Plans, policies and reports
Hauraki Gulf Islands review
<<
Back to contents
Issues and options papers
Ridgelines - Location of Buildings
Issue
The Hauraki Gulf Islands (HGI) District Plan notes significant ridgelines on the
planning maps and contains rules about the location of buildings in relation to
these ridgelines. Inaccuracies exist between where the ridgelines are shown on
the planning maps and where they are on the ground. In addition, the
"location of buildings" controls can be open to interpretation and are
not achieving the intent of the rule. Examples of difficulties with the rules
include the facts that:
There is ambiguity as to where the "visual impact" of a building on
a ridgeline is to be viewed from when it is assessed.
Depending where it is viewed from, a 'permitted' building, located below the
ridgeline and within 100 metres either side of the ridgeline, can still have a
visual impact on the ridgeline.
Under the 'permitted' provision, a building is allowed to be above the
ridgeline provided that the highest point of the building is below any trees and
shrubs that mitigate its effect. The rule does not preclude planting of trees
that will mitigate an impact, but which will take a considerable period of time
to have an effect.
Under the permitted activity provision a building can be built on or above
the ridgeline by eight metres, while discretionary rules permit a structure to
be no more than four metres in height above the ridgeline.
In 2000 the Council undertook an investigation of the existing rules relating
to significant ridgelines (see Plan Rules 6B.1.2.6 "Location of
Buildings" and 6C.1.2.6 "Location of Buildings"). A plan change
was developed (HGI plan change 21). However this was later withdrawn due to
problems with the accuracy of the planning maps that denoted significant
ridgelines. At the same time the Council identified several additional
significant ridgelines with the intention of adding them to the planning maps
(HGI plan change 32). This plan change was also withdrawn due to the problem
with map inaccuracies.
A legal opinion states that the exact location of the significant ridgeline
is deemed to be as defined on the planning maps. There is no discretion for this
to be changed when a site visit shows that the physical location of the
significant ridgeline differs on the ground. This raises issues about defining
the exact location accurately on the planning maps.
Other considerations include the differences in landform between Great
Barrier Island and Waiheke Island. Does Great Barrier need its own set of rules?
Similarly, Rakino Island does not have any significant ridgelines, but the
location of buildings can have undesirable effects on the landscape.
District Plans use different methods in protecting the landscape and
ridgelines. Plans including landscape protection methods that may be appropriate
to consider for the Gulf Islands are the Far North, Queenstown Lakes, Banks
Peninsula, and Thames Coromandel District Plans.
Possible approaches
You may have a better or alternative approach to those outlined below. If so,
we would like to hear from you.
- Revisit previous plan change provisions.
- Ensure that maps are re-drawn to improve accuracy.
- Replace rules with an approach similar to Queenstown Lakes District
Council, requiring that "structures do not break the line and form of
any ridges, hills and prominent slopes" in identified areas.
- Develop guidelines and rules for the siting of buildings similar to the
principles used in the Banks Peninsula District Plan.
- Remove significant ridgelines from the planning maps and delete
"location of buildings" controls.
- Introduce separate ridgeline and location of buildings controls for Great
Barrier Island.
- Introduce ridgeline controls for Rakino Island.
Note:
While this issue paper can be read in isolation, it is best read in
association with the issue papers relating to:
