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
| Report on submissions to the Auckland City
District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section – Proposed 2006 |
| Topic: |
Text - general |
| Report to: |
The Hearing Panel |
| Author: |
Katherine Dorofaeff, senior planner |
| Date: |
9 April 2008 |
| Group file: |
314/274003 |
1.0 Introduction
This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') of
a general nature that were received by the council in relation to the text 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
to the text. The submissions considered are those which relate generally to the
text but which cannot be allocated to any more specific part or clause of the
Plan. 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:
- Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA
(s32(3)(a)); and
- Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the
purpose of the RMA (s72); and
- 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:
- Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan
(s32(3)(b)); and
- Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the
purpose of the RMA (s72); and
- Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and
- (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:
- 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 Analysis of submissions
3.1 Introduction
This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions
which relate generally to the text but which cannot be allocated to more
specific part or clause of the Plan. The report 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 considered in this report together with the related
further submissions is contained in appendix 1. Appendix 2
contains a summary of the decisions requested in submissions. Any amendments to
the Plan recommended in response to submissions are identified in this section
of the report and are further detailed in appendix 3.
The list of submissions contained in appendix 1 may include some submissions
and further submissions which were received 'late', ie they were received after
the closing date for lodging submissions (11 December 2006) or further
submissions (28 May 2007). All late submissions were considered by the hearing
panel at the start of the hearing process and the panel has already waived the
failure to comply with the time limit for any late submissions or further
submissions listed in appendix 1. This has been done in accordance with sections
37 and 37A of the RMA.
3.2 Submissions about the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000
Submissions dealt with in this section:
301/1,
375/1,
566/1,
574/1,
591/1,
627/1,
632/1,
701/1,
710/1,
730/1,
738/1,
875/1,
887/1,
906/1,
936/1,
1020/1,
1055/31,
1151/1,
1209/1,
1685/1,
1686/1,
1687/1,
1688/1,
1689/1,
1690/1,
1691/1,
1692/1,
1693/1,
1694/1,
1695/1,
1696/1,
1697/1,
1699/1,
2287/1,
2563/1,
2656/1,
2795/1,
2838/1,
2997/1,
3201/1,
3216/1,
3230/1,
3234/1,
3258/1,
3277/1,
3283/1,
3316/1,
3325/1,
3330/1,
3346/1,
3352/1,
3362/1,
3373/1,
3385/1,
3405/1,
3419/1,
3557/1,
3822/1
3.2.1 Decisions requested
The submissions above seek re-organisation of the Plan to meet the identified
shortcomings (regarding the failure to properly give effect to the HGMPA and
lack of specific objectives, rules or provisions that clearly identify
sustaining the life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Gulf and
islands as their objective, purpose and desired raison d'etre). In particular
the provision of clear specific provisions to that effect. In addition to this,
submission
2656/1 also seeks clear specific statements demonstrating how the principles
of sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA will be accorded the appropriate significance
in terms of policies, consent conditions and enforcement mechanisms.
3.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
As noted in section 2.0 of this report, the council must ensure that that the
Plan does not conflict with sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA. Section 10 of the
HGMPA requires that sections 7 and 8 of that Act be treated as a New Zealand
coastal policy statement under the RMA. The Plan must 'give effect to' any New
Zealand coastal policy statement.
It is considered that the Plan does appropriately recognise the role of the
HGMPA. The HGMPA is addressed in the following places within the Plan:
- clause 1.3.6
- clause 2.3.2
- clause 2.5 (at clause 2.5.3, issue (3); clause 2.5.8, objective (2))
- clause 11.2(1)
- appendix 10 - which contains sections 7, 8 and 9 of the HGMPA.
In addition, the HGMPA was considered by the council in the section 32
reports prepared.
The detail of how the council drafts consent conditions or carries out
enforcement are process and administration matters which do not need to be
addressed in the Plan.
It is recommended that these submissions be rejected. There are some other
submissions, which raise general or specific issues related to the HGMPA and
which will be considered in other hearing reports.
| Planner's recommendations for submissions about the HGMPA
That submissions
301/1,
375/1,
566/1,
574/1,
591/1,
627/1,
632/1,
701/1,
710/1,
730/1,
738/1,
875/1,
887/1,
906/1,
936/1,
1020/1,
1055/31,
1151/1,
1209/1,
1685/1,
1686/1,
1687/1,
1688/1,
1689/1,
1690/1,
1691/1,
1692/1,
1693/1,
1694/1,
1695/1,
1696/1,
1697/1,
1699/1,
2287/1,
2563/1,
2656/1,
2795/1,
2838/1,
2997/1,
3201/1,
3216/1,
3230/1,
3234/1,
3258/1,
3277/1,
3283/1,
3316/1,
3325/1,
3330/1,
3346/1,
3352/1,
3362/1,
3373/1,
3385/1,
3405/1,
3419/1,
3557/1,
3822/1 be rejected. |
3.3 Submissions about landscape protection and enhancement
Submissions dealt with in this section:
Group 1:
302/7,
303/5,
374/7,
378/5,
569/5,
570/7,
575/7,
576/5,
590/5,
592/5,
636/7,
639/7,
643/7,
644/5,
652/7,
670/5,
672/7,
685/7,
705/5,
707/5,
713/5,
715/7,
717/5,
729/5,
732/7,
737/7,
739/5,
797/7,
805/7,
806/7,
814/7,
823/7,
868/5,
869/7,
886/5,
888/7,
904/5,
911/7,
921/7,
922/5,
926/7,
939/5,
954/5,
955/7,
1019/7,
1040/7,
1055/16,
1055/26,
1149/5,
1153/7,
1166/14,
1231/7,
1240/7,
1720/7,
1721/7,
1722/7,
1723/7,
1724/7,
1725/7,
1726/7,
1727/7,
1728/7,
1729/7,
1730/7,
1731/7,
1732/7,
1733/7,
1734/7,
1735/7,
1736/7,
1737/7,
1738/7,
1739/7,
1740/7,
1741/7,
1742/7,
1743/5,
1744/5,
1745/5,
1746/5,
1747/5,
1748/5,
1749/5,
1750/5,
1751/5,
1752/5,
1753/5,
1754/5,
1755/5,
1756/5,
1757/5,
1758/5,
1759/5,
2113/7,
2116/7,
2173/5,
2280/5,
2281/7,
2702/5,
2783/7,
2784/5,
2831/7,
2837/5,
2992/7,
2999/5,
3004/7,
3185/5,
3189/7,
3203/7,
3204/5,
3217/7,
3222/5,
3224/7,
3225/5,
3238/5,
3239/7,
3244/7,
3255/5,
3256/7,
3266/7,
3272/7,
3276/7,
3282/7,
3284/5,
3328/7,
3331/5,
3351/5,
3358/5,
3361/5,
3378/5,
3279/5,
3302/5,
3308/7,
3309/5,
3324/5,
3326/7,
3339/7,
3345/5,
3353/7,
3363/7,
3368/7,
3383/7,
3400/3,
3417/7,
3562/7,
3563/5,
3623/7,
3652/5,
3818/7,
3819/5
Other:
897/5,
2772/5,
3089/3
3.3.1 Decisions requested
The submissions considered in this section seek decisions which:
- introduce appropriate landscape protection and enhancement methodologies
to the Plan
- require the planting and establishment of more mature specimens of
large-growing tree species
- reflect in the Plan the wishes of private property owners rights to
designate conservation areas through covenants or reserve requirements.
3.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
3.3.2.1 Landscape protection and enhancement methodologies
The submissions identified as group 1 ask for appropriate landscape
protection and enhancement methodologies to be introduced into the Plan. Within
this group of submissions,
3400/3 specifies that the methodologies are to be appropriate to Waiheke.
The Plan includes a wide range of landscape protection and enhancement
methodologies. Some of the methods used are summarised under headings below:
- Strategic management areas
The approach for Great Barrier seeks to consolidate development in existing
settled areas and protect the outstanding natural landscape surrounding those
areas. The approach for Waiheke seeks to maintain the large scale rural
character of the eastern end of the island and the village style development
of the western end.
- Land units
Natural character and landscape values have been taken into account in
formulating the land units. Physical landscape has been particularly relevant
in developing the landform 1 to 7 land units.
The following land units include objectives and policies which refer
specifically to either landscape, natural character, natural environment or
coastal environment:
- landforms 1-7
- island residential 2
- Matiatia
- rural 1-3
- recreation 3
- conservation
- Pakatoa
- Rotoroa.
- Objectives and policies
Besides the land units noted in (2) above, there are other objectives and
policies throughout the Plan which seek to protect natural character and
visual amenity.
- Activity statuses
Activities are either given a status, or default to non-complying, depending
on the likely effects of each activity. Likely effects taken into account in
allocating an activity status include landscape effects. In particular, the
restricted discretionary status given to building works in the more sensitive
landscapes is based on visual effects, and enables the council to assess the
scale, form, colour and location of buildings within the landscape.
- Assessment criteria
The general assessment criteria for discretionary activities includes a
criterion relating to landscaping (see clause 11.3.2(12)). Clause 11.5.3
identifies how the matters of discretion for buildings as restricted
discretionary activities should be applied. This clause includes many
references to ensuring that the scale, form, colour and location of buildings
ensures integration with the surrounding landscape.
- Heritage controls
The Plan identifies and protects sites of ecological significance and
sensitive areas. In addition to their ecological values, these sites also have
landscape values.
- Development controls
The development controls which are most relevant to the aims of protecting and
enhancing the landscape are controls relating to:
- bulk and location of buildings - particularly limits on height, building
coverage, and buildings within the significant ridgeline area
- vegetation protection
- earthworks
- coastal, wetland and water body protection yards.
- Subdivision controls
- Minimum sites sizes are set at a level consistent with maintaining the
visual amenity, natural landscape character and amenity value of each land
unit or settlement area.
- The assessment criteria for subdivision includes criteria about the
protection and enhancement of the natural environment (eg clause 12.11.13).
- Clause 12.9.3 provides for subdivision in association with the
protection of significant environmental features.
- Clause 12.9.7 provides for subdivision (comprehensive development) at
Thompsons Point in association with revegetation.
- Clause 12.9.8 provides for subdivision in rural 3 (Rakino amenity) in
association with a revegetation programme.
The Plan has adopted planning methods, including objectives, policies and
rules, which are consistent with landscape protection and enhancement while
still providing for an appropriate level of development. It is considered that
the group 1 submissions should therefore be rejected. It is noted that these
submissions come from overall submissions which include other subparts which
seek decisions relating to coastal amenity and rural 1 (rural amenity). Those
subparts will be considered in other hearing reports.
3.3.2.2 Requiring tree planting
Submissions
897/5 and
2772/5 ask that the council give thought to requiring the planting and
establishment of more mature specimens of large-growing tree species, possibly
as a trade-off when making decisions on discretionary items.
Where appropriate, the council will continue its current practice of placing
conditions on resource consents requiring planting. As is suggested in
submissions
897/5 and
2772/5, it may be appropriate in some circumstances to require the applicant
to provide a mature tree or trees to mitigate adverse effects. However, more
mature trees are costly and do not always establish as successfully as younger
trees. Sometimes landscaping with a larger selection of younger trees is likely
to be the preferred approach. The council takes advice from arborists and
landscape architects as to the type and size of trees and shrubs which are best
for a particular circumstance. It is considered that no amendments are required
to the Plan to address these submissions and they should therefore be rejected.
3.3.2.3 Covenants and reserve requirements
Submission
3089/3 seeks that the Plan reflect private property owners rights to
designate conservation areas through covenants or reserve requirements.
It is not clear what amendments submission
3089/3 seeks to the Plan. The submission is from a Great Barrier resident
and the supporting reasons express concern about the identification of private
property in the Medlands area as wetland and sand dunes.
The Plan does not prevent private property owners from protecting
conservation areas on their properties by means of covenants or by offering land
to the council as reserve. It is expected that where appropriate the council
will continue its current approach of placing conditions on resource consents
requiring land to be protected by means of covenants. It is noted that the
subdivision provisions in clause 12.9.3 provide for protection of environmental
features. In order to qualify for this type of subdivision, the significant
environmental features must be legally protected by means of consent notices,
covenants or other suitable legal instruments. Considerably smaller site sizes
are provided for where a subdivision protects a significant environmental
feature.
It is recommended that submission
3089/3 be rejected to the extent that it seeks amendments to the Plan.
| Planner's recommendations for submissions about landscape
protection and enhancement
That submissions
302/7,
303/5,
374/7,
378/5,
569/5,
570/7,
575/7,
576/5,
590/5,
592/5,
636/7,
639/7,
643/7,
644/5,
652/7,
670/5,
672/7,
685/7,
705/5,
707/5,
713/5,
715/7,
717/5,
729/5,
732/7,
737/7,
739/5,
797/7,
805/7,
806/7,
814/7,
823/7,
868/5,
869/7,
886/5,
888/7,
897/5,
904/5,
911/7,
921/7,
922/5,
926/7,
939/5,
954/5,
955/7,
1019/7,
1040/7,
1055/16,
1055/26,
1149/5,
1153/7,
1166/14,
1231/7,
1240/7,
1720/7,
1721/7,
1722/7,
1723/7,
1724/7,
1725/7,
1726/7,
1727/7,
1728/7,
1729/7,
1730/7,
1731/7,
1732/7,
1733/7,
1734/7,
1735/7,
1736/7,
1737/7,
1738/7,
1739/7,
1740/7,
1741/7,
1742/7,
1743/5,
1744/5,
1745/5,
1746/5,
1747/5,
1748/5,
1749/5,
1750/5,
1751/5,
1752/5,
1753/5,
1754/5,
1755/5,
1756/5,
1757/5,
1758/5,
1759/5,
2113/7,
2116/7,
2173/5,
2280/5,
2281/7,
2702/5,
2772/5,
2783/7,
2784/5,
2831/7,
2837/5,
2992/7,
2999/5,
3004/7,
3089/3,
3185/5,
3189/7,
3203/7,
3204/5,
3217/7,
3222/5,
3224/7,
3225/5,
3238/5,
3239/7,
3244/7,
3255/5,
3256/7,
3266/7,
3272/7,
3276/7,
3282/7,
3284/5,
3328/7,
3331/5,
3351/5,
3358/5,
3361/5,
3378/5,
3279/5,
3302/5,
3308/7,
3309/5,
3324/5,
3326/7,
3339/7,
3345/5,
3353/7,
3363/7,
3368/7,
3383/7,
3400/3,
3417/7,
3562/7,
3563/5,
3623/7,
3652/5,
3818/7,
3819/5 be rejected |
3.4 Submissions about the coastal environment
Submissions dealt with in this section:
1730/10,
3078/1
3.4.1 Decisions requested
The submissions considered in this section seek decisions which:
- protect beach areas from substantial developments eg apartments, hotels
etc
- more clearly define the extent of the coastal environment.
3.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
3.4.2.1 Protecting beach areas
Submission
1730/10 seeks more clearly stated rules protecting beach areas from
substantial developments eg apartments, hotels etc.
The Plan recognises the importance of protecting beach areas from
inappropriate development and includes a range of rules to achieve this. These
rules include provisions which:
- limit activities in landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) and within the
dune systems area of landform 2 (dune systems and sand flats) to ecosourced
planting
- require a restricted discretionary consent for buildings within the
coastal amenity portion of island residential 1 (traditional residential) and
within the sand flats areas of landform 2 (dune systems and sand flats)
- require (in clause 10c.5.7) coastal protection yards (these adjoin the
coast and are required to be kept free of buildings and earthworks)
- restrict or prevent development on identified scheduled items in coastal
locations eg ecologically significant sites, archaeological sites
- restrict or prevent development within identified natural hazards areas in
coastal locations ie the erosion risk zones at Onetangi Beach, and Kennedy
Point.
Other subparts of submission 1730 seek additional decisions related to
coastal amenity areas and those matters will be considered in other hearing
reports.
It is recommended that submission
1730/10 be rejected as the Plan does already include clear rules protecting
coastal or beach areas from inappropriate development.
3.4.2.2 Definition of the coastal environment
Submission
3078/1 seeks clearer definition of the extent of the coastal environment. In
its supporting material, submission 3078 suggests that the regional policy
statement and the regional plan: coastal call upon territorial authorities (such
as the council) to define 'coastal environment'. The Auckland Regional Policy
Statement (operative 1999) ('RPS') does not define the coastal environment or
direct territorial authorities to do so. Rather Method 7.4.2(1) of the RPS
states:
"Local authorities will include provisions in their plans which recognise the
coastal environment of their areas in a manner consistent with the factors in
Policy 7.4.1"
Policy 7.4.1 identifies the areas and features to be taken into account in
determining the extent of the coastal environment. The areas and features
identified test whether the coast is a significant element or part and also
recognise habitat, landform, landscape, cultural heritage and amenity values,
the influence of coastal processes, flooding and surface runoff. Policy 7.4.1 is
contained in appendix 4 to this report.
Submission
3078/1 does not identify how the council should define the coastal
environment. For instance, it is not clear whether the submission seeks a
definition to be included in part 14 of the Plan, or annotations to be put on
the planning maps to define the spatial extent of the coastal environment, or a
descriptive list of factors to be taken into account (in a similar manner to the
RPS). The Isthmus section of the Auckland City District Plan ('the Isthmus
Plan') does identify the spatial extent of the coastal environment and contains
an overlay set of rules applying to land identified on the planning maps as
being in the coastal management area. This is a valid approach and does provide
certainty as to what is considered in the context of the Isthmus Plan to be
'coastal'. In the HGI Plan, the spatial extent of the coastal environment is not
defined on the planning maps. Instead coastal issues are dealt with in an
integrated manner throughout the HGI Plan and the Plan does include provisions
throughout which recognise the coastal environment of the islands in a manner
consistent with the factors in Policy 7.4.1 of the Regional Policy Statement.
It is recommended that as the Plan already gives effect to Method 7.4.2(1) of
the RPS [1] , submission
3078/1 should be rejected.
| Planner's recommendations for submissions about the
coastal environment
That submissions
1730/10,
3078/1 be rejected. |
3.5 Submissions about the natural environment (general)
Submissions dealt with in this section:
500/1,
951/1,
1692/3,
3574/2
3.5.1 Decisions requested
The submissions considered in this section seek decisions which:
- introduce a total ban on gas fired patio heaters
- include within the Plan specific objectives and rules regarding the
environment of the Gulf
- include within the Plan provisions which retain the intrinsic value of the
Hauraki Gulf islands.
3.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
3.5.2.1 Gas fired patio heaters
Submissions
500/1 and
951/1 seek a total ban on gas fired patio heaters on the grounds that such
heaters produce carbon dioxide and heat the atmosphere unnecessarily.
The request for a ban on patio heaters is outside the scope of the district
plan. Under section 30 of the RMA, the control of discharges of contaminants
into air is a function of the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) rather than the
city council. It is therefore recommended that submissions
500/1 and
951/1 be rejected.
3.5.2.2 Environment and values of the Gulf
Submission
1692/3 asks that the Plan state specific objectives and rules regarding the
environment of the Gulf. Submission
3574/2 wishes to see provisions in the Plan which will retain rather than
detract from the intrinsic value of the Hauraki Gulf islands, in terms of
conservation of the natural form, protection of vegetation, wetlands, coastal
form, ecology and habitat of wildlife, and amenity value.
The Plan already addresses the matters raised in submissions
1692/3 and
3574/2 about the environment and values of the Hauraki Gulf islands. It is
therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected to the extent that they
seek amendments to the Plan.
| Planner's recommendations for submissions about the
natural environment (general)
That submissions
500/1,
951/1,
1692/3,
3574/2 be rejected. |
3.6 Submission about the location of building sites
Submission dealt with in this section:
3574/4
3.6.1 Decisions requested
Submission
3574/4 states that the location of building sites must be carefully managed
to avoid rather than mitigate the cumulative effects of that development on the
environment and ecology of the particular area, and the wider island region.
3.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
The Plan uses a range of methods to manage the location of building sites.
For example:
- By not providing for buildings in some land units ie in landform 1
(coastal cliffs and slopes), and in the dune systems area of landform 2 (dune
systems).
- By requiring a restricted discretionary consent for building work in those
land units and parts of settlement areas that are more sensitive and require
greater care to be taken in ensuring that buildings are of an appropriate
scale, from, colour and location. 'Location' is one of the matters over which
the council has restricted its discretion.
- By controlling the bulk and location of buildings through development
controls - including limiting buildings within the significant ridgeline areas
(identified on the planning maps).
- By assessing subdivision proposals and considering buildings that are
likely to be located on any new site created (eg clauses 12.6.1, 12.8.2(1)(f),
12.12.1(1), 12.12.2(2), 12.12.4(2), 12.13.5(1), 12.12.6(1)). Where
appropriate, the council will specify the location of building sites by means
of a condition on a subdivision consent.
The submission refers to avoiding rather than mitigating the cumulative
effects of development. Section 5(2)(c) of the RMA refers to "avoiding,
remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment".
The meaning of 'effect' is given in section 3 of the RMA and includes "any
cumulative effect which arises over time or in combination with other
effects...". It will not always be necessary to avoid cumulative effects - for
some buildings in some locations, it will be sufficient to remedy or mitigate
cumulative effects.
Submission
3574/4 does not specify any amendments to the Plan. It is considered that
the Plan appropriately manages the location of building sites and provides for
the cumulative effects of buildings to be avoided, remedied or mitigated. It is
therefore recommended that the submission be rejected to the extent that it
seeks amendments to the Plan.
| Planner's recommendations for submission about the
location of building sites
That submission
3574/4 be rejected. |
3.7 Submission about the terms 'sensitive' and 'significant'
Submission dealt with in this section:
3574/8
3.7.1 Decisions requested
Submission
3574/8 notes that there is various use within the Plan of the terms
'sensitive' and 'significant' in reference to land features and landform, and
other environmental features, and impacts on these. The submission states that
these terms need to be clearly defined so that their use in the Plan has a
consistent message.
3.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
The words 'sensitive' and 'significant' are defined in the Compact Oxford
English Dictionary as follows:
sensitive
adjective 1 quick to detect, respond to, or be affected by
slight changes, signals, or influences. 2 delicately appreciating the
feelings of others. 3 easily offended or upset. 4 kept secret or
with restrictions on disclosure.
significant
adjective 1 extensive or important enough to merit attention
. 2 having an unstated meaning; indicative of something.
The underlining has been added to identify the meaning most in keeping with
the way in which the term is generally used in the Plan.
The Collins Concise Dictionary contains the following definitions:
sensitive
adj 1 having the power of sensation. 2 responsive to or
aware of feelings, moods, etc. 3 easily irritated; delicate. 4
affected by external conditions or stimuli. 5 easily offended.
6 of or relating to the senses or the power of sensation. 7
capable of registering small differences or changes in amounts , etc: a
sensitive instrument . 8 Photog . responding readily to light:
a sensitive emulsion . 9 Chiefly US . connected with
matters affecting national security. 10 (of stock market or prices)
quickly responsive to external influences.
significant
adj 1 having or expressing a meaning. 2 having a covert
or implied meaning. 3 important or momentous . 4
Statistics . of or relating to a difference between a result derived from a
hypothesis and its observed values that is too large to be attributed to chance.
Once again, the underlining has been added to identify the meaning most in
keeping with the way in which the term is generally used in the Plan.
It is noted that the Plan does include definitions of the terms 'significant
environmental feature' and 'significant ridgeline area' in part 14. The terms
'cultural significance' and 'scheduled ecologically significant site' are
defined in part 7 (see clause 7.15).
It is considered that it is not necessary to define the terms 'sensitive' and
'significant' in the Plan. The ordinary dictionary definition together with the
context within which the word is used in the Plan is sufficient to assist with
the understanding of the terms. For this reason, submission
3574/8 should be rejected.
| Planner's recommendations for submission about the meaning
of sensitive and significant
That submission
3574/8 be rejected. |
3.8 Submissions about a new part 15 - Sustainable management operational
methodologies
Submissions dealt with in this section:
Group 1:
124/1,
158/1,
160/1,
165/1,
169/1,
584/1,
660/1,
778/1,
800/1,
809/1,
683/1,
817/1,
826/1,
842/1,
894/1,
1022/1,
1132/1,
1217/1,
1295/1,
1598/1,
1599/1,
1608/1,
1622/1,
1624/1,
1627/1,
1628/1,
1629/1,
1631/1,
1633/1,
2123/1,
2127/1,
2662/1,
2773/1,
2776/1,
2778/1,
2787/1,
2844/1,
2944/1,
2948/1,
2951/1,
2955/1,
2959/1,
2963/1,
2967/1,
2971/1,
2975/1,
2979/1,
2983/1,
2987/1,
2991/1,
3007/1,
3014/1,
3017/1,
3232/1,
3233/1,
3246/1,
3268/1,
3389/1,
3529/1,
3626/1,
3839/1
Group 2:
300/1,
370/1,
567/1,
633/1,
637/1,
695/1,
702/1,
725/1,
733/1,
742/1,
876/1,
883/1,
909/1,
962/1,
938/1,
1597/1,
1600/1,
1603/1,
1604/1,
1605/1,
1606/1,
1607/1,
1609/1,
1610/1,
1611/1,
1612/1,
1613/1,
1614/1,
1615/1,
1616/1,
1617/1,
1618/1,
1619/1,
1620/1,
1621/1,
1623/1,
1625/1,
1626/1,
1630/1,
1632/1,
1634/1,
1635/1,
2288/1,
2572/1,
2574/1,
2678/1,
2703/1,
2792/1,
2832/1,
3024/1,
3167/1,
3187/1,
3192/1,
3210/1,
3290/1,
3306/1,
3315/1,
3317/1,
3337/1,
3338/1,
3357/1,
3367/1,
3374/1,
3376/1,
3512/1,
3538/1,
3556/1,
3807/1,
3820/1,
3833/1
Group 3:
302/8,
374/8,
570/8,
575/8,
636/8,
639/8,
643/8,
652/8,
672/8,
685/8,
715/8,
732/8,
737/8,
797/8,
805/8,
806/8,
814/8,
823/8,
869/8,
888/8,
911/8,
921/8,
926/8,
955/8,
1019/8,
1040/8,
1055/27,
1153/8,
1166/15,
1231/8,
1240/8,
1720/8,
1721/8,
1722/8,
1723/8,
1724/8,
1725/8,
1726/8,
1727/8,
1728/8,
1729/8,
1730/8,
1731/8,
1732/8,
1733/8,
1734/8,
1735/8,
1736/8,
1737/8,
1738/8,
1739/8,
1740/8,
1741/8,
1742/8,
2113/8,
2116/8,
2281/8,
2783/8,
2831/8,
2992/8,
3004/8,
3189/8,
3203/8,
3217/8,
3224/8,
3239/8,
3244/8,
3256/8,
3266/8,
3272/8,
3276/8,
3282/8,
3308/8,
3326/8,
3328/8,
3339/8,
3353/8,
3363/8,
3368/8,
3383/8,
3417/8,
3562/8,
3623/8,
3818/8
Other:
536/2,
536/3,
536/4,
536/5,
536/7,
536/8,
1182/2,
1182/3,
3400/4,
3715/26
3.8.1 Decisions requested
- The submissions considered in this section seek decisions which:
- introduce a new part 15 titled 'Sustainable management operational
methodologies' into the text volume of the Plan
- include linkages between issues, objectives, policies, and rules in the
Plan and the new part 15
- include in the new part 15 various matters outlined in the submissions.
3.8.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
3.8.2.1 The Plan and sustainable management
The group 1 submissions seek the introduction of a new part 15 titled
'Sustainable management operational methodologies' into the text volume of the
Plan. The new part 15 would contain the following information:
15.1 Introduction
15.2 Resource management issues
15.3 Resource management strategy
15.4 Coastal landscape and amenity protection and enhancement
15.5 Rural landscape and amenity protection and enhancement
15.6 Wetlands management and protection and enhancement
15.7 Integrated wastewater, waters and catchment management and enhancement
15.8 Community outcomes protection and enhancement
15.9 Gulf and inner islands interrelationships management and enhancement
15.10 Energy management
15.11 Noise management
15.12 Climate change
The group 2 submissions seek the same but add the request that there be
additional appropriate linkages to other resource management issues, objectives,
policies and rules. The group 3 submissions seek the linking of issues about
coastal amenity areas and landscape concerns with a new additional sustainable
management part of the Plan. Submission
3400/3 seeks that all issues to be linked with a new additional sustainable
management part of the Plan.
In considering the submissions seeking 'sustainable management operational
management methodologies', it is necessary to consider how sustainable
management is addressed in the RMA. As is outlined in section 2.0 of this
report, 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."
The RMA requires the council to prepare a district plan (s73(1)) and the
purpose of the preparation, implementation, and administration of that district
plan is to assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the
purpose of the RMA. As is set out in section 2.0 of this report, objectives,
policies, rules and other methods are required to focus on achieving the purpose
of the RMA. The council is required to evaluate objectives by the extent to
which they:
- Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA; and
- Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the
purpose of the RMA.
Policies, rules, or other methods in the Plan are to be evaluated by the
extent to which they:
- Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan;
- Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the
purpose of the RMA.
Every objective, policy and rule in the Plan is broadly aimed at achieving
sustainable management. For this reason, it is considered that there is no merit
in creating an additional part of the Plan containing 'sustainable management
operational management methodologies'. Therefore the submissions listed at the
beginning of this section should be rejected to the extent that they seek a new
part 15. Likewise the submissions (group 2, 3 and
3400/3) which seek linkages between the new part 15 and other provisions in
the Plan should be rejected.
For completeness it is noted that appendix 11 of the Plan contains
sustainable design guidelines for the islands. These guidelines include a range
of methods for achieving more sustainable building design and construction as
well as suggestions for many simple activities that together will result in
better economic and ecological outcomes. One of the assessment criteria
identified in clause 11.3.2 of the Plan is as follows:
" 17. Sustainable building design
The extent to which the applicant has investigated alternatives in terms of
sustainable design such as 'green building' methods, renewable energy sources
and low impact design methods. ( Appendix 11 - Sustainable design guidelines
for the islands can assist applicants with this criteria.)"
Table 11.1 identifies this assessment criterion as a particular matter to be
addressed when considering discretionary activity applications for the following
activities: art galleries and museums; care centres; community facilities;
educational facilities; entertainment facilities; function facilities; funeral
parlour; heathcare services; offices; restaurant, cafe and other eating places;
retail premises; rural property management plan; service station; tavern;
tourist complex; and winery.
It is noted that submissions to appendix 11 will be considered in a later
hearing report. It is anticipated that some amendments will be recommended to
make it easier to apply the guideline when assessing resource consent proposals.
3.8.2.2 Content suggested for the new part 15
As well as considering whether a new part 15 is required, it is also
necessary to consider the content which these submissions suggest should be
included in the new part 15.
Group 1, 2 and 3 submissions and submission
3400/3
The group 1 and group 2 submissions suggest that the new part 15 should
contain 'sustainable management operational methodologies'. The group 3
submissions suggests that issues about coastal amenity areas and landscapes
should be linked with the new part 15. It is not clear what is meant by
'sustainable management operational methodologies'. These submissions give
little guidance about the content of the new part 15 and only provide a list of
headings. Five of the headings relate to matters which are addressed in other
parts of the Plan:
15.4 Coastal landscape and amenity protection and enhancement
15.5 Rural landscape and amenity protection and enhancement
15.6 Wetlands management and protection and enhancement
15.11 Noise management
15.12 Climate change
It is not clear what the submitters would expect to see addressed under
following headings:
15.7 Integrated wastewater, waters and catchment management and enhancement
15.8 Community outcomes protection and enhancement
15.9 Gulf and inner islands interrelationships management and enhancement
15.10 Energy management
In particular, for energy management, the submission gives no indication of
scale at which it envisages the Plan addressing this issue.
It is recommended that the group 1, 2 and 3 submissions be rejected to the
extent that they seek amendments to the Plan to address the 'sustainable
management operational methodologies' listed in the submissions. Similarly,
submission
3400/3, which seeks that all issues should be linked with a new sustainable
management part of the Plan, should be rejected.
Submission 536
Submissions
536/2,
536/3,
536/4,
536/5 and
536/7 identify some operational methodologies for sustainable management and
submission
536/8 suggests that the methodologies (and others created to mitigate the
effects of climate change) be included in the new part 15. Submission
536/2 asks that every council office have a specialist 'sustainability
planner' or 'planner for the environment'. This officer would have various
advocacy and education functions relating to: promoting sustainable business
practices; reducing greenhouse gas deposits; increasing the number of trees;
training council employees about climate change; informing school students; and
instructing people building, buying or altering houses about energy efficiency.
Submission
536/3 asks the council to develop model house plans for sustainable houses.
Submission
536/4 seeks low building consent fees for smaller houses which have the
least energy footprint. Submission
536/5 asks the council to provide low interest loans for building and
alteration of houses in accordance with up to date sustainable design practices.
Submission
536/7 asks that thought be given to future wind generators on individual
homes and that neighbours should not, if possible, shield each other from the
prevailing wind.
Submissions
536/2,
536/3,
536/4 and
536/5 raise procedural and administrative matters that can be implemented by
the council but which do not need to be addressed in the Plan. It is therefore
recommended that these submissions be rejected, together with
526/8 which suggests that the methodologies be included in the new part 15.
The panel may however wish to refer these procedural and administrative matters
to the council's corporate sustainability group for their consideration.
It would be difficult to develop a planning control or assessment to ensure
that buildings do not shield other buildings on neighbouring properties from the
prevailing winds so as to protect access to wind for power generation. It is
therefore recommended that submission
536/7 be rejected.
Submission
1182/2 and
1182/3 - peak oil
Submission
1182/2 seeks that the new part 15 - Sustainable management operational
methodologies, delineate extensive operational methodologies which will mitigate
the effects of peak oil upon every aspect of our lives and fossil fuel economy.
Submission
1182/3 seeks that one of the methodologies be the creation of council and
local peak oil management committees responsible for researching peak oil, its
effects on us and the mitigation of these.
Peak oil refers to the date when the peak of the world's conventional
petroleum (crude oil) production is reached. After this date the rate of
production will decline and there is likely to be a sharp and sustained rise in
the price of oil. There may also be physical shortages of oil.
Submission
1182/2 does not explain what operational methodologies should be included in
the new part 15 in order to mitigate the effects of peak oil. Given the lack of
a specific relief, it is recommended that this submission be rejected. It is
also noted that individuals and organisations are able to make changes to reduce
their own reliance on fossil fuels.
The request in submission
1182/3 that council and local peak oil management committees be established
is a procedural matter and does not need to be addressed in the Plan. It is
therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.
Submission
3715/26
Submission
3715/26 seeks a new part 15 - Sustainable management issues and
methodologies, with a more coherent and holistic focus including good science
analysis protocols, the adoption of better planning tools to facilitate
pragmatic ongoing sustainable management goals and associated community and
educational goals, and more devolved governance. The submission suggests that
the new part 15 would include:
- Integrated wastewaters and waters and catchment management
- Catchments as management zones to enable integrated management
- Minimum water use strategies
- Rigorous cost benefit alternatives analysis protocols
- Enhanced coastal landscape and wetlands and biodiversity management
- Adaption management for climate change
- Support for enhanced energy management protocols
- Support for solar heating, windfarms electricity generation, park and ride
- The adoption of a Waiheke Island Gulf Design Panel
- The adoption of 'sustainability design codes' and 'community scale design
codes' and 'community amenity management codes'
- Public health benefits management (eg from a greater emphasis upon walking
and cycling)
- Support for cost competitive video uplinking capacity broadband internet,
to enable less need to commute and to foster island employment
- Support for community sustainability and education initiatives such as
Waicare, Enviroschools, Beachcare, cycling clubs, walkways, fauna and flora
enhancement, Waiheke Waste Resources Trust, heritage protection, and
associated social, economic and cultural community well-being issues
- Recognition that sustainability is a community and governance issue.
For ease of reference, the content suggested in submission
3715/26 has been numbered and grouped and will be addressed under headings
below:
- Catchment management
It is not clear how the submission envisages that the proposed part 15 should
address catchment management.
- Minimum water use
It is not clear how the submission envisages that the proposed part 15 should
encourage or require minimum water use strategies.
- Cost benefit alternatives analysis
It is not clear how and in what circumstances the submission envisages cost
benefit analysis protocols being addressed in the proposed new part 15.
- Coastal, wetlands, and biodiversity management
These matters are addressed throughout in the Plan. It is not clear what
additional measures are sought by the submitter.
- Climate change
At the time of the notification of the Plan it was difficult for the council
to quantify the effects of climate change, specifically on the Hauraki Gulf
islands. The council has since commissioned further work from the National
Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA) on possible changes to
rainfall, wind, sea level and storm surge frequency for the Auckland area as a
result of climate change. If, as a result of this work, the plan provisions
are likely to be insufficient then a plan change will be undertaken. On
average though, it is expected that average temperatures in New Zealand will
increase by about 1○ C by the 2030s and 2-3○ C by the
2080s. Using moderate projections it is possible that sea level rise will be
between 30-50cm by 2100, exacerbating coastal erosion, sea inundation during
storms, salinisation of fresh water and drainage of low lying lands. More
episodes of heavy rainfall are likely and a greater risk of severe winds and
storms. The number of hot days is expected to increase in the northern North
Island.
In developing part 8 of the Plan, which addresses natural hazards, the council
has sought to avoid development in areas that are likely to be affected by
climate change – areas prone to flooding, coastal erosion, slippage and
subsidence. The rules also seek to prevent the modification of hazard prone
areas or natural defences such as sand dune areas, so that they will maintain
their resilience to natural hazard events arising from climate change.
- Energy management
It is not clear what the submission is seeking when it refers to 'enhanced
energy management protocols'. It is also not clear how the submission wants
the Plan to support solar heating, windfarms electricity generation, and park
and ride. In terms of park and ride, it is noted that parking (for ferry
commuters) is provided for in the Matiatia land unit.
- Design
The submission seeks a Waiheke Island Gulf Design Panel. The council already
convenes a specialist design panel for the Hauraki Gulf islands, known as the
environmental design panel. Panel members are selected for their knowledge of,
and professional experience in, the gulf islands and have been briefed on
council policies and strategies on Waiheke and the gulf. The panel is convened
on an 'as required' basis. Its purview extends to all island developments that
are:
- multiple residential or mixed use developments
- large scale visitor facility developments, commercial and entertainment
facilities
- ridgeline developments (determined on a case by case basis)
- large scale development in rural areas, for example land units 20, 21
and 22 (now rural 1 and 2)
- large scale developments, including all new buildings and major
alterations to buildings within the commercial and retail zones within
policy areas (now settlement areas)
- developments which have the potential to impact on significant landscape
features, for example coastal cliffs or significant coastal headlands
- any major council development projects
- large scale development adjacent to reserve areas.
It is not clear what the submission is seeking when it asks for the
adoption of 'sustainability design codes' and 'community scale design codes'
and 'community amenity management codes'.
- Public health
In terms of walking and cycling, this is already addressed in part 13 -
Connectivity and linkages. In particular it is addressed in clauses 13.2.6,
13.3.5, 13.4.6. Pedestrian access is also addressed in the matters of
discretion and / or assessment criteria in clauses 13.6.2, 13.7.5 and 13.7.6.
- Broadband
It is considered that the Plan makes appropriate provision for broadband. The
council has taken into account broadband when drafting part 5 - Network
utility services. Broadband is specifically addressed in policy 5.3.1(3) as
follows:
"5.3.1 Objective
To provide for the efficient establishment, operation and maintenance of
network utility services in the islands.
Policies
...
3. By providing for an additional broadband internet overhead distribution
line on existing support poles and structures where there are existing
overhead lines.
Explanation
...
The council also recognises the high level of technological change and
wishes to encourage the provision of high speed broadband telecommunication
services."
The activity table at clause 5.5.1 includes the following permitted
activity:
Construction of an additional broadband internet overhead distribution line
on existing support poles where overhead lines exist at the date of public
notification of the Plan provided that the additional line does not exceed
40mm in diameter
The council is also able to take non-statutory action to promote the
provision of broadband. However such actions do not need to be addressed in
the Plan. The council is currently investigating options for being more
directly involved in providing broadband, however the focus has been on the
more intensively populated and urbanised parts of Auckland City - ie the CBD
and the isthmus.
- Community initiatives
The council already takes non-statutory action to support community
sustainability and education initiatives. Examples include recycle collections
and composting courses. This matter does not need to be addressed in the Plan.
- Community and governance issue
It is not clear what value would be added by including statements in the Plan
recognising that sustainability is a community and governance issue. Another
subpart of submission 3715 (submission
3715/9) seeks that "Waiheke be governed as a more devolved and sustainable
island community in the Gulf rather than as an undifferentiated suburb of the
Isthmus, and with more delegated powers being given to the Waiheke Community
Board". This relief has been considered in the hearing report on part 1 of the
Plan where it is noted that it is not appropriate for the Plan to comment on
governance issues such as whether the council should delegate more or less
power to the community board. In terms of council's functions, powers or
duties under the RMA, section 34(3) permits a council to delegate to a
community board power to do anything before a final decision on the approval
of a district plan or any change to a district plan. Decisions about the
delegations of powers to committees, community boards and officers are made by
a resolution of the full council, usually at the commencement of each new term
of council.
It is noted that the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance is currently
considering the local government arrangements (including institutions,
mechanisms, and processes) that are required in the Auckland region over the
foreseeable future.
It is recommended that the submission
3715/26 be rejected to the extent that it seeks amendments to the Plan to
address the 'sustainable management issues and operational methodologies'
listed in the submission.
| Planner's recommendations for submissions about a new part
15 - Sustainable management operational methodologies
1. That submissions
124/1,
158/1,
160/1,
165/1,
169/1,
584/1,
660/1,
778/1,
800/1,
809/1,
683/1,
817/1,
826/1,
842/1,
894/1,
1022/1,
1132/1,
1217/1,
1295/1,
1598/1,
1599/1,
1608/1,
1622/1,
1624/1,
1627/1,
1628/1,
1629/1,
1631/1,
1633/1,
2123/1,
2127/1,
2662/1,
2773/1,
2776/1,
2778/1,
2787/1,
2844/1,
2944/1,
2948/1,
2951/1,
2955/1,
2959/1,
2963/1,
2967/1,
2971/1,
2975/1,
2979/1,
2983/1,
2987/1,
2991/1,
3007/1,
3014/1,
3017/1,
3232/1,
3233/1,
3246/1,
3268/1,
3389/1,
3529/1,
3626/1,
3839/1 be rejected.
2. That submissions
300/1,
370/1,
567/1,
633/1,
637/1,
695/1,
702/1,
725/1,
733/1,
742/1,
876/1,
883/1,
909/1,
962/1,
938/1,
1597/1,
1600/1,
1603/1,
1604/1,
1605/1,
1606/1,
1607/1,
1609/1,
1610/1,
1611/1,
1612/1,
1613/1,
1614/1,
1615/1,
1616/1,
1617/1,
1618/1,
1619/1,
1620/1,
1621/1,
1623/1,
1625/1,
1626/1,
1630/1,
1632/1,
1634/1,
1635/1,
2288/1,
2572/1,
2574/1,
2678/1,
2703/1,
2792/1,
2832/1,
3024/1,
3167/1,
3187/1,
3192/1,
3210/1,
3290/1,
3306/1,
3315/1,
3317/1,
3337/1,
3338/1,
3357/1,
3367/1,
3374/1,
3376/1,
3512/1,
3538/1,
3556/1,
3807/1,
3820/1,
3833/1 be rejected.
3. That submissions
302/8,
374/8,
570/8,
575/8,
636/8,
639/8,
643/8,
652/8,
672/8,
685/8,
715/8,
732/8,
737/8,
797/8,
805/8,
806/8,
814/8,
823/8,
869/8,
888/8,
911/8,
921/8,
926/8,
955/8,
1019/8,
1040/8,
1055/27,
1153/8,
1166/15,
1231/8,
1240/8,
1720/8,
1721/8,
1722/8,
1723/8,
1724/8,
1725/8,
1726/8,
1727/8,
1728/8,
1729/8,
1730/8,
1731/8,
1732/8,
1733/8,
1734/8,
1735/8,
1736/8,
1737/8,
1738/8,
1739/8,
1740/8,
1741/8,
1742/8,
2113/8,
2116/8,
2281/8,
2783/8,
2831/8,
2992/8,
3004/8,
3189/8,
3203/8,
3217/8,
3224/8,
3239/8,
3244/8,
3256/8,
3266/8,
3272/8,
3276/8,
3282/8,
3308/8,
3326/8,
3328/8,
3339/8,
3353/8,
3363/8,
3368/8,
3383/8,
3417/8,
3562/8,
3623/8,
3818/8 be rejected.
4 That submissions
536/2,
536/3,
536/4,
536/5,
536/7,
536/8,
1182/2,
1182/3,
3400/4,
3715/26 be rejected. |
3.9 Submissions about sustainable management (general)
Submissions dealt with in this section:
512/2,
1136/1,
1205/1,
1205/2,
1205/3,
3702/1
3.9.1 Decisions requested
The submissions considered in this section seek decisions which:
- permit opportunities for Great Barrier residents to develop sustainable
environmentally friendly projects without paying resource consent fees
- ensure that the Plan actively promotes and positively discriminates for
alternative technology and other cultural approaches to sustainable management
- provide for 'fast track' processing of the building consent applications
for beneficial community development
- express the council's hope that we can face the approaching challenges of
energy adversity without competing over scarce resources by learning to live
in an economy of mutual support
- acknowledge in the Plan that those who presently have low incomes and
abilities to care for themselves may have much greater difficulties in facing
energy adversity; and incorporate new models of community living supporting
the disadvantaged in having their needs met by the local community
- include objectives, rules and policies to provide protections for
Waiheke's ecology and communities from the trends of globalization.
3.9.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
3.9.2.1 Submission
512/2
Submission
512/2 asks the council to permit Great Barrier residents reasonable
opportunity to develop sustainable environmentally friendly projects without
payment of crippling resource management application charges.
Other subparts of this submission seek permitted activity status for the
following activities:
- in landform 7 (forest and bush areas) - alterations and additions to
existing buildings, forestry, multiple dwellings, commercial firewood
harvesting of manuka and kanuka
- in landforms 3, 5, 6 and 7 - additional dwellings where required for
worker's accommodation.
These subparts will be considered in later hearing reports. It is likely that
when submission
512/2 refers to 'sustainable environmentally friendly projects' the
submitter is envisaging the activities outlined in the bullet points above.
The Plan requires resource consents for proposals which warrant specific
assessment and control of potential adverse effects. The RMA does provide for
the council to recover its actual and reasonable costs associated with carrying
out its functions in relation to receiving, processing, granting, and monitoring
of resource consents. Fees for resource consents are not specified in the Plan
but are part of council's financial policy contained in its long-term council
community plan ('LTCCP'). The council's policy is to recover the full cost of
the private benefit associated with the council's statutory functions such as
providing resource consents. Where there is a also a public benefit aspect to
the service, then that component is normally met from rates. It is acknowledged
that consent fees are a significant issue for the community but it would be
inappropriate to deal with this matter in the district plan. It is therefore
recommended that this submission be rejected to the extent that it seeks
amendments to the Plan.
3.9.2.2 Submission
1136/1
Submission
1136/1 seeks that the Plan actively promote and positively discriminate for
alternative technology and other cultural approaches to sustainable management
by way of objectives, policies and rules.
The submission does not identify what amendments it seeks to the Plan and for
this reason it is not possible to fairly analyse the submission further. It is
therefore recommended that the submission be rejected.
Submission
1205/1 seeks that the Plan / the council pave the way for new models of
cooperative small-community living and collective voluntary simplicity by
creating a 'fast track' processing of the building consent applications for
beneficial community development in both the public and private sector.
Submission
1205/2 seeks that the Plan express council's hope that we can face the
approaching challenges of energy adversity without competing over scarce
resources by learning to live in an economy of mutual support.
Submission
1205/3 seeks that the Plan acknowledge that those who presently have low
incomes and abilities to care for themselves may have much greater difficulties
in facing energy adversity. The submission asks that the Plan incorporate new
models of community living which would support the disadvantaged in having their
needs met by the local community.
Building consent processes are not addressed in the district plan and it is
therefore recommended that submission
1205/1 be rejected.
It is recommended that submissions
1205/2 and
1205/3 be rejected as it is not clear what value would be added by including
the statements sought regarding energy adversity. It is also not clear what
amendments are sought to the Plan to 'incorporate new models of community
living'. It is noted that a district plan does not determine how a community
functions or its model of community living.
3.9.2.4 Submission
3702/1
Submission
3702/1, from a Waiheke submitter, seeks the formulation of objectives, rules
and policies to provide protections for the island's ecology and communities
from the trends of globalization eg population increase and mobility, peak oil,
sea level rise, global warming.
In support of its request for objectives, policies and rules to protection
the island's ecology and communities from the trends of globalisation,
submission 3702 identifies two specific deficiencies in the Plan as follows:
- The Plan does not define, recognise and protect the coastal zone.
- The Plan does not make definite provision for alternative transport such
as cycle and bridle tracks and hence ignores the possible consequences of peak
oil.
For the reasons outlined below, it is considered that these matters are dealt
with appropriately in the Plan and the submission should therefore be rejected.
The submission does not specifically seek any other amendments to the Plan.
Coastal protections
As outlined in section 3.4.2.1 of this report, the Plan includes a range of
rules protecting coastal areas from inappropriate development. The issue of
definition of the coastal environment is addressed in section 3.4.2.2.
Cycling and bridle tracks
It is considered that cycling is already appropriately recognised and
provided for as a transport mode in the Plan. The following objectives and
policies from part 13 - Connectivity and linkages, are of most relevance:
" 13.3.3 Objective - roading
To recognise and provide for the existing road system as an important
resource for an integrated transport network, while managing it to ensure the
adverse effects on the surrounding environment are minimised.
Policies
- By providing for and enhancing the road network to ensure it is safe,
effective and efficient for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.
- By reducing conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists
around key community focal points, such as wharves, commercial centres,
schools and other public facilities.
..."
(Underlining added)
" 13.3.4.2 Objective
To ensure access to sites is provided at appropriate locations, while
avoiding or mitigating adverse effects.
Policies
- By controlling access at specific locations to ensure vehicle, pedestrian
and cycle safety.
..."
(Underlining added)
" 13.3.5 Objectives - cycling and walking
- To improve cycling and pedestrian access to key community focal
points such as residential areas, wharves, commercial centres, schools, and
other public facilities.
- To enhance the opportunities for recreational cycling and walking.
Policies
- By recognising that the road network must provide for pedestrians and
cyclists as well as vehicles.
- By encouraging the establishment of cycle facilities and
cycleways , especially around key community focal points and public
facilities.
- By providing for the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians,
especially around key community focal points and public facilities.
- By considering cycling and walking issues when assessing
subdivision applications.
- By recognising and providing for recreational cycling and walking."
(Underlining added)
The assessment criteria in 13.7.5(1), 13.7.6(1) and 13.7.7 also require
cycling to be considered when assessing parking related resource consent
applications.
With regards to subdivision, clause 12.11 contains general assessment
criteria for subdivisions being assessed as discretionary activities. Clause
12.11.6(3) contains the following criterion relating to cycle ways:
"3. The extent to which the subdivision provides for safe and practical
pedestrian paths and cycle ways (whether sealed or unsealed) that are
located in a manner which connects, or has the potential to connect to reserves
(existing or proposed); the coast; other water bodies and rural walkways."
(Underlining added)
With regards to bridle tracks or trails, these are currently not addressed in
the transport section of the Plan (part 13 - Connectivity and linkages) as this
part of the Plan appropriately concentrates on the main components of the
transport system that connect people, places, goods and services, including
wharves, airfields, passenger transport, roads, cycleways, walkways and
waterways. In terms of transport alternatives to the private car, the Plan
focuses on cycles, walking, and passenger transport. Horse riding is
predominantly a recreational activity and bridle trails are listed as a
permitted activity in recreation 1 and 2, and are also listed as either
permitted, discretionary or non-complying in the different areas within
recreation 3 (Rangihoua Park). It is noted that the hearing report on part 13
will consider a number of submissions which seek greater acknowledgement of
bridle trails in the Plan.
3.10 Submissions about activities and activity tables
Submissions dealt with in this section:
52/4,
615/2,
618/147,
619/96,
1101/10,
1243/3,
1285/23,
1286/71,
1287/1,
1288/1,
1289/15,
2670/95,
2721/5,
2766/16
3.10.1 Decisions requested
The submissions considered in this section seek decisions which:
- review the punitive effect of designating an activity as discretionary or
notified discretionary
- address the excessive use of the restricted discretionary category
- change the approach in the Plan which includes prescriptive activity lists
with unlisted activities treated as non-complying
- focus the Plan provisions on an effects based planning regime derived from
an integrated catchment management structure
- remove prohibited activities, with existing prohibited activities changed
to non-complying.
3.10.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
3.10.2.1 Cost of discretionary activities
Submission
52/4 seeks review of the punitive effect of designating an activity as
discretionary or notified discretionary.
Submission 52 as a whole is generally directed at the situation where new
significant ridgeline areas have been identified on properties previously
covered by a rural subdivision. It is not clear whether the decision requested
in the subpart
52/4 is intended to relate to buildings within significant ridgeline areas
or to discretionary activities in general.
It is acknowledged that the resource consent process creates additional costs
and uncertainties for applicants, particularly where notification occurs. In
drafting the Plan, the council has sought to allocate the appropriate activity
status to various activities, having regard to the potential adverse effects.
For this reason, and given the lack of specificity of the submission, it is
recommended that submission
52/4 be rejected. It is noted that throughout the hearing process the panel
will consider the appropriate status for a range of activities and that some
amendments may be made in response to more specific submissions.
3.10.2.2 Restricted discretionary activities
Submission
615/2 raises concern about the use of the restricted discretionary category
and its effect on third party involvement in the resource consent process. The
submission states that there is an excessive use of the restricted discretionary
category in the activity tables which when combined with the notification
requirements results in a potential for those with genuine concerns about the
effect of an application being unable to express them.
Continuum of activities
Section 77B of the RMA sets out the continuum of activities that may be used
in a district plan as follows: permitted activity, controlled activity,
restricted discretionary activity, discretionary activity, non-complying
activity, prohibited activity. The Plan uses all of these statuses except for
that of controlled activity. The differences between permitted, controlled, and
restricted discretionary activities are briefly set out below:
| Activity type |
Explanation |
| Permitted activity |
No resource consent required.
Must comply with the standards, terms or conditions, if any
specified in the Plan. |
| Controlled activity |
Resource consent required.
The council must grant the resource consent.
The council must specify in the Plan the matters over which it has
reserved control.
The council may impose conditions on the resource consent, but
only with respect to the matters specified in the Plan.
Must comply with the standards, terms or conditions, if any
specified in the Plan. |
| Restricted discretionary activity |
Resource consent required
The council must specify in the Plan the matters over which it has
restricted its discretion.
The council may decline a resource consent or approve and impose
conditions, but only with respect to the matters specified in the Plan.
Must comply with the standards, terms or conditions, if any
specified in the Plan. |
Use of the restricted rather than full discretionary status
It is considered that the Plan appropriately uses the restricted
discretionary status rather than the full discretionary status for activities
which warrant a resource consent but where particular matters of discretion can
be identified. This is a more targeted approach than a full discretionary
activity.
Under section 77D of the RMA, a rule for a restricted discretionary activity
may state whether applications for resource consent for the activity may be
decided without notification (under section 93) or service of notice (under
section 94(1)). This is further set out in s94D(2) and (3) of the RMA. In most
cases, but not all, the Plan does identify that applications for a resource
consent for a restricted discretionary activity will be considered without
public notification or the need to obtain written approval of, or serve notice
on affected persons. It is considered that the council has used this approach
appropriately in situations where it is satisfied that the potential adverse
effects of activities can be adequately assessed and avoided, remedied or
mitigated without the need to involve third parties.
It is recommended that submission
615/2 be rejected as the Plan appropriately uses both the restricted
discretionary activity status and the non-notification mechanisms provided for
in section 77D of the RMA. There will be other more specific submissions that
raise particular concerns about the application of the restricted discretionary
status to a particular activity. Those more specific submissions will be
considered in other hearing reports.
3.10.2.3 Prescriptive activity lists
Submissions
618/147,
619/96,
1285/23,
1286/71,
2670/95 and
2721/5 ask the council to delete the approach taken in the Plan to managing
activities through prescriptive activity lists and then deeming all activities
outside of such lists to be non-complying. These submissions seek instead an
effects based approach similar to the operative Plan. Similarly submission
2766/16 states that the Plan fails to recognise the diversity of its people
and communities to the extent that land uses are prescribed in a series of
activity tables, which appear to make all unlisted activities non-complying or
illegal, contrary to section 14(1)(c)(i) [2] of the Local Government Act
2002. The submission further states that the council must make an effort to
identify and include the actual pattern of development and preserve the
flexibility and diversity of use within the land units wherever practicable.
Submissions
1101/10,
1287/1,
1288/1 and
1289/15 state that the Plan provisions should be more focussed on an effects
based planning regime derived from an integrated catchment management structure.
The proposed Plan adopts an approach of listing specific activities as either
permitted, restricted discretionary or discretionary in particular locations. In
some situations (eg table 7.2), non-complying and prohibited activities are also
specifically listed in the Plan. The general rule contained in clause 4.2
applies a non-complying status to activities not otherwise provided for as
permitted, controlled, restricted discretionary or discretionary. Also included
in the Plan are development controls which apply to all activities.
Submissions
618/147,
619/96,
1285/23,
1286/71,
2670/95 and
2721/5 oppose the use of prescriptive activity lists and seek an approach
similar to the operative Plan. The approach taken in the operative Plan is, in
general, to state in each land unit that an activity that complies with the
standards in part 6B of the Plan is permitted unless it is otherwise provided
for in the rules for the particular land unit as a controlled, discretionary or
prohibited activity. Those activities which have been identified for a
particular land unit as having the potential to generate adverse effects which
need to be specifically addressed are identified as either controlled or
discretionary activities. There is also a general rule in part 2.2 of the
operative Plan stating that an activity which contravenes a rule in the Plan,
but which is not a prohibited activity, is a non-complying activity.
The standards in part 6B of the operative Plan address:
- infrastructure and services (including effluent disposal, parking, access,
traffic generation, roading and aircraft movements)
- bulk and location of buildings (height, daylight control, lot yards, lot
coverage, gross dwelling area, ridgeline control)
- conservation amenity (sites of ecological significance, indigenous
vegetation clearance, hazard areas, noise, earthworks, protection yards,
building restriction yards, artificial lighting, and hazardous substances).
It is noted that the approach now taken in land unit 27 (Matiatia) of the
operative Plan (as introduced by plan change 38) is to list activities in a
similar manner as the proposed Plan.
The approach taken in the operative Plan is sometimes described as 'effects
based'. However it is considered that this description is a misleading and
unhelpful as the purpose of all district plans is to assist territorial
authorities to carry out their functions including "the control of any actual or
potential effects of the use, development, protection of land" (s31(1)(b) of the
RMA). Neither is the approach taken in the operative Plan based solely on
performance standards as that Plan does identify a consent status for certain
activities. To differing degrees, both the operative and proposed Plan allocate
particular activities to a specific activity status based on the likelihood of
those activities generating adverse effects.
The following difficulties have been identified with the operative Plan:
- The performance standards in part 6b relating to traffic and parking are
inadequate, and in some cases, ultra vires [3]. They are inadequate as
a basis for determining whether or not an activity not otherwise listed is
permitted.
- There are relatively few activities listed in the land units as controlled
or discretionary. Sometimes activities with potentially adverse effects
qualify as permitted while activities with lesser effects require a consent.
- The approach does not recognise the value of grouping or separating
certain types of activities. For example, there are good resource management
reasons for separating residential activities from industrial and commercial
activities.
- The approach relies too heavily on performance standards and gives little
indication about the activities considered suitable (ie permitted) for each
land unit or policy area.
- Those activities which are listed as controlled or discretionary are
sometimes poorly defined in part 11 - Definitions, of the Plan.
It is considered that the approach taken in the proposed Plan has
satisfactorily addressed these difficulties without unduly creating other
complexities. It has also avoided the complication which occurs with some
district plans whereby a comprehensive and complicated range of performance
standards need to be considered before it can be determined whether or not an
activity is permitted. It is accepted that people who are used to the operative
Plan, and who have not used plans with more extensive activity lists, may find
the new approach somewhat intimidating.
For the reasons outlined above it is recommended that submissions
618/147,
619/96,
1285/23,
1286/71,
2670/95,
2721/5 and
2766/16 be rejected. It is also recommended that submissions
1101/10,
1287/1,
1288/1 and
1289/15 which seek "an effects based planning regime derived from an
integrated catchment management structure" be rejected.
3.10.2.4 Prohibited activities
Submission
1243/3 asks that prohibited activities be removed from the Plan, and that
the prohibited activities included in the Plan be changed to non-complying
activities.
Under sections 77A and 77B of the RMA, the council may make rules describing
an activity as a prohibited activity. No application may be made for a
prohibited activity and a resource consent must not be granted for it.
Clause 4.4 Prohibited activities, states as follows:
"Certain activities are expressly prohibited within the islands. No
application can be made for a prohibited activity.
The following are prohibited activities throughout the islands:
- The introduction, keeping or farming of:
- Any new organism (including genetically modified organisms).
- Any plant pest species listed in appendix 14 - Plant pest species
.
- The following animal pest species: possums, goats, wallaby, deer, wapiti
and mustelids (ferrets, stoats, and weasels).
- Mining of any mineral irrespective of whether the activity is authorised
under the Crown Minerals Act 1991, other than any quarrying, prospecting, or
exploration activity (as defined in part 14 - Definitions ) authorised
in accordance with the Plan.
- The disposal of waste products resulting from the use of radioactive
materials, and any package or container that has contained radioactive
material where the radioactive material exceeds the level that is specified as
an exempt activity in part 2 of the Radiation Protection Regulations 1982.
Note: There are also some other prohibited activities identified in other
parts of the Plan, such as in part 7 - Heritage .
Explanation
These activities have been defined as prohibited in recognition of the
potential adverse effects that may arise within the environment of the islands.
All of these activities are considered incompatible with the outstanding
conservation and heritage values of the islands, and to provide for such
activities to establish would severely compromise those values. These activities
should never occur within any part of the islands in any circumstances."
The activity tables (tables 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4) applying to scheduled
archaeological sites and geological items also list some prohibited activities.
Submission
1243/3 asks that prohibited activities be removed from the Plan, and that
the prohibited activities included in the Plan be changed to non-complying
activities. Other subparts of submission 1243 (from Federated Farmers of NZ
Inc.) specifically seek the removal of new organisms, goats, deer and wapiti
from the prohibited activities listed in clause 4.4 (submissions
1243/38, and
1243/49). Those subparts were considered in the hearing report on part 4.
Submission 1243 also includes subparts which address the status of activities
identified as prohibited in tables 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4. Those subparts will be
considered in the hearing report on part 7 - Heritage.
It is noted the council has lodged submissions which seek to change the
status of some of the prohibited activities listed in tables 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and
7.4 to non-complying activities (submissions
2091/1,
2091/3,
2091/12 and
2091/14). The council has sought these amendments because it decided, after
further consideration, that the prohibited activity category is too onerous for
the particular activities and that the non-complying activity is more
appropriate.
It is considered that while the prohibited activity status should remain in
the Plan, it is not necessarily appropriate for all of the activities currently
listed as prohibited to retain that status. Some could be amended to
non-complying and submission
1243/3 could therefore be accepted in part. However it would be premature
for the panel to reach a decision on
1243/3 until it has considered all the submissions and further submissions
to clause 4.4 and tables 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4. Therefore no recommendation is
given with respect to this submission at this time. It is further noted that
other hearing reports will consider submissions which ask for additional
activities to be identified as prohibited activities in the Plan.
Planner's recommendations for submissions about activities
and activity tables
- That submissions
52/4,
615/2,
618/147,
619/96,
1101/10,
1285/23,
1286/71,
1287/1,
1288/1,
1289/15,
2670/95,
2721/5,
2766/16 be rejected.
- That the panel consider its position on submission
1243/3 (regarding removal of prohibited activities from the Plan)
following the completion of the other Plan hearings.
|
3.11 Submissions about resource consents
Submissions dealt with in this section:
470/1,
471/1,
821/39,
2908/6
3.11.1 Decisions requested
The submissions considered in this section seek decisions which:
- address the onerous and impractical nature of conditions placed on
resource consents
- support less notified applications
- include criteria in the Plan (with specific reference to recreation 3) to
reflect that potential effects should be assessed upon sites within catchments
(rather than just adjacent sites) and based upon a permitted baseline.
3.11.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
Submissions
470/1 and
471/1
Submissions
470/1 and
471/1 state that there should not be any more onerous conditions imposed on
residents to obtain resource consents than at present. Submission
470/1 further states that many of the conditions requiring resource consent
are unrealistic, impractical and arbitrary and must be eased / addressed.
Submissions
470/1 and
471/1, both from Great Barrier residents, do not provide any supporting
reasons or additional information. Under the RMA, the council is able to
identify in the Plan activities which require a resource consent ie controlled,
restricted discretionary, discretionary and non-complying activities. Permitted
activities are identified in the Plan where the council is satisfied that the
likely environmental effects associated with particular activities in a
particular location can be adequately addressed through performance standards.
Where the council is of the view that further control and assessment is
necessary, a resource consent is required. The council acknowledges that the
resource consent process can be frustrating for applicants and has made a
conscious effort to only require resource consents where that additional level
of assessment is considered necessary to meet the objectives and policies of the
Plan. It is recommended that submissions
470/1 and
471/1 be rejected as they have not identified any specific activities of
concern.
Submission
821/39
Submission
821/39 welcomes the intent to have less notified applications where issues
are dealt with via council and fixtures not the community board.
It is not clear which activities submission
821/39 is referring to when it suggests that there will be less notified
applications. It is possibly referring to some of the restricted discretionary
applications where the Plan explicitly states that proposals will be considered
without public notification.
The issue of where the delegations rest within the council for approving
certain types of resource consent applications is not addressed in the Plan.
Delegations to officers, committees, and commissioners are determined by a
resolution of the council, usually near the beginning of a new term of council.
It is recommended that submission
821/39 be accepted to the extent that it supports the Plan.
Submission
2908/6
Submission
2908/6 asks the council to include other relevant criteria in the Plan (with
specific reference to recreation 3) to reflect that potential effects should be
assessed upon sites within catchments (rather than just adjacent sites) and
based upon a permitted baseline.
Submission 2908 refers specifically to the objectives and policies in clause
10a.24.3.6 relating to recreation 3 (Rangihoua Park). Amongst other things, the
submission suggest that the term 'adjacent sites' should be replaced with a
reference to 'sites within the catchment'. It is not clear from the reading of
submission 2908 as a whole whether the submitter's concerns are confined to
clause 10a.24.3.6 or whether the submitter intends it to be applied more widely
to other uses of the term 'adjacent sites' in the Plan. Other subparts (
2908/1 and
2908/2) deal with the use of the term 'adjacent' in clause 10a.24.3.6. Those
subparts will be considered in the hearing report relating to recreation 3. The
submission does not provide sufficient information or justification to enable
any further assessment about the use of the term 'adjacent sites' elsewhere in
the Plan. It is therefore recommended that submission
2908/6 be rejected. It is noted that in response to another submission, the
term 'adjacent' is considered further in section 3.16.2.6 of this report.
Submission
2908/6 also suggests that assessment of potential effects should be based on
a permitted baseline. Section 104(2) of the RMA refers to the permitted baseline
when it states that:
"When forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a consent
authority may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if
the plan permits an activity with that effect."
Section 104(1)(a) sets out the matters which the council must have regard to
when considering an application for resource consent. Therefore the RMA
specifies that the permitted baseline is something that the council may
have regard to - it will not be relevant for every application for resource
consent. Having regard to the permitted baseline is relevant when considering an
application for a resource consent, but it does not need to be specifically
mentioned in the Plan.
Planner's recommendations for submissions about resource
consents
- That submission
821/39 be accepted to the extent that it supports the Plan.
- That submissions
470/1,
471/1,
2908/6 be rejected.
|
3.12 Submissions about compensation
Submissions dealt with in this section:
3787/3,
3787/5,
3790/3,
3790/5,
3793/3,
3793/5
3.12.1 Decisions requested
The submissions considered in this section seek decisions relating to the
inclusion of compensatory principles and mechanisms in the Plan.
Submissions
3787/3,
3790/3 and
3793/3 seek to include compensatory principles and mechanisms in the Plan to
off-set the regulatory regime where owner's rights are curtailed, severely
restricted or extinguished.
Submissions
3787/5,
3790/5 and
3793/5 seek to include compensatory mechanisms within the definitions of
landforms 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes), 2 (dune systems and sand flats), and 4
(wetland systems), and within landforms 6 (regenerating slopes) and 7 (forest
and bush), and where any changes have been introduced to previous land use
definitions.
3.12.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
In order for the council to achieve the purpose of the RMA and fulfil its
functions under that Act, the Plan will need to control development on private
land. For sites with natural or heritage values, a greater degree of control is
generally necessary placing greater limitations on landowners' ability to use
and develop their properties. The council is required to carry out an evaluation
of its objectives, policies, rules or other methods under section 32 of the RMA.
The evaluation must take into account the benefits and costs of policies, rules,
or other methods. One of the costs taken into account by the council in its
section 32 evaluations is the costs to owners and occupiers of land resulting
from any loss of development rights or compliance costs such as resource consent
fees.
Section 85 of the RMA clearly identifies that compensation is not payable in
respect of controls on land. Section 85 does provide for a landowner to use the
submission process to challenge a provision in a plan on the grounds that they
consider that the land would be incapable of reasonable use. However the
submissions listed above are general in nature and are not specific to any
particular property.
Section 85(1) of the RMA provides that:
"An interest in land shall be deemed not to be taken or injuriously affected
by reason of any provision in a plan unless otherwise provided for in
this Act".
(underlining added)
While compensation may not be available, section 85(2) goes on to provide as
follows:
"Notwithstanding subsection (1), any person having an interest in land to
which any provision or proposed provision of a plan or proposed plan applies,
and who considers that the provision or proposed provision would render that
interest in land incapable of reasonable use , may challenge that provision
or proposed provision on those grounds—
(a) In a submission made under Part 1 of the First Schedule in respect of a
proposed plan or change to a plan; or
(b) In an application to change a plan made under clause 21 of Schedule 1."
(underlining added)
Subsection (3) then sets out the Environment Court's jurisdiction to direct
the modification, deletion or replacement of plan provisions, as follows:
"Where, having regard to Part 3 (including the effect of section 9(1)) and
the effect of subsection (1), the Environment Court determines that a provision
or proposed provision of a plan or a proposed plan renders any land incapable
of reasonable use, and places an unfair and unreasonable burden on any person
having an interest in the land , the Court, on application by any such
person to change a plan made under clause 21 of Schedule 1, may—
(a) In the case of a plan or proposed plan (other than a regional coastal
plan), direct the local authority to modify, delete, or replace the provision;
and... "
(underlining added)
'Reasonable use' is explained further in subsection (6) including:
" ... the use or potential use of land for any activity whose actual or
potential effects on any aspect of the environment or on any person other than
the applicant would not be significant".
It is recommended that submissions
3787/3,
3787/5,
3790/3,
3790/5,
3793/3 and
3793/5 be rejected.
3.13 Submissions about future growth
Submissions dealt with in this section:
753/29,
821/33,
836/19,
1190/27,
1259/2,
2942/1,
3695/6
3.13.1 Decisions requested
The submissions considered in this section seek decisions which:
- allow no increase in density in reticulated areas
- remove the limiting effect the Plan's resource consent requirements have
on the development of Waiheke's vacant residential land
- set thresholds in the Plan for the upper limit of development which can
be accommodated in the islands of the Gulf
- provide greater control in the Plan over the effects of greatly increased
tourist flows on Great Barrier.
3.13.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
Submissions
753/29,
821/33,
836/19 and
1190/27 seek no increase in density in reticulated areas.
In terms of reticulation, the commercial portion of Oneroa village is
connected to the Owhanake wastewater management plant. Otherwise wastewater in
the islands is disposed of through a wide range of on-site disposal systems.
When compared with the operative Plan, the proposed Plan does provide for
more intensive development in the commercial areas of Oneroa. It extends the
boundary of the commercial area of Oneroa village to the west by classifying as
commercial 1 (Oneroa village) some land previously classified as traditional
residential. The Plan also allows additional building coverage and impervious
surface area for sites in commercial 1 which are connected to the Owhanake
wastewater management plant (see clause 10c.4.9.1(2)(b) and table 10c.2).
The new development provided for within the Matiatia (mixed use) land unit
will also be serviced by the Owhanake wastewater management plant. However the
level of development provided for in this land unit is the same as in the
operative Plan (as inserted by plan change 38).
It is recommended that these submissions be rejected as they seek a
generalised relief about density of development in reticulated areas without
identifying any specific concerns with the level of development provided for in
the Plan. It considered that the Plan provides for an appropriate level of
development within commercial 1 (Oneroa village) and in the Matiatia (mixed use)
land unit. It is noted that there are other more specific submissions which
raise concern about development in Oneroa village and at Matiatia. Those
submissions will be considered in the hearing reports for those land units.
3.13.2.2 Submission
1259/2
Submission
1259/2 seeks to remove the limiting effect the Plan's resource consent
requirements have on the development of Waiheke's vacant residential land.
It is acknowledged that resource consent requirements do add to the costs and
uncertainties associated with developing vacant residential land on Waiheke.
However, the council has sought to ensure that the Plan requires resource
consents only in circumstances where the effects of the proposal cannot be
adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated by applying standards to a permitted
activity. There are a wide range of submissions which seek more specific
amendments to the Plan which would either reduce or increase consent
requirements. Those more specific submissions will be considered in other
hearing reports.
It is recommended that submission
1259/2 be rejected as it not clear what amendments are sought to the Plan.
It is noted that other subparts of submission 1259 refer specifically to the
earthworks and vegetation controls. Those subparts will be considered in the
hearing report on part 10c of the Plan.
3.13.2.3 Submission
2942/1
Submission
2942/1 seeks that the Plan be reassessed and objectives, policies, rules and
assessment criteria be developed to recognise and provide for and implement the
threshold limits arising from that inquiry and to set and maintain the upper
limit on development that it is determined can be accommodated in the islands of
the Gulf. Change the Plan (particularly at parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10a, 10b, 10c,
11, 12, 13 and 14) to implement the reassessed thresholds.
The Plan limits development by means of a wide variety of controls on land
use and development. The Plan objectives, policies and rules, establish a level
of development which is permitted as of right, and uses the restricted
discretionary and discretionary activity status as a means of assessing and
setting conditions on other development which may be appropriate. It is
considered that this is an appropriate approach to controlling and limiting
development and the submission, which appears to seek more explicitly defined
limits, should be rejected.
3.13.2.4 Submission
3695/6
Submission
3695/6 seeks greater control in the Plan over the effects of greatly
increased tourist flows on Great Barrier, particularly as regards public access
information, removal of fences and other obstructions from the
council-controlled legal roads, and mitigation of potential and actual damage to
rare native flora and fauna, and to private land.
The submission does not clearly identify what amendments are sought to the
Plan to control the effects of increased tourist flows on Great Barrier. In the
supporting reasons contained in submission 3695, the submitter raises concerns
about tourists accessing private land to the detriment of landowners and rare
wildlife such as the brown teal. The submission suggests that there needs to be
better information given to tourists about where they can and cannot access. The
matters raised in this submission are best dealt with outside the district plan
and it is therefore recommended that the submission be rejected.
3.14 Submission about housing affordability – Waiheke
Submission dealt with in this section:
1256/2
3.14.1 Decisions requested
Submission
1256/2 seeks to include objectives, policies and methods (rules and
assessment criteria) that address housing affordability including but not
necessarily limited to:
- A commitment by the council to investigate opportunities and incentives
for encouraging the market to provide a variety of housing types for all
socio-economic groups with the Waiheke community (ie in accordance with
Essentially Waiheke).
- A commitment by the council to carry out a future plan change, including
necessary public consultation, that will give effect to the investigation.
- Implementing activity standards and development controls that minimise
consent costs for appropriate development.
3.14.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
Housing affordability is a complex issue which is influenced by a wide range
of factors not controlled by the district plan. Those factors include central
government policy; household incomes; population changes; inflation; overseas
exchange rates; finance availability; compliance with Building Act regulations;
costs associated with construction materials, transport and labour.
It is noted that parliament's Local Government and Environment Select
Committee will be considering public submissions received to the Affordable
Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill. The bill enables (but does not
require) city and district councils to assess the level of affordable housing in
their districts, and to develop and implement affordable-housing policies based
on that assessment.
It would be inappropriate to make a commitment in the Plan to undertaking
further investigations on affordable housing. It would also be inappropriate to
commit to a future plan change, when it is not proven that this is the best
response to the issue.
The submission seeks that consent costs be minimised for appropriate
development, but does not suggest that any specific development controls or
activity standards should be made more permissive. In terms of resource consent
fees, these are not specified in the Plan. The RMA does provide for the council
to recover its actual and reasonable costs associated with carrying out its
functions in relation to receiving, processing, granting, and monitoring of
resource consents. Fees for resource consents are not specified in the Plan but
are part of council's financial policy contained in its LTCCP. The council's
policy is to recover the full cost of the private benefit associated with the
council's statutory functions such as providing resource consents. Where there
is a also a public benefit aspect to the service, then that component is
normally met from rates. It is acknowledged that consent fees are a significant
issue for the community but it would be inappropriate to deal with this matter
in the district plan.
It is recommended that submission
1256/2 be rejected.
For completeness, it is noted that the Plan does promote a housing choice by
providing for a range of lot sizes and intensities of development.
| Planner's recommendations for submission about housing
affordability (Waiheke)
That submission
1256/2 be rejected. |
3.15 Submissions about general matters – Great Barrier
Submissions dealt with in this section:
968/1,
1467/2,
2043/2,
3104/11
3.15.1 Decisions requested
The submissions considered in this section seek decisions which:
- provide for a practical study of domestic fuel and manuka and kanuka on
Great Barrier
- include strategies in the Plan to mitigate the threat from wildfire
- refocus objectives, policies and rules in the Tryphena region so that
Station Rock Road (reserve, car, cycleway and walkway) is formed in
conjunction with the targeted growth and development around the existing
settled area of Tryphena
- oppose any onerous conditions or rules in the Plan relating to roading on
Great Barrier.
3.15.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
3.15.2.1 Submission
968/1 - manuka and kanuka
Submission
968/1 asks that a practical study be undertaken of Great Barrier living
conditions, with particular reference to domestic fuel and the lifecycle and
growth habits of manuka and kanuka and that relevant sections of the Plan be
rewritten to accurately reflect the results of this research.
The council has received a substantial number of submissions about the
vegetation controls as they apply to the clearance of manuka and kanuka on Great
Barrier. Those submissions will be considered in the hearing report for part 10c
- development controls for land units and settlement areas, and in the hearing
report for landforms 1-7. To assist the panel to consider these submissions,
council ecologists will provide written advice, which will be specific to the
Great Barrier situation and will include consideration of practical issues
including reliance on these species as a domestic fuel source. In response to
submissions, and having regard to the ecological advice, it is expected that
officers will recommend some amendments to the vegetation controls for kanuka
and manuka.
It would be premature for officers to make a definitive recommendation on
submission
968/1 in this report. The submission needs to be considered in the context
of the other submissions on this matter and having regard to the ecologists'
report which will be available at that time. Rather it is recommended that the
panel consider its position on submission
968/1 following the hearings on part 10c.
3.15.2.2 Submission
1467/2 - wildfire
Submission
1467/2 (from the Rural Fire Authority) states that the Plan should mitigate
the threat from wildfire by incorporating a mix of the strategies including
ensuring that there is adequate stored water on site for fire fighting purposes.
The submission states that a 22,000 litre tank is not adequate for fire
suppression during the driest periods of greatest fire risk and a larger
capacity is required. The amount of water storage required on site could be
reduced by the installing internal sprinkler systems within dwellings. Supply
tanks need to be at least 8m from the dwelling to minimise exposure risk. The
submission also notes that problems of water supply on Great Barrier are
exacerbated as there are no mechanisms to purchase water.
The matters raised in this submission about onsite water storage for fire
fighting purposes and possible use of internal sprinkler systems are important
but are more appropriately dealt with outside the district plan by means of
building and fire regulations and by providing information material. It is
therefore recommended that the submission be rejected.
It is noted that the Plan does exclude 'tanks used for collecting and storing
rainwater for reuse on the site' from the definitions of building coverage and
impervious surface contained in part 14 of the Plan. This makes it easier for
landowners to install larger water tanks.
It is noted that concerns about wildfire risks on Great Barrier were raised
at the hearing on part 8 - Natural hazards. It is likely that the issue will
also be raised again at the hearing on part 10c - Development controls for land
units and settlement areas, when the rules protecting indigenous vegetation are
considered.
3.15.2.3 Submission
2043/2 - 2008 Station Rock Road
Submission
2043/2 seeks to refocus objectives, policies and rules in the Tryphena
region so that in 2008 Station Rock Road (reserve, car, cycleway and walkway) is
formed in conjunction with the targeted growth and development around the
existing settled area of Tryphena both as an example both of a low impact,
hybrid design approach for new roads and to confirm the council's continuing
programme for legalising roads (with specific reference to the following
clauses: 2.1; 2.2; 2.3.1; 2.4; 2.4.1, 2.5; 2.5.2; 2.5.8; 3.2; 3.2.1; 3.2.2;
3.2.3; 3.2.4; 5.1; 5.3; 5.3.1; 10b.5.2; 10b.5.3; 10b.5.6.2; part 13; 13.1; 13.2;
13.2.4; 13.2.6; 13.3.3; 13.3.5)
Most of Station Rock Road is identified as unformed on the planning maps
(sheet 57, map 2). The road alignment passes through a site of ecological
significance (57-3) and is within landform 6 (regenerating slopes) and landform
7 (forest and bush areas).
Council's Transport Safety, Assets and Operations Group have advised that the
council has no plans to construct Station Rock Road at this time. The paper road
traverses some extremely difficult terrain and if the road were formed, little
of it could be constructed within the legal alignment. In addition, few people
will benefit from a public road in this location. The road has been identified
on the list of road legalisations but there are other higher priority roads.
It is recommended that this submission be rejected.
3.15.2.4 Submission
3104/11 - roading controls on Great Barrier
Submission
3104/11 opposes any onerous conditions or rules in the Plan relating to
roading on Great Barrier.
There are a number of 'paper roads' on Great Barrier, where the land is
legally vested as road but has not been formed as a road. The planning maps
therefore identify some roads or sections of roads on Great Barrier as 'unformed
road'. The Plan provides that where land is identified as unformed road on the
planning maps, then any land unit or settlement area classification applying
continues to have effect. The activity table at clause 5.5.1 of the Plan
identifies construction, operation and maintenance of the road network as a
permitted activity where the work is:
- located on land which has been vested or dedicated as road; and
- the road is not identified as unformed on the planning maps.
Network utility services not otherwise provided for as permitted or
restricted discretionary activities, are a discretionary activity. The
definition of network utility services contained in part 14 of the Plan includes
the construction, operation and maintenance of roads.
It is considered that the Plan appropriately limits the construction,
operation and maintenance of roads identified as 'unformed'. Any proposal to
form any of the unformed roads identified on the planning maps requires careful
assessment of the potential adverse effects. Many of the paper road alignments
cross steep terrain which is not suitable for road construction. It is noted
that the Harataonga Walkway is identified as a legal road.
It is therefore recommended that submission
3104/11, which opposes any onerous conditions or rules in the Plan relating
to roading on Great Barrier, be rejected.
Planner's recommendations for submissions about general
matters – Great Barrier
- That submissions
1467/2,
2043/2,
3104/11 be rejected.
- That the panel consider its position on submission
968/1 (regarding the vegetation clearance controls applying to kanuka
and manuka on Great Barrier) following hearings on part 10c.
|
3.16 Submissions about general matters (miscellaneous)
Submissions dealt with in this section:
1288/2,
1596/6,
1596/7,
2714/5,
2766/9,
2998/5,
3177/1
3.16.1 Decisions requested
The submissions considered in this section seek decisions which:
- amend parts 1 to 14 of the Plan to provide more integrated and coherent
approach to sustainable use and development
- clarify or address the Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Code
- result in a less dictatorial style of plan implementation
- review and audit all rules and criteria to ensure that they are
transparent and that weighting and bias is made explicit
- recognise that Waiheke is unique and the rules of Auckland city do not
apply here
- replace the term 'adjacent sites' by 'any exposed property', throughout
the Plan.
3.16.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
3.16.2.1 Submission
1288/2
Submission
1288/2 seeks amendments, deletions and revisions to parts 1-4 to provide a
more integrated and coherent approach to sustainable use and development as
required by the RMA.
Submission 1288 contains other subparts (ie
1288/3 to
1288/44) which seek more specific amendments to parts 1-4. Those submissions
will be considered in other hearing reports. It is therefore recommended that
the more general relief requested in submission
1288/2 be rejected.
3.16.2.2 HGI Development Code
Submission
1596/6 seeks that references to the HGI Development Code (eg in clause
5.3.1) either be deleted entirely from the Plan or the HGI Development Code laid
open for public scrutiny. Submission
1596/7 states that the status of the HGI Development Code needs to be
clarified.
The Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Code is referred to as a guideline four
times in the text of the Plan as follows:
| Clause |
Text |
| 5.3.1(7) |
Regarding network utility services:
"7. By using the Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Code as a guideline for
providing utility services for subdivision and development." |
| 12.6.2(3) |
Regarding shared wastewater treatment and disposal
facilities (rules for subdivisions):
"3. The facility provides for low impact design that avoids, remedies and
mitigates adverse effects on the environment. The Hauraki Gulf Islands
Development Code may be used as a guideline for achieving this outcome."
|
| 12.11.2 |
Regarding low impact design (assessment criteria for
subdivisions):
"The extent to which the subdivision provides for low impact design that
avoids, remedies and mitigates adverse effects on the environment. The
Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Code may be used as a guide for achieving
this outcome." |
| 12.11.8 |
Regarding water supply (assessment criteria for
subdivisions):
"1. The extent to which the subdivision provides for an adequate and
reliable supply of potable water to each proposed site. The requirements of
the Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Code may be used as a guide for
achieving this outcome." |
The Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Code is a council produced document
which sets out technical requirements for sustainable land development (June
2002). This code sets out methods for achieving good environmental outcomes when
land development takes place. The code is a 'how to' manual for works that arise
in subdivisions and land use (eg earthworks, stormwater drainage, roading). It
sets out methods and procedures which, if followed, will help to protect and
enhance the environment on the gulf islands.
The code is intended to:
- recognise the unique natural environment of the Hauraki Gulf islands
- provide guidelines and requirements for engineering and technical aspects
of subdivision and land development on the islands
- recognise the particular engineering issues which arise on the islands
(including soil types, rain fall, land forms, limited services)
- include both performance based and prescriptive criteria as appropriate
- apply to all types of land development.
The Development Code has not been fully adopted by council and is regarded as
a draft which now needs some updating. Neither has it been incorporated by
reference in the Plan as is provided for under schedule 1, part 3 of the RMA -
though it was included in the list of proposed documents. Given the status of
this document as a draft, and the fact that it has not been incorporated by
reference, it is referred to as a document which may be used for guidance rather
than as a document that needs to be complied with.
It is recommended that submissions
1596/6 and
1596/7 be rejected as the Development Code is appropriately referred to in
the Plan. In addition, the status of the document has been clarified in this
report and no amendments are considered necessary to the Plan.
3.16.2.3 Submission
2714/5
Submission
2714/5 seeks a less dictatorial style of plan implementation.
Submission
2714/5 does not clarify what is meant by the request for 'a less dictatorial
style of Plan implementation'. This concern is possibly about the way in which
the council applies the rules within the Plan. This is a process and
administration matter and is not dealt with in the Plan itself. It is
recommended that the submission be rejected.
3.16.2.4 Submission
2766/9
Submission
2766/9 states that to avoid arbitrary and unlawful practices and
formulations which are endemic in a hyper-regulatory environment, each and every
list of rules and criteria must be reviewed and audited so that:
- It is transparent whether such criteria are to be interpreted cumulatively
or alternately (using 'and' or 'or' where appropriate).
- Any bias, weighting or loading is made explicit and clear.
- Where appropriate and necessary, any rule is given an explicit value or
percentage.
- Any such weightings must be based on the agreed social, economic and
cultural priorities of the parties most affected by the rules or criteria.
- In-house policies, practices and conventions which are not explicit in the
rules and therefore are unlawful, are to be expressly forbidden.
The submission does not identify any instances where the terms 'and' or 'or'
need to be inserted in order to achieve greater clarity about whether criteria
are to be applied cumulatively or alternately. It is considered that, in
general, the Plan is clear in this respect. It is noted that council's
assessment of a discretionary activity is not limited to consideration of the
assessment criteria set out in the Plan. Rather the council must have regard to
the general matters set out in section 104 of the RMA including 'any actual or
potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity'.
It is not clear what the submission is seeking when it asks for the
following: any bias, weighting or loading to be made explicit and clear; rules
to be given explicit values or percentages (where appropriate or necessary); and
for weightings to be based on the agreed social, economic and cultural
priorities of the parties most affected by the rules or criteria.
It is also not clear what the submission means when it refers to 'in-house
policies, practices and conventions which are not explicit in the rules and are
therefore unlawful'. It is important that rules be applied in a consistent
manner. The best way of achieving this is by aiming to draft rules which are
clear and unambiguous. However it is acknowledged that from time to
interpretation issues may arise or case law may emerge, and it will be necessary
and good planning practice to ensure that staff are given guidelines about any
such matters.
It is recommended that submission
2766/9 be rejected.
3.16.2.5 Submission
2998/5
Submission
2998/5 states that Waiheke is unique and the rules of Auckland City do not
apply here.
It is recommended that submission
2998/5 be rejected to the extent that it seeks amendments to the Plan. The
Plan recognises the uniqueness of Waiheke and applies significantly different
rules than apply in the isthmus and central area parts of Auckland City.
3.16.2.6 Use of the term 'adjacent'
Submission
3177/1 seeks that that the use of 'adjacent sites' be replaced by, 'any
exposed property', throughout the Plan.
Submission
3177/1 is concerned about those instances in the Plan which the term
'adjacent' is used in characterising the effect of what the submitter refers to
as 'controlled' activities (noise, lighting, earthworks, traffic generation etc)
on other land units. The submission states that adjacent can be taken to mean
'lying near and contiguous', rather than 'lying near or
contiguous' and that this restricts opportunities for recourse by disaffected
nearby landowners.
The word 'adjacent' is defined in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as
follows:
" adjacent
adjective next to or adjoining something else."
The Collins Concise Dictionary contains the following definition:
" adjacent
adj being near or close, esp. having a common boundary, contiguous"
The council's solicitors have provided some legal advice to assist in
responding to this submission. Their advice can be summarised as follows:
- Overall there is no standard meaning for the term 'adjacent'. The most
up-to-date legal dictionaries define 'adjacent' broadly as 'lying near to or
close to, but not necessarily touching' [4] .
- As the word lacks precise or uniform meaning, its application in any
particular case is entirely a question of circumstance.
- The use of the word 'adjacent' needs to be considered in the context of
each particular Plan provision to ascertain its intended meaning.
- The Plan could use the term 'adjacent' if the intention falls under the
broader meaning of 'next to', 'near', or 'close to'.
- To avoid any uncertainty the term could be defined in the Plan to make it
clear that it means something wider than 'contiguous'.
- If the term 'adjacent' in any particular Plan provision is intended to
mean that properties are physically touching along a shared contiguous /
common boundary, then 'immediately adjoining' or 'next adjoining' would be
more appropriate options.
- The suggestion in submission
3177/1 that the term 'any exposed property' be used instead of 'adjacent
sites' is not supported. It does not add any additional clarity and is likely
to increase the level of uncertainty and confusion as to what land could be
captured by the term.
It is recommended that the concerns raised in the submission be addressed by
adding the following definition to part 14 of the Plan:
" Adjacent means being near or close but not necessarily contiguous."
Planner's recommendations for submissions about general
matters (miscellaneous)
- That submissions
1288/2,
1596/6,
1596/7,
2714/5,
2766/9,
2998/5 be rejected.
- 2 That submission
3177/1 be accepted in part and part 14 of the Plan be amended
accordingly to include a definition of 'adjacent' as follows:
" Adjacent means being near or close but not necessarily
contiguous."
|
4.0 Conclusion
This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged
regarding the text (in general) of the Proposed Auckland City District Plan:
Hauraki Gulf Islands Section 2006. It has considered the decisions requested in
submissions which relate to the text but which due to their general nature
cannot be allocated to a more specific part or clause of the Plan.
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 the text
volume of the Plan be approved, with one amendment (as outlined in appendix 3),
for the reasons outlined in this report.
| |
Name and title of signatories |
Signature |
| Author |
Katherine Dorofaeff, Senior planner |
|
| Reviewer |
Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands |
|
| Approver |
Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning |
|
Footnotes to hearing report
[1] As this provision of the RPS was made operative before 10 August
2005, the lesser legal test of 'not inconsistent with' applies.
[2] Section 14(1)(c)(i) of the Local Government Act 2002 states that
the local authority should "conduct its business in an open, transparent, and
democratically accountable manner"
[3] Ultra vires: beyond the scope or in excess of legal power
or authority
[4] Daniel Greenberg. "Stround's Judicial Dictionary of Words and
Phrases" 2006. London Sweet and Maxwell. Ed: 7th . Vol 1: A-E.
P61
Appendix 1
List of submissions and further submissions
Appendix 2
Summary of decisions requested in
submissions
Appendix 3
Recommended amendments to the Plan
Amend part 14 by inserting, in alphabetical order, the following definition
in 14.3 Definition of terms used in the Plan:
" Adjacent means being near or close but not necessarily contiguous."
Appendix 4
Policy 7.4.1 of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement
