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

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

Topic:	Part 7 – Heritage (Geology)
Report to:	The Hearing Panel
Author:	Sarah Smith
Date:	1 September 2008
Group file:	314/274010-005

1.0 Introduction

For ease of use and understanding, the heritage submissions and further submissions have been divided into the seven themes which relate to different heritage disciplines:

archaeological sites
buildings, objects, properties and places of special value
conservation areas
ecological sites
geological items
Maori heritage
trees.

Each heritage theme has been addressed in a separate hearing report. Each hearing report addresses all matters within the Plan that relate to that discipline. For example, this report addresses submissions relating to geological items in:

part 7 – Heritage
appendix 1e – Schedule of geological items – inner islands
appendix 2e – Schedule of geological items – outer islands
appendix 4 – Criteria for scheduling heritage items.

There are submissions that relate to more than one discipline; these have been addressed in the general heritage hearing report.

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to geological items of the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006 ('the Plan'). The Plan was publicly notified on 18 September 2006. The closing date for lodging submissions was 11 December 2006. The submissions and summary of decisions requested were publicly notified for further submission on 29 April 2007. The closing date for lodging further submissions was 28 May 2007.

This report has been prepared under section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 ('the RMA'), to assist the hearings panel to consider the submissions on geological items. 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:

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 "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 geological items.

The islands abound with a diverse range of geological items that contribute to its distinctive qualities. The Plan provides protection to geological items through identifying and scheduling these unique resources that are significant for their scientific, integrity, educational and historic values.

The evaluation criteria set out in appendix 4 is used to determine whether a geological item is a category A or category B. Category A is given to items that are extremely valuable where their degradation would be unacceptable in terms of achieving the purpose of the RMA. Category B is given to items that are considered to be less significant than category A items, however it is still important to protect these items from inappropriate use and development.

The geological items are divided into feature types and the matrix tables used to determine the rules that apply. There is a diverse range of geological items ranging from fragile items to items that are more robust and therefore the rules that apply are variable depending on the feature type.

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about geological items and recommends how the panel could respond to the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions. The submissions are addressed under subject headings. While the relevant statutory matters (identified in section 2.0 of this report) will not necessarily be referred to directly, the discussion and recommendations have given appropriate consideration to these and any other relevant matters.

A list of the submissions which raise issues about geological items 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 supporting clause 7.12

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2912/7, 3521/55

4.2.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2912/7 seeks to retain clause 7.12.

Submission 3521/55 seeks to retain clause 7.12.2(1) and retain geological items identified.

4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

These submissions are in support of the scheduling of geological items and the provisions that relate to them. It is therefore recommended that they be accepted as geological items contribute to the distinctive quality of the islands and it is important to protection them through scheduling because of their scientific, integrity, educational and historic values.

Planner's recommendations about supportive submissions

That submissions 2912/7 and 3521/55 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

4.3 Submissions about clause 7.12.3

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2091/10, 2091/11

4.3.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2091/10 seeks to amend the heading of clause 7.12.3 to read 'Criteria for ~~evaluating~~ scheduling geological sites.

Submission 2091/11 seeks to amend the second sentence of clause 7.12.3.2 – category B, by changing 'item' to 'items'.

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Both of these submissions seek to correct typographical errors and therefore it is recommended that they be accepted.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to clause 7.12.3

That submission 2091/10 be accepted and the heading of clause 7.12.3 be amended to read:

Criteria for ~~evaluating~~ scheduling geological sites

That submission 2091/11 be accepted and the second sentence of clause 7.12.3.2 be amended to read as follows:

Therefore, the partial loss or modification of category B ~~item~~ items may be acceptable where there is no alternative and everything has been done to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects.

4.4 Submissions about clause 7.12.4

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1243/60, 1243/61

4.4.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1243/60 seeks to ensure that landowners are aware of category A and B scheduled geological items on their properties.

Submission 1243/61 seeks for the council to provide assistance to fence off land where it is not practical to exclude the types of stock for which consent is required for grazing.

4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Many of the geological features are on public land. Consultation was carried out with DOC in relation to conservation land and with property owners that had geological features on their properties. Letters also went out to property owners about heritage features on their property. When the Plan was notified property owners had the opportunity to submit on the Plan and attend hearings.

Therefore it is considered that the council has the processes in place to ensure that landowners are aware of geological items on their properties. It is recommended that this submission be accepted with no amendments to the Plan as the council has processes for increasing awareness of heritage items for property owners.

Funding

The council provides funding assistance for some conservation projects on private land. Other organisations including the Auckland Regional Council and QEII National Trust also provide funding assistance. The QEII National Trust provides opportunities and assistance in protecting special areas through an open space covenant. The QEII Trust also offers funding assistance for activities such as fencing to eligible applicants.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected as the council does not provide assistance in protecting geological items and this is a matter that is outside the scope of the Plan.

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to clause 7.12.4

That submission 1243/60 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

That submission 1243/61 be rejected.

4.5 Submissions about table 7.3 and 7.4

Submissions dealt with in this section: 941/42, 941/43, 1243/62, 1243/63, 2091/12, 2091/13, 2091/14, 2091/15, 2515/1, 2515/2

4.5.1 Decisions requested

These submissions in general raise the following issues:

new permitted activities
providing a controlled activity resource consent for free
changing the activity status
deletion of activities.

4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.5.2.1 Activities undertaken by other government agencies

Submissions 941/42 and 941/43 seek for table 7.3 and 7.4 respectively to be amended to include the following activity (or words to like effect) as a permitted activity:

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

Adding this activity would then allow companies and government agencies to undertake work without a resource consent or involvement of the council in assessing the potential effects on the geological item. Such acts as the Electricity Act 1992 may authorise a registered electrician to do work which is authorised by statute. Given the importance of scheduled geological items and their sometimes fragile nature, providing for network utility operators to undertake works as a permitted activity may result in an unacceptable level of effects on the scheduled item. As such, it is not considered appropriate to permit work on a scheduled geological item as a permitted activity. It is also noted that section 330 of the RMA provides for emergency works and power to take preventive and remedial action. Therefore, in emergency situations network utility operators can undertake works without having to comply with the relevant section of the RMA, such as section 9 restriction on use of land. It is therefore recommend that submissions 941/42 and 941/43 be rejected.

Submissions 2515/1 and 2515/2 seek to insert the following wording in table 7.3 and 7.4 respectively:

Light grazing of cattle on any geological site on land falling within the Conservation Land Unit, and either managed directly by Department of Conservation operational staff, or undertaken in accordance with a DOC approved concession issued by the Minister of Conservation under Part 3B of the Conservation Act 1987...

In the Plan grazing on geological items, both category A and B, is either a permitted or a restricted discretionary activity, depending on the feature type.

It is acknowledged that DOC has processes available to assess and monitor appropriate grazing practices to avoid any adverse effects on geological sites. However, it is considered that the council needs to fulfil its role in protecting historic heritage and outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate use.

It is considered that DOC may not have the information available on each geological item and the heritage values for which it has been scheduled in the district plan. Therefore they may not be in a position to ensure that the heritage values are protected and assess the effects of the grazing on those values.

It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected.

4.5.2.2 Activities and their statuses

Submission 2091/12 seeks to amend table 7.3 by inserting 'NC' in place of 'Pr' where it occurs in the following locations:

in row 2 under column G
in row 4 under column G
in row 7 under column E
in row 11 under columns C and E.

Submission 2091/14 seeks to amend table 7.4 by inserting 'NC' in place of 'Pr' where it occurs in the following locations:

in row 4 under column E
in row 5 under column E.

Amend the legend below the table by deleting 'Pr = prohibited'.

The arguments for each position have been put forward to aid the Panel in forming their decision.

Non-complying activity status
Support argument	Argument against
Less onerous on landowner. Still provides protection to the item through the resource consent process. There may be circumstances where it may be appropriate to undertake these activities. For example, planting may be a positive occurrence on sand dunes, which can be classified as dynamic landforms and features (feature type C). In many instances it is not practically possible to undertake these activities on these geological items. For example, vegetation cannot be planted on a rock sequence. Resource consent can be granted in specific circumstances.	Resource consent may be applied for. Activity may destroy the geological item or its integrity.
Prohibited activity status
Provides absolute protection to the geological item. No resource consent can be applied for under prohibited status. A private plan change to alter the Plan is the only way to apply to undertake the activity.	Too onerous on landowners. Has to be supported with strong evidence that such as activity would never be appropriate in any circumstance.

On balance, it is recommended that the activity statues for these activities be changed to non-complying and these submissions be accepted. Consequentially the objectives and policies may have to be amended to clearly link to the rules.

Submissions 2091/13 and 2091/15 seek to amend table 7.3 and 7.4 respectively by deleting row 1 and row 15 in their entirety.

The activity in row 1 states:

Erecting buildings or structures, or planting vegetation that will obstruct views of scheduled features within a scheduled site surround . [writers emphasis]

The activity in row 15 states:

Works or activities within the scheduled site surrounds . [writers emphasis]

Table 7.3: Activity table for category A scheduled geological items, lists the activities, and their statuses, that the council consider may occur within sites scheduled as a geological item. It is not intended that this table list the activities for scheduled site surrounds of a geological item. It is therefore inappropriate for the activities listed in row 1 and 15 to be included in table 7.3 and 7.4 as the activities relate to the site surrounds and not the scheduled item.

It is therefore recommended that these submissions be accepted.

It is also noted below that it is recommended to include a new clause that provides rules for scheduled site surrounds. Therefore the rules relating to the scheduled geological item and the scheduled site surrounds will be separate.

4.5.2.3 Resource consent - controlled

Submissions 1243/62 and 1243/63 seek for where it is not practical to exclude the types of stock for which consent is required for grazing, provide for the necessary consent to be a controlled activity, which will be issued free of charge.

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. Council currently processes the heritage component of a resource consent free of charge. Therefore, while a restricted discretionary consent may be required for grazing in some circumstances it will be processed free of charge.

It is therefore recommended that submissions 1243/62 and 1243/63 are accepted in part (as they relate to processing the heritage component of a resource consent free of charge).

Planner's recommendations about submissions amendments to table 7.3

That submissions 941/42, 941/43, 2515/1 and 2515/2 be rejected.

That submissions 1243/62 and 1243/63 are accepted in part with no amendments to the Plan.

That submissions 2091/13 and 2091/15 be accepted and table 7.3 and 7.4 be amended to delete rows 1 and 15 in their entirety.

That submissions 2091/12 and 2091/14 be accepted and the activity statues changed from prohibited to non-complying for the following:

Table 7.3, row 2 under column G
Table 7.3, row 4 under column G
Table 7.3, row 7 under column E
Table 7.3, row 11 under column C and E
Table 7.4, row 4 and 5 under column E.

4.6 Submissions about a new clause

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2091/16

4.6.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2091/16 seeks to insert the following new clause immediately before existing clause 7.12.5 (or alternative wording to like effect):

'7.12.4A Rules for scheduled site surrounds

7.12.4A.1 Permitted activities

The following are permitted activities within the scheduled site surrounds of geological items:

1. Additions and alterations to existing buildings.
2. Routine maintenance, including all normal work required to use, maintain, and enjoy existing garden or landscape features.
3. The planting of vegetation that does not include forestry or horticulture.
4. The grazing of stock.
5. Geological sampling to a maximum of 1000cc.
6. The construction, replacement or upgrading of utility services by trenching, underground thrusting or directional drilling.
7. The construction of post or wire fences.

7.12.4A.2 Restricted discretionary activities

The following are restricted discretionary activities within the scheduled site surrounds of geological items:

1. The construction and / or relocation of buildings.
2. Earthworks (excluding gardening for domestic purposes, which is permitted).
3. Forestry.
4. Horticulture.
5. The construction of fences or walls, other than post or wire fences.
6. The construction of roads or footpaths.'

4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

As it has been recommended above to remove rules for the site surrounds from tables 7.3 and 7.4, it is appropriate to include a new clause that provides rules for scheduled site surrounds.

The rules that apply to the scheduled item and to the scheduled site surrounds are different due to the different purposes for which they have been scheduled. Items are scheduled for their protection whereas site surrounds are scheduled in order to protect the context of an item from effects that detract from the inherent heritage significance and value of the scheduled item. The provisions that will apply to scheduled site surrounds are to control development to ensure it does not destruct or damage the site surrounds or the views of the geological item. Requiring a resource consent for works and activities in the site surrounds enables the council to assess such activities on whether they adversely affect the values and features for which the item was scheduled. Activities such as the construction of a house are considered to have the potential to adversely affect the visual amenity of the area due to their height and bulk.

It is considered unnecessary to list the activity of construction, replacement or upgrading of utility services by trenching, underground thrusting or directional drilling as this will involve earthworks which is a restricted discretionary activity. It is therefore recommended that this activity be removed.

It is therefore recommended that submission 2091/16 be accepted and wording to like effect be included in the Plan and it is also considered appropriate to provide a introduction to the rules for site surrounds.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking a new clause

That submission 2091/16 be accepted and the Plan be amended to include the following new clause as 7.12.5 and subsequent renumbering of following clauses:

7.12.5 Rules for scheduled site surrounds

The scheduled site surrounds will often contain geological items beyond the scheduled item(s). The geological items in the site surrounds may not have sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling on their own, but they contribute to the heritage significance of the scheduled item. Therefore it is important to manage activities within scheduled site surrounds in order to protect the context of the scheduled item(s) from effects that may detract from its heritage significance and value.

7.12.5.1 Permitted activities

The following are permitted activities within the scheduled site surrounds of geological items:

Additions and alterations to existing buildings.
Routine maintenance, including all normal work required to use, maintain, and enjoy existing garden or landscape features.
The planting of vegetation that does not include forestry or horticulture.
The grazing of stock.
Geological sampling to a maximum of 1000cc.
The construction of post or wire fences.

7.12.5.2 Restricted discretionary activities

The following are restricted discretionary activities within the scheduled site surrounds of geological items:

The construction and / or relocation of buildings.
Earthworks (excluding gardening for domestic purposes, which is permitted).
Forestry.
Horticulture.
The construction of fences or walls, other than post or wire fences.
The construction of roads or footpaths.

4.7 Submissions about clause 7.12.5

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2091/17

4.7.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2091/17 seeks to amend clause 7.12.5 as follows (or alternative wording to like effect):

Immediately after the heading 7.12.5 Matters of discretion and assessment criteria, add a new heading '7.12.5.1 Scheduled sites' and amend existing the text as follows (deletions to existing text shown with strikethrough, insertions with underlining):

7.12.5.1 Scheduled sites

For restricted discretionary activities identified in table 7.3 Activity table for category A scheduled geological items, and table 7.4 Activity table for category B scheduled geological items, T the council has restricted its discretion ~~for restricted discretionary activities~~ to considering the following matters:

Amend item 1 ('Whether the nature, form and extent ...) by changing 'effects' to 'affects'.

Immediately after the last sentence ('The council's assessment of an application for a discretionary activity ...'), add a new heading and text as follows:

7.12.5.1 Scheduled sites surrounds

For restricted discretionary activities identified in clause 7.12.4A.1, the council has restricted its discretion to considering the following matter:

The extent to which the works or activities detract from the visual or physical context of the scheduled geological items contained within the site surrounds.

4.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Due to the recommendation above, to clearly separate the rules relating to scheduled geological sites and scheduled site surrounds it is considered appropriate to separate the matters of discretion and assessment criteria.

The amendments involve changes to the introductory sentence to clarify that these are the matters to be assessed for restricted discretionary activities in table 7.3 and 7.4.

The second amendment is to change 'effects' to 'affects'; this is supported as it is typographical error.

The third amendment seeks to add matters of discretion for restricted discretionary activities in scheduled site surrounds. This is appropriate as the council is required to specify the matters to which it has restricted its discretion to in the Plan under the RMA.

The site surrounds seek to protect the area surrounding the identified geological item from development that may affect the visual amenity values provided by the geological item. Therefore the matter of discretion sought by the submitter is considered appropriate.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to clause 7.12.5

That submission 2091/17 be accepted and clause 7.12.5 be amended to state:

7.12.5 Matters of discretion and assessment criteria

7.12.5.1 Scheduled items

For restricted discretionary activities identified in Table 7.3: Activity table for category A scheduled geological items, and Table 7.4: Activity table for category B scheduled geological items , the council has restricted its discretion to considering the following matters:

1. Whether the nature, form and extent of the proposed works or activity adversely ~~effects~~ affects the feature or features for which the item was scheduled.

...

7.12.5.2 Scheduled site surrounds

For restricted discretionary activities identified in clause 7.12.4A.2, the council has restricted its discretion to considering the following matter:

1. The extent to which the works or activities detract from the visual or physical context of the scheduled geological items contained within the site surrounds.

4.8 Submissions about appendix 1e

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2097/3

4.8.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2097/3 seeks to amend the legend at the beginning of item 4.0 Diagrams of scheduled geological items, in appendix 1e. After the third entry in the legend, include new entry showing 'S201' superimposed on an aerial base. The text to accompany this is 'GPS point – coordinates for significant boulders, recorded by GPS in the field.'

4.8.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The amendment the submitter seeks to the legend clarifies the labels that are used in some of the diagrams of the scheduled geological items. It is therefore recommended to accept this submission to provide clarity to users of this appendix.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to appendix 1e

That submission 2097/3 be accepted and the legend in 4.0 Diagrams of scheduled geological items be amended to include:

'S201' superimposed on an aerial base
The following text to accompany this is 'GPS point – coordinates for significant boulders, recorded by GPS in the field.'

4.9 Submissions about annexure 1c

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3180/1

4.9.1 Decisions requested

Submission 3180/1 opposes the use of the term Gondwanaland and seeks the replacement of all occurrences as occur in annexure 1c with Gondwana.

4.9.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Specialist advice was received from Bruce Hayward, geologist, which confirmed that the use of the word Gondwanaland is correct.

His advice states:

"Gondwanaland was the term originally coined in the 19th century for the large southern supercontinent once composed of Australia, NZ, South America, Africa and India. It was an inferred land named after the Gondwana sequence of rocks (formally defined by geologists as the Gondwana Supergroup) in the Gondwana Basin, SW of Calcutta in India. The Gondwana region means "land of the Gonds".

At the 5th International Gondwana Conference held in Wellington in 1980, a resolution was passed by a small group dominated by New Zealanders, that the supercontinent should preferably be referred to as Gondwana, and this change has been promulgated worldwide. Unfortunately the Wellington meeting was misled into thinking that using Gondwanaland was a tautology, to refer to "the land of Gondwana" when the term "Gondwana" meant "land of the Gond". After all in English we would not say "land of the land of the Gond". However, in truth Gondwanaland was not named after the place Gondwana, but after the Gondwana sequence of rocks. Indian geologists are adamant that Gondwana (after which the international conferences are named) refers to the Gondwana sequence of rocks in the Gondwana Basin and that Gondwanaland is the correct and valid term for the supercontinent.

In 1996, Dr Hamish Campbell explained this in an article in the Geological Society of NZ Newsletter and ever since most NZ geologists (including myself) have returned to using the correct use of the term Gondwanaland for the supercontinent. Unfortunately the incorrect term Gondwana is still widespread in the public domain and in dictionaries and glossaries that have not yet caught up with the play."

It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected as the term Gondwana is incorrect.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to annexure 1c

That submission 3180/1 be rejected.

5.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding geological items 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	Sarah Smith, assistant planner
Reviewer	Nicola Short, Manager: Heritage
Reviewer	Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands
Approver	Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning

Appendix 1

List of submissions and further submissions

Appendix 2

Summary of decisions requested

Appendix 3

Recommended amendments to the Plan

Appendix 4

Specialist reports
Part A
Part B

Published September 2008

Home |
Terms of use