District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

(Notified version 2006)

Street index | Planning maps | Text | Appendices | Annexures | Section 32 material | Plan modifications | Help | Notified - Home | Decision - Home

Hearing reports index

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

1.0 Introduction

For ease of use and understanding, the heritage submissions and further submissions have been divided into the seven disciplines as well as an overall report which addresses submissions that broadly deal with the heritage section, or address more than one discipline. This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to broad aspects of part 7 of the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006 ('the Plan'). It does not deal with the individual heritage disciplines, which are subject to separate reports.

The Plan was publicly notified on 18 September 2006. The closing date for lodging submissions was 11 December 2006. The submissions and summary of decisions requested were publicly notified for further submission on 29 April 2007. The closing date for lodging further submissions was 28 May 2007.

This report has been prepared under section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 ('the RMA'), to assist the hearings panel to consider the submissions on broad heritage matters. This report discusses the submissions (grouped by subject matter or individually) and includes recommendations from the planner who prepared this report. The recommendations identify whether each submission should be accepted or rejected (in full or in part) and what amendments (if any) should be made to the Plan to address matters raised in submissions. Further submissions are not specifically addressed but are dealt with in conjunction with the submissions to which they relate.

The recommendations contained in this report are not decisions of the council. The council will issue its decisions following consideration of the submissions, further submissions, any supporting evidence presented at the hearing, and this report. The council's decisions will be released after all the hearings to the Plan have been completed. 

2.0 Statutory framework

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

1. The objectives of the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:
   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).
2. 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

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

Along with section 5, part 2 of the RMA includes sections 6 (matters of national importance), 7 (other matters) and 8 (Treaty of Waitangi), which set out a range of matters that the council needs to recognise and provide for in achieving the purpose of the RMA. Those matters are also relevant when considering submissions.

The Plan must assist the council to carry out its functions under section 31 of the RMA. These functions are:

"(a) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district:

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

(i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and

(ii) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and

(iia) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development, subdivision, or use of contaminated land:

(iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:

(c) ...

(d) The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:

(e) The control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of water in rivers and lakes."

In addition to the matters listed above from the Eldamos decision:

1. The Plan must "give effect to" any national policy statement and any New Zealand coastal policy statement (s75(3)(a) and (b)).
2. The Plan must "give effect to" the regional policy statement (made operative after 10 August 2005) (s75(3)(c)).
3. The Plan must be "not inconsistent with" any regional plan (s75(4)).
4. The council must ensure that that the Plan does not conflict with sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 ("the HGMPA").  Section 10 of the HGMPA requires that sections 7 and 8 of that Act be treated as a New Zealand coastal policy statement under the RMA.

3.0 Background

This section of the report sets out background information about the topic under consideration. Part 7 of the Plan addresses heritage matters for the HGI.  It outlines the issues for natural, cultural and scientific heritage resources and has an overall objective and policies which apply to all heritage resources. It then outlines the issues, objectives, policies and rules for each heritage discipline, i.e. archaeology, buildings, conservations areas, ecologically significant sites, geological items, Maori heritage and trees. Heritage interpretations and definitions are included within part 7.  

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about part 7 that are not specific to a particular heritage discipline and recommends how the panel could respond to the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions. The submissions are addressed under headings for each clause. While the relevant statutory matters (identified in section 2.0 of this report) will not necessarily be referred to directly, the discussion and recommendations have given appropriate consideration to these and any other relevant matters.

A list of the submissions which raise issues about part 7 – Heritage together with the related further submissions is contained in appendix 1. Appendix 2 contains the summary of the decisions requested by the submissions considered in this report. Any amendments to the Plan recommended in response to submissions are identified in this section of the report and are further detailed in appendix 3.

The list of submissions contained in appendix 1 may include some submissions and further submissions which were received 'late', 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 part 7 as a whole

Submissions dealt with in this section: 31/1, 264/2, 264/3, 291/2, 629/3, 1243/52, 1282/12, 1313/3, 1347/3, 1413/3, 1450/3, 1478/3, 1494/3, 1504/3, 1516/3, 1557/3, 1585/3, 1892/3, 1964/3, 2169/3, 2181/3, 2213/3, 2219/3, 2254/3, 2277/3, 2366/3, 2374/3, 2420/3, 2447/3, 2494/3, 3645/3, 3672/3, 3735/3, 3761/3, 1309/3 & 4, 1363/3 & 4, 1496/3 & 4, 1502/3 & 4, 1509/3 & 4, 1890/3 & 4, 1899/3 & 4, 1954/3 & 4, 2167/3 & 4, 2188/3 & 4, 2249/4 & 5, 2266/3 & 4, 2312/3 & 4, 2350/3 & 4, 2354/3 & 4, 3632/3 & 4, 3670/3 & 4, 3690/3 & 4, 3734/3 & 4, 3759/3 & 4, 3797/3 & 4, 1349/1, 1382/1, 1419/1, 1446/1, 1477/1, 1497/1, 1500/1, 1506/1, 1555/1, 1934/1, 1965/1, 1969/1, 1985/1, 2147/1, 2163/1, 2171/1, 2176/1, 2198/1, 2208/1, 2257/1, 2275/1, 2314/1, 2342/1, 2349/1, 2361/1, 2406/1, 2416/1, 2422/1, 2473/1, 3640/1, 3684/1, 3756/1, 3763/1, 2517/7, 2712/5, 2729/2, 2730/2, 2912/1, 2914/1, 2915/1, 2917/1, 3106/2, 3401/4 & 5, 3574/6 & 17, 3667/2, 1349/5, 1382/5, 1419/5, 1446/5, 1477/5, 1497/5, 1500/5, 1506/5, 1555/5, 1934/5, 1965/5, 1969/5, 1985/5, 2147/5, 2163/5, 2171/5, 2176/5, 2198/5, 2208/5, 2257/5, 2275/5, 2314/5, 2342/5, 2349/5, 2361/5, 2406/5, 2416/5, 2422/5, 2473/5, 3640/5, 3684/5, 3756/5, 3763/5

4.2.1 Decisions requested

• Inclusion of options regarding compensation to residents and landowners affected by heritage schedules in respect of loss of economic value, loss of rights and loss of enjoyment of affected properties. 
• Ngati Paoa supports the protection of scheduled items in the Plan. Of specific importance is the protection of Maori heritage/archaeological sites.
• Remove the whole of part 7, or rework it to take proper account of the private property rights of the land owners on whose property the heritage resources are located, in particular the rights of the land owners involved to farm their land.
• Inclusion under plan modification no. 39 (HGMPA) (With specific reference to the Islington Bay settlement on Rangitoto).
• Further consultation should be undertaken. 
• Council should commit to consultation with residents identifying and surveying heritage and ecological sites worthy of protection.
• That the method for determining which properties are subjected to part 7 and how the properties are affected be improved so that it is more easily understood by the ordinary citizen.
• Amend the provisions of Part 7 so that all applications affecting identified sites are classified and processed as restricted discretionary activities other than where proposed as permitted activities - except for the grazing of animals which should be a restricted discretionary activity.
• In respect of private land, the Council should limit its restrictions and protection to 'the most significant examples' of ecological and heritage items included in any survey of the island.
• Withdraw Part 7 and all related sections in respect of Great Barrier island.
• That Part 7.0 - Heritage be amended to enable DOC to undertake conservation activities (as defined in para 3.8 above) within conservation areas which are in their entirety or substantially scheduled as heritage sites. This includes, but is not limited to Rangitoto, Motuihe, Motokorea (Browns island)
• Opposes the idea of a world heritage zone
• Remove any future heritage assessments on 204 and 300 Gray Road, Claris (lot DP67203, lot 1 DP69083).
• Remove any future heritage assessments on 204 and 300 Gray Road, Claris (lot 3 DP67203, lot 1 DP69083).
• Robustly uphold all sections of part 7.
• Look into and include a mechanism whereby a matter, object, site or building can receive interim or temporary protection from harm whilst an investigation is undertaken.
• Establish as Policy that council will produce a comprehensive guide to the preservation, maintenance and enhancement of heritage items and buildings in the Hauraki Gulf. This guide should have a focus on enabling those commissioning and carrying out works to meet the requirements of the proposal. This guide will be enhanced by a full explanation of the historical context.
• That both landscape and the Natural Character of the Coastal Environment, including relevant management strategies and Assessment Criteria for Discretionary Activities, together with reference to the ARCs identification of Outstanding Landscapes in the ARPS Plan Change 8, should be addressed within Part 7 (heritage).
• The Plan should take note of heritage in its approach. Maori heritage in the way of waahi tapu and wai tapu must be respected, as must European/Pakeha heritage. It is not sufficient to have loose or blanket provisions to cover heritage matters. Where specific areas and items have been identified, these should be listed, along with a requirement to extend and complete the list as new items are identified. Proper involvement of local people and appropriate iwi in identification and listing of heritage sites and items should be a matter for attention so that these are included in the new Plan.
• Complete the list of heritage items in consultation with the local community, and in the case of waahi tapu and wai tapu in consultation with iwi.
• Council should commit to a balanced approach to heritage planning to ensure landowners and residents are not unduly penalised.
• Remove part 7 of the Plan in its current format completely.

4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.2.2.1  Part 7

Various submissions from Great Barrier seek compensation from residents and landowners for loss of economic value, loss of rights, loss of use and enjoyment. These submissions principally relate to the sites of ecological significance (SES) and sensitive areas (SA). It is noted that large parts of the Barrier are shown as being ecologically significant in the proposed Plan and that these were largely 'rolled over' from the operative Plan.

In achieving the purpose of the RMA, section 6 requires that specific matters of national importance are recognised and provided for. This includes the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna. In achieving this matter of national importance council has identified ecologically significant areas and included objectives, policies and rules in relation to them. However, further consideration of the SES' and SA's provisions has resulted in a recommendation that they are modified so that a range of permitted activities is provided for, the activity status has been changed to restricted discretionary and additional matters of discretion have been added. Some modifications have been made to the boundaries of these ecologically significant areas as well. These recommended changes are outlined in the ecology hearings report.  Therefore, it is considered that the impact of SES and SA denotations has been reduced. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that in achieving its functions under the RMA the council is not required to compensate landowners, especially as most ecologically significant sites on Great Barrier were 'rolled over' from the operative Plan. It is also noted that compensation is an issue which is largely determined outside the Plan review process. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.  

Submission 31/1 supports the protection of scheduled items in the Plan, in particular Maori heritage sites. It is recommended that this submission is accepted in part as it supports the heritage section.

Various submissions seek that further consultation is undertaken with particular parties. As outlined in the Plan and the section 32 report consultation was undertaken during the development of the Plan. Through the submission, further submission and hearing process people have the opportunity to address issues they may have with particular parts of the Plan. It is not considered necessary to undertake further consultation. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 264/2 & 3 seek that the Islington Bay community is recognised as having special value and character under the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. The HGMPA is addressed in the Plan and it is considered that the Plan is in accordance with its requirements. It is not considered necessary to make specific reference to the Islington Bay community. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.  

Submission 291/2 states that the method of determining properties is improved so that it is more easily understood by the ordinary citizen. Part 7 of the Plan outlines the issues, objectives, policies, rules and definitions that relate to heritage. Clause 7.4.1 states that the items are listed in appendix 1 – heritage schedules for the inner island and appendix 2 – heritage schedules for the outer islands. Therefore, appendices 1 and 2 clearly show through an aerial photograph the scheduled item and it scheduled site surrounds. It is also noted that there are non statutory annexures that outline the history of human settlement of the islands, the archaeology and geology of the islands. The introduction to appendix 1a outlines the key reasons for scheduling archaeological sites. It is considered that this information is clear, accessible and relatively easy to understand. Notwithstanding that, it is acknowledged that the activity tables (tables 7.1 and 7.2) are complicated. The rationale for this approach was to move away from the 'blunt' approach that requires resource consent for all activities on a heritage item to something more sophisticated that recognises that archaeological sites have different values and they vary considerably in terms of their fragility/robustness. Therefore, some activities may be acceptable on more robust archaeological sites (e.g, a Pa) whereas they may not be on a burial ground. While some minor changes are recommended to the activity tables to provide greater clarity it is recommended that they are retained.  It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Various submissions request that council should limit its restrictions and protection to the most significant examples of ecological and heritage items. For much of Part 7 this has been achieved. For example, only those archaeological sites that have sufficient heritage value were scheduled in the Plan. This has resulted in many archaeological sites not being scheduled in the Plan (but being subject to the Historic Places Act requirements). However, it is acknowledged that ecologically significant sites vary in terms of their significance, particularly for Great Barrier. To address this it is recommended that the provisions are modified so that a range of permitted activities were provided for, the activity status has been changed to restricted discretionary activity and additional matters of discretion have been added. Some modifications have been made to the boundaries of these ecologically significant areas as well.  However, these submissions appear to be specifically referring to SES' and SA's on Great Barrier and as it is recommended that these have not been significantly changed as appears to be the relief sought from the submission it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Various submissions request that part 7 of the Plan is withdrawn with consequential and related sections and paragraphs in respect of Great Barrier with the intention of consulting residents and landowners to produce a heritage plan that has wide support from residents and landowners. As outlined in clause 7.4.4 of the Plan much of the research needed to schedule items on Great Barrier has not been undertaken. The existing items are those that have been 'rolled over' from the operative Plan into the proposed Plan. As also outlined in this section the intention is to undertake further research and then notify a variation or plan change. During this process there will be consultation and submissions. If part 7 were withdrawn then there would be no heritage protection for Great Barrier, with the exception of that provided through the operative Plan. It is considered that council would not be meeting its statutory requirements if no heritage protection was provided in the Plan for Great Barrier. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.  

Various submissions from Great Barrier seek that council commits to a balanced approach to heritage protection to ensure that current land owners and residents are not unduly penalised by the heritage provisions in the Plan. As noted in clause 7.4.4 of the Plan Great Barrier was not re-assessed from a heritage perspective as part of the Plan review process. Therefore, the scheduled sites and items are those that were largely 'rolled over' from the operative Plan. The main issue for Great Barrier is the ecologically significant sites. As noted above to address this it is recommended that the provisions are modified so that a range of permitted activities were provided for, the activity status has been changed to restricted discretionary activity and additional matters of discretion have been added. Some modifications have been made to the boundaries of these ecologically significant areas as well. It is considered that this is a more balanced approach than that in the Plan as notified. Therefore, it is recommended that these submissions are accepted in part.

Submission 2517/7 requests that part 7 be amended to enable DoC to undertake conservation activities within conservation areas which are in their entirety or substantially scheduled as heritage items.  This issue was largely addressed through the DoC submission on the conservation land unit. This issue is currently been deliberated on by the hearing panel. As this issue is currently being considered no recommendation is made as part of this hearing report.  

Various submissions seek that the provisions of part 7 are maintained whereas others oppose them. Some changes are recommended to the heritage section, however, in essence it is recommended that the section be retained.  It is therefore recommended that those submissions that oppose part 7 in its entirety are rejected and those that seek it be maintained are accepted in part.

Submission 2914/1 requests that a mechanism is included whereby a building can receive temporary protection whilst an investigation is undertaken.  To include an item on the heritage schedule of the Plan a plan change or variation is required.  However, section 187 of the RMA enables council as a heritage protection authority to place a heritage protection order on a building, property or place. This can be achieved without going through the plan change process.  Therefore, it is not considered necessary, or appropriate, to include such a mechanism in the Plan. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 2915/1 requests that council produces a comprehensive guide to preserve, maintain and enhance heritage items. This should include full explanation of the historical context. It is noted that the historical context of the HGI is outlined in the heritage appendices.  In relation to the need to produce a guide for heritage items this does not need to be part of the Plan process. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 3106/2 requires that both landscape and natural character of the coastal environment be addressed in part 7. Landscape and natural character are addressed throughout the Plan.  In particular, part 2 outlines the coastal and landscape issues and objectives. These considerations underpin the land units which have objectives, policies and rules that seek to retain and protect the natural character and landscape of the coastal environment. Given strong consideration of these issues is addressed throughout the Plan itself it is not considered necessary to also include these in part 7. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 1243/52 recommends that part 7 is removed or it is reworked to take into account private property rights of the land owners on whose property the heritage resource is located, in particular the rights of land owners involved to farm their land. Firstly, it is noted that the Plan does not over-ride existing use rights which are outlined in section 10 of the RMA. Notwithstanding this, it is acknowledged that part 7 does seek to protect specific heritage resources on private property. These range from old Pa sites, to boulder fields to remnant podocarp forest. With the exception of those disciplines and islands outlined in clause 7.4.4 these heritage features have been identified and evaluated as being worthy of some form of protection.

It is considered that identifying and protecting heritage resources will enable people and communities to provide for their cultural wellbeing by requiring consideration of the heritage values through any resource consent process. It will also meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations by helping to sustain natural resources, as well as possibly avoiding the adverse effects of activities on the environment (through the requirements in the Plan to assess any resource consent application against heritage specific assessment criteria).  It is also noted that in most instances applying controls does not preclude the owners from applying for resource consent to modify or demolish them. Therefore, it is considered that the revised provisions promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, which is the scheme of the RMA, and help council achieve its functions as a territorial authority.  Given this it is recommended that the submission is rejected.

Submission 1282/12 seeks that part 7 is amended so that heritage infringements are processed as restricted discretionary activities. As noted, it is recommended that for clause 7.11 (ecological sites) that the activity status is amended to restricted discretionary. Other amendments are recommended to specific heritage disciplines, and these are outlined in the specific reports. It is therefore recommended that this submission is accepted in part.

Submissions 3574/6 and 17 request that the Plan take note of heritage matters and not have loose or blanket provisions to cover heritage matters. Heritage items should be identified and listed with the proper involvement of the local people and iwi. Apart from Maori heritage, and those islands that have not been surveyed, heritage disciplines have identified, assessed and where appropriate scheduled heritage items. The objectives, policies and rules for the various heritage items are outlined in part 7 of the Plan and the actual location of the items is listed in the planning maps as well as the heritage appendices. While Maori heritage sites, and various islands, have not been assessed in the Plan from a heritage perspective, as outlined in clause 7.4.4 and 7.13 of the Plan the council will notify a plan change or variation to the Plan to address this issue.

Submission 3667/2 requests that part 7 be removed completely. If part 7 of the Plan did not exist there would not be any statutory protection for heritage items, part from what is in the operative Plan. This would mean that council would not be meeting its statutory obligations in terms of sections 6(c), (e) and (f) of the RMA. It is therefore recommended that the submission is rejected.

Submissions 2729/2 and 2730/2 seek that the heritage items are removed from their respective properties. The properties are located immediately north of Kaitoke creek and the southern most portion of the sites fall within SES 54-1. The area mapped is salt marsh vegetation dominated by oioi that is habitat for threatened wildlife including brown teal and banded rail. Also, wetlands are a national priority for protection in recently released government guidelines (MfE and DOC, 2007). It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 2712/5 opposes the idea of a world heritage zone, with reference to Great Barrier. It is not clear what a world heritage zone is, however, it is not considered that such an approach has been applied to Great Barrier, or the remainder of the HGI. Further clarification is sought from the submitter at the hearing, but in the interim it is recommended that the submission is rejected.

4.3 Submissions about figure 7.1 – Heritage resources

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2519/1 and 2641/10

4.3.1 Decisions requested

That figure 7.1 is amended as outlined in the submissions.

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Submission 2519/1 requests an amendment to the figure 7.1 by changing the reference to archaeological Maori heritage to archaeological Maori and European heritage. It is considered that the wording suggested in the submission is more accurate than that in the notified Plan and it is therefore recommended that it is accepted.

Submission 2641/10 requests that figure 7.1 is amended to read "there is some much overlap between the groupings". It is considered that existing wording is sufficient and it is not necessary to change it.

4.4 Submissions about clause 7.1

Submissions dealt with in this section: 709/1, 1055/34, 3061/66

4.4.1 Decisions requested

• Supports the objectives and clause 7.1.
• Mention wetlands under ecology in clause 7.1

4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Submissions 709/1 and 1055/34 support the introductory clauses that outline the approach to heritage issues in the HGI. It is recommended that these submissions are accepted.

Submission 3061/66 requests that wetlands are mentioned under ecology in clause 7.1. Clause 7.1 gives a brief introduction to the heritage section of the Plan and mentions some of the heritage resources, such as sites of ecological significance, heritage building etc. This list is not meant to be exhaustive and list all the heritage features contained within the HGI. As such, it is not considered necessary to include reference to wetlands.

4.5 Submissions about clause 7.2

Submissions dealt with in this section: 298/5, 380/5, 568/5, 586/5, 628/5, 634/5, 646/5, 673/5, 696/5, 706/5, 709/2, 3 & 10 731/5, 736/5, 748/5, 802/5, 819/5, 828/5, 837/5, 844/5, 850/5, 858/5, 871/5, 889/5, 893/5, 902/5, 925/5, 928/5, 957/5, 1011/5, 1055/35, 36 & 43, 1123/5, 1152/5, 1204/5, 1216/5, 1232/5, 1291/5, 1375/5, 1572/1, 1636/5, 1637/5, 1638/5, 1639/5, 1640/5, 1641/5, 1642/5, 1643/5, 1644/5, 1645/5, 1646/5, 1647/5, 1648/5, 1649/5, 1650/5, 1651/5, 1652/5, 1653/5, 1654/5, 1655/5, 1656/5, 1657/5, 1658/5, 1659/5, 1660/5, 1662/5, 1663/5, 2124/5, 2131/5, 2133/5, 2278/5, 2283/5, 2463/5, 2561/5, 2641/9, 11 & 12, 2675/5, 2679/5, 2684/5, 2691/5, 2695/5, 2706/5, 2710/5, 2780/5, 2782/5, 2791/5, 2826/5, 2830/5, 2842/5, 2994/5, 3009/5, 3011/5, 3025/5, 3061/48, 3354/5, 3401/1, 2 & 3, 3513/5, 3521/57, 58 & 59, 3536/5, 3561/5, 3569/5, 3573/5, 3589/5, 3628/5, 3786/5, 3806/5, 3832/5, 3814/5, 3817/5, 3836/5, 3838/4

4.5.1 Decisions requested

• Provide proper protection that answers the questions raised in clauses 7.2.1, 7.2.2.1, 7.2.2.2 and 7.2.3.
• Support and retain various parts of clause 7.2
• Opposes the Plans failure to answer questions in 7.2.1, 7.2.2.1, 7.2.2.2 and 7.2.3.
• Add additional wording.
• Amend clause 7.2
• Amend clause 7.2 to clarify that the current state of the formal identification (including location) and evaluation of cultural heritage resource on the Hauraki Gulf islands outside of Waiheke, is very incomplete and for this reason a precautionary approach should be taken.
• Amend clause 7.2 to include reference to the blanket protection afforded to all archaeological sites under the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993.
• Enumerate ways of achieving listed issues (clause 7.2.1), and then ask for comment.
• Seeks amendments to clause 7.2.2 as it lacks clear understanding that all natural and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf Islands have a cultural significance to Tangata Whenua as identified in clause 3.2.2(6) and clause 3.2.3(6) of the Plan.

4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Various submissions request that proper protection is provided to the questions raised in clauses 7.2.1, 7.2.2.1, 7.2.2.2 and 7.2.3. The main issues of concern in these submissions revolve around the lack of identified Maori heritage sites in the Plan. While a separate hearing report will be undertaken for Maori heritage it is acknowledged that Maori heritage sites are not scheduled in the Plan at present. As outlined in clause 7.13 of the Plan a plan change or variation may be introduced to the Plan to recognise, identify and protect Maori heritage sites. Therefore, it is acknowledged that the Plan as notified fails to address this important issue, however, it outlines a way forward so that it can be addressed. As no specific changes are recommended to address this issue it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Various submissions request that the ways for achieving the listed issues are explained and commented on, and oppose the Plan's failure to answer the questions. The objectives, policies and rules are the means for addressing the issues. It is not considered necessary to provide further clarification. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Various submissions support the values expressed in clause 7.2 and seek that they are retained. It is recommended that these submissions are accepted.

Submission 3521/57 requests that clause 7.2 is amended to state that the current state of formal identification and evaluation of cultural heritage outside of Waiheke is incomplete and a precautionary approach should be undertaken. Clause 7.4.4 of the Plan outlines those islands where no new heritage items have been identified. It is not considered necessary to repeat this in clause 7.2. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 3521/58 requests that clause 7.2 is amended to refer to the blanket protection to all archaeology sites under the Historic Places Act. It is noted that clause 7.8.1 specifically outlines the archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Act. It is noted that the report that addresses archaeological sites recommends changes to clause 7.8.1 to better describe the provisions of the Historic Places Act; also additional wording is suggested at the end of tables 7.1 and 7.2 with reference to the HPA. However, it is not considered necessary to repeat these in clause 7.2. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 3521/59 requests that clause 7.2.2.1 is amended to include reference to the blanket protection afforded to all archaeological sites under the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993. Clause 7.8.1 explains the provisions of the Historic Places Act. As noted in the preceding paragraph changes to the existing wording in clause 7.8.1 is recommended in the archaeological report, as well as additional wording for the activity tables. However, it is not considered necessary to repeat this in clause 7.2.2.1.  It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected. 

Submission 1572/1 seeks amendments to clause 7.2.2 as it lacks clear understanding that all natural and physical resources in the HGI have cultural significance to tangata whenua.  The submission does not provide details of how clause 7.2 should be amended to address this. It is recommended that the submitter attend the hearing to explain how this can be addressed. No recommendation has been made regarding this submission.

4.6 Submissions about clause 7.3

Submissions dealt with in this section: 337/4, 338/4, 2641/13 & 14.

4.6.1 Decisions requested

• Retain clause 7.3.
• Add a policy as follows: "By ensuring that the use and development does not result in the damage or destruction of significant heritage resources of natural, cultural and scientific value."
• Amend clause 7.3(2) as follows: "By controlling where appropriate the use, development of natural and physical resources in a manner that preserves and protects the scheduled heritage resource, and its scheduled site surrounds."

4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Submissions 337/4 and 338/4 request that clause 7.3.2 is amended by inserting the words 'where appropriate' as follows:  "By controlling, where appropriate, the use and development of natural and physical resources in a manner that preserves and protects the scheduled heritage resource, and its scheduled site surrounds." The resource management objective is to recognise and protect heritage resources of natural, cultural and scientific value. Clause 7.3.2 is the second policy for achieving the objective. The first policy for achieving the objective is by identifying, assessing and scheduling significant heritage sites. Therefore, not all heritage resources were scheduled, only those that had sufficient heritage value to warrant it. Because council has gone through a process of identifying, assessing and scheduling heritage resources it is considered appropriate to have a policy that controls land use and development to protect those heritage resources. It is not considered necessary or appropriate to add the wording 'where appropriate.' It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 2641/14 requests that a policy be added under clause 7.3 as follows:

By ensuring that use and development does not result in damage or destruction of significant heritage resources of natural, cultural and scientific value.

It is considered that policy 2, which is noted in the preceding paragraph, which requires the preservation and protection of scheduled heritage resources is sufficient and it is not necessary to add an additional policy in this regard. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 2641/13 seeks that clause 7.3 is retained. It is recommended that this submission is accepted.

4.7 Submissions about clause 7.4

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1250/16, 1596/10, 2519/2, 2641/15 & 17, 2911/1, 3104/8, 3521/53, 60 & 61.

4.7.1 Decisions requested

• Retain clause 7.4 and clause 7.4.1
• Amend clause 7.4.2 as follows: "The extent to which such sites and features may be relevant protected will depend on the nature of any proposed land use and any resource consent that may be required for that land use."
• Amend clause 7.4.2 to include incentives such as rates relief and funding for conservation activities.
• Remove clause 7.4.3.
• Concern raised that survey data not included in the heritage review.
• Provide further information on the variation or plan change referred to in clause 7.4.4.
• Further heritage assessments will be required on Waiheke and Great Barrier.
• Opposes clause 7.4.4 and new heritage sites being scheduled without consultation with the landowner.
• Amend clause 7.4.4 to recognise importance for reassessment of SES areas and identify new SES'. In particular priority should be given to Great Barrier.

4.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Submission 2519/2 requests that clause 7.4.2 is amended as follows:

The extent to which such sites and features may be relevant protected will depend on the nature of any proposed land use and any resource consent that may be required for that land use.

The purpose of the clause is to outline that other heritage protection methods are available to council. The intent of the last sentence, outlined above, is to describe how other heritage protection features may be considered for alternative protection methods. It is not meant to indicate that they will definitely be protected. It is therefore recommended that the submission is rejected.

Submission 3521/60 requests that other incentives, such as rates relief, funding for conservation activities etc, are included within clause 7.4.2. Clause 7.4.2 is not meant to be an exhaustive list of alternative heritage protection methods. Also, rates relief and funding would be included within the broad description of economic incentives. It is therefore recommended that the submission is rejected.  

Submission 1250/16 seeks that clause 7.4.3 is removed because significant environmental features should already have existing levels of protection and should not require subdivision to achieve this. Part 7 of the Plan generally requires resource consent for particular works to, on, in, or around heritage features. If a site is subdivided using the SEF provisions then the significant environmental feature is protected through a consent notice or another suitable legal mechanism registered against the certificate of title. This form of protection would be greater than that provided through the Plan and would potentially be in perpetuity, whereas a Plan is reviewed every 10 years. Therefore the SEF provisions can provide a greater degree of protection to the significant environmental feature than that provided by the Plan. It is therefore recommended that clause 7.4.3 is retained and the submission rejected.

Submissions 1596/10 raises concern that heritage data from the survey carried out in 2000 was not included within the Plan. All relevant information was used to develop part 7 of the Plan as well as the heritage appendices. Therefore it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submissions 2641/17 requests that further information is provided on the timeline for a plan change or variation to the heritage section, particularly in relation to items in the outer islands and Maori Heritage sites across the gulf. Consistent with recommendations to specific disciplines in the other heritage reports, it is recommended that the Panel recommend that officers undertake this scoping work and report to the City Development Committee with recommendations.  It is anticipated that this scoping work will be done in the 2008/09 financial year and therefore any changes to the Plan will be made after the decision version of the Plan has been released. It is therefore recommended that this submission is accepted.

Submission 2911/1 requests that further heritage work will be required on Great Barrier and Waiheke and new objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria should reflect that. Clause 7.4.4 outlines the further work that needs to be undertaken. It is not considered necessary to add new objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria. It is therefore recommended that the submission is rejected.

Submission 3104/8 opposes new heritage sites being included without consultation with land owners and refers to the 'blue lines'. The blue lines on the planning maps are sensitive areas – areas that have ecological value because of the flora and/or fauna in that specified area. These have been 'rolled over' from the operative Plan and are not 'new' heritage sites. It is therefore recommended that the submission is rejected. 

Submission 3521/61 requests that clause 7.4.4 is amended to recognise the importance for the reassessment of sites of ecological significance in Great Barrier.  Clause 7.4.4 outlines that at the time of notification it was not possible to identify and assess all heritage items for the islands and the way forward in terms of a plan change or variation. It is not considered necessary to include further information in clause 7.4.4 about the importance of re-assessing SES' on Great Barrier. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submissions 2641/15 and 3521/53 request that clause 7.4 is retained. It is recommended that these submissions be accepted.

4.8 Submissions about clause's 7.5-7.7

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2519/3, 2641/18, 2912/2 & 3 and 3521/62

4.8.1 Decisions requested

• Retain clauses 7.6 and 7.7.
• Amend clause 7.5 to refer to the HGMPA.
• Add the following word to clause 7.5: "The Department of Conservation is primarily responsible for managing the natural and historic heritage resources located within the crown owned estate under the Conservation Act 1987".
• Amend clause 7.5 to state the following or similar: The role of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust relates to the recognition, protection and promotion of New Zealand's historic and cultural heritage. The NZHPT role is outlined within the Historic Places Act 1993, and includes regulatory responsibilities in relation to the protection of all archaeological sites (see section 7.8.1 'The archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Act'). In relation to the NZHPT heritage advocacy role, a notified resource consent must be served on the New Zealand Historic Places Trust if it relates to land subject to a Heritage Order or a Requirement for a Heritage Order, or is otherwise identified in the Plan as having heritage value, including any archaeological site, or affects any item on the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Register of historic places, historic areas, waahi tapu and waahi tapu areas. For a non-notified resource consent application the Council requires that written approval be obtained from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust as a body that may be adversely affected where the scheduled heritage item in the Plan is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust itself or is the subject of a Heritage Order. For other heritage items registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust but not scheduled in the Plan, including all archaeological sites, the Council may require that written approval be obtained from the Trust or, at the least, of evidence that the Trust has been notified of the application.

4.8.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Submission 3521/62 requests that clause 7.5 is amended to refer to the HGMPA 2000. It is considered that the HGMPA is adequately referenced in clause 2.3.2 of the Plan and it is not necessary to add additional text in this regard.  It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.  

Submissions 2519/3 requests that additional wording is added to clause 7.5.

The Department of Conservation is primarily responsible for managing the natural and historic heritage resources located within the crown owned estate under the Conservation Act 1987.

It is considered that the additional wording suggested by the submitter better describes DoC's responsibilities and it is recommended the submission is accepted.

Submission 2641/18 requests additional wording in relation to clause 7.5 about the role of the Historic Places Trust. The suggested wording addresses issues associated with written approvals and notification for resource consent applications on land subject to heritage orders etc. It is considered that decisions on notification and written approvals are best made as part of the consent process, rather than being outlined the Plan. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submissions 2912/2 and 3 support clauses 7.6 and 7.7. It is recommended that these submissions are accepted.

4.8.2.1  Scheduled heritage items – appendices

Submissions dealt with in this section: 31/2, 45/1, 294/1, 526/13, 527/13, 528/13, 529/13, 539/13, 945/1, 1097/1, 1135/1, 1135/2, 1405/5, 1406/5, 2641/16, 63-64, 1349/2, 1382/2, 1419/2, 1446/2, 1477/2, 1497/2, 1500/2, 1506/2, 1555/2, 1934/2, 1965/2, 1969/2, 1985/2, 2147/2, 2163/2, 2171/2, 2176/2, 2198/2, 2208/2, 2257/2, 2275/2, 2314/2, 2342/2, 2349/2, 2361/2, 2406/2, 2416/2, 2422/2, 2473/2, 2712/1-4, 3640/2, 3684/2, 3756/2, 3763/2, 1349/3, 1382/3, 1419/3, 1446/3, 1477/3, 1497/3, 1500/3, 1506/3, 1555/3, 1934/3, 1965/3, 1969/3, 1985/3, 2147/3, 2163/3, 2171/3, 2176/3, 2198/3, 2208/3, 2257/3, 2275/3, 2314/3, 2342/3, 2349/3, 2361/3, 2406/3, 2416/3, 2422/3, 2473/3, 3640/3, 3684/3, 3756/3, 3763/3

4.8.3 Decisions requested

• Submitter seeks time and consultation for heritage designations.
• Seeks ability to try and clear land from heritage zone designations.
• Seeks to challenge heritage zone designations.
• Remove blanket heritage designation on property.
• Re-evaluate sensitive sites  and sites of ecological significance for accuracy and consult with owners
• Undertake a comprehensive audit of outer island planning maps to correct significant inaccuracies.
• Reinstate appendix C from operative Plan.
• Make additions to appendix C from the operative Plan.
• Retain heritage appendices.
• Amend appendices to include name of feature.
• Amend appendix 1-6 to ensure all heritage items are assessed against the relevant evaluation criteria and are allocated the correct category.
• Heritage items should not be included in the Plan until specific key points are considered, determined and clarified.
• Withdraw appendix 2 and 4 of Plan and all consequential sections and paragraphs in respect of Great Barrier and consult with residents.
• Supports protection of heritage item on the station at 32 Man O War Bay Road.
• Seeks clarification of heritage site notation at 372 Seaview Road
• Unless the value, number and dimensions of archaeological sites, geological sites and SES' on Thumb Point Station, Man O' War Farm, Huruhe Station, Man O' War Station and South Coast Station land can be supported by relevant statutory assessment they should be deleted or amended.

4.8.4 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Submission 1097/1 seeks clarification of the heritage site notation for 372 Seaview Road. 372 Seaview Road has a soil and erosion overlay not a heritage overlay. It is therefore recommended that this submission is accepted with no changes to the Plan.

Submissions 526/13, 527/13, 528/13, 529/13 and 539/13 state that unless the value, number and dimensions of the archaeological, geological and ecological sites on Thumb Point Station, Man O War Farm and Huruhe Station, Man O' War Station and South Coast Station can be supported by a relevant and satisfactory assessment they should be deleted or amended. For the inner islands all potential archaeological, geological and ecological sites were identified, assessed and if they had sufficient heritage value were protected through the Plan. A review of all submissions relating to the various heritage disciplines was undertaken by the relevant experts and it was confirmed that the items on these properties had sufficient heritage value to warrant protection via the Plan. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are accepted with no changes to the Plan as the relevant items do have sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling in the Plan.

Submission 294/1 requests that heritage sites are not included within the Plan until various points are clarified, such as proof of archaeological finding in comparison to the Incas, Greece, Rome etc; carbon dating and identification and that the indigenous people have the most important say in heritage and spiritual values. New Zealand has its own heritage. It is not considered necessary to undertake a comparison of our heritage against that of other countries. In relation to archaeological sites, which have not been 'rolled over' from the operative Plan, these have assessed by suitably experienced and qualified experts in their particular field. Not all archaeological sites were scheduled under the Plan, only those that exhibit sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling. In consultation with tangata whenua a plan change or variation will be undertaken to include Maori heritage sites within the Plan. It is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submissions 2712/1-4 seek time to work out the implications of the heritage zone designation, negotiation to try and clear land from the heritage zone designations, consultation on heritage zone designations and the ability to challenge their validity. As outlined in clause 7.4.4 of the Plan no new heritage items have been identified for the outer islands. Therefore, those that have been included for Great Barrier have been 'rolled over' from the operative Plan. In terms of challenging the validity of the heritage zone 'designation' as no details have been provided about which heritage items do not warrant scheduling the submitter is invited to present evidence at the hearing about particular scheduled items that they consider may not warrant scheduling and this will be taken into account in the decision making process. In the interim it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 45/1 requests that the blanket heritage designation is removed from his property. Mr George Medland owned numerable properties in and around the Medlands area. The submission does not describe which property is subject to the blanket heritage designation and what type of heritage designation it is. However, it is likely to be a site of ecological significance, possibly SES 57-3 which covers some of Mr Medland's properties. This is described as southern forests the core components of which are low altitude podocarp/broadleaf forest, the core strip of which is surrounded by regenerating manuka and kanuka. There are also remnants of coastal forest along the coastline. It is considered that this forest area is worthy of some level of protection under the Plan, however, it is noted that some modifications are recommended to the rules for SES's and SA's. Notwithstanding this, it is recommended that unless information is provided confirming that this forest is not ecologically significant that the submission is rejected and the SES overlay remain.

Submission 945/1 requests that ecologically significant sites are reviewed for their accuracy, and that appropriate consultation needs to be carried out. It is acknowledged that the SES's and SA's were 'rolled over' from the operative Plan and that they have not been re-surveyed. Consultation was undertaken as part of the Plan review process and this is outlined in part 1.3.7. The proposed Plan does not impose additional restrictions in relation to these ecologically significant areas over and above what was in the operative Plan. Furthermore, as it is recommended that the rules for ecologically significant areas are relaxed the level of restriction in the proposed Plan will potentially be less than those in the operative Plan. Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that council intends to reassess the heritage of the outer islands (including Barrier) and a plan change or variation will be released in relation to this. Therefore it is recommended that submission 945/1 be rejected.

Submissions 1405/5 and 1406/5 request that a comprehensive audit and where applicable an amendment to the outer island planning maps is undertaken to correct inaccuracies. As noted above, it is intended that a scoping work will be done in the heritage parts of the Plan in 08/09 financial year and therefore any work to make changes to the Plan will be done after the decision version has been released. It is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Submissions 1135/1 and 2 seek that appendix C from the operative Plan is reinstated and that additions are made to it using recent data. Appendix C of the operative Plan denotes sites of ecological significance in the HGI and sensitive areas. For the majority of the inner islands ecologically significant areas have been re-surveyed and scheduled where appropriate. Therefore, this information is recent and accurate and it is not recommended it be replaced with information from the operative Plan. For the outer islands the SES' and SA's have been 'rolled over' from the operative Plan. Therefore, some of the information included within appendix C has been included within the proposed Plan, but in a different format. It is not recommended that the same format be used from the operative Plan. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 2641/63 & 64 request that the name of the feature be included in appendices 1-6 and request that all items are assessed against the relevant evaluation criteria. It is acknowledged that in the heritage appendices, particularly those for the inner islands that use of nomenclature varies between the heritage disciplines when denoting the 'name of the item'. However, it is noted that use of nomenclature is generally consistent for each discipline itself and that the heritage appendices are reasonably clear and easy to understand. As such, it is not considered necessary to change them. It is noted that some modifications have been recommended to particular sites and these are outlined in the reports on those particular disciplines.  It is recommended that these submissions are rejected.  

Other submissions support the heritage appendices, or particular parts of them. It is recommended that these submissions are accepted.  

Various submissions request that appendix 2 and 4 of the Plan is withdrawn in respect of Great Barrier with the intent of consulting with residents and landowners and producing a Plan which has wide support from residents and landowners. For the reasons outlined in this report it is not recommended that appendix 2 and 4 be withdrawn, however, as noted in clause 7.4.4 of the Plan a variation or plan change will be introduced to address heritage matter for those parts of the HGI that have not been assessed. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.  

4.9 Submissions about heritage annexure 1a-1c

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1707/2, 1708/2, 1709/2, 1710/2, 1711/2, 1712/2, 1713/2, 1714/2, 1715/2, 1716/2, 1717/2, 1718/2, 1719/2, 2122/2, 2125/2, 2774/2, 2786/2, 2845/2, 1296/2, 843/2, 818/2, 810/2, 933/2, 1021/2, 1195/2, 801/2, 587/2, 379/2, 827/2, 3194/2, 3008/2, 3018/2, 3195/2, 3247/2, 3390/2, 3627/2, 1707/1, 1708/1, 1709/1, 1710/1, 1711/1, 1712/1, 1713/1, 1714/1, 1715/1, 1716/1, 1717/1, 1718/1, 1719/1, 2122/1, 2125/1, 2774/1, 2786/1, 2845/1, 1296/1, 843/1, 818/1, 827/1, 933/1, 1021/1, 1195/1, 587/1, 801/1, 379/1, 3195/1, 3008/1, 3018/1, 3194/1, 3247/1, 3390/1, 3627/1 3061/107

4.9.1 Decisions requested

• That section 8 Recreation of annexure 1a be rewritten to give a comprehensive historical background to the reasons for the recreational development both of Waiheke Island and Hauraki Gulf in general.
• That any such rewrite be referred to the communities involved before publication for correction and/or amendment.
• The description of the history of recreation on the island in the Plan is considered to be distorted and inadequate

4.9.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Annexure 1a-1c are non statutory and provide background information to the Plan. Submitters have raised concerns about the information that addresses the recreational history in the HGI, stating it fails to give a comprehensive history to Waiheke and makes little reference to recreation in the HGI in general. It is acknowledged that the 5.5 page history of human settlement of the islands is not comprehensive and that part 8 focuses on Waiheke. However, it is not supposed to be a thorough and detailed analysis of the HGI's history. Its purpose is to provide some context to the Plan, in particular the heritage section. It is not considered necessary to comprehensively document the HGI's recreational history. Should people want further details on the HGI's history then there are books which give a detailed account on the subject. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

5.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding the overall part 7 matters 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.

Appendix 1

List of submissions and further submissions

Appendix 2

Summary of decisions requested

Appendix 3

Recommended amendments to the Plan

Published September 2008