is subjective in nature and resembles a criterion. By having discretion to consider minimum and average site sizes at it relates to wastewater disposal only is open to a variety of different interpretations and does not provide certainly over the extent to which the subdivision can be undertaken within the environment.

This approach also fails to take into consideration that minimum and average site sizes contained in tables12.1 and 12.2 are based not only on the physical characteristics of the land and its capacity to integrate development impacts, but also on the natural character, visual character and amenity values that contribution to the land units and the overall character of the Hauraki Gulf Islands

On this basis and for reasons already set out in section 4.87.2.3, it is recommended that submissions 754/89 and 859/89 are rejected.

4.87.2.5 Submissions 283/1, 2595/1 - Tryphena Settlement Area

The above submissions seek to c hange the minimum lot size from 2000m2 to 1200m2 to allow for the subdivision of the sum of Lot 3 and Lot 6 DP 41332 (Medland Road, Tryphena) into 3 lots with a minimum area of 1200m2 for any lot.

The subject sites are identified as 7 and 13 Medlands road and have site sizes comprising 2643m ² and 1629m ² respectively. These sites are located within the Tryphena residential amenity area. It is unclear whether the above submitters request a change to the minimum and average site size for the entire residential amenity area or only in relation to these sites. In the event the submitters wish to reduce the site sizes for 7 and 13 Medlands Road only, it should be noted that the Plan's provisions must be consistent and relate to all land which is classified as a specific land unit or settlement area. The Plan cannot specifically identify sites that are subject to different planning provisions, particularly when they display the same or similar characteristics as other sites which are classified as the same land unit or settlement area. The Planning provisions must therefore be consistent so that all sites which are classified as the same land unit or settlement area are subject to the same set of provisions. In the event that a person wishes to infringe these provisions, then a resource consent is required which is assessed on its merits and on a cases by case basis.

Section 4.87.2.1 already outlines the overall resource management strategy for this sub-area and recommends reducing the minimum site size of this sub-area to 1500m ² with no average site size requirement. This site size is considered to be consistent with the objectives and policies, which seek to maintain the character of this sub-area, while providing for non-residential activities where their scale, intensity and location are compatible with the residential character of the area.

It is not considered appropriate to reduce the minimum site size below 1500m ² as this may adversely affect the natural character and visual amenity values of this sub-area, whilst also restricting on-site car-parking and manoeuvring and stormwater and wastewater disposal. The 1500m ² minimum site size therefore reflects and support the resource management strategy envisaged in the proposed Plan.

While the above recommendation does not specifically reflect the submitters' request, it is considered that as the general intent of submissions 283/1 and 2595/1 is to reduce the minimum and average site size for the Tryphena residential amenity area, then these submissions can be accepted in part.

As such, it is recommended that submissions 283/1 and 2595/1 be accepted in part and table 12.2 is amended so that the minimum site size for the Tryphena residential amenity area is reduced to 1500m ² with no average site size requirement.

4.87.2.6 Submission 1408/1 - Tryphena Settlement Area

The above submission requests that the minimum site area for the headland protection and residential amenity sub area within the Tryphena settlement area is increased from 3000m ² to 5000m ². In supporting this request, the submitter states that the current minimum site size is too small as the steep terrain within the settlement area does not lend itself to such intensive development and consequently, most sites would have access and engineering difficulties. In addition, the removal of vegetation through land use development will result in a fragmented forest cover and make the area vulnerable to colonisation of exotic plant pest species. The submitter further states that the minimum site size will deteriorate the visual amenity from Tryphena harbour and contamination into the harbour would occur more commonly.

The objectives and policies of the Tryphena settlement area and the headland protection sub-area are contained in sections 4.87.2.1 and 4.87.2.3 above.

While increasing the minimum site area to 5000m ² will increase the amount of open space around built forms and protect natural landscape values within these the settlement areas, the site size is not be consistent with the overall objective for the settlement areas, which seeks to provide for limited growth in existing settlements. As outlined in clause 10b.5.1:

The future of Tryphena will be to continue to provide the main sea access to Great Barrier, with a mix of commercial, residential and visitor activities, nestled into the bush environment in the five areas identified in the settlement plan.

Residential amenity area

The Tryphena settlement area seeks to provide for the continued development of existing sites without adversely affecting the bush character of the area. Increasing the minimum site size of the residential amenity areas will effectively prevent any further subdivision within this sub area as there are no sites with minimum site sizes of 10,000m ². Of those which have the potential to be subdivided under the current minimum site size, these sites would provide for one additional site only.

Therefore as already outlined in section 4.87.2.1 above, it is considered that reducing the average site size of this sub-area to 1500m ²will be consistent with the objectives and policies of this area, which seeks to maintain the existing development pattern of this sub-area, while providing for non-residential activities where their scale, intensity and location are compatible with the residential character of the area. This site size will also reflect the modified nature of this area and provide for a greater level of growth.

As such, it is recommended that submission 1408/1 is rejected as it relates to the Tryphena residential amenity area.

Headland protection area

As already outlined in section 4.87.2.3 above, the headland protect sub-area has the potential for subdivision given that sizes of some of the sites comprise 43,554m ² (29 Mulberry Grove Road), 45088m ² (398 Mulberry Grove Road), 11891m ² (5 Mulberry Grice Road), 46397m ²(256B Shoal bay Road), 407245m ² (120 Shoal Bay Road) and 22880m ² (9 Cape Barrier Road).

This sub-area has been identified as having the capability to grow into the future. It is also considered an appropriate location for future development given that the area in which it is located comprises a mixture of development including residential, retail, a school and recreational uses.

Such an approach within both the land use and subdivision provisions is considered consistent with objectives and policies for sub-area. Therefore, providing minimum site sizes of 3000m ² with and average of 7000m ² and restricting vegetation removal will retain the high amenity value of the headland protection area and protect established podocarp forests. Ridgeline controls contained in clause 10c.4.7 will also ensure that the location of buildings above the ridge will require a comprehensive assessment of environmental effects with the provision for notification and/or decline should the effects on the environment be more than minor. These rules, in conjunction with the land use provisions, will provide for growth in this area while ensuring that the headland and bush environment are not adversely affected. The larger site sizes will also act to separate the Mulberry Grove and Gooseberry Flat residential areas. Therefore, it is considered that the existing minimum and average site sizes will provide for a level of growth which does not adversely affect the headland and bush environment.

For reasons outlined above, it is considered that the minimum site size for headland protection areas be retained at 3000m ². Accordingly, is recommended that submission 1408/1 be rejected.

4.87.2.7 Submission 278/1 - Medlands settlement area

The above submission requests that the minimum site size for Medlands residential amenity area is reduced from 2000m ² to 1000m ². This submission considers that the existing 2000m ² minimum site size does not reflect the existing subdivision pattern along Sandhills Road in the environment and that a reduced minimum site size should reflect the existing site sizes of the residential amenity area which are typically less than 2000m ².

In analysing the above submission, it is considered necessary to first turn to the relevant objectives and policies envisaged for sub area:

Objective - Medlands settlement area

To recognise existing development and subdivision patterns at Medlands Beach, while protecting the sensitive nature of the foredune, wetlands and Oruawharo stream.

Policies

By using indigenous vegetation to mitigate the detrimental impact of erosion, instability or improve dune conservation.
By limiting the adverse visual effects of buildings through standards on colour, and ensuring that the natural landscape remains the dominant element in terms of visual amenity.
By considering the dynamic and sensitive nature of sand dunes when assessing any resource consent and where consent is granted, imposing conditions on buildings, earthworks and vegetation removal that take account of the nature of the sand dunes.
By ensuring that development is subject to bulk, coverage and location controls, and where these standards are exceeded, that the adverse effects are avoided or mitigated.

Objective - Medlands residential amenity area

To maintain and enhance the amenity of the residential amenity area and to ensure development does not detrimentally impact upon the adjoining dune and wetland conservation area.

Policies

By limiting the footprint of buildings to ensure that building sizes are of a residential scale.
By providing for home occupations and homestays as a permitted activity to enable an economic use of appropriate scale for residential sites.
By limiting activities that are likely to have a detrimental effect on residential amenity due to effects such as noise or traffic.

It is noted that the site sizes along Sandhills Road range from 800m ² to 3250m ² with the majority of sites being between 850m ² -1200m ². Sites to the rear of Sandhills Road consist of clusters of high densities as well as several larger sites comprising 2000m ²-5285m ². The largest site at 540C Medlands Road which is partially classified as residential amenity, is 93951m ².

As already noted in section 12.1 of the Plan, in the past, subdivision rules within residential areas resulted in smaller site sizes that were inappropriate to the village scale. In addition, the historic pattern of subdivision that has occurred on Great Barrier Island did not relate to the natural characteristics of the land to accommodated on-site effluent disposal systems. These reduced site sizes have increased the modification of the environment, through additional built forms, earthworks and removed vegetation with high ecological value. Due to the reduced site sizes, built forms in this landscape have become a dominant feature in certain areas as the amount of vegetation remaining on a site has been significantly reduced. In addition, small site sizes along Sandhills Road are located within the dune systems which have been modified by the density and intensity of development.

The key characteristics of the residential amenity area within Medlands settlement area is adjoining dune and wetland conservation areas. This creates a landscape which is strongly influenced by undulating dunes with high amenity value and wetlands with high ecological values. This sub-area has also been identified as having the capability to grow into the future given the larger sites located behind Sandhills Road. It is also considered an appropriate location for future development given that the area in which it is located comprises a mixture of development including residential, retail, recreational uses and is close to the Claris retail and commercial areas. Providing for growth within this area is consistent with the existing provisions in the area and the need to provide for an important centre of community for the people of Great Barrier.

While it is accepted that a 2000m ²site size is not consistent with the historic pattern of subdivision development along Sandhills Road, it is considered that reducing the minimum site size for the purpose of reflecting the existing pattern does not take into account the full definition of sustainable management in section 5(2) of the RMA. It is a complex definition which requires balancing of a range of factors and includes both managing and enabling functions. Social, economic and cultural wellbeing needs to be provided for in a manner which does not compromise the matters set out in section 5(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the RMA. As already stated above, the historical pattern of subdivision development within this land unit is not considered to have promoted the sustainable management of natural and physical resources as outlined in section 5(2) of the RMA. Indeed, the smaller site sizes have created a proliferation of built forms within a coastal landscape and restricted building design through limited building coverage and wastewater capacity.

It is considered that the 2000m ² minimum site size for the residential amenity area within Medlands settlement area will ensure that the new building sizes are of a residential scale and will not have adverse effects on the natural character and the ecological and visual amenity values of the coastal landscape, dune systems and wetland conservation areas. In addition, 2000m ² site sizes will be consistent with sites located along Medlands Road and Oruawharo Lane.

The overall resource management strategy for this land unit is also reflected in the land use rules for the residential amenity area within Medlands which provides for the construction of buildings as permitted activities provided they are in accordance with the permitted standards within the Plan. These standards include clause 10c.4.8 (Colour of building material in settlement areas) which provides a range of colours and materials to be used within these areas at a permitted level. Permitted land use activities include residential uses such as home occupations and homestay accommodation as well as care centres, community facilities and art galleries and museums. Discretionary activity consent is required for visitor accommodation, camping facilities, entertainment facilities, dairies, care centres, art galleries and healthcare services.

Such an approach within both the land use and subdivision provisions is considered consistent with resource management strategy envisaged for this environment. Therefore, maintaining minimum site sizes of 2000m ² will mitigate the effects of built forms while protecting the natural character and the ecological and visual amenity values of the coastal landscape, dune systems and wetland conservation areas. In addition, the 2000m ² size will also provide sufficient space in which to integrate activities such as care centres, entertainment facilities and dairies which are provided for at a discretionary level in the sub-area.

Overall, it is considered that reducing the minimum site size of the residential amenity area may adversely affect the natural character, ecological and visual amenity values of the settlement area. Indeed, the historic pattern of subdivision has already demonstrated that the cumulative effects of reduced site sizes, leads to extensive vegetation removal and modification of the sensitive dune systems. Moreover, the built forms have become a dominate feature of the coastal landscape. The 2000m ² minimum site size therefore is consistent with the resource management strategy for the area, the Resource Management Act 1991, the Coastal Policy statement and the Regional Policy Statement and plans.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submission 278/1 be rejected.

4.87.2.8 Submission 1408/2 - Medlands settlement area

The above submitter requests that the minimum site size of the Medlands residential amenity area is increased from 2000m ² to 7000m ². The submitter considers that minimum site size is too small as the high water table on small sites makes effluent disposal difficult and there will be a loss of rural character.

As stated above, the Medlands residential amenity area is strongly influenced by surrounding undulating dunes with high amenity value and wetlands with high ecological values. It has also been identified as having the capability to grow into the future due to its close proximity to the Claris retail and commercial areas, and given that the area in which it is located comprises a mixture of development including residential, retail, recreational uses. Providing for growth within this area is consistent with the existing provisions in the area and the need to provide for an important centre of community for the people of Great Barrier.

Increasing the minimum site size of the residential amenity areas will significantly limit further subdivision within this sub area as there are no sites with minimum site sizes of 14,000m ². Therefore as already outlined in section 4.87.2.7 above, it is considered that maintaining minimum site sizes of 2000m ² will mitigate the effects of built forms while protecting the natural character and the ecological and visual amenity values of the coastal landscape, dune systems and wetland conservation areas. In addition, the 2000m ² size will also provide sufficient space in which to integrate activities such as care centres, entertainment facilities and dairies which are provided for at a discretionary level in the sub-area. This site size is also considered to provide for a level of growth which does not adversely affect the high amenity values and wetlands with high ecological values.

As such, it is recommended that submission 1408/2 is rejected as it relates to the Medlands residential amenity area.

4.87.2.9 Submission 3089/2 � Medlands settlement area

The above submission requests that provision should be made for further subdivision within the Medlands settlement area.

As already outlined in sections 4.87.2.1, it is not considered that the minimum site size for all settlement areas should be reduced due to certain sub-areas such as headland protection and reserve and coastal margin areas having high visual amenity and ecological values which should be protected. Reducing the site sizes or providing for subdivision within these areas may adversely affect the amenity and ecological values and be contrary to the objectives and policies for these areas.

Moreover, as outlined in section 4.87.2.7 above, maintaining minimum site sizes of 2000m ² within the Medlands residential amenity areas will mitigate the effects of built forms while protecting the natural character and the ecological and visual amenity values of the coastal landscape, dune systems and wetland conservation areas. In addition, the 2000m ² size will also provide sufficient space in which to integrate activities such as care centres, entertainment facilities and dairies which are provided for at a discretionary level in the sub-area.

Therefore, for reasons already outlined in sections 4.87.2.1 and 4.87.2.7 above, it is recommended that submission 3089/2 is rejected

It should be noted that the extent of the settlement areas is being revised with the intention to consolidate and provide for development in these areas. The extension of the Medlands Settlement area boundaries is the subject of hearing report for the Medlands settlement area.

4.87.2.10 Submissions 619/77, 859/90, 618/141, 1288/128, 754/90, 2670/75 � Claris settlement area.

The above submissions request that table 12.3 should be amended so that it provides for reduced minimum site areas within local retail areas and within the Claris light industry area, when a comprehensive approach to wastewater is adopted.

The above decision is not supported as it is subjective in nature and resembles a criterion. By having discretion to consider minimum and average site sizes at it relates to wastewater disposal is open to a variety of different interpretations and does not provide certainly over the extent to which the subdivision within the local retail and Claris light industry area can occur.

For these reasons, it is recommended that submissions 619/77, 859/90, 618/141, 1288/128, 754/90, 2670/75 are rejected.

4.87.2.11 Submission 1408/9 - Claris settlement area

The above submission requests that the site sizes for the Claris light industry area is increased from 2000m ²to 4000m ². The submitter considers that minimum site size does not provide enough area for landscaping in order to screen and mitigate industrial activities and it will increase the likelihood of contamination of the high water table through the permeable sand base.

In analysing the above submission, it is considered necessary to first turn to the relevant objectives and policies envisaged for sub area:

Objective - Claris light industry area

To provide for light industrial activities, while safeguarding against adverse effects that could result in contamination of the Kaitoke wetland, or other surrounding wetlands.

Policies

By limiting any adverse effects of industrial activities on adjacent sand or wetland systems.
By not providing for sensitive activities to establish in the industrial area and therefore avoiding reverse sensitivity effects on industrial activities.
3. By recognising the need for a source of sand for construction on Great Barrier, without compromising any ecological or natural functions of the surrounding area.

The Claris light industry area has historically provided for activities with higher adverse effects such as panel beating, the landfill and milling activities. It is recognised that industrial activities may contaminate ground or water sources in the area therefore industrial activities need to be managed carefully. The rules also recognise the particular need to address reverse sensitivity issues which can arise when higher impact activities are located near lower impact activities or sensitive areas. This sub-area currently contains 14 sites ranging from 2313m ² to 20063m ² with an average site size of 6110m ².

It is considered that the 2000m ² sites sizes proposed for the light industry area (as opposed to 1500m ² for retail sub-areas within other settlement areas) reflects the need to provide for light industrial activities whilst also safeguarding against adverse effects that could result in contamination of the Kaitoke wetland, or other surrounding wetlands that surrounds this sub-area.

The proposed site sizes for the light industry area also recognise issues around reverse sensitivity by locating similar activities in the same locations, and enable a framework for sustainable management for activities on the island. Where growth, including subdivision, is to occur, it is encouraged within or around the settlement areas rather than compromising the landscape values of adjacent land units.

The overall resource management strategy for this sub-area is also reflected in the land use rules which provides for the construction of buildings as permitted activities provided they are in accordance with the permitted standards within the Plan. These standards include clause 10c.4.8 (Colour of building material in settlement areas) which provides a range of colours and materials to be used within these areas at a permitted level. Site coverage is also provided at a level that is consistent with surrounding low impact uses (15%) which will ensure that the built development is consistent and complementary with the existing landscape. This lower site coverage will also provide for a degree of open space in which to service development and contain run-off to within the site boundaries.

Permitted land use activities include residential uses such as art galleries and museums, industries, motor vehicle services, wineries, and funeral parlours. Discretionary activity consent is required for restaurants, sand quarrying, service stations and commercial firewood harvesting while residential uses are non-complying activities.

Such an approach within both the land use and subdivision provisions is considered consistent with resource management strategy envisaged for this environment. Therefore, maintaining minimum site sizes of 2000m ² will provide for a level of growth and ensure that adverse effects of industrial activities on adjacent sands or wetland systems are mitigated.

On this basis, it is recommended that submission 1408/9 is rejected.

4.87.2.12 Submission 2905/1 - Claris settlement area

As stated above, the Claris settlement area is a mix of unmodified and modified land uses and dispersed activities within a larger setting of high natural character and landscape value. The settlement plan identifies five sub-areas that recognise conservation values as well as the airport and retail, residential and industrial activities that may occur within these areas.

The 2000m ² sites sizes proposed for light industries (as opposed to 1500m ² within other settlement areas) reflects the need to provide for light industrial activities whilst also safeguarding against adverse effects that could result in contamination of the Kaitoke wetland, or other surrounding wetlands.

On this basis, it is recommended that the submission 2905/1 is accepted.

4.87.2.13 Submission 1408/4 � Okupu settlement area

The above submission requests that the minimum site size for the Okupu residential amenity area is increased from 2000m ²to 5000m ². The submitter considers that additional subdivision with minimum site sizes of 2000m ² would lead to a loss of amenity value to the beach and will not protect wildlife. In addition, these site sizes would not protect the existing characteristic of the area and would create future problems with regard to effluent disposal and water supply.

In analysing the above submission, it is considered necessary to first turn to the relevant objectives and policies envisaged for sub area:

Objective - Okupu settlement area

To contain the existing subdivision pattern, avoiding expansion of the settlement area, and provide for appropriate development on existing sites within the settlement area as a means for maintaining landscape and ecological values of the area.

Policies

By controlling the adverse visual effects of buildings through standards on colour, and ensuring that the natural landscape remains the dominant element in terms of visual amenity.
By controlling the adverse effects of buildings on the environment through bulk, coverage and location controls and where these standards are exceeded, ensuring that the adverse effects are avoided or mitigated.
By limiting the removal of indigenous vegetation so that drainage, stormwater and sedimentation problems are mitigated or avoided, and landscape values are maintained.
By protecting riparian areas around streams and requiring replanting to maintain and enhance water quality.
By only including existing development within the Okupu settlement area.

Objective - Okupu residential amenity area

To maintain or enhance the low impact character and amenity of the Okupu residential amenity area .

Policies

By limiting the footprint of buildings to ensure that building sizes are of a residential scale.
By providing for home occupations and homestays as a permitted activity to enable an economic use of appropriate scale for residential sites.
By limiting activities that are likely to have a detrimental effect on residential amenity due to adverse effects such as noise or traffic.

The Okupu area provides for small scale residential living (residential amenity area) within an area of high natural character and landscape value (reserve and dune protection areas). The future for Okupu is to continue to provide for limited development of existing sites within its boundaries. The residential amenity area contains sites ranging from 809m ² to 9851m ² with the majority of sites being between 850m ² and 1500m ².

The resource management strategy for the Okupu residential amenity area is reflected in the land use rules for the residential amenity area which provides for the construction of buildings as permitted activities provided they are in accordance with the permitted standards within the Plan. Permitted land use activities include residential uses such as home occupations and homestay accommodation as well as care centres, community facilities and art galleries and museums. Discretionary activity consent is required for visitor accommodation, camping facilities, entertainment facilities, dairies, care centres, art galleries and healthcare services.

It is considered that the 2000m ² sites sizes proposed for this sub-area reflects the need to contain the existing subdivision pattern of development and provide for appropriate development on existing sites within the settlement area as a mean for maintaining landscape and ecological values of the area. While this minimum site size is larger than many of the existing sites, it will provide for the maintenance of the existing settled area as envisaged in the objectives and policies.

Increasing the minimum site size of the residential amenity areas will significantly limit further subdivision within this sub area as there are no sites with minimum site sizes of 10,000m ². Therefore, it is considered that maintaining minimum site sizes of 2000m ² will mitigate the effects of built forms while protecting the natural character and the ecological and visual amenity value of the landscape. In addition, the 2000m ² size will also provide sufficient space in which to integrate activities such as care centres, entertainment facilities and dairies which are provided for at a discretionary level in this sub-area.

As such, it is recommended that submission 1408/4 is rejected as it relates to the Okupu residential amenity area.

4.87.2.14 Submission 1408/6 � Whangaparapara settlement area

The above submission requests that the minimum site size for the Whangaparapara residential amenity area is increased from 2000m ²to 5000m ². The submitter considers that minimum site sizes of 2000m ² does not lend itself to such intensive development as some sites will have access problems, engineering difficulties and developing them would impact on the surrounding environments. In addition, there would be a loss of vegetation cover and a deterioration of amenity values especially from the Whangaparapara harbour.

Increasing the minimum site size of the residential amenity areas will effectively prevent any further subdivision within this sub-area as there are limited sites which have a minimum site sizes of 10,000m ². Therefore as already outlined in section 4.87.2.1 above, it is considered that maintaining the minimum site size to 2000m ² and removing the average site size of this sub-area, will be consistent with the objectives and policies of this area which seek to provide for the long term function of the existing visitor accommodation, the maintenance of the bush environment and a limited level of growth.

In addition, this site size is still larger than many of its counterparts but it is more consistent with maintaining the character of this landscape and providing for growth. The 2000m ² minimum site size will also provide sufficient capacity to service land use developments and create open space in which to integrate activities such as care centres, boarding centres or hostels which are provided for at a permitted level in this sub-area. Moreover, this minimum site size will accommodate built forms while providing for on-site car-parking and manoeuvring and effective stormwater and wastewater disposal.

Overall, it is considered that the minimum site size of 2000m ²will ensure that the low impact, bush cover of the area is maintained while also providing for a limited level of growth within this area for sites that are greater than 4000m ².

On this basis, it is recommended that submission 1408/6 is rejected as it relates to the Whangaparapara residential amenity area.

4.87.2.15 Submissions 942/2, 1408/8, 3046/1 and 3046/3 - Okiwi Settlement Area

The above submissions request an increase to the minimum and average site sizes for the residential amenity area. Specifically submission 1408/8 seeks an increase to the minimum site size from 2000m ² to 6000m ² while submitter 3046/1 requests an increase to the minimum site size to 7000m ² with an increased average of 10000m ² (1 ha) from 4000m ². Submitter 942/2 requests that the four large sites (being 66249m ², 54093m ² and 45004m ²) have increased minimum site sizes of 10000m ² (1ha) where the site borders or contains stream. These submitters consider that the site sizes need to be increased in order to retain the rural characteristics of the area and to safe guard the Brown Teal Habitat and watercourses.

The above submissions raise two matters which require analysis. These are as follows:

Increasing minimum and average site sizes for the residential amenity area.

The relevant objectives and policies of the Okiwi settlement area include:

Objective - Okiwi settlement area

To provide for residential development in the north of the island, and to support small scale commercial, education and recreation activities, while protecting existing vegetation and riparian areas.

Policies

By limiting the adverse visual effects of buildings through standards on colour and ensuring that the natural landscape remains the dominant element in terms of visual amenity.
By ensuring that development is subject to bulk, coverage and location controls, and where these standards are exceeded, that the adverse effects are avoided or mitigated.
By limiting removal of indigenous vegetation in order that drainage, stormwater and sedimentation problems are reduced or avoided and landscape values are maintained.
By requiring replanting of indigenous vegetation where new development requiring resource or subdivision consent is proposed.
By protecting riparian areas around streams and requiring replanting to maintain water quality.
By allowing for additional residential sites to be created within the Okiwi settlement area.

Objective - Okiwi residential amenity area

To maintain and enhance the low impact character of the residential amenity area.

Policies

By limiting the footprint of buildings to ensure that building sizes are of a residential scale.
By providing for home occupations and homestays as a permitted activity to enable an economic use of appropriate scale for residential sites.
By limiting activities that are likely to have a detrimental effect on residential amenity due to effects such as noise or traffic.
By ensuring that where new subdivision occurs, that it protects riparian areas and avoids culverting of stream areas in favour of bridging where necessary.

This settlement area is located on the gently sloping foothills of the Whangapoua Basin, two

kilometres inland from Okiwi airport. A primary school, sports fields and small collection of houses make up the area, along with an area of rolling pasture. An area has been identified which offers an opportunity for extending the existing settlement.

Okiwi is able to support additional commercial activities and provide a centre for the north of the island. The settlement plan identifies three areas providing for residential, retailing and the school including recreational areas. The settlement plan also provides for additional residential growth in an area that is close to existing amenities, without compromising the rural and scenic qualities of the greater Whangapoua catchment. The residential amenity area contains sites ranging from 1600m ² to 66249m ² with the majority of sites being between 1600m ² and 2000m ².

The resource management strategy for the Okiwi residential amenity area is reflected in the land use rules for the residential amenity area which provides for the construction of buildings as permitted activities provided they are in accordance with the permitted standards within the Plan. Permitted land use activities include residential uses such as home occupations and homestay accommodation as well as care centres, community facilities and art galleries and museums. Discretionary activity consent is required for visitor accommodation, camping facilities, entertainment facilities, dairies, care centres, art galleries and healthcare services.

It is considered that the minimum and average site sizes of 2000m ² and 4000m ² (respectively) proposed for this sub-area reflect the need to provide for residential development in the north of the island, and to support small scale commercial, educational and recreational activities, while also protecting existing vegetation. In addition, these site sizes will protect riparian areas around streams and promote replanting to maintain water quality. This is also highlighted in policy 4 of objective 10b.11.3 which seeks to avoid the culverting of stream areas in favour of bridging.

Increasing the minimum site size of the residential amenity areas will significantly limit further subdivision within this sub-area. Therefore, it is considered that maintaining minimum site sizes of 2000m ² with an average of 4000m ² will mitigate the effects of built forms while protecting riparian areas and water quality. In addition, these size sizes will also provide sufficient space in which to integrate activities such as care centres, entertainment facilities and dairies which are provided for at a discretionary level in this sub-area. They will also ensure that wastewater can be adequately disposed of on-site and that where new subdivision occurs, it protects riparian areas and avoids culverting stream areas. The proposed site sizes will also maintain and enhance the character of the residential amenity area that is envisaged for this area, and ensure that the character and amenity of the wider environment is not compromised.

In summary, the Okiwi settlement area has been identified as having the capability to grow into the future. It is considered an appropriate location for future development given that the area in which it is located comprises a mixture of development including residential, retail, educational and recreational uses. Providing for growth within this area is consistent with the existing provisions in the area and the need to provide for an important centre of community for the people of Great Barrier

As such, it is recommended submissions 942/2, 1408/8, 3046/1 and 3046/3 are rejected as it relates to the minimum and average site sizes for the Okiwi residential amenity area.

Providing for ecological subdivision

Furthermore, submitter 3046/3 seeks the provision of "ecological subdivision" in the Okiwi residential amenity area, which should include a minimum lot size criteria (as per submission 3046/1) and restricted ownership of pets - with no cats.

In reviewing the submission in further detail, the submission states that the Okiwi residential amenity area contains ecologically sensitive areas (SES 42-4 and SA 42-7) which are important corridors and must continue to be protected. Accordingly, the submission requests that the Okiwi residential amenity area should be given a new "designation" as an "ecological subdivision area" and that minimum site size is increased from 2000m ² to 4000m ²with an average size of 10,000m ² to reflect these ecological areas.

For reasons already outlined above, it is considered that the minimum and average site sizes for the Okiwi residential amenity area should remain at 2000m ² and 4000m ² respectively. However, in addition to the above, it should be noted that the assessment criteria for subdivision within the Okiwi settlement area must consider the design of the subdivision in terms of protecting natural features, character and amenity. It also assesses the extent to which subdivision enhances heritage features and provides for ecological restoration and enhancement (refer to clause 12.11.13 � protecting vegetation and landscape. Indeed, criterion 12.11.13(4) assesses:

The objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria seek to design subdivision in order to achieve land management, enhancement and environmental protection. This includes the preservation and enhancement of heritage features as well as ecological restoration and enhancement. Subdivision within the Okiwi settlement area therefore takes into account the ecological sites which surround the area and ensures that these areas are protected and where appropriate, restored and enhanced.

Furthermore, the submitter should also be made aware that, any works within the dripline of any tree or any proposal to cut, damage, alter or destroy any indigenous plant (including its roots) within a scheduled site of ecological significance or sensitive area requires discretionary activity consent in accordance with clause 7.11.4.2.

In accordance with clause 12.6.1, any form of subdivision within the Okiwi settlement area must demonstrate that a building, access and parking can be constructed which complies with this clause 7.11.4.2. In the event the above clause is infringed, then the application becomes a non-complying activity and the effects on the SES and SA will be assessed as part of the application. In addition, council may defer the subdivision application and request that the applicant lodge a land use consent. This will ensure that all actual and potential effects of the proposed development particularly in relation to the ecological sites of significance are adequately assessed.

With regard to restricting the ownership of cats as part of subdivision, as this matter is outside the scope of the Plan, no further assessment is required.

For reasons outlined above, it is recommended that submission 3046/3 be rejected as it relates to the provision of "ecological subdivision" in the Okiwi residential amenity area.

4.87.2.16 Submission 1408/7 - Port Fitzroy Settlement area

The above submission requests that the minimum site size for the Port Fitzroy residential amenity area is increased from 5000m ²to 7000m ². The submitter considers that development in this sub-area needs to be sparse so the land surrounding the harbour retains its fiord like appeal. Therefore, care needs to be taken to avoid eroding the visual amenity of the area and contaminating the water with effluent. Furthermore, the submitter states that narrow and steep roads would make pedestrian links difficult to develop.

In analysing the above submission, it is considered necessary to first turn to the relevant objectives and policies envisaged for sub area:

10b.12.2 Objective - Port Fitzroy settlement area

To maintain existing development patterns and protect the bush covered character of the Port Fitzroy settlement.

Policies

By limiting the adverse visual effects of buildings through standards on colour, and ensuring that the natural landscape remains the dominant element in terms of visual amenity.
By limiting removal of indigenous vegetation in order that drainage, stormwater and sedimentation problems are reduced or avoided and landscape values are maintained.
By ensuring that development is subject to bulk, coverage and location controls, and where these standards are exceeded, that the adverse effects are avoided or mitigated.
By protecting riparian areas around streams and requiring replanting to maintain or enhance water quality.

10b.12.3 Objective - Port Fitzroy residential amenity area

To protect and enhance the low impact bush covered character of the residential amenity area.

Policies

By limiting the footprint of buildings to ensure building sizes are of a residential scale.
By providing for home occupations and homestays as a permitted activity to enable an economic use of appropriate scale for residential sites.
By limiting activities that are likely to have a detrimental effect on residential amenity due to effects such as noise or traffic.

The Port Fitzroy area is located in a large harbour on the western side of the island. Development comprises mainly residential activities. An area with wharf facilities, it is popular with recreational boating traffic and is an access point for goods entering or leaving the island. The settlement area identifies two areas reflecting the residential and retailing activities of Port and overall provides for small scale residential living within an area of high natural character and landscape value. The high values of the landscape in the harbour mean that the settlement area is tightly constrained to existing development and subdivision patterns. The residential amenity area contains sites ranging from 1250m ² to 186459m ² with the majority of sites being between 1500m ² and 4500m ².

This sub-area has been identified as having the capability for limited growth in the future. It is also considered an appropriate location for such growth given the existing retail activities in the area and that the wharf services the popular marine activities of the sheltered harbour and provides an access point for materials entering and leaving the island. Providing for growth within this area is consistent with the existing provisions in the area and the need to provide for an important centre of community for the people of Great Barrier

The resource management strategy for the Port Fitzroy residential amenity area is reflected in the land use rules for the residential amenity area which provides for the construction of buildings as permitted activities provided they are in accordance with the permitted standards within the Plan. Permitted land use activities include residential uses such as home occupations and homestay accommodation as well as care centres, community facilities and art galleries and museums. Discretionary activity consent is required for visitor accommodation, camping facilities, entertainment facilities, dairies, care centres, art galleries and healthcare services.

It is considered that the sites sizes proposed for this sub-area (5000m ² minimum with and average of 7000m ²) reflects the need to protect the bush covered character of the Port Fitzroy settlement and maintain landscape and ecological values of the area. While this minimum site size and average site size is larger than many of the existing sites, it will provide for the maintenance of the existing settled area as envisaged in the objectives and policies.

Increasing the minimum site size of the residential amenity area will limit further subdivision within this sub area. Therefore, it is considered that maintaining minimum site sizes of 5000m ² with an average of 7000m ² will mitigate the effects of built forms while protecting the natural character and the ecological and visual amenity values of the coastal landscape. In addition, the site sizes will provide sufficient space in which to integrate activities such as care centres, entertainment facilities and dairies which are provided for at a discretionary level in this sub-area. They will also ensure that wastewater can be adequately disposed of on-site and that where new subdivision occurs, it protects riparian areas and protects water quality. The proposed site sizes will also maintain and enhance the character of the residential amenity area that is envisaged for this area, and ensure that the character and amenity of the wider environment is not compromised.

As such, it is recommended that submission 1408/7 is rejected as it relates to the Port Fitzroy residential amenity area.

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to minimum and average site sizes in table 12.3 (minimum site areas for settlement areas - Great Barrier).

1. Submissions 1405/12, 1406/12, 1422/1, 1447/1, 1485/1, 1521/1, 1937/1, 1992/1, 2164/1, 2225/1, 2250/1, 2305/1, 2320/1, 2364/1, 2376/1, 2379/1, 2747/1, 2862/1, 3609/1, 3678/1, 3753/1, 3780/1, 1921/1, 2713/1 are accepted in part and table 12.3 of Part 12 is amended so that the minimum site size for the Tryphena residential amenity area is reduced to 1500m ² with no average site size requirement
Submissions 1405/12, 1406/12, 1422/1, 1447/1, 1485/1, 1521/1, 1937/1, 1992/1, 2164/1, 2225/1, 2250/1, 2305/1, 2320/1, 2364/1, 2376/1, 2379/1, 2747/1, 2862/1, 3609/1, 3678/1, 3753/1, 3780/1, 1921/1, 2713/1 and table 12.3 of Part 12 is amended so that there is no average site size for the Claris residential amenity sub-area.
Submissions 1405/12, 1406/12, 1422/1, 1447/1, 1485/1, 1521/1, 1937/1, 1992/1, 2164/1, 2225/1, 2250/1, 2305/1, 2320/1, 2364/1, 2376/1, 2379/1, 2747/1, 2862/1, 3609/1, 3678/1, 3753/1, 3780/1, 1921/1, 2713/1 should be accepted in part and table 12.3 of Part 12 is amended so that the average site size for the Whangaparapara residential amenity sub-area and visitor accommodation area is removed in its entirety.
The reclassification of 300 Karaka into a new settlement area will be considered in hearings report for settlement areas. In the event amendments as a result of submission 2846 are made, then consequential amendments to Part 12 may be considered necessary and will be addressed at the time of the hearing.
Submission 1284/30 be accepted in part and table 12.2 is amended so that the minimum site size of the Tryphena residential amenity area is reduced to 1500m ² with no average site size requirement.
Submission 1284/30 be rejected as it relates to the minimum and average site sizes for the Tryphena headland protection area.
Submission 1284/30 be accepted and table 12.2 is amended so that there is no average site size for the Claris residential amenity area.
Submission 1284/30 be rejected as it relates to no minimum site sizes in all settlement areas where there is a clustering of buildings.
Submission 1284/30 is rejected it relates to cluster development and comprehensive management plans.
Submissions 754/89 and 859/89 are rejected.
Submissions 283/1 and 2595/1 be accepted in part and table 12.2 is amended so that the minimum site size of the Tryphena residential amenity area is 1500m ² and there is no average site size requirement
Submission 1408/1 is rejected as it relates to the Tryphena residential amenity area.
Submission 1408/1 is rejected as it relates to the Tryphena headland protection area.
Submission 278/1 is rejected.
Submission 1408/2 is rejected as it relates to the Medlands residential amenity area.
Submission 3089/2 is rejected.
Submissions 619/77, 859/90, 618/141, 1288/128, 754/90, 2670/75 are rejected.
Submission 1408/9 is rejected.
Submission 2905/1 is accepted.
Submission 1408/4 is rejected.
Submission 1408/6 is rejected.
Submissions 942/2, 1408/8, 3046/1 and 3046/3 are rejected as it relates to the minimum and average site sizes for the Okiwi residential amenity area.
Submission 3046/3 is rejected as it relates to the provision of "ecological subdivision" in the Okiwi residential amenity area.
Submission 1408/7 is rejected.

4.88 Submissions about table 12.4 (Activity table for all types of subdivision).

Submissions dealt with in this section: 302/4, 374/4, 570/4, 575/4, 636/4, 639/4, 643/4, 652/4, 672/4, 685/4, 715/4, 732/4, 737/4, 797/4, 805/4, 806/4, 814/4, 823/4, 869/4, 888/4, 911/4, 921/4, 926/4, 955/4, 1019/4, 1040/4, 1055/23, 1153/4, 1166/11, 1231/4, 1240/4, 1720/4, 1721/4, 1722/4, 1723/4, 1724/4, 1725/4, 1726/4, 1727/4, 1728/4, 1729/4, 1730/4, 1731/4, 1732/4, 1733/4, 1734/4, 1735/4, 1736/4, 1737/4, 1738/4, 1739/4, 1740/4, 1741/4, 1742/4, 2113/4, 2116/4, 2281/4, 2783/4, 2831/4, 2992/4, 3004/4, 3189/4, 3203/4, 3217/4, 3224/4, 3239/4, 3244/4, 3256/4, 3266/4, 3272/4, 3282/4, 3308/4, 3326/4, 3328/4, 3339/4, 3353/4, 3363/4, 3368/4, 3383/4, 3417/4, 3562/4, 3623/4, 3818/4, 3276/4 , 302/6, 308/4, 371/4, 374/6, 570/6, 573/4, 575/6, 630/4, 630/4, 636/6, 639/6, 641/4, 643/6, 647/4, 652/6, 652/6, 656/4, 672/6, 674/4, 685/6, 686/4, 697/4, 699/4, 711/4, 715/6, 719/4, 726/4, 732/6, 737/6, 740/4, 797/6, 798/4, 805/6, 806/6, 807/4, 812/4, 814/6, 815/4, 823/6, 824/4, 869/6, 873/4, 885/4, 888/6, 910/4, 911/6, 921/6, 926/6, 932/4, 955/6, 960/4, 1015/4, 1055/49, 1133/4, 1236/4, 1814/4, 1815/4, 1816/4, 1817/4, 1818/4, 1819/4, 1820/4, 1821/4, 1822/4, 1823/4, 1825/4, 1826/4, 1827/4, 1828/4, 1829/4, 1830/4, 1831/4, 1832/4, 1833/4, 1834/4, 1835/4, 1836/4, 2113/6, 2116/6, 2281/6, 2285/4, 2462/4, 2704/4, 2794/4, 2831/6, 2833/4, 2992/6, 2995/4, 3004/6, 3203/6, 3217/6, 3224/6, 3239/6, 3244/6, 3256/6, 3266/6, 3272/6, 3276/6, 3282/6, 3308/6, 3326/6, 3328/6, 3339/6, 3353/6, 3363/6, 3383/6, 3417/6, 3562/6, 3623/6, 3818/6, 3005/4, 3190/4, 3209/4, 3218/4, 3228/4, 3236/4, 3267/4, 3278/4, 3305/4, 3314/4, 3318/4, 3336/4, 3340/4, 3356/4, 3366/4, 3371/4, 3386/4, 3404/4, 3559/4, 3624/4, 3646/4, 3823/4, 3189/6, 3368/6, 3253/4, 3289/4, 560/17, 1102/14, 1102/15, 1250/83, 2094/5, 2846/6.

4.88.1 Decisions requested

Group 1

Submissions 302/4, 374/4, 570/4, 575/4, 636/4, 639/4, 643/4, 652/4, 672/4, 685/4, 715/4, 732/4, 737/4, 797/4, 805/4, 806/4, 814/4, 823/4, 869/4, 888/4, 911/4, 921/4, 926/4, 955/4, 1019/4, 1040/4, 1055/23, 1153/4, 1166/11, 1231/4, 1240/4, 1720/4, 1721/4, 1722/4, 1723/4, 1724/4, 1725/4, 1726/4, 1727/4, 1728/4, 1729/4, 1730/4, 1731/4, 1732/4, 1733/4, 1734/4, 1735/4, 1736/4, 1737/4, 1738/4, 1739/4, 1740/4, 1741/4, 1742/4, 2113/4, 2116/4, 2281/4, 2783/4, 2831/4, 2992/4, 3004/4, 3189/4, 3203/4, 3217/4, 3224/4, 3239/4, 3244/4, 3256/4, 3266/4, 3272/4, 3282/4, 3308/4, 3326/4, 3328/4, 3339/4, 3353/4, 3363/4, 3368/4, 3383/4, 3417/4, 3562/4, 3623/4, 3818/4 3276/4 request the following:

The inclusion of coastal amenity areas within table 12.4 (Activity table for all types of subdivision).

Group 1 continued

Submissions 302/6, 308/4, 371/4, 374/6, 570/6, 573/4, 575/6, 630/4, 630/4, 636/6, 639/6, 641/4, 643/6, 647/4, 652/6, 652/6, 656/4, 672/6, 674/4, 685/6, 686/4, 697/4, 699/4, 711/4, 715/6, 719/4, 726/4, 732/6, 737/6, 740/4, 797/6, 798/4, 805/6, 806/6, 807/4, 812/4, 814/6, 815/4, 823/6, 824/4, 869/6, 873/4, 885/4, 888/6, 910/4, 911/6, 921/6, 926/6, 932/4, 955/6, 960/4, 1015/4, 1055/49, 1133/4, 1236/4, 1814/4, 1815/4, 1816/4, 1817/4, 1818/4, 1819/4, 1820/4, 1821/4, 1822/4, 1823/4, 1825/4, 1826/4, 1827/4, 1828/4, 1829/4, 1830/4, 1831/4, 1832/4, 1833/4, 1834/4, 1835/4, 1836/4, 2113/6, 2116/6, 2281/6, 2285/4, 2462/4, 2704/4, 2794/4, 2831/6, 2833/4, 2992/6, 2995/4, 3004/6, 3203/6, 3217/6, 3224/6, 3239/6, 3244/6, 3256/6, 3266/6, 3272/6, 3276/6, 3282/6, 3308/6, 3326/6, 3328/6, 3339/6, 3353/6, 3363/6, 3383/6, 3417/6, 3562/6, 3623/6, 3818/6, 3005/4, 3190/4, 3209/4, 3218/4, 3228/4, 3236/4, 3267/4, 3278/4, 3305/4, 3314/4, 3318/4, 3336/4, 3340/4, 3356/4, 3366/4, 3371/4, 3386/4, 3404/4, 3559/4, 3624/4, 3646/4, 3823/4, 3189/6, 3368/6, 3253/4, 3289/4 request the following:

Modifying table 12.4 (Activity table for all types of subdivision) to reflect the introduction of non-complying activity status for all coastal amenity areas subdivision in excess of the minimum site areas in tables 12.1 and 12.2.

Submission 560/17 requests the following:

Amend table 12.4: To provide for subdivision in rural 2 (western landscape) as a restricted discretionary activity.

Submission 1102/14 requests the following:

Amend Table 12.4: Activity Table for all types of subdivision to provide for leases, including renewals, for longer than 35 years for site which have complying or approved activities as a controlled activity.

Submission 1102/15 requests the following:

Amend Table 12.4: Activity table for all types of subdivision to provide for the following activities as controlled activities:

(a) Any subdivision including cross leases which do not comply with the minimum site sizes in table 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3.

(b) Any proposed subdivision in Aotea settlement areas, commercial 6 (quarry), commercial 7 (wharf) and Rotoroa.

Submission 1250/83 requests the following:

Retain the provision beneath table 12.4 that says "any subdivision which is not a permitted, restricted discretionary or discretionary activity in the rules is a non-complying activity".

Submission 2094/5 requests the following:

Amend the legend that appears after table 12.4 Activity table for all types of subdivision, by changing the description of C1 from 'Commercial 1 (local shops)' to 'Commercial 1 (Oneroa village)'.

Submission 2846/6 requests the following:

In table 12.4, include the Orama settlement area in the same column as SA1-8.

4.88.2 Planner's analysis and recommendation

The decision requested by group 1 submissions has already been assessed in sections 4.7.2.1 and 4.14 above where it was considered that the objectives, policies and rules in the Part 12 of the Plan have been written with the intention of achieving the purpose of the RMA which includes protecting and enhancing the coast as well as the landscape and rural amenity.

Moreover, any subdivision within identified coastal amenity areas (island residential 1), or in landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) which does not meet the minimum site size, is deemed to be a non-complying activity. In addition, table 12.3 states that subdivision in 'Reserve, dune, coastal margin and wetland conservation areas' is a non-complying activity.

On this basis and for reasons outlined in sections 4.7.2.1 and 4.14 above, the panel can be satisfied that the objectives, policies and rules already contained in the Part 12 of the Plan have been written with the intention of achieving the decision sought by the above submissions.

It is therefore recommended that group 1 submissions are accepted however, no changes to the Plan is required.

4.88.2.1 Submission 560/17

The above submission requests that subdivision in rural 2 (western landscape) is a restricted discretionary activity. In reviewing the submission in detail, the submitter states:

Church bay Farms consider that the potential adverse effects of allowing fragmentation of rural land is of such significance that any subdivision within Rural 2 (western landscape) land unit should be a restricted discretionary activity .

Based on the above statement, it is unclear whether the submitter is aware that a restricted discretionary activity restricts the matters for which consent can be assessed. A full discretionary activity provides council with the full discretion to assess all potential and actual effects of a proposal.

It is not considered appropriate for freehold subdivision within rural 2 to be a restricted discretionary activity. This is because subdivision within this land unit has specific standards and terms and assessment criteria so that the potential effects from built form and/or land use activities can be comprehensively assessed and mitigated. The assessment criteria also focus on specific landscape values within this land unit that require protection and enhancement.

Given the specific standards and terms and assessment criteria recommended for this land unit, it is not considered that freehold subdivision can be restricted to specific matters of discretion. This is because the effects of subdivision within this landscape has the potential to generate adverse landscape and amenity effects and detract from the character of the environment.

Therefore, it is considered that this approach, in conjunction with a discretionary activity application, will provide a better understanding of the nature of the proposal, achieve integrated resource management outcomes and effectively assess the actual and potential effects of a subdivision within the rural 2 land unit.

As such, it is recommended that submission 560/17 is rejected.

4.88.2.2 Submission 1102/14

Submission 1102/14 seeks that table 12.4 is amended so that subdivision for leases, including renewals, for longer than 35 years for site which have complying or approved activities are controlled activities.

In responding to the above request, it should be noted that during the formulation of the Plan, the council reached the view that the controlled activity status was not appropriate for any of the activities identified in 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 in administering these Plans, together with the development of case law, has led 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 potential adverse effects associated with particular proposals. The council cannot decline an application for a controlled activity. While the council may impose reasonable conditions that relate to the matters over which it has reserved control, it 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.

The controlled activity status should be reserved for situations where the council is confident that every proposal should be consented to and that adverse effects can be adequately addressed via conditions without substantial modification to the original proposal. While the controlled activity approach does provide greater certainty to applicants, this needs to be balanced against the need to ensure good environmental outcomes.

Applicants seeking subdivisions for leases, including renewals, for longer than 35 years for a site require restricted discretionary activity consent which requires assessment against specific matters of discretion in clause 12.8.2. It is considered that in many circumstances such forms of subdivision will be approved especially when the sites have complying or approved activities. Notwithstanding this, it is not considered appropriate that such forms of subdivision should have a controlled activity status, as there may be circumstances in which additional matters need to be addressed in order to address the potential adverse effects associated with a proposal. For example, an applicant applying to lease a portion of land for productive purposes may be undertaking an activity on land which has known heritage features. Council may consider that leasing this portion of land for productive purposes could have an adverse effect on these features. A controlled activity consent would result in council approving consent for the leasehold subdivision with restrictive conditions relating to the protection of these heritage features. However, to do so may effectively negate the consent granted and prevent the activity from taking place. The applicant may also require a significant modification to the proposal in order to ensure that the effects on these site(s) are not adverse.

For these reasons it is considered that the use of the controlled activity status does not provide the council with sufficient discretion to address the potential adverse effects associated with particular leasehold proposals. As such, it is recommended that submission 1102/14 be rejected.

4.88.2.3 Submission 1102/15

Submission 1102/15 opposes the non-complying activity status in the proposed plans for the following activities:

(a) Any subdivision including cross leases which do not comply with the minimum site sizes in tables 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3.

(b) Any proposed subdivision in SA 9 (Orama Settlement area), C6 (quarry) C7 (wharf) and Rt (Rotoroa).

The submitter states that the use of non-complying activities does not take into consideration or provide for the fact that specific residential development on Rotoroa island is provided for in the proposed Plan (in figure 10a.5). The submitter therefore requests that subdivision in the above land units and settlement areas are controlled activities.

The above submission is not supported as the controlled activity status should be reserved for situations where the council is confident that every proposal should be consented to and that adverse effects can be adequately addressed via conditions without substantial modification to the original proposal. While the controlled activity approach does provide greater certainty to applicants, this needs to be balanced against the need to ensure good environmental outcomes.

With regard to (a) above, it is considered that subdivisions which do not meet the minimum and/or average site sizes in tables 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3, should be non-complying activities as the effects of reducing site sizes can lead to adverse amenity effects which detract from the character of the environment, and undermine the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for the land unit and/or settlement area. These non-complying activities are subject to the Act's section 104D test.

Prescribing a controlled activity status to subdivision which do not meet the minimum and/or average site sizes undermines the purpose of having minimum site sizes, which seek to preserve the natural character of the land units and settlement areas and relate minimum areas based on their physical and natural character, use and potential. Such an approach is not consistent with the objectives of securing appropriate management of resources, or consistent with achieving sustainable land use development.

Moreover, changing the activity status of a subdivision application will inform the community as to the scope in which subdivisions will be considered. Such an approach will also provide greater certainty over the extent to which subdivisions can be undertaken within the Hauraki Gulf Islands.

With regard to (b) above, it should be noted that the proposed Plan has identified freehold subdivision in these areas as non-complying activities. The non-complying activity status is directly linked to the resource management strategy for these land units or settlement areas, which does not envisage freehold subdivisions taking place in these areas. The reason for the non-complying activity status is because the plan envisages a comprehensive land use development within these areas so that the overall intensity of development and the scale, form and location of individual activities and buildings can be assessed in a comprehensive and integrated manner for the island which results in better management of resources. Such an approach will provide greater public certainty over the extent to which subdivisions can be undertaken within these land units.

With regard to the point made by the submitter regarding the multiple dwellings identified in figure 10a.5 of the proposed Plan, this relates to the land use provisions of Rotoroa which seek to redevelop the island primarily for conservation purposes but also for residential and visitor activities. Providing for non-complying activity subdivision ensures that the overall intensity of development and the scale, form and location of individual activities and buildings can assessed in a comprehensive and integrated manner for the island which results is the better management of resources. This approach is also consistent with the objective and polices for the island.

In addition to the above, it should be noted that while freehold subdivision is a non-complying activity, unit titling and leasehold subdivision can still be applied for as restricted discretionary activities.

For reasons outlined above, it is recommended that submission 1102/15 be rejected.

4.88.2.4 Submission 1250/83

The above submission seeks to retain the provision beneath table 12.4 which states:

"any subdivision which is not a permitted, restricted discretionary or discretionary activity in the rules is a non-complying activity".

The above submission is supported as the provision seeks to provide greater clarity and consistency in the plan so that the community are aware that subdivision which is not in accordance with specific standards or terms requires non-complying activity consent.

On this basis, it is recommended that submission 1250/83 be accepted.

4.88.2.5 Submission 2094/5

The above submission requests that the legend that appears after table 12.4 Activity table for all types of subdivision, by changing the description of C1 from 'Commercial 1 (local shops)' to 'Commercial 1 (Oneroa village)'.

The above submission is supported as it seeks to change a minor error, which incorrectly referenced the wrong land unit. As such, it is recommended that submission 2094/5 is accepted and the legend that appears after table 12.4 (Activity table for all types of subdivision) is amended so that the description of C1 is changed from (local shops) to "Commercial 1 (Oneroa village)".

4.88.2.6 Submission 2846/6

As stated in section 4.87.2.2 above, the reclassification of 300 Karaka into a new settlement area will be considered in hearings report for the settlement areas. In the event amendments as a result of submission 2846, then consequential amendments to table 12.4 may be considered necessary and will be addressed at the time of the hearing.

As such, it is recommended that submission 2846/6 is rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to minimum and average site sizes in table 12.4 (Activity table for all types of subdivision).

Submissions 302/4, 374/4, 570/4, 575/4, 636/4, 639/4, 643/4, 652/4, 672/4, 685/4, 715/4, 732/4, 737/4, 797/4, 805/4, 806/4, 814/4, 823/4, 869/4, 888/4, 911/4, 921/4, 926/4, 955/4, 1019/4, 1040/4, 1055/23, 1153/4, 1166/11, 1231/4, 1240/4, 1720/4, 1721/4, 1722/4, 1723/4, 1724/4, 1725/4, 1726/4, 1727/4, 1728/4, 1729/4, 1730/4, 1731/4, 1732/4, 1733/4, 1734/4, 1735/4, 1736/4, 1737/4, 1738/4, 1739/4, 1740/4, 1741/4, 1742/4, 2113/4, 2116/4, 2281/4, 2783/4, 2831/4, 2992/4, 3004/4, 3189/4, 3203/4, 3217/4, 3224/4, 3239/4, 3244/4, 3256/4, 3266/4, 3272/4, 3282/4, 3308/4, 3326/4, 3328/4, 3339/4, 3353/4, 3363/4, 3368/4, 3383/4, 3417/4, 3562/4, 3623/4, 3818/4, 3276/4.
And;

302/6, 308/4, 371/4, 374/6, 570/6, 573/4, 575/6, 630/4, 630/4, 636/6, 639/6, 641/4, 643/6, 647/4, 652/6, 652/6, 656/4, 672/6, 674/4, 685/6, 686/4, 697/4, 699/4, 711/4, 715/6, 719/4, 726/4, 732/6, 737/6, 740/4, 797/6, 798/4, 805/6, 806/6, 807/4, 812/4, , 814/6, 815/4, 823/6, 824/4, 869/6, 873/4, 885/4, 888/6, 910/4, 911/6, 921/6, 926/6, 932/4, 955/6, 960/4, 1015/4, 1055/49, 1133/4, 1236/4, 1814/4, 1815/4, 1816/4, 1817/4, 1818/4, 1819/4, 1820/4, 1821/4, 1822/4, 1823/4, 1825/4, 1826/4, 1827/4, 1828/4, 1829/4, 1830/4, 1831/4, 1832/4, 1833/4, 1834/4, 1835/4, 1836/4, 2113/6, 2116/6, 2281/6, 2285/4, 2462/4, 2704/4, 2794/4, 2831/6, 2833/4, 2992/6, 2995/4, 3004/6, 3203/6, 3217/6, 3224/6, 3239/6, 3244/6, 3256/6, 3266/6, 3272/6, 3276/6, 3282/6, 3308/6, 3326/6, 3328/6, 3339/6, 3353/6, 3363/6, 3383/6, 3417/6, 3562/6, 3623/6, 3818/6, 3005/4, 3190/4, 3209/4, 3218/4, 3228/4, 3236/4, 3267/4, 3278/4, 3305/4, 3314/4, 3318/4, 3336/4, 3340/4, 3356/4, 3366/4, 3371/4, 3386/4, 3404/4, 3559/4, 3624/4, 3646/4, 3823/4, 3189/6, 3368/6, 3253/4, 3289/4 are accepted however, no changes to the Plan is required.
Submission 560/17 is rejected.
Submission 1102/14 is rejected.
Submission 1102/15 is rejected.
Submission 1250/83 be accepted.
Submission 2094/5 is accepted that the legend that appears after table 12.4 (Activity table for all types of subdivision) is amended so that the description of C1 is changed from (local shops) to "Commercial 1 (Oneroa village)".
The reclassification of 300 Karaka into a new settlement area will be considered in hearings report for the settlement areas. In the event amendments as a result of submission 2846, then consequential amendments to table 12.4 may be considered necessary and will be addressed at the time of the hearing.

5.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding subdivision 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	Kym Lewis
Reviewer	Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands
Approver	Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning