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

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

1.0 Introduction

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to part 2 - 'Resource management overview and Appendix 10 (HGMPA) of the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006 ('the Plan'). The Plan was publicly notified on 18 September 2006. The closing date for lodging submissions was 11 December 2006. The submissions were publicly notified for further submission on 29 April 2007. The closing date for lodging further submissions was 28 May 2007.

This report has been prepared under section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 ('the RMA'), to assist the hearings panel to consider the submissions on part 2 - resource management overview and Appendix 10 (HGMPA). 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. The report does not make specific recommendations about further submissions - rather the recommendations for further submissions are consistent with that made for the original submission 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, along with 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 W047/05 where the court set out the following measures for evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other methods in district plans:

1. The objectives of the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:
   1. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s32(3)(a)); and
   2. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and
   3. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1).
2. The policies, rules, or other methods in the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:
   1. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan (s32(3)(b)); and
   2. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and
   3. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and
   4. (If a rule) achieve the objectives and policies of the Plan (s76(1)(b)).

The purpose of the RMA is "to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources", and "sustainable management" is defined in section 5(2) as meaning:

"... managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while - 

1. Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and
2. Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and
3. 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:

1. "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:
2. the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of - 
   1. the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and
   2. 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:
   3. the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:
3. ...
4. The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:
5. The control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of water in rivers and lakes."

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

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

3.0 Background

3.1 Part 2 - Resource Management overview

Part 2 of the Plan provides a broad overview of the characteristics of the islands, a summary of the statutory context, a comment on sustainable management and the Plan and identification of broad high level issues and resulting objectives for the islands as a whole.

Specifically, Clause 2.2 of the Plan describes the natural, physical and human characteristics that make up the islands. Clause 2.3 sets out the statutory context of the Plan. The Resource Management Act (RMA) is highlighted as the primary statutory document governing the Plan. Clause 2.3.1 summarises the requirements of RMA in regards to the preparation, implementation and administration of the Plan.

Clause 2.3.2 explains how the requirements of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (HGMPA) impact on the Plan. Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the HGMPA are attached as appendix 10 of the Plan to further clarify the requirements of the Act.

Clause 2.3.3 outlines how the Plan is influenced by other statutory documents. Clause 2.4 explains the concept of sustainability and outlines how the Plan deals with sustainable management.

Clause 2.5 identifies broad gulf-wide resource management issues and related objectives. These broad issues and objectives are:

• sustainable management
• coastal
• landscape
• water
• natural environment
• maori
• human environment (other)

3.2 Appendix 10 (HGMPA)

Appendix 10 contains sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (HGMPA).

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about part 2 - 'resource management overview' and Appendix 10 (HGMPA) and recommends how the panel could respond to the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions. The submissions are addressed under subject headings. While the relevant statutory matters (identified in section 2 of this report) will not necessarily be referred to directly, the discussion and recommendations have given appropriate consideration to these and any other relevant matters.

A list of the submissions which raise issues about part 2 - 'resource management overview' and Appendix 10 (HGMPA) together with the related further submissions is contained in appendix 1. Decisions requested in submissions are contained in appendix 2. 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 will be considered by the council at the start of the hearing process and for the purposes of this report it is assumed that they have been accepted as provided for under sections 37 and 37A of the RMA.

4.2 General submissions about part 2.0 as a whole

Submissions dealt with in this section 966/8, 966/9, 2765/3, 3061/24, 3521/2, 3521/3, 3521/5 and 3521/6

4.2.1 Decisions requested

Submission 966/8 and 966/9 seek that part 2 of the Plan be altered in order to recognise the resource management issues associated with transport within the gulf (particularly air transport as it relates to helicopters) and both domestic and tourist demand (including film industry).

Submission 2765/3 decision requests:

Part 2 - Resource Management overview must be reconsidered after complying with consultation requirements to reflect the views of communities in the affected land units or areas, and rewritten to reflect their views.

Submission 3061/24 decision requests:

Part 2.0 Resource management overview needs to be re-written to remedy mistakes, errors, omissions and inadequacies.

Submissions 3521/2 and 3521/3 decisions request:

Amend part 2 to reflect its statutory requirements, and to achieve its statutory obligations under the RMA and the HGMPA and the various planning documents there under.

Seek that such consequential amendments are made to ensure section 6 of the RMA is given recognition and effect throughout the Plan.

Submissions 3521/5 and 3521/6 decisions request:

Amend the Plan (specifically part 2) to ensure that there is adequate recognition and definition of the coastal environment to address the requirements of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement Policy 7.4.1 and Method 7.4.2. The Plan should parallel the policies set out in the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal.

That the Plan (specifically part 2) recognise that the Hauraki Gulf and islands is one of the Auckland regions icons, along with the volcanic cones and the Waitakere Ranges and this should be reflected through out the provisions of the Plan.

4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

All of the above submissions which reference clause 2.0 generally have been considered and the following comments made.

4.2.2.1 Submissions 966/8 and 966/9

The submissions seek changes to part 2 in order to provide for the growth of tourism which could have economic benefits to the economy of the gulf. The changes requested in submissions 966/8 and 966/9 predominately relate to helicopter flights to and from Waiheke. The potential growth in tourism is covered within part 2 by an objective within clause 2.5.2(4) which states "to enable the growth of the local economy, including business and employment."

The issues and objectives listed in clause 2.5.2 to 2.5.8 of the Plan are broad gulf-wide issues which affect the gulf. Therefore, it is unnecessary to include an issue or objective on these matters as they are dealt within clause 2.5.2(4) of part 2, under part 13 Connectivity and Linkages and within the part 10a of the Plan.

Therefore submissions 966/8 and 966/9 are not supported.

4.2.2.2 Submission 2765/3

The pre notification consultation and formal submission and further submission periods provided extensive opportunity for the community of the HGI to be involved in the Plan development. The large number of submissions and further submissions indicates good community involvement in the process.

There have been a variety of different views expressed by submitters to the Plan on all aspects of the Plan. All the issues raised have been considered by planners and recommendations made in hearings reports about whether the Plan should be amended to incorporate these views. The hearings will allow submitters to respond to the recommendations made in the hearings report and provide more detail on the relief requested in submissions. This will allow the hearings panel to make a fully informed decision within a democratic process. The communities of the gulf continue to be given all opportunities to be fully involved in this process. Therefore submission 2765/3 is not supported.

4.2.2.3 Submission 3061/24

Where the submitter has requested specific changes to part 2 of the Plan within other relief, this has been considered within subsequent parts of this report. No changes to part 2 are requested as part of this relief. Therefore, this submission is not supported.

4.2.2.4 Submissions 3521/2 and 3521/3

The statutory requirements under the RMA and HGMPA are articulated in clause 2.3 of the Plan. This includes specific reference to sections 5-8 of the RMA and sections 7, 8 and 9 of the HGMPA. It is unnecessary to quote all relevent sections of the Act because they are specifically mentioned and considered within the Plan. Not quoting the RMA also achieves best practise by ensuring that the Plan is as concise as possible.

Clause 2.5 of the Plan outlines resource management issues and objectives under the topics of sustainable management, coastal, landscape, water, natural environment, Maori and human environment (other). These broad level issues and objectives as well as the more focussed issues, objectives, policies and rules within other parts of the Plan achieve the statutory requirements of the RMA and the HGMPA.

It is unnecessary to make changes to the plan to achieve the intent of these submissions and therefore submissions 3521/2 and 3521/3 are not supported.

4.2.2.5 Submissions 3521/5 and 3521/6

The Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) Policy 7.4.1 and Method 7.4.2 state:

7.4.1 Policy: Coastal Environment

In determining the extent of the coastal environment of the Auckland Region, the following areas and features
shall be taken into consideration:

1. any vegetation or habitat adjacent to, or connected with, the CMA which derives its intrinsic character from a coastal location or which contributes to the natural character of the coastal environment;
2. any landform adjacent to the CMA which is presently being formed or modified by processes of coastal erosion or deposition;
3. any feature or collection of features, either natural or physical, that derives its intrinsic character from a coastal location and which substantially contributes to the visual quality or amenity value of the coast;
4. any site, building, place or area of cultural heritage value adjacent to, or connected with, the CMA which derives its heritage value from a coastal location;
5. areas of Significant Natural Heritage listed in Appendix B and Outstanding and Regionally Significant Landscape Areas shown on Map series 2 which are adjacent to the CMA;
6. any land adjacent to the coast from which surface drainage may flow directly to the CMA;
7. any land adjacent to the coast which is affected by, or could be affected by, coastal flooding and other identified coastal hazards;
8. any land adjacent to the coast where activities may take place which have a direct physical connection with or impact on the CMA;
9. the CMA.

7.4.2 Methods

1. Local authorities will include provisions in their plans which recognise the coastal environment oftheir areas in a manner consistent with the factors in Policy 7.4.1.
2. In formulating plan provisions relating to the coastal environment, local authorities will consult with the adjacent TAs, the relevant regional council, DoC and Tangata Whenua.

Clause 2.5.3 outlines broad level issues and objectives which relate specifically to the coastal environment. There are also more focussed issues, objectives, policies and rules within other parts of the Plan which relate to the coastal environment.

In formulating the Plan council undertook extensive consultation with the community within the gulf which included Auckland Regional Council, Department of Conservation and Tangata Whenua. The Plan provisions are consistent with and give effect to policy 7.4.1 and methods 7.4.2 of the ARPS and are consistent with the provisions of the Auckland Regional Plan Coastal.

In regards to recognising that the Hauraki Gulf is one of the icons of Auckland, the intent of this submission will be met by accepting the relief of submission 3521/7 (see section 4.3.2.6 of this report) which highlights the national and regional significance of the gulf within clause 2.2 of the Plan.

Within chapter 7 (clause 7.1) of the Regional Policy Statement there is provided broad guidance on the extent of the coastal environment, where it states:

The extent of the coastal environment of the Auckland Region varies from place to place, depending on the natural and physical characteristics. For the purposes of the RPS, the coastal environment is considered to include three interrelated parts. These are:

• Coastal Marine Area (CMA)
• active coastal zone
• landward component.

The extent of the coastal environment is determined by factors which principally test whether the coast is a significant element or part. These factors also recognise habitat, landform, landscape, cultural heritage and amenity values, the influence of coastal processes, flooding and surface runoff.

This provides sufficient guidance to the extent of the 'coastal environment' and it is unnecessary, and would provide no added value in the interpretation or implementation of the Plan to define this term in further detail.

Overall submission 3521/5 is not supported and submission 3521/6 is supported in part.

Planner's recommendations about submissions to Part 2.0:

That submission 3521/6 be accepted in part in so far as it relates to accepting submission 3521/7 (see clause 4.3.2.6 for analysis) That submissions 966/8, 966/9, 2765/3, 3061/24, 3521/2, 3521/3 and 3521/5 be rejected

4.3 Submissions about clause 2.1 (Introduction) and 2.2 (Description, environment and resources)

Submissions dealt with in this section:

618/10, 618/11, 618/12, 941/1, 1101/54, 1101/55, 1286/16, 1286/17, 1286/18, 1287/78, 1287/79, 1287/80, 1288/12, 1288/13, 1288/14, 1289/62, 1289/61, 1288/12, 1289/61, 1288/14, 1289/63, 2878/17, 2878/18, 2878/19, 3061/64, 3061/65, 3715/20 and 3521/7

4.3.1 Decisions requested

Submission 941/1 requests the following decision:

Clause 2.2 be amended as follows (or words to similar effect):

"Limited land use capacity coupled with infrastructural constraints means that the potential use of land for particular intensive activities is limited. Transport linkages and network utility services are crucial to development potential, as well as being instrumental in facilitating appropriate recreational opportunities consistent with a conservation ethic. Sensitive control coupled with innovation and initiative will be essential to the proper management of the future development of the islands.

A simple summary of the island's resources would include the coastline, the unique natural landscape, the diversity of cultures and people, the built environment and clusters of communities, the transport networks and network utility services ."

The underlined words are the only ones that are requested to be changed from paragraph 4 and the last paragraph respectively of clause 2.2 as notified.

Submissions 618/10, 1101/54, 1286/16, 1287/78, 1288/12, 1289/61 and 2878/17 request the following decision:

Clause 2.2 needs significant revision to incorporate some commentary on the implementation of the operative Plan since 1996 and the outcomes that have arisen over that time that now create a baseline environment that the Plan should build on.

Submissions 618/11, 1101/55, 1286/17, 1287/79, 1288/13, 1289/62 and 2878/18 request the following decision:

Clause 2.2 fails to recognise the successes and various provision of the operative Plan such as Church Bay and Owhanake in regard to leading to sustainable land use and subdivision activities that have positively changed the Waiheke landscape.

Submissions 618/12, 1286/18, 1287/80, 1288/14, 1289/63 and 2878/19 request the following decision:

For Great Barrier, the Plan should perhaps comment on the demographic trends and assess why there has been little positive economic and social growth and how the Plan can reverse that cycle.

Submission 3061/64 requests the following decision:

Clause 2.2 should be amended to include reference to 'wetlands, estuaries, water bodies and watercourses'.

Submission 3061/65 requests the following decision:

Wetlands should be mentioned under 'ecology' in clause 2.1.

Submission 3521/7 requests the following decision:

Amend clause 2.2 to reference the Hauraki Gulf Marine Part Act and raise the issue of the Hauraki Gulf as being of national importance.

Submission 3715/20 requests the following decision:

At clause 2.2 better integrate the giving of effect to the HGMPA into the Plan and change the first sentence of the text to read :

"The islands all lie within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, and are spread over a large area of the Hauraki Gulf. While they are a significant part of Auckland City, they are all subject to the HGMPA 2000.

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations on submissions

All of the above submissions which reference clause 2.1 'Introduction' and 2.2 'Description, environment and resources' have been considered and the following comments made.

4.3.2.1 Submission 941/1

Network utility services as defined in part 14 of the Plan provide an important role in the social and economic well being of present and future communities within the gulf, these services include electricity supply and the provision of fast internet connection.

Therefore this submission is supported.

4.3.2.2 Submissions 618/10, 618/11, 1101/54, 1101/55, 1286/16, 1286/17, 1287/78, 1287/79, 1288/12, 1288/13, 1289/61, 1289/62, 2878/17 and 2878/18

Clause 2.2 does not go into depth about particular parts of the gulf, or provide a commentary on the implementation of the operative Plan, rather it undertakes a general description of the environmental and human characteristic that make up the Hauraki Gulf Islands as a whole. The intent of this clause is to 'set the scene' at a broad holistic level about the characteristics of the islands that the Plan seeks to manage.

It is inappropriate within clause 2.2 to go into great detail about a particular part of the Plan as this would be contrary to the intent of part 2 which has a island wide perspective. The rural 2 (western landscape) land unit, clause 10a.20, goes into greater detail about areas such as Church Bay and Owahanake.

In the development of the Plan a wide variety of consultation was undertaken with the communities of the gulf on issues to be addressed in the Plan. This included learning lessons on what worked well and did not work as well with historical developments, such as Church Bay and Owhanake, in order to inform revised objectives, policies and rules for development of these and other areas into the future.

It is unnecessary to provide commentary on the implementation of the operative Plan as this is information that has informed the proposed Plan, but it does not need to be recorded in the Plan. Excluding this information will keep the document to a manageable size and allows the Plan to focus on the future vision.

These submissions are therefore not supported.

4.3.2.3 Submissions 618/12, 1286/18, 1287/80, 1288/14, 1289/63 and 2878/19

Part 3 - Strategic management areas, includes separate issues, objectives, policies and resource management strategy for Great Barrier, Waiheke and other islands. One of the issues mentioned in this section is how to assist in the economic growth of Great Barrier. The existing economic situation within Great Barrier is largely related to issues outside the jurisdiction of the Plan (for example the island's relative physical isolation).

The Plan is not a direct creator of economic growth but can have some influence by providing for commercial or agricultural activities. Provision is made within settlement areas and land units within Great Barrier (part 10a and 10b of Plan) for a certain level of economic activity.

It is unnecessary to alter part 2 of the Plan to give effect to these submissions and therefore they are not accepted.

4.3.2.4 Submission 3061/64

Part of the first paragraph of clause 2.2 as notified states the following:

The landscape values include the:

• varied coastline
• rugged interior
• bushed slopes
• sweeping white sand beaches on north and eastern coastlines
• extensive wetland and estuarine systems
• significant and extensive wildlife habitats and ecological corridors
• bays and coastal headlands with significant areas of native bush and shrubs.

The fifth bullet point could be amended to achieve the relief sought by the submitter. It is recommended that the word 'watercourse' be added to the fifth bullet point. It is unnecessary to include the words 'water bodies' as all of the revised fifth bullet point refers to different kinds of water bodies. Accordingly, submission 3061/64 is accepted in part.

4.3.2.5 Submission 3061/65

Submitter 3061/65 relief was summarised from a generic statement that stated:

Further under 7.1, 2.1 and 2.3 Heritage Resources. Wetlands should be mentioned under 'Ecology' as a means of keeping their importance before planners and public.

Clause 2.1 of the Plan titled 'Introduction' briefly outlines what Part 2 of the Plan is about.

There is no mention of 'ecology' under this section. It appears that this submission may request changes to figure 7.1 titled 'Heritage resources' of the Plan. This matter will be assessed in the hearings report which deals with Part 7 of the Plan. The submitter may wish to clarify whether this a correct assumption of the intent of their submission in the hearing.

Therefore this submission is not supported.

4.3.2.6 Submissions 3521/7 and 3715/20

The first sentence of the text of clause 2.2 as notified reads:

The islands are spread over a large area of the Hauraki Gulf and are a significant part of Auckland City.

The change to the text as proposed by the submitter 3715/20 provides greater clarity and emphasis that the islands covered by the Plan are all located within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park and are therefore subject to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (HGMPA). Although the intent of the submission is accepted, it is felt that slight non consequential changes to the text of the relief sought will be more grammatically correct.

The acceptance in part of the relief requested by submission 3715/20 above will also partially achieve the relief sought by submitter 3521/7 .

The addition of the words underlined below to the recommended decision of submitter 3715/20 will provide further clarity that the HGMPA recognises the national significance of the gulf.

The islands all lie within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, and are spread over a large area of the Hauraki Gulf. They are a significant part of Auckland City, and are all subject to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA), which recognises the regional and national significance of the Hauraki gulf.

Planner's recommendations about submissions to clause 2.1 and 2.2:

That submissions 3521/7 and 3715/20 be accepted in part and the first sentence of clause 2.2 be amended accordingly to read: The islands all lie within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, and are spread over a large area of the Hauraki Gulf. They and are a significant part of Auckland City, they and are all subject to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA), which recognises the regional and national significance of the Hauraki gulf. That submission 941/1 be accepted That submission 3061/64 be accepted and the fifth bullet point of the first paragraph of clause 2.2 be amended accordingly to read: extensive wetland, watercourse and estuarine systems That submissions 618/10, 618/11, 618/12, 1101/54, 1101/55, 1286/16, 1286/17, 1286/18, 1287/78, 1287/79, 1287/80, 1288/12, 1288/13, 1288/14, 1289/61, 1289/62, 1289/63, 2878/17, 2878/18, 2878/19 and 3061/65 be rejected

4.4 Submissions about clause 2.3 (Statutory Context)

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3061/67, 3106/3 and 3841/1 .

4.4.1 Decisions requested

Submission 3061/67 requests the following decision:

Wetlands should be mentioned under 'ecology' in clause 2.3.

Submission 3106/3 requests the following decision:

Clarify that adverse environmental effects should be avoided, remedied and mitigated in that priority order.

Submission 3841/1 requests the following decision:

That council clearly recognise that the only true way to "enable" our community and its people to provide for their own wellbeing is to allow us to write our own proposed district plan and following the completion of our proposed Plan, we would then allow council to make submissions upon it, which we would consider for inclusion into the Plan (with specific reference to clause 2.3).

4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.4.2.1 Submission 3061/67

The word ecology is not mentioned in clause 2.3 of the Plan although in clause 2.3.1 within the definition of 'Environment' as included in part 2 of the RMA, 'ecosystems' is mentioned. This definition of environment is statutorily defined and cannot be altered as part of the plan process. Therefore, this submission is not supported.

4.4.2.2 Submission 3106/3

Within clause 2.3.1 'Resource Management Act 1991' is listed section 5 'Purpose' of the RMA. Section 5(2) defines the term "sustainable management".

Part 5(2)(c) states:

3. Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment

There is no priority order or hierarchy given in the RMA about whether an environmental effect should be avoided, remedied or mitigated. This is reflected in the Environment Court case Adams Landscapes Ltd v Auckland City Council reference A108/2002 where the court held "that the words "avoid, remedy or mitigate" are to be read conjunctively, as being of equal importance, rather than steps in a continuum."

Therefore, to do so, would be contrary to the requirements of the Act. Accordingly, submission 3106/3 is not supported.

4.4.2.3 Submission 3841/1

This submitter seeks an entirely new process in development of a Plan whereby the HGI community develop a plan and Council submit on it.

Undertaking such an approach is contrary to the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991, in particular section 31(1) 'Functions of territorial authorities under this Act' and section 73 'Preparation and change of district plans'.

Section 32(1) of the RMA states:

1. Every territorial authority shall have the following functions for the purpose of giving effect to this Act in its district

 

1. 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

Section 73(1) of the RMA states:

1. There shall at all times be one district plan for each district prepared by the territorial authority in the manner set out in Schedule 1.

The pre-notification consultation and formal submission and further submission periods provided extensive opportunity for the community of the HGI to be involved in the Plan development. The large number of submissions and further submissions indicates good community involvement in the process. Therefore submission 3841/1 is not supported.

Planner's recommendation about submissions to clause 2.3;

That submissions 3061/67, 3106/3 and 3841/1 be rejected

4.5 Submissions about clause 2.3.2 (The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000) of the Plan

Submissions dealt with in this section: 664/1, 3061/4, 3061/5, 3061/7, 3061/8, 3061/9, 3061/10, 3061/11, 3061/12, 3079/2, 3079/6, 3521/4, 3521/8, 3715/21, 3715/22, 3715/23

4.5.1 Decisions requested by submissions

Submission 664/1, 3061/8 and 3061/10 request changes to clause 2.3.2 to give effect to the HGMPA and to ensure the Plan is fully integrated with the HGMPA.

Submission 3061/3 requests the following decision:

Amend clause 2.3 so that it is clear as to the role and impact of national policy statements and regional level documents and how they must be accounted for in the Plan. In particular, the HGMPA should be identified as a national policy statement within this framework.

Submissions 3061/4 and 3079/6 requested that within clause 2.3.2 there needs to be recognition that all areas covered by the Plan are subject to the HGMPA.

Submission 3521/8 "contests the sentence which states 'The provisions of the plan accord with those of the HGMPA in clause 2.3.2."

Submission 3079/2 relief states "retain the provisions in clause 2.3.2 in relation to recognition of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000."

Submission 3061/5 requests the following decision:

A sentence needs to be added to clause 2.3.2 to state that the HGMPA is a national policy statement that the Council is required to 'give effect' to in the Plan.

Submission 3061/7 relief states:

Amend clause 2.3.2 to include reference to section 13 of the HGMPA and reference to how it is to be provided for in relation to provision and management of walkways for example.

Submissions 3061/9 and 3061/11 relief requests that it be made clear in clause 2.3.2 that when resource consents are undertaken in the gulf regard has to be made to section 7 and 8 of the HGMPA as required under 9(4) of this Act.

Submission 3061/12 relief states:

Inclusion of a requirement in clause 2.3.2 of a requirement that all resource consent applications include a demonstration of how the application has regard to, and is therefore consistent with, sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA and the wider context as represented by section 32 of the RMA.

Submission 3521/4 requests the following decision:

That the Plan (specifically part 2) explicitly acknowledge that the provisions of Section 55 of the RMA (amended 2003) apply as though Sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA were a national policy statement (section 9 of the HGMPA) and, for the coastal environment of the Hauraki Gulf, sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA must be treated as a NZ Coastal Policy Statement.

Submission 3715/21 requests the following decision:

At clause 2.3 Better integrate the giving of effect to the HGMPA into the Plan and change the first sentence of the text change to "The RMA is the primary statutory document governing the Plan. The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 must be given effect to, as do a range of other national and regional planning documents".

Submission 3715/22 requests the following decision:

At clause 2.3.2 Better integrate the giving of effect to the HGMPA into the Plan and change the first sentence of the text to "The Plan areas are all subject to the provisions of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (the HGMPA), and for all coastal environments therein the RMA requires that this Plan must give effect to...sections 7, and 8 of the Act".

Submission 3715/23 requests the following decision:

At clause 2.3.2, replace the second paragraph with : "The HGMPA, which recognises the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf and its islands and catchments and sets out objectives for its management, requires the council and the Plan to give effect to sections 7 and 8 of that Act for all coastal environments of the Hauraki Gulf".

4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.5.2.1 Submissions 3061/4, 3079/2, 3079/6 and 3521/8

All islands covered by the Plan are subject to the HGMPA as they are within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. In order to more fully reflect this in the plan, the first sentence of clause 2.3.2 should be amended to reflect this. Therefore these submissions are supported.

4.5.2.2 Submissions 3061/9 and 3061/11 and 3061/12

Clause 2.3.2 outlines the statutory requirements of the HGMPA and briefly describes how the provisions of the Plan accord with those of the HGMPA. Within Appendix 10 are attached sections 7, 8 and 9 of the HGMPA.

The wording of clause 2.3.2, with the exception of slight amendments, is the same as the wording of part B of plan modification 39 of the Operative Plan.

Clause 11.2 'Matters to be considered for all resource consent applications' as notified states:

The following matters need to be considered by the council when assessing any resource consent application:

1. Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000

The purpose of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 is outlined in part 2 - Resource management overview. Its introduction requires the council, when assessing an application for resource consent for the Hauraki Gulf, its islands and catchments, to have regard to the matters set out in sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA 2000. Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the HGMPA 2000 are contained in appendix 10.

2. Objectives and policies

For all applications, the council will have regard to the objectives and policies for the relevant land unit or settlement area, as well as the general objectives and policies in part 2 - Resource management overview and part 3 - Strategic management areas.

Clauses (1) and (2) above are in addition to any assessment criteria identified in clause 11.3 and table 11.1 Assessment criteria for particular discretionary activities for the particular activity.

This specifically complies with section 9(4) of the HGMPA which states:

A consent authority must, when considering an application for a resource consent for the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, have regard to sections 7 and 8 of this Act in addition to the matters contained in the Resource Management Act 1991.

No changes to clause 2.3.2 are required to give effect to the intent of this relief and therefore submissions 3061/9 and 3061/11 are not accepted.

4.5.2.3 Submission 3061/12

As the result of the 2005 amendments to section 75 of the RMA, the district plan may (but is no longer required to) state the information to be included with a resource consent application. The council has chosen not to include such information in the Plan, but as clause 1.6.3.3 advises, additional information can be obtained from the council on resource consent processes. The council prefers the approach of providing this information in non-statutory material as it can then be readily updated and tailored to the requirements of different users and types and scales of applications. It is also appropriate for the Plan to focus on objectives, policies and rules, rather than attempting to be also an information document about resource consent processes. There are other documents which better fulfil this purpose. It is recommended that this submission be rejected to the extent that they seek amendments to the Plan.

4.5.2.4 Submissions 3061/8 and 3061/10

In the research, development and preparation of the objectives, policies and rules of the Plan the requirements of the HGMPA were fully considered.

The following is a summary of parts of the Plan which particularly contribute to ensuring the Plan complies with the requirements of the HGMPA.

• Clause 2.4 Sustainable Management
• Clause 2.5 Resource management issues and objectives (specifically 2.5.2 and 2.5.3)
• Additional heritage items (archaeological, geological, ecological, trees, places and objects) identified in the plan through a comprehensive survey of the inner islands
• The introduction of a Natural hazards section (Part 8 of plan) containing rules for vegetation removal in proximity to any stream, river, lake or wetland, or where the slope is steeper than 1 in 3
• Coastal hazard areas (flood prone areas, soil warning and soil register areas and erosion risk zones) identified on planning maps
• The introduction of impervious surface controls in clause 10c.4.9, and earthworks controls in clause 10c.5.6 will limit sediment run off into the gulf.
• Introduction of the coastal, wetland and water body protection yards rules (clause 10c.5.7)
• Introduction of the landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) land unit and the landform 2 (dune systems) land unit to particularly naturally significant coastal areas within the gulf where the construction of buildings and all activities (except ecosourced planting) is a non complying activity).

Therefore, it is appropriate to include the sentence "The provisions of the Plan accord with those of the HGMPA" in clause 2.3.2 of the Plan, and submissions 3061/8 and 3061/10 are not supported.

4.5.2.5 Submission 3061/7

Section 13 of the HGMPA which is titled 'Obligation to have particular regard to sections 7 and 8' states:

Except as provided in sections 9 to 12 in order to achieve the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising powers or carrying out functions for the Hauraki Gulf under any Act specified in Schedule 1 must, in addition to any other requirement specified in those Acts for the exercise of that power or the carrying out of that function, have particular regard to the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of this Act.

Schedule 1 of the HGMPA lists 21 Acts which section 13 applies to, one of which is the New Zealand Walkways Act 1990.

It is unnecessary to reference section 13 of the HGMPA within clause 2.3.2 of the Plan for the following reasons:

• The addition of a reference to section 13 of the HGMPA within clause 2.3.2 of the Plan does not impose additional responsibility on council. This is because under section 9(4) of the Act when considering a resource consent the council must have regard to sections 7 and 8 of the Act. This is the same requirement under section 13 of the Act, therefore there is no 'added value' in undertaking this option.
• The council does not have a role in administering most of the 21 Acts in schedule 1 of the HGMPA.
• The Esplanade Reserve provisions in clause 12.13 of the Plan sets out when esplanade reserves and strips need to be provided at subdivision stage. These can be for the purposes of public access.
• The Waiheke Island Esplanade Areas Management Guidelines provides further guidance on where esplanade reserves and strips should be taken.
• The council cycling and walking strategy puts in place a strategic direction for the future planning of cycling and walking in Auckland city.

Therefore submission 3061/7 is not supported.

4.5.2.6 Submissions 664/1, 3061/5, 3521/4, 3715/21, 3715/22 and 3715/23

Both the HGMPA and the RMA direct Council on how the requirements of the HGMPA should be considered in the Plan.

Section 9(3) of the HGMPA sets out the relationship between a district plan that applies to the Hauraki Gulf and the Act. Section 9(4) sets out a consent authority's responsibilities when considering a resource consent for the Hauraki Gulf. These two sections of the Act state:

1. A territorial authority must ensure that any part of a district plan that applies to the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, does not conflict with [writer's emphasis] sections 7 and 8 of this Act.
2. A consent authority must, when considering an application for a resource consent for the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, have regard to sections 7 and 8 of this Act in addition to the matters contained in the Resource Management Act 1991.

Section 10 of the HGMPA requires section 7 and 8 of the RMA to be treated as a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS). Section 75(3) of the RMA states:

3. A district plan must give effect to [writer's emphasis]

 

1. any national policy statement; and
2. any New Zealand coastal policy statement; and

Emphasis has been added through underlining for clarity only.

Therefore the HGMPA requires Council to ensure that the Plan 'does not conflict with' section 7 and 8 of the HGMPA and through the consideration of sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA as a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) the RMA requires the Council to ensure that the Plan 'gives effect to' sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA.

These are different legal tests - 'does not conflict with' (section 9(3) of HGMPA) is less stringent than 'must give effect to' (section 75(3) of RMA).

Therefore paragraph 2 of clause 2.3.2 of the Plan is factually correct; this paragraph states:

The HGMPA requires the council to ensure that any part of the Plan that applies to the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments does not conflict with sections 7 and 8 of that Act which recognise the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf and set out objectives for its management.

Section 55(2) of the RMA titled 'Local authority recognition of national policy statements' states that:

A local authority must - 

1. amend a document to give effect to a provision in a national policy statement that affects the document; and
2. make the amendment
   1. as soon as practicable; or
   2. within the time specified in the national policy statement; or
   3. before the occurrence of an event specified in the national policy statement.

The notification of the plan with references to, and incorporating the intent of, the HGMPA is giving effect to section 55 of the RMA.

Clause 2.3.2 of the Plan sets out how the HGMPA is integrated into the Plan. All objectives, policies and rules within the plan have been developed with the requirements of the HGMPA in mind. The assessment matters in part 11 of the Plan also require that for all resource consents Council have regard to section 7 and 8 of the Act.

There is no specific reference to section 10(1) of the HGMPA within the Plan

It is agreed that more clarity could be given to the requirements of a national policy statement. It is recommended for additional clarity and in order to give effect to these submissions, that reference be made within clause 2.3.2 that section 10 of the HGMPA requires section 7 and 8 of the Act to be treated as a NZCPS and the requirements under 75(3) of the RMA to give effect to a NZCPS be highlighted.

Therefore, submissions 664/1, 3061/5, 3521/4, 3715/21, 3715/22 and 3715/23 are supported.

4.5.2.7 Submission 3061/3

Clause 2.3.3 titled 'Other statutory documents' outlines how any national and regional policy statements are accounted for in the Plan. The last paragraph of this clause states:

The Plan must give effect to any national policy statement, any NZ coastal policy statement and any regional policy statement (made operative after 10 August 2005). It must not be inconsistent with any regional plan.

This statement is sufficiently clear to satisfy the first part of the submitters relief.

Regarding the relief "the HGMPA should be identified as a national policy statement within this framework" , this matter has been considered in section 4.5.2.8 of this report below and a recommendation made to the panel that a sentence be added to clause 2.3.2 to reflect this. This submission is therefore supported in part.

Planner's recommendation about submissions to clause 2.3.2;

That submissions 3061/4, 3079/2, 3079/6 and 3521/8 be accepted and the first sentence of clause 2.3.2 be amended accordingly to read as follows: The Plan covers considerable areas which are entire area covered by the Plan is within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park and is subject to the provisions of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (the 'HGMPA'). That submissions 664/1, 3061/3, 3061/5, 3061/11, 3521/4, 3715/21, 3715/22 and 3715/23 be accepted by inserting after paragraph 2 of clause 2.3.2 which states: The HGMPA requires the council to ensure that any part of the Plan that applies to the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments does not conflict with sections 7 and 8 of that Act which recognise the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf and set out objectives for its management. the following sentence: Section 10 of the HGMPA requires sections 7 and 8 of this Act to be treated as a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS). Under section 75(3) of the RMA a district plan must give effect to any NZCPS. That submissions 3061/7, 3061/8, 3061/9, 3061/10 and 3061/12 be rejected

4.6 Submissions about clause 2.3.2 (HGMA) and Appendix 10 (Sections 7, 8, 9 of the HGMPA) of the Plan

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2296/1, 3061/6, 3521/124, 3715/24 and 3715/27

4.6.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2296/1 relief states:

Include the definitions from the HGMPA 2000 in the appendices of the proposed Plan and other relevant criteria

Submission 3061/6 relief states:

Sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA should be included in clause 2.3.2 rather than being in appendix 10.

Submission 3521/154 relief states:

Amend Appendix 10 to include Section 10 of the HGMPA, which establishes Section 7 and 8 as a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement in Appendix 10

Submission 3715/24 relief states:

At clause 2.3.2, change the last paragraph to : "Sections 7.8.9.10 and 32 of the HGMPA are attached to the Plan as appendix 10 - Sections 7,8,9,10 and 32 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000".

Submission 3715/27 relief states:

Amend appendix 10 to include also Sections 10 and 32 of the HGMPA 2000

4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.6.2.1 Submission 2296/1

The definitions which are contained in section 4 'Interpretation' of the HGMPA are statutorily defined by this Act. There is no added value in incorporating these definitions within the Plan. There are no reasons given within this submission for including the definitions of the HGMPA within the Plan and the writer is unsure what benefit the submitter expects.

This submission is therefore not supported.

4.6.2.2 Submission 3061/6

Including Sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA within clause 2.3.2 of the Plan will overly lengthen this clause for no discernable purpose. These sections of the HGMPA are in Appendix 10 for information purposes only and their location within an appendix or within clause 2.3.2 does not alter the statutory obligations of council under the HGMPA. Accordingly this submission is not supported.

4.6.2.3 Submissions 3521/154, 3715/24 and 3715/27

The last sentence of clause 2.3.2 as notified states:

Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the HGMPA are attached to the Plan as appendix 10 - Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.

Submitter 3715/24 seeks that reference be made to sections 10 and 32 of the HGMPA in clause 2.3.2 and that these sections of the Plan also be attached within Appendix 10.

Section 10 of the HGMPA titled 'Creation of New Zealand coastal policy statement by this Act' outlines how sections 7 and 8 of this Act must be treated as a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) under the RMA.

Section 32 of the HGMPA titled 'Purposes of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park' (HGMP) outlines the purposes of the HGMP.

The reference to, and inclusion of, section 10 within the Plan will clarify that sections 7 and 8 of this Act must be treated as a NZCPS under the RMA. This will add clarity to the requirements of the plan regarding the HGMPA and is therefore supported.

The recommended relief to submitter 3521/4 (outlined in section 4.6.2.7 of this report) of inserting the sentence Section 10 of the HGMPA requires section 7 and 8 of the Act to be treated as a New Zealand coastal policy statement , after the second paragraph of clause 2.3.2 of the Plan, will further clarify the requirements of section 10 of the HGMPA and integrates well with the relief sought from these submitters.

The purpose of the HGMP as outlined in section 32 of the HGMPA is similar to the requirements under section 7 and 8 of the HGMPA.

Section 33 of the HGMPA provides further clarity that the HGMP generally applies to publicly owned land including conservation areas, local and regional reserves and crown owned land. Section 34 and 35 of the Act clarifies that existing public land and certain private land respectively may be included in the park.

Section 37 of the HGMPA clarifies that the HGMP does not change the ownership or management of land within the park or affect this land unless it is expressly included in the park.

Therefore, it is unnecessary to include a reference to, or specific inclusion of, section 32 of the HGMPA within the Plan.

The Auckland Regional Council has confirmed that there is currently no publicly owned land within the HGMP and the only private land that has been included in the Marine Park is the Fenwick land on Waiheke Island.

Planner's recommendation about submissions to clause 2.3.2 and appendix 10;

That submissions 3521/154, 3715/24 and 3715/27 be accepted in part by revising the last sentence of clause 2.3.2 to read: Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the HGMPA are attached to the Plan as appendix 10 - Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. That submissions 3521/154, 3715/24 and 3715/27 be accepted in part by revising the title and contents of Appendix 10 to read: Appendix 10 - Sections 7, 8 and 9 and 10 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 That submissions 3521/154, 3715/24 and 3715/27 be accepted in part by inserting section 10 of the HGMPA after section 9, as set out below: 4.0 Section 10, Creation of New Zealand coastal policy statement by this Act Section 10 states as follows: For the coastal environment of the Hauraki Gulf, sections 7 and 8 of this Act must be treated as a New Zealand coastal policy statement issued under the Resource Management Act 1991. For the coastal environment of the Hauraki Gulf, if there is a conflict between sections and 8 of this Act and the provisions of any New Zealand coastal policy statement issued under the Resource Management Act 1991, the New Zealand coastal policy statement prevails. The provisions of section 55 of the Resource Management Act 1991 apply to the New Zealand coastal policy statement created by this section and a regional council or a territorial authority must take action in accordance with that section and notify a change to a regional policy statement, plan, or proposed plan within 5 years of the date of commencement of this Act. That submissions 2296/1 and 3061/6 be rejected.

4.7 Submissions about clause 2.3.3 (Other statutory documents)

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3061/13, 3061/14, 3061/15, 3521/9, 3521/10, 3521/11, 3521/12 and 3715/25

Submitters 3061/13, 3061/14, 3061/15, 3521/9, 3521/10, 3521/11, 3521/12 and 3715/25 sought relief which requested changes to clause 2.3.3 of the Plan.

Clause 2.3.3 titled 'Other statutory documents' is a summary of the other statutory documents that the Plan is influenced by and must consider. It deliberately does not go into great depth about each document, in order to avoid over complication and to be as concise and readable as possible while still being accurate.

Each submitters' relief has been analysed and a response outlined below with this in mind.

4.7.1 Decisions requested

Submission 3061/13 seeks the removal of the word influenced from the first sentence of clause 2.3.3 as it is too vague. Clause 2.3.3 states:

The Plan is influenced by the planning documents of other agencies.

Submission 3061/14 relief states:

Inclusion of a sentence(s) as to how the Plan is not inconsistent with any regional plan in clause 2.3.3.

Submission 3061/15 relief states:

References to the Treaty of Waitangi and documents such as iwi management plans need to be located in a separate section (rather than in clause 2.3.3) and should be reference back to sections 6(e), 7(a) and 8 of the RMA and ought to be related to any specific MOU's with iwi.

Submission 3521/9 relief states:

Amend clause 2.3.3 to clarify the statutory relationship of the planning documents of other agencies.

Submission 3521/10 states:

Amend clause 2.3.3 to clarify that the proposed plan is required by section 74 of the RMA to "take into account" iwi planning documents.

Submission 3521/11 relief sought to amend clause 2.3.3 to delete the reference to "(made operative after 10 August 2005)".

Submission 3521/12 seeks that clause 2.3.3 be amended to specifically reference all Auckland Regional Plans and the Auckland Regional Policy Statement.

Submission 3715/25 relief states:

At clause 2.3.3 Better integrate the RMA S 75(3), (4) into the Plan and change the first sentence to " The Plan must give effect to any national policy statement, and New Zealand coastal policy statement, and any regional policy statement, and must not be inconsistent with any water conservation order, or a regional plan for any matter specified in section 30(1) of the RMA ".

4.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.7.2.1 Submission 3061/13

The first sentence of clause 2.3.3 of the Plan states "The Plan is influenced by the planning documents of other agencies." Submitter 3061/13 seeks the removal of the word influenced as it is too vague.

This sentence is deliberately vague because the plan is influenced by the planning documents of other agencies in different ways. This is highlighted by the last paragraph of clause 2.3.3 (underlining has been added for clarity) which states:

The Plan must give effect to any national policy statement, any NZ coastal policy statement and any regional policy statement (made operative after 10 August 2005). It must not be inconsistent with any regional plan.

Therefore, submission 3061/13 is not supported.

4.7.2.2 Submissions 3061/14 and 3521/9

The last paragraph of clause 2.3.3 states:

The Plan must give effect to any national policy statement, any NZ coastal policy statement and any regional policy statement (made operative after 10 August 2005). It must not be inconsistent with any regional plan.

This clarifies the statutory relationship of planning documents of other agencies and states that the Plan must not be inconsistent with any regional plan. Therefore it is unnecessary to alter the Plan to give effect to these submissions, so submissions 3061/14 and 3521/9 are not supported.

4.7.2.3 Submission 3061/15

This relief is not supported for the following reasons:

• It is unnecessary to include a separate section to reference the Treaty of Waitangi and documents such as iwi management plans as clause 2.3.3 provides recognition that these factors have to be considered in the implementation of the plan.
• Reference is made to section 6, 7 and 8 of the RMA in clause 2.3.1. Including reference to these sections within clause 2.3.3 of the plan as well would create unnecessary duplication.
• There are currently no iwi management plans or memorandums of understandings (MOU) with Council for iwi within the gulf. There is no added value in the interpretation or implementation of the plan in supporting this submission.

4.7.2.4 Submission 3521/10

Section 74(2A) of the RMA states:

  (2A) A territorial authority, when preparing or changing a district plan, must

1. take into account any relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority and lodged with the territorial authority, to the extent that its content has a bearing on resource management issues of the district;

This is one of many matters which council has to consider when preparing and changing a district plan. Council consulted extensively with Iwi and took into account Iwi issues when preparing the plan. An example of this is the extensive and accurate identification (with GPS co ordinates) of archaeological items within the inner islands, contained in Appendix 1a of Plan. At the time of writing Council does not have any Iwi management plans from Iwi in the gulf.

Council therefore have complied with Section 74(2A) of the RMA. Not withstanding this, to add clarity and give effect to this submission, a reference to iwi management plans should be added to the bullet point which states iwi authority considerations. Therefore, submission 3521/10 is supported in part.

4.7.2.5 Submission 3521/11

The Resource Management Amendment Act 2005 made a number of changes to the RMA, among these was amending section 73 of the Act to require a district plan to "give effect to" a regional policy statement.

This submission seeks deletion of the reference within clause 2.3.3 of the Plan to "(made operative after 10 August 2005)" , the submission describes that "the 10 August 2005 date, is the date for which a district plan proposed thereafter must meet this statutory obligation" and is therefore incorrectly referenced in the Plan.

This Amendment Act came into force on Thursday 10 August 2005 and the reason for including the reference "(made operative after 10 August 2005)" is to clarify that the requirement "to give effect to" a regional policy statement relates to provisions within the RPS made operative after the amendment act came into force. Prior to 10 August 2005 the requirement under section 73 of the Act was "not to be inconsistent with" which is substantially different from "give effect to".

Legal advice and the Ministry for the Environment fact sheet titled 'Resource Management Amendment Act 2005 - Improving local policy and plan making' confirms that the Plan will only need to give effect to those provisions of the RPS that are changed and then made operative after 10 August 2005 - the Plan is required to be not inconsistent with all other provisions of the RPS.

Not withstanding the above, it is considered that the provisions within the Plan both give effect to, and are not inconsistent with, provisions within the RPS.

Therefore, submission 3521/11 is not supported.

4.7.2.6 Submission 3521/12

It is unnecessary to specifically list the Auckland Regional Policy Statement, Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal, Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water and the Auckland Regional Plan: Sediment Control within clause 2.3.3 as these documents are included in the reference to regional policy statements and plans. Also, other regional documents may be added during the life of the Plan and consequential plan changes or variations would be required to keep the Plan updated.

Therefore, submission 3521/12 is not supported.

4.7.2.7 Submission 3715/25

Section 75 (3) and (4) states:

3. A district plan must give effect to-
   1. any national policy statement; and
   2. any New Zealand coastal policy statement;
   3. any regional policy statement
4. A district plan must not be inconsistent with-
   1. a water conservation order; or
   2. a regional plan for any matter specified in section 30(1).

This submission should be supported in part by adding to the last sentence of the last paragraph the reference that the Plan must not be inconsistent with any water conservation order.

Altering the first sentence of clause 2.3.3 is not supported as this will duplicate the final paragraph of this clause. The inclusion of the words for any matter specified in section 30(1) after the words 'any regional plan' is also not supported as section 30(1) relates to the functions of regional councils under the RMA, which are a requirement of the Act and will not add value to this paragraph.

Planner's recommendations about submissions about clause 2.3.3.

That submission 3715/25 be accepted in part by adding to the last sentence of the last paragraph of clause 2.3.3 the reference that the Plan must not be inconsistent with any water conservation order" The changes to the text have been underlined for clarity: The Plan must give effect to any national policy statement, any NZ coastal policy statement and any regional policy statement (made operative after 10 August 2005). It must not be inconsistent with any regional plan or any water conservation order . That submission 3521/10 be accepted in part by adding to the bullet point which states iwi authority considerations so it reads: iwi authority considerations (including iwi management plans) That submissions 3061/13, 3061/14, 3061/15, 3521/11 and 3521/12 be rejected

4.8 Submission about clause 2.4.1 (Concept of sustainable management)

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/13, 1093/2, 1101/56, 1220/1, 1243/6, 1243/7, 1243/8, 1286/19, 1287/81, 1288/15, 1289/64, 2641/1, 2765/1, 2878/20 and 3521/13

4.8.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 618/13, 1101/56, 1286/19, 1287/81, 1288/15, 1289/64 and 2878/20 , relief states:

Clause 2.4.1 needs amendment to properly reflect s5(2) of the RMA so that reference is made to use and development as well. Clause 2.4.1 needs varied amendments to be more positive and to reference 'sustaining', 'enabling' and 'managing' rather than the current approach of focusing on 'limiting' and 'controlling'. There needs to be included clear statement in relation to the positive outcomes that are available through comprehensive development models and processes including methods that can be used to encourage sustainable management, such as incentive based subdivision and land uses.

Submission 1093/2 relief states:

Retain clause 2.4.1 as currently worded.

Submission 1220/1 relief states:

That the Plan is used to ensure that natural ecological systems and local biological diversity are protected, restored and maintained (refers to clause 2.4.1)

Submission 1243/6 relief states:

Rephrase clause 2.4.1 to properly reflect the purpose of the RMA. The statement that 'The use of natural and physical resources can result in damage to the environment', together with the rest of the section is unduly negative.'

Submissions 1243/7 and 1243/8 relief's request the removal of the sections 'Enabling people to meet their needs' and 'Considering future generations' respectively.

Submission 2641/1 relief states:

Amend clause 2.4.1 to state the following or similar:

Considering heritage.

The heritage resource of the Hauraki Gulf Islands has values that are extremely important to the district and are also of national importance. Where significant values are identified, the Plan is used to manage and protect these values.

Submission 2765/1 relief states:

Sustainable management is clearly defined in section 5 of the RMA. No further embellishment, interpretation, emphasis or distortion (such as in clause 2.4.1) should be placed upon it other than that stated in the Act.

Submission 3521/13 relief states:

Amend clause 2.4.1 to include reference to consideration of cultural resources.

4.8.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.8.2.1 Submissions 618/13, 1101/56, 1243/6, 1286/19, 1287/81, 1288/15, 1289/64, 2765/1 and 2878/20

This section of the Plan explains the concept of sustainable management in an easy to understand way. It is not unduly negative using the words 'managing', 'considering' and 'enabling' within this clause. Sustainable management as defined in section 5(2) of the RMA is reasonably complicated and specific parts of the definition has been extensively tested through the courts as to its specific meaning.

Clause 2.4.1 does not alter or change the statutory meaning of sustainable management as defined in section 5 of the RMA, rather it attempts to explain what this concept means in 'layman's' terms. It is not necessary to explicitly mention 'use and development' from section 5(2) of the RMA or rigidly reflect this section of the Act in this clause as the purpose (section 5) of the Act is mentioned in clause 2.3.1.

Clause 2.4.1 does not articulate specific methods about how the Plan will encourage sustainable management (examples are outlined in clause 2.4.2), rather it expands on the four key elements of sustainable management. It is inappropriate to mention comprehensive development models and processes and incentive based subdivision and land uses in these clauses as clause 2.4.1 is a high level summary of the concept of sustainable management.

Clause 2.4.1 therefore should not be altered as a result of these submissions and submissions 618/13, 1101/56, 1243/6, 1286/19, 1287/81, 1288/15, 1289/64, 2765/1 and 2878/20 are not supported.

4.8.2.2 Submissions 1093/2, 1220/1, 1243/7, 1243/8, 2641/1and 3521/13

These submissions have been considered and the following comments made:

• Within clause 2.4.1 managing and considering the effects on the 'environment' is considered. The environment as defined in section 2 of the RMA and this definition is included in clause 2.3.1 of the Plan. This definition includes ecosystems. Therefore in promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources the effect on natural ecological systems have to be considered. Clause 2.4.1 as notified therefore achieves the intent of submitter 1220/1 and this submission is supported without changes to the text.
• Removing the parts of clause 2.4.1 which refer to 'enabling people to meet their needs' and 'considering future generations' would fundamentally conflict with the meaning of sustainable management as outlined in section 5 of the RMA and understood in case law. Submissions 1243/7 and 1243/8 respectively are therefore not supported.
• While it is true that the Hauraki Gulf Islands do have important heritage values that the Plan seeks to protect, it is unnecessary to include a fifth element of 'considering heritage' within clause 2.4.1. This is because heritage is broadly included in the definition of 'environment' and therefore can be considered under each of the 4 notified elements within this clause. Therefore 2641/1 is not supported.
• Clause 2.4.1 does not need to be altered to include reference to 'cultural resources' as this is included under the term 'environment' as defined in section 2 of the RMA. Therefore 3521/13 is not supported.
• Submission 1093/2 which seeks retention of the current wording of clause 2.4.1 is supported.

Planner's recommendations about submissions to clause 2.4.1:

That submissions 1220/1 and 1093/2 be accepted That submissions 618/13, 1101/56, 1243/6, 1243/7, 1243/8, 1286/19, 1287/81, 1288/15, 1289/64, 2641/1 2765/1, 2878/20 and 3521/13 be rejected

4.9 Submission about clause 2.4.2 (Sustainable management and the Plan)

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1221/1, 3061/16 and 3061/17

4.9.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1221/1 relief states:

Seeks an additional method to promote sustainable management at clause 2.4.2.

• To use a whole catchment analysis of hydrological and ecological systems

Submission 3061/16 relief states:

The Plan, and in particular clause 2.4.2, is supposed to be enabling rather than promotional in relation to sustainable management and this requires more than a 'development focus' e.g. should have linkages to the LTCCP and should refer to new tools and methodologies, integration or links to the 'sustain/protect and enhance' provisions of the HGMPA.

Submission 3061/17 relief states:

Systems and structures within the Plan designed for sustainable management need to be clearly labelled and identifiable in that regard - rather than being subsumed in the extant modus operandi e.g. a rule requiring all new buildings to have a minimum size water tank

4.9.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Submissions 1221/1, 3061/16 and 3061/17 have been considered and the following comments made:

• Included within clause 2.4.2 are examples of methods the Plan uses to promote sustainable management. These include reference to protecting areas of landscape significance and sites of ecological significance.
• It is unnecessary therefore to include an additional method to promote sustainable management as referenced in this submission as the examples mentioned in this clause do this. Submission 1221/1 is therefore not supported.
• Clause 2.4.2 does not just have a promotional or development focus. For example this clause references protecting sites with heritage values and landscape significance and references the sustainable design guidelines in Appendix 11. These guidelines include topics of sustainable design, earthworks, designing for the sun, energy, water and wastewater management and building. The appendix provides guidance on factors which should be considered for people trying to achieve more sustainable lifestyles. These give people new tools and methodologies in order to be more sustainable.
• Council's long term council community plan (LTCCP) is the document titled 'Auckland City's Long-term Plan 2006-2016.'
• Under the Local Government Act 2002, Auckland City, like all other New Zealand councils, must produce a 10-year plan every three years showing what the council does and how it will work towards achieving what the community has said they want for the future (called "community outcomes"). These outcomes are identified through consultation with the community.
• Auckland City's Long-term Plan is a strategic city wide document encompassing a number of areas which are outside the jurisdiction of the Plan for example city governance and arts, culture and recreation. It is unnecessary to specifically reference this document in clause 2.4.2. As this LTCCP must be produced every 3 years a minimum of 3 LTCCP's would have to be created in the 10 year life of this Plan and the Plan updated each time to correctly reference the document. Submission 3061/16 is therefore not supported.
• All issues, objectives, policies and rules set out in the Plan are targeted at achieving sustainable management. The methods outlined in clause 2.4.2 are just examples of how the Plan seeks to promote sustainable management. It is unnecessary to clearly label methods which are sustainable. Submission 3061/17 is therefore not supported.

Planner's recommendations about submissions about clause 2.4.2:

That submissions 1221/1, 3061/16 and 3061/17 be rejected

4.10 Submissions about clause 2.5 (Resource management issues and objectives) of the plan

Submissions dealt with in this section: 517/1, 618/14, 1101/57, 1286/20, 1287/82, 1288/16, 1289/65, 2760/2, 2760/3, 2878/21, 3061/19, 3061/20, 3061/21, 3061/22 .

4.10.1 Decisions requested

Submission 517/1 relief states:

In part 2 - include as an additional issue a review of the historic growth pattern and provide a forecast of population growth on the islands in the context of the expected growth in the Auckland region. This may lead to a reassessment in other sections of the Plan of the sufficiency of the area of land zoned for residential development, the minimum size of residential lots and the provision for different types of residential development (for example multi-unit development), and also the provision for commercial activity to serve the population.

Submissions 618/14, 1101/57, 1286/20, 1287/82, 1288/16, 1289/65, 2878/21 relief states:

Include relevant policies in clause 2.5

Submission 2760/2 relief states:

All of the issues and objectives in the Plan (with specific reference to clause 2.5) must be re-assessed according to a reasonable understanding and application of the principles and purposes of the RMA and the LGA to re-assert the centrality of human cultural, social, environmental and economic wellbeing.

Submission 2760/3 relief states:

A proper investigation into the required areas of concern must be instigated through public forums. These must include as primary issues : society, and social issues; cultural, and cultural issues meaning the attitudes, beliefs, values customs, and life ways of our diverse communities; the economy of the HGI, and economic issues; and people's safety and health issues (with specific reference to clause 2.5).

Submission 3061/19 relief states:

The issues set out in clause 2.5 should be re-written to set out what is needed/required rather than being questions.

Submission 3061/20 relief states:

Additional issues and objectives should be included in clause 2.5, particularly in respect of wastewater, wider waters management, climate change and growth and economic development.

Submission 3061/21 relief states:

Clause 2.5 is a pusillanimous (timid) gesture towards promoting sustainable management objectives.

Submission 3061/22 relief states:

The challenges facing the Waiheke community in terms of development pressures, sustainable management and future issues such as climate change, require new planning tools and methods that create effective links between RMA objectives and community outcomes and the requirement for sustainable development (section 14(h)) from the LGA 2002 framework. As an example, an example of new provisions to accurately reflect community needs, a mandated definition of 'community scale' needs to be added to Part 14 definitions in the Plan.

4.10.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.10.2.1 Submission 517/1

The 2006 census has the following information on the usually resident population of Waiheke and Great Barrier over the 1996, 2001 and 2006 census periods.

1996 Population 2001 Population (Difference between 1996 and 2001) 2006 Population (Difference between 2001 and 2006)

	1996 Population	2001 Population (Difference between 1996 and 2001)	2006 Population (Difference between 2001 and 2006)
Waiheke	6285	7137 (+852)	7689 (+552)
Great Barrier	1131	1017 (-114)	852 (-165)

This shows that over the 1996 to 2006 period the population in Great Barrier has been decreasing and the population in Waiheke has been increasing although at a slower rate.

The population projections based on the 2006 census figures for Waiheke and Great Barrier are not available at present but are predicted to be available from Statistics New Zealand within the 2008/2009 period. Population projections based on the 2001 census information and updated in March 2003 show the following population projections in Waiheke and Great Barrier for 2021 based on low, medium and high projection assumptions.

Low projections assume low fertility and migration and high mortality, medium projections assume medium fertility, migration and mortality and high projections assume high fertility and migration and low mortality.

Waiheke Island	2006	2011	2016	2021
Low projection	8220	9060	9930	10,850
Medium projection	8410	9430	10,500	11,600
High projection	8590	9800	11,050	12,350

 

Great Barrier	2006	2011	2016	2021
Low projection	1120	1180	1240	1290
Medium projection	1140	1220	1290	1360
High projection	1160	1250	1350	1440

This information shows that it was predicted under the low, medium and high projection assumptions that the population in Waiheke would be over 8000. The 7689 usually resident population in 2006 for Waiheke shows that the population on Waiheke is increasing at a rate which is below the low projection rates. For Great Barrier Statistics New Zealand census figures predict that the population will increase, presently the opposite is the case. This illustrates the difficulty in accurately predicting future population figures.

The 2006/2007 Waiheke residential land use survey which was last carried out by the writer in 2007 showed that there were 760 vacant sites remaining within the land unit 11 and 12 land unit (under the operative plan), island residential 1 and 2 (under the proposed plan). These areas are the main residential areas within Waiheke. This is a decrease of 0.7 per cent from the 14.9 per cent of vacant sites identified in the previous years survey. This land use survey also showed that there was a potential for 172 sites to be created through subdivision of existing vacant and occupied sites within these land units.

Therefore there are 932 additional sites within these residential areas which have the potential to be developed for residential purposes. This analysis indicates that, for the immediate to mid term there is currently sufficient land within Waiheke for residential purposes. Therefore it is unnecessary to alter clause 2.5 to give effect to this submission and therefore submission 517/1 is not supported.

4.10.2.2 Submissions 618/14, 1101/57, 1286/20, 1287/82, 1288/16, 1289/65 and 2878/21

Inserting policies within clause 2.5 is unnecessary because the listed issues and objectives are gulf wide and policies and rules within other parts of the Plan outline how these broad issues and objectives will be achieved.

Policies were also not included within Part 2 because they would unnecessarily increase the size of this section of the Plan without added value.

Submissions 618/14, 1101/57, 1286/20, 1287/82, 1288/16, 1289/65 and 2878/21 are therefore not supported.

4.10.2.3 Submission 2760/2

All the issues and objectives within the Plan (including those within clause 2.5) are consistent with the requirements of the RMA. Therefore submission 2760/2 is not supported.

4.10.2.4 Submission 2760/3

A thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise was undertaken with the community of the gulf before the Plan was promulgated. A summary of this consultation is described in clause 1.3.7 of the Plan.

This consultation identified the primary issues affecting the gulf, which were used as a basis for formulating the issues and objectives within clause 2.5. Therefore submission 2760/3 is not supported.

4.10.2.5 Submission 3061/19

Section 75 of the RMA sets out what a district plan must and should contain. Section 75(1) states:

1. A district plan must state
   1. the objectives for the district; and
   2. the policies to implement the objectives; and
   3. the rules (if any) to implement the policies

Section 75(2) of the Plan describes that, along with other listed matters, a district plan may contain significant resource management issues for the district. The consultation undertaken prior to the formulation of the Plan indicated a number of broad, high level issues affecting the gulf. These were used as a basis for formulating the issues and objectives incorporated in the Plan as notified. This is appropriate. The objectives state the outcome council wishes to see from the resolution of the issue.

The issues and objectives within clause 2.5 of the Plan, as notified, are consistent with the requirements of Section 75 of the RMA and best practice. Therefore submitter 3061/19 is not supported.

4.10.2.6 Submission 3061/20

Clause 4.8 highlights that management of wastewater disposal will be controlled by the ARC Technical Publication 58, the Building Act 2004 and the council's bylaw controlling wastewater. The Plan's role in controlling wastewater is limited to ensuring that there is sufficient permeable surface on sites for on-site disposal of wastewater. These are appropriate methods of managing wastewater. Therefore a separate issue and / or objective in regards to wastewater in clause 2.5 is not required.

The issues and objectives within clause 2.5.5 titled 'Water' are sufficient to cover the issue of 'wider waters management.'

Climate change is a world wide phenomena which most scientists endorse as resulting partially from human endeavours, particularly through a dramatic increase in CO2 emissions over the last century. New Zealand and other countries are currently grappling with how best to reduce their own green house gas emissions and to understand the potential impact of climate change.

The Ministry of the Environment on their website address www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/ outlines on a generic level the potential impacts of climate change. This is displayed in map format and is attached as appendix 4.

This website also outlines that:

Average temperatures are projected to increase about 1ºC by the 2030s and between about 2 and 3ºC by the 2080s (compared to 1990 levels).

Under moderate projections, it is possible that sea levels will rise 30 to 50cm by 2100. Such a rise would lead to increased coastal erosion, flooding from storms, salinisation of freshwater and drainage problems.

New Zealand can also expect more extreme events to happen in the future, including more droughts in already drought-prone areas, and more floods in regions already vulnerable to flooding.

More rain is likely to fall in the west of the country and less in the east.

We can also expect more episodes of heavy rainfall and for westerly winds to become more prevalent with a greater risk of severe winds and storms.

It is less certain what specific impacts there will be within the Hauraki Gulf Islands. In response, part 8 of the Plan 'Natural Hazards' outlines as an issue:

• How to manage irregular or periodic exposure to naturally occurring events such as earthquakes, fires, drought, landslides, cyclones, floods, erosion, slope instability and subsidence, sea storm surge, tsunami, and volcanic and geothermic activity."

Some of these events could be impacted by climate change in regards to the severity and frequency of these 'events'. Clause 2.5.2 raises issues and objectives in regards to sustainable management and the broad thrust of the Plan has been directed towards sustainable management. Encouraging more sustainable land use will have the potential to reduce CO2 emissions which may reduce climate change impacts.

Issue 2 of clause 2.5.3 'Coastal' states:

• How to manage the hazards posed to people, property, and the natural environment by coastal erosion and inundation by the sea (and considering the impact of climate variability).

In order to provide greater emphasis on the potential impacts of climate change in response to submission 3061/20 it is recommended that this issue is amended as set out below:

• How to manage the hazards posed to people, property, and the natural environment by the potential impacts of climate change and climate variability. These hazards may include, but are not limited to:
  • coastal erosion,
  • inundation by the sea
  • change in rainfall patterns
  • change in frequency and intensity of extreme weather events

It would be very difficult to justify a population cap under the RMA. In addition as outlined in section 4.11.2.1 of this report above, in the immediate to mid term there is currently sufficient land within Waiheke for residential purposes. It is council's view that if at a later date growth pressures become more pressing then the community of Waiheke should be consulted about how growth should be managed within Waiheke. This should be a separate process to this district plan process and if a way forward is found could result in a change to the Plan.

In addition, issue 2 of clause 2.5.2 titled 'Sustainable Management' states:

How to ensure that growth and development occurs in a manner that is consistent with sustainable management.

Objectives 2 and 4 provide outcomes in relation to the growth and economic issues raised by submitter 3061/20 . These are:

2. To limit the intensity of subdivision and land use to a scale that is appropriate to the different characteristics of various island environments.
4. To enable the growth of the local economy, including business and employment.

Growth and economic development are therefore considered within clause 2.5.

Therefore submission 3061/20 is supported in part only as far as it relates to altering issue 2 of clause 2.5.3.

4.10.2.7 Submission 3061/21

The issues and objectives within clause 2.5.2 set out broad methods of encouraging sustainable management within the Plan. In addition, all issues, objectives, policies and rules within the Plan are targeted at achieving sustainable management. This section sets a clear direction for the Plan. It is noted that the applicant has not raised potential alternatives to the matters in clause 2.5 for consideration within this report.

Therefore submission 3061/21 is not supported.

4.10.2.8 Submission 3061/22

The Plan has appropriate planning tools and methods that create effective links between RMA objectives and community outcomes. Clause 10c outlines the development controls for land units and settlement areas within the Plan. This details specifically the maximum appropriate scale of buildings within each area. The submitter has failed to clarify what is meant by 'community scale' and how a definition of it would add value to the Plan. Therefore submitter 3061/22 is not supported.

Planner's recommendations about submissions to clause 2.5

That submission 3061/20 be accepted in part by altering clause 2.5.3(2) to read as follows: How to manage the hazards posed to people, property, and the natural environment by the potential impacts of climate change and climate variability. These hazards may include, but are not limited to: coastal erosion inundation by the sea change in rainfall patterns change in frequency and intensity of extreme weather events That submissions 517/1, 618/14, 1101/57, 1286/20, 1287/82, 1288/16, 1289/65, 2760/2, 2760/3, 2878/21, 3061/19, 3061/21 and 3061/22 be rejected.

4.11 Submissions about clause 2.5.2 (Sustainable management)

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/15, 618/16, 618/17, 618/18, 1101/58, 1101/59, 1101/60, 1101/61, 1286/21, 1286/22, 1286/23, 1286/24, 1287/83, 1287/84, 1287/85, 1287/86, 1288/17, 1288/18, 1288/19, 1288/20, 1289/66, 1289/67, 1289/68, 1289/69, 2878/22, 2878/23, 2878/24 and 2878/25

4.11.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 618/15, 1101/58, 1286/21, 1287/83, 1288/17, 1289/66 and 2878/22 relief states:

Issues 1 and 2 of clause 2.5.2 are generally supported but should be reworded to better reflect section 5(2) of the RMA. The wording of all objectives should be amended to replace the word 'prevent' and 'limit' with the word 'manage'.

Submissions 618/16, 1101/59, 1286/22, 1287/84, 1288/18, 1289/67 and 2878/23 relief states:

The structure of clause 2.5.2 needs revision to reflect an integrated RMA approach. All of the matters set out in clauses 2.5.3 to 2.5.8 are part of the concept of sustainability and are subsets of that rather than being stand alone matters and the provisions need amendment accordingly. Alternatively, clause 2.5.2 should be amended to become an integration tool for all other subsequent parts of this section with the necessary amendment to specific detail within each subsection.

Submissions 618/17, 1101/60, 1286/23, 1287/85, 1288/19, 1289/68, 2878/24 relief states:

Clause 2.5.2 also should address the need for flexibility in planning provisions to enable discretionary approaches to innovative developments and also to recognise that the economic relationship between land values and land development is a real management driver and not just a peripheral unwanted diversion. The provision should be made specific to recognise the real drivers and imperatives that exist now in the HGI and address how to manage those in a flexible sustainable manner-which they currently do not. There is need to replace a negative theme in wording with a positive and proactive approach.

Submissions 618/18, 1101/61, 1286/24, 1287/86, 1288/20, 1289/69, 2878/25 relief states:

The references to intensity in clause 2.5.2 need to be deleted and replaced by wording that reflected effects based outcomes without making presumptions as to supposed relationships between intensity and appropriate outcomes.

Submission 966/1 relief states:

Retain objective 4 in clause 2.5.2

Submission 1093/3 relief states:

Retain clause 2.5.2 as currently worded.

Submission 1243/9 relief states:

Remove clause 2.5.2.

Submission 1552/1 relief states:

The objectives for clause 2.5.2 should be modified by adding the following:

6. "To enable a variety of accommodation types within the Hauraki Gulf Islands".

4.11.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

All of the above submissions which reference clause 2.5.2 'sustainable management' have been considered and the following comments made.

4.11.2.1 Submissions 618/15, 1101/58, 1286/21, 1287/83, 1288/17, 1289/66 and 2878/22

The issues and objectives are consistent with section 5(2) of the RMA. The use of the word 'limit' and 'prevent' in the issues and objectives within clause 2.5.2-2.5.8 is important to illustrate the direction the council expects the Plan to take. This provides additional clarity compared to the word 'manage' about the direction council is taking for each issue and objective. Therefore submissions 618/15, 1101/58, 1286/21, 1287/83, 1288/17, 1289/66 and 2878/22 are not supported.

4.11.2.3 Submissions 618/16, 1101/59, 1286/22, 1287/84, 1288/18, 1289/67 and 2878/23

Clause 2.5.2 outlines the general intent of the Plan towards sustainable management. Clauses 2.5.3-2.5.8 then outlines more specifically how the Plan is targeted at sustainable management under the topic headings of coastal, landscape, water, natural environment, maori and human environment (other).

As stated in clause 2.5.1 "all the issues, objectives, policies and rules set out in the Plan are targeted at achieving sustainable management of natural and physical resources."

This includes all the issues and objectives within part 2.5 of the Plan. Therefore clauses 2.5.3-2.5.8 are not subsets of clause 2.5.2 but rather fully integrated with this clause.

Therefore, submissions 618/16, 1101/59, 1286/22, 1287/84, 1288/18, 1289/67 and 2878/23 are not supported.

4.11.2.4 Submissions 618/17, 1101/60, 1286/23, 1287/85, 1288/19, 1289/68 and 2878/24

The issues and objectives within clause 2.5.2 do recognise the economic relationships within the Gulf. Objective 4 states "to enable the growth of the local economy, including business and employment." The supposed 'negative theme in wording' is intentional in order to provide clearer direction to what outcome is being sought. Therefore submissions 618/17, 1101/60, 1286/23, 1287/85, 1288/19, 1289/68 and 2878/24 is not supported.

4.11.2.5 Submissions 618/18, 1101/61, 1286/24, 1287/86, 1288/20, 1289/69 and 2878/25

The only reference to the word 'intensity' in clause 2.5.2 is within objective 2 which states:

To limit the intensity of subdivision and land use to a scale that is appropriate to the different characteristics of various island environments.

This objective is deemed appropriate and is trying to highlight that there is a relationship between intensity of subdivision and land use and an appropriate outcome. Subdivision and land use activities of high intensity tend to have higher potential impacts than activities of low intensity. This objective is trying to reflect this and provide broad direction that high intensity subdivision and land use patterns may not be appropriate in certain island environments (for example sensitive coastal areas) but may be appropriate in others. Therefore, submissions 618/18, 1101/61, 1286/24, 1287/86, 1288/20, 1289/69 and 2878/25 are not supported.

4.11.2.6 Submissions 966/1 and 1093/3

Submission 966/1 which supports the retention of objective 4 in clause 2.5.2 and submission 1093/3 which supports the retention of this clause as currently worded are supported.

4.11.2.7 Submission 1243/9

'Sustainable management' is a resource management issue, and is central to the purpose, section 5 of the RMA. Submission 1243/9 which seeks to remove clause 2.5.2 is therefore not supported.

4.11.2.8 Submission 1552/1

Inserting an additional objective within clause 2.5.2 which states "to enable a variety of accommodation types within the Hauraki Gulf Islands" is not supported because the type of housing (i.e stand alone dwelling, terraced housing etc) is not controlled within the Plan. Rather the bulk, scale and in some land units the location and appearance of housing and the minimum size of sites within different locations is controlled.

In addition issue 1 and objective 1 of clause 2.5.8 generally supports the intent of this submission.

Issue 1 of clause 2.5.8 states:

1. How to provide for a variety of lifestyle and residential opportunities including:
   • a range of residential property sizes
   • permanent residents, holiday homes, and accommodation for seasonal visitors.

Objective 1 of clause 2.5.8 states

1. To ensure that residential development is undertaken in a manner which respects the character and amenity of the islands while allowing for a variety of lifestyle choices.

It is therefore unnecessary to alter the Plan to give effect to this submission and submission 1552/1 is not supported.

Planner's recommendations about submissions to clause 2.5.2

That submissions 966/1 and 1093/3 be accepted That submissions 618/15, 618/16, 618/17, 618/18, 1101/58, 1101/59, 1101/60, 1101/61, 1243/9, 1286/21, 1286/22, 1286/23, 1286/24, 1287/83, 1287/84, 1287/85, 1287/86, 1288/17, 1288/18, 1288/19, 1288/20, 1289/66, 1289/67, 1289/68, 1289/69, 1552/1, 2878/23, 2878/22, 2878/24 and 2878/25 be rejected.

4.12 Submission about clause 2.5.3 (Coastal) of the plan

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1243/10, 1243/11, 1243/12, 1243/13, 3079/3, 3521/14, 3521/15 and 3521/16

4.12.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1243/10 relief sought "remove issue 1 of clause 2.5.3" .

Submission 1243/11 relief sought "delete the phrase '(considering the impact of climate variability)' from issue 2 of clause 2.5.3."

Submissions 1243/12 and 1243/13 relief's requested "delete issue 3 of clause 2.5.3"and"if issue 3 of clause 2.5.3 is to remain, amend it to reflect that access to the coastal marine area is an issue for the District" respectively.

Submissions 3521/14 and 3521/15 sought alterations to issue 2.5.3(3) by changing 'National Coastal Policy Statement' to 'New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement' and changing 'Regional Coastal Policy Statement' to 'Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal.' Submitter 1243/12 relief sought deletion of "issue 3 of clause 2.5.3." Submitter 1243/13 relief sought "if issue 3 of clause 2.5.3 is to remain, amend it to reflect that access to the coastal marine area is an issue for the District."

Submission 3079/3 supported clause 2.5.3 "in relation to the recognition of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000."

Submission 3521/16 relief sought:

Amend the issues statement in clause 2.5.3 to include reference to development on the land placing development pressures in the coastal marine area. It should also recognise the need for integrated management across the line of Mean High Water Springs.

4.12.2 Planner's analysis

All of the above submissions which reference clause 2.5.3 'Coastal' have been considered and the following comments made:

4.12.2.1 Submission 1243/10

Sustainable management is a significant resource management issue, indeed it is central to the purpose, section 5 of the RMA. Therefore it is appropriate to have issue 1 of clause 2.5.3 retained. Submitter 1243/10 is therefore not supported.

4.12.2.2 Submission 1243/11

The recommendation from submission 3061/20 that clause 2.5.3(2) be altered as outlined in section 4.11.2.6 of this report is supported and submission 1243/11 is not supported.

4.12.2.3 Submission 3521/14 and 3521/15

Submissions 3521/14 and 3521/15 are supported because the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, the Auckland Regional Policy Statement and the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal are the correct titles for these documents.

4.12.2.4 Submission 3079/3, 1243/12 and 1243/13

Issue 3 of clause 2.5.3 specifically mentions the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000, therefore the retention of this issue achieves the relief of submission 3079/3 . The deletion of issue 3 of clause 2.5.3 is not supported and consequently submission 1243/12 is not supported. Issue 5 of clause 2.5.3 states:

5. How to ensure that public access to the coastal environment is maintained and improved.

This achieves the intent of submission 1243/13 and it is unnecessary to alter issue 3 to reflect access issues to the coast. Submission 1243/13 is therefore not supported.

4.12.2.5 Submission 3521/16

The relief sought from submission 3521/16 is supported in so far as it relates to retaining issues 2.5.3(4) and 2.5.3(6), because they achieve this relief. These two issues are listed below:

4. How to ensure that development pressures do not result in adverse effects on sensitive coastal environments and unique coastal character.
5. How to ensure that land uses activities do not degrade coastal water quality due to:
   • sediment runoff from earthworks and erosion
   • effluent runoff from inadequate or malfunctioning effluent disposal systems
   • other contaminant runoff from roads or other hard surfaces.

Submission 3521/16 relief also sought:

It should also recognise the need for integrated management across the line of Mean High Water Springs.

Changes to issue 3 of clause 2.5.3, as set out below will achieve the relief of this submission.

Planner's recommendations on submissions to clause 2.5.3 of the Plan;

That submissions 3079/3, 3521/14 and 3521/15 be accepted That submission 3521/16 be accepted in part by amending issue 3 of clause 2.5.3 to read as below (the changes have been underlined for clarity purposes ). How to recognise the requirements of coastal policy statements, plans and legislation (such as the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, Auckland Regional Policy Statement, Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal , and Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000) which apply to the islands, and encourage integrated management across mean high water springs .  That submissions 1243/10, 1243/11, 1243/12 and 1243/13 be rejected.

4.13 Submission about clause 2.5.4 (Landscape) of the plan

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1093/4, 1243/14 and 3521/17

4.13.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1093/4 relief requests "retain clause 2.5.4 as currently worded." Submission 1243/14 relief requests "remove issue 1 of clause 2.5.4."

Submission 3521/17 relief states:

Amend issue 2 in clause 2.5.4 to reference that the Auckland Regional Policy Statement identifies outstanding natural features and landscapes.

4.13.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

All of the above submissions which reference clause 2.5.4 'Landscape' have been considered and the following comments made.

4.13.2.1 Submissions 1093/4 and 1243/14

Submission 1093/4 is supported. Submission 1243/14 is not supported because sustainable management is a significant resource management issue.

4.13.2.2 Submission 3521/17

Issue 2 of clause 2.5.4 states:

How to ensure that outstanding natural features and landscapes are protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

The relief from submission 3521/17 is not supported for the following reasons:

• Although the Plan cannot be inconsistent with the currrent provisions of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) it is unnecessary to reference in this plan what is identified in the ARPS or that the ARPS identifies outstanding natural features and landscapes.
• The Plan identifies outstanding natural features and landscapes in other ways for example the identification of the landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) land unit where all activities (with the exception of ecosourced planting) and the construction of buildings are non complying activities.
• At the time of writing the decisions on plan change 8 - landscape and volcanic cones to the ARPS had not been released. Therefore the outstanding natural features and landscapes identified in this plan change are not beyond challenge and therefore could potentially change. Not withstanding this, the land units and landforms proposed within the Plan will provide sufficient protection to the outstanding natural features and landscapes identified in this plan change as notified. In certain areas the land units also go beyond the requirements of plan change 8 by providing varied levels of protection to areas not identified as natural features and landscapes.

Planner's recommendations about submissions to clause 2.5.4;

That submission 1093/4 be accepted That submissions 1243/14 and 3521/17 be rejected

4.14 Submission about clause 2.5.5 (Water)

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1093/5, 1243/15, 3521/18, 3521/19 and 3521/20 .

4.14.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1093/5 relief seeks "retain paragraph 2.5.5 as currently worded."

Submission 1243/15 relief seeks "remove issue 1 of clause 2.5.5."

Submission 3521/18, 3521/19 and 3521/20 respectively state:

Amend clause 2.5.5 to add an objective that recognises the importance of sustainable water use in terms of quantity of extraction and methods to use rainwater.

Amend clause 2.5.5 to include an objective that sets out a hierarchy for water use, preferring rainwater collection to borewater use and borewater use over collection from streams or rivers.

Amend clause 2.5.5 to recognise Waiheke as a High Use Aquifer Management Area under the proposed Air Land and Water Plan, and the controlling influence of water supply on growth for Waiheke.

4.14.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

All of the above submissions which reference clause 2.5.5 'Water' have been considered and the following comments made.

4.14.2.1 Submissions 1093/5 and 1243/15

The relief from submission 1093/5 is supported.

Submission 1243/15 is not supported because sustainable management is a significant resource management issue.

4.14.2.2 Submissions 3521/18, 3521/19 and 3521/20

The Proposed Auckland Regional Plan; Air, Land and Water contains specific issues, objectives, policies and rules relating to the taking of water from streams/ rivers or bores and identifies Waiheke as a High Use Aquifer Management Area. It also references the importance of sustainable water use. Section 6.1.4 of the Air Land and Water Plan explains the water allocation management approach of the plan. The relevant parts to this issue are listed below:

• Encouraging groundwater use in preference to taking water from rivers and streams (subject to groundwater availability) and encouraging the taking and storing of water off-stream in winter for use in summer;
• Setting aquifer levels and water availability in high-use aquifers;
• Maximising the benefit derived from the use of available water by encouraging conservation and efficient use of water and use of alternative sources such as wastewater re-use and rainfall capture.

As described in section 2.3.3 of the Plan, section 75(4) of the RMA requires that district plans must not be inconsistent with any regional plan. Clause 2.5.5 recognises this matter as an issue but it is unnecessary to include a specific objective as this matter is dealt with in detail as part of the Air Land and Water Plan. Including it as an objective would result in duplication of what is a function of the Auckland Regional Council. Therefore submissions 3521/18, 3521/19 and 3521/20 are not supported.

Planner's recommendations about submissions to clause 2.5.5;

That submission 1093/5 be accepted That submissions 1243/15, 3521/18, 3521/19 and 3521/20 be rejected

4.15 Submission about clause 2.5.6 (Natural environment)

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1243/16, 1243/17, 1243/18, 1243/19 and 1243/20

4.15.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1243/16 relief seeks "remove issue 1 of clause 2.5.6."

Submission 1243/17 relief seeks:

Remove the bullet points "removal of indigenous vegetation" and "stock encroachment" from issue 3 of clause 2.5.6.

Submission 1243/18 relief seeks:

If bullet points "removal of indigenous vegetation" and "stock encroachment" of issue 3 of clause 2.5.6 are to remain, then amend them to reflect the balance of interests involved.

Submission 1243/19 relief seeks "remove "new organisms" from the objective 3 of clause 2.5.6."

Submission 1243/20 relief seeks "remove objective 4 from clause 2.5.6."

4.15.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

All of the above submissions which reference clause 2.5.6 'Natural environment' have been considered and the following comments made.

4.15.2.1 Submission 1243/16

Submission 1243/16 is not supported because sustainable management is a significant resource management issue.

4.15.2.2 Submissions 1243/17 and 1243/18

Issue 3 of clause 2.5.6 states:

3. How to prevent the loss and degradation of significant ecological features. This can result from:

• removal of indigenous vegetation
• sediment runoff from vegetation removal, earthworks and erosion
• reduced water quality, or changes in the quantity or flow of water
• pest and weed encroachment
• stock encroachment.

When this issue refers to "removal of indigenous vegetation" and "stock encroachment" these are two examples of possible ways that significant ecological features can be degraded. It is considered important to highlight when a land use may adversely impact on a significant ecological feature. This does not remove any existing use rights to use land in a particular way. Submission 1243/17 is therefore not supported.

The submitter has not mentioned within the submission how issue 3 should be altered to "reflect the balance of interests involved" if the "removal of indigenous vegetation" and "stock encroachment" references within issue 3 of clause 2.5.6 are to remain. Unless this is clarified satisfactorily at the hearing, submission 1243/18 is not supported.

4.15.2.3 Submission 1243/19

Objective 3 of clause 2.5.6 states:

To prohibit, throughout the islands, the introduction, keeping or farming of new organisms, and identified plant and animal pest species.
Submission 1243/19 requests the removal of the reference to "new organisms."

Of the 60 further submissions to submission 1243/19 , 29 support and 31 oppose this submission. Therefore, the community appears to be equally divided on this issue. In contrast, feedback received on pre district plan development consultation showed general support from a number of the Waiheke community for Waiheke to be declared completely organic.

'New organisms' are defined in part 14 'Definitions' section of the Plan. This is the same definition as is contained in section 2A 'Meaning of term new organism' of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996. This definition includes, among others, new organisms not present in New Zealand prior to 29 July 1998 and genetically modified organisms (GMO's).

The Ministry for the Environment has drafted a number of information sheets and provided legal advice on the relationship of the RMA and the HSNO Act. In regards to the fact sheet titled 'Genetic modification (GM) and local government' it states:

The HSNO Act requires that before any GMO can be imported into the country, developed in containment, tested in the field or released into the environment (with or without conditions), approval must be obtained from the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA).

When considering an application, ERMA must assess the environmental risks. It must examine issues such as the risk of an organism escaping from a laboratory or the risk of contamination of surrounding plants by pollen from GMOs. In the case of field tests, ERMA must require that they are carried out under strict conditions to reduce any potential risk to the environment. It must also ensure that genetic material is not released outside the field test site and that this material is destroyed once the test is finished. As well, ERMA can impose a wide range of controls under the new conditional release category. These might include limiting the proximity of the GMO to other organisms.

ERMA must undertake a thorough risk, costs, and benefits assessment where the overall benefits are balanced against the potential risks. This covers not only environmental assessments but also the magnitude, likelihood and distribution of any costs and benefits of an application both to the applicant and to New Zealand as a whole. The fact that ERMA considers both the direct and indirect impacts of an application ensures that the wider economic consequences for New Zealand and the indirect effects on other industries are taken into account on a case-by-case basis.

It is possible that a council could try to control genetic modification through the RMA or LGA. However, the fact that there is a national specialist body set up specifically by parliament to make decisions on GM may mean it would be difficult for councils to do this. The issues surrounding genetic modification are also highly technical, meaning that councils are unlikely to have the skills to deal with these issues.

An inter-council working party on GMO was formed in 2003 comprising local and regional councils in the Northland region to consider the role of local and regional authorities under the HSNO, the RMA and the Local Government Act. The number of member councils is continuing to increase and now includes the Auckland Regional Council and Auckland City Council

Technical reports (commissioned by the working party) have assessed the potential risks of the release of a new organism with ERMA approval. These potential risks have been broadly characterised under the headings, environmental, economic and socio-cultural risks and include:
Environmental risks:

• Adverse effects on other species, including indigenous flora and fauna, from horizontal gene transfer;
• Unintended and/or unforeseen traits or effects from genetic alteration on both target and non-target species;
• Adverse effects on ecology and ecosystems from GMOs, both invasive and non-evasive, including possible reduction in biodiversity;
• Development of herbicide or pesticide resistance in weeds or pests, i.e. emergence of 'superweeds' and 'superpests';
• Dangers of developing sterile traits in plants, to both target and non-target species;
• Unpredictable and irreversible nature of some ecological and environmental effects.

Economic risks include:

• Loss of income through contamination (or even perceived contamination) of non-GE crops or products triggering market rejection of produce (this has already occurred in New Zealand due to the importation of contaminated seed);
• Associated opportunity costs arising from GMO food production, i.e. foreclosure of future options for conventional and organic farming. Long term co-existence of GE and non-GE farming has not yet been successfully demonstrated;
• Negative effects on marketing and branding opportunities, e.g. loss of 'clean green' image. This represents a loss to both individual producers and to district/regional organizations;
• Negative effects on tourism related to loss of 'clean green' imagery and branding;
• Costs associated with environmental damage, such as cleanup costs for invasive weeds and pests in reserves, parks, and open space;
• Economic loss to the district and region through loss of agricultural income, reduced tourism and loss of marketing and branding opportunities.

Socio-cultural risks include:

• Effects on Maori cultural beliefs (the concepts of whakapapa, mauri, tikanga, and kaitiakitanga, for example);
• Effects on religious beliefs, i.e. science playing God, interfering with the 'natural' order of things, altering God's work, etc.;
• Other ethical concerns, such as mixing different species' genotypes, e.g. inserting frog genes into tomatoes, or non-human genes into humans;
• Effects on human health from GE food, pharmaceutical crops, industrial crops, contamination of food, etc.

The Minister for the Environment has confirmed that local government can address local and regional concerns under the RMA should they choose to, so long as they can satisfy a section 32 analysis - in other words, justify why local and/or regional regulation is necessary/beneficial in addition to national regulation by ERMA.

Council has decided to undertake a precautionary approach in regards to this matter and as a consequence has imposed a prohibited status to the establishment of new organisms within the gulf. This is justified by the fact that:

1. Liability issues have not yet been resolved
2. GMO technology is in its infancy and inherently complex, and therefore potential environmental, economic, and socio-cultural impacts are poorly understood.
3. There is a current lack of field-based long-term monitoring under a variety of environmental conditions, such efforts are critical to assessing degree of risk
4. Increasing environmental variability attributed to global warming and associated climate change significantly increases the risk of adverse and unpredictable environmental and economic impacts

Given the above, the council is of the opinion that the degree of uncertainty surrounding environmental, economic and socio-cultural risk outweighs, at this point and time, potential benefits of GMO's. Councils approach is considered to be appropriate and consistent with the requirements of the RMA and section 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (HGMPA).

This issue impacts on clause 4.4.1(a) which prohibits the introduction, farming and keeping of new organisms. Submission 1243/39 (the same submitter as 1243/19) has sought removal of this clause. While this matter will be considered in the hearing report for part 4 any decision on submission 1243/19 will inform the decision on 1243/39 .

Therefore, submission 1243/19 is not supported.

4.15.2.4 Submission 1243/20

The deletion of objective 4 of clause 2.5.6 which states "to prohibit mining throughout the islands" is inappropriate. Mining is considered incompatible with the outstanding conservation and heritage values of the islands, and to provide for such an activity would severely compromise those values.

Mining and quarrying are both defined within the Plan. Mining relates to the extraction of a mineral or a chemical substance from the ground while quarrying relates to the extraction of sand, gravel or rock for construction purposes.

While quarrying have potential adverse effects they are provided for as discretionary activities within existing operating quarries at Medlands in Great Barrier, Waiheke and Karamuramu island. These quarries are important in providing for raw materials for the roading and construction industries within the gulf.

The retention of objective 4 of clause 2.5.6 reflects clause 4.4.2 which prohibits mining within the gulf. Submission 1243/20 is not supported.

Planner's recommendations about submissions to clause 2.5.6;

That submissions 1243/16, 1243/17, 1243/18, 1243/19 and 1243/20 be rejected

4.16 Submission about clause 2.5.7 (Maori)

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3061/23, 3521/21 and 3521/22 .

4.16.1 Decisions requested by submissions

Submission 3061/23 relief states:

Clause 2.5.7 Maori is woefully inadequate; Piritahi marae is not on ancestral land, clause 2.5.7(3) does not make sense and there are no links with the HGMPA.

Submission 3521/21 relief states:

Amend clause 2.5.7 to reflect the RMA requirement to recognise and provide for the ancestral relationship of Maori with their taonga.

Submission 3521/22 relief states:

Amend clause 2.5.7 - Objective 1 - Kaoa should be spelt Kawa.

4.16.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Consultation with the Pae Herenga Tangata group of Council has been undertaken on the issues raised in these submissions to ensure appropriate guidance on Maori tanga has been obtained.

The objectives within clause 2.5.7 as notified are:

1. To provide for Maori to develop and manage their ancestral lands in a manner which meets their needs. On Waiheke, this includes the Ngati Paoa land at the eastern end and the Piritahi Marae. On Great Barrier this includes the Ngati Rehua land and marae at Motairehe and Kaoa.
2. To recognise and provide for the protection of waahi tapu and other ancestral sites in a sensitive and culturally appropriate manner.
3. To recognise in the Plan's provisions the kaitiakitanga role of Maori with mana whenua.

4.16.2.1 Submission 3061/23

The intent of submission 3061/23 will partially be achieved by the inclusion of the words "and marae areas" within the first sentence of objective 1 of clause 2.5.7 after the words 'ancestral lands'. It is not necessary to amend clause 2.5.7(3) to include links with the HGMPA. How the HGMPA is integrated into the Plan is explained in clause 2.3.2.

In regards to objective 3 of clause 2.5.7 not making sense the meaning of 'Kaitiakitanga' and 'Mana whenua' is defined in section 2 of the RMA. These definitions are set out below:

Kaitiakitanga means the exercise of guardianship by the tangata whenua of an area in accordance with tikanga Maori in relation to natural and physical resources; and includes the ethic of stewardship.

Mana whenua means customary authority exercised by an iwi or hapu in an identified area

Therefore, it is not accepted that objective 3 of clause 2.5.7 does not make sense. Therefore submission 3061/23 is supported in part.

4.16.2.2 Submission 3521/21

Section 6(e) of the RMA requires Council to recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance relating to Maori. This section of the Act states:

The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga.

This submission is accepted and the intent of the submission can be realised by amending objective 2 so that it reflects section 6(e) of the RMA.

4.16.2.3 Submission 3521/22

The relief of submission 3521/22 is accepted and it is recommended that within objective 1 of clause 2.5.7 the last word of this objective be changed from Kaoa to Kawa.

Planner's recommendations about submissions to clause 2.5.7;

That submission 3061/23 be accepted in part and submission 3521/22 accepted by amending objective 1 of clause 2.5.7 to read as follows (additions have been underlined for clarity only): To provide for Maori to develop and manage their ancestral lands and marae areas in a manner which meets their needs. On Waiheke, this includes the Ngati Paoa land at the eastern end and the Piritahi Marae. On Great Barrier this includes the Ngati Rehua land and marae at Motairehe and Kaoa Kawa. That submission 3521/21 be accepted by amending objective 2 of clause 2.5.7 to read as follows (additions have been underlined for clarity only): To recognise and provide for the protection of the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga .

4.17 Submissions about clause 2.5.8 (Human environment (other))

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1093/6, 1552/2, 2760/1 and 3079/4 .

4.17.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1093/6 relief states:

Amend point 1 (of clause 2.5.8) to read:

"How to provide for a variety of lifestyle and residential opportunities where appropriate, including:

a range of residential property sizes permanent residents, holiday homes, and temporary accommodation for seasonal visitors without compromising the sustainable management of rural operations.

Submission 1093/7 relief states:

Retain remainder of clause 2.5.8 (excludes point 1)

Submission 1243/21 relief states:

Include provisions under clause 2.5.8 for those who engage in farming activity on the Hauraki Gulf Islands

Submission 1552/2 relief states:

Objective 1 of clause 2.5.8 should be modified to the following:

"To ensure that residential development is undertaken in a manner which represents the character and amenity of the islands, while allowing for a variety of lifestyle choices and housing requirements of the community."

Submission 2760/1 relief states:

Clause 2.5.8 Human environment (other) contains some of the central issues which should be placed at the top of the list of issues and objectives rather than tacked on as incidentals or accessories.

Submission 3079/4 relief states:

Retain the provision in clause 2.5.8 in relation to recognition of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.

4.17.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

All of the above submissions which reference clause 2.5.8 'Human environment (other)' have been considered and the following comments made.

4.17.2.1 Submission 1093/6 and 1093/7

Submission 1093/6 seeks changes to issue 1 of clause 2.5.8 as set out above. This issue as notified is set out below, to add clarity to the changes requested these have been added to this issue as underlined text.

1. How to provide for a variety of lifestyle and residential opportunities where appropriate , including:
   1. range of residential property sizes
   2. permanent residents, holiday homes, and temporary accommodation for seasonal visitors without compromising the sustainable management of rural operations .

The inclusion of the words 'where appropriate' and 'without compromising the sustainable management of rural operations' within this issue is not supported because the potential conflicts arising from different land uses is highlighted within issue 3. These additions will also unnecessarily weaken the meaning of this issue.

The inclusion of the word 'temporary' is supported as this adds additional clarity that seasonal workers need accommodation of a non permanent (temporary) nature.

Therefore, submission 1093/6 is supported in part and submission 1093/7 is supported subject to the recommendations on other submissions, below.

4.17.2.2 Submission 1243/21

It is unnecessary to include provisions under clause 2.5.8 for those who engage in farming activity on the Hauraki Gulf Islands are they are broadly covered within the issues and objectives within clause 2.5.8, particularly issue 3 and objective 3.

Therefore, submission 1243/21 is not supported.

4.17.2.3 Submission 1552/2

Objective 1 of clause 2.5.8 states:

To ensure that residential development is undertaken in a manner which respects the character and amenity of the islands while allowing for a variety of lifestyle choices.

Submission 1552/2 seeks that the words "and housing requirements of the community" be added to the end of this objective. As described in section 4.11.2.8 of this report in regards to another relief from this submitter, while council does not control the housing type (i.e stand alone dwelling, terraced housing etc), it does control the scale and sometimes appearance and location of housing and the minimum size of sites within different locations.

These provisions within the Plan are likely to provide for most of the housing requirements of the community, although some requirements (for example affordable housing) are not provide for within the Plan. Therefore it is inappropriate to include this additional text within objective 1 of clause 2.5.8.

Therefore, submission 1552/2 is not supported.

4.17.2.4 Submission 2760/1

The overarching issues and objectives within clause 2.5 are those which relate to sustainable management. Therefore it is not appropriate to place clause 2.5.8 at the top of the list of issues and objectives. In addition, the order of these issues and objectives is not intended to reflect importance. Therefore submission 2760/1 is not supported.

4.17.2.5 Submission 3079/4

Support submission 3079/4 which seeks to retain objective 2 of clause 2.5.8 which refers to the HGMPA.

Planner's recommendations about submissions;

That submission 3079/4 and 1093/7 be accepted That submission 1093/6 be accepted in part by amending issue 1 of clause 2.5.8 to read as follows [underlining is for clarity only] How to provide for a variety of lifestyle and residential opportunities including: a range of residential property sizes permanent residents, holiday homes, and temporary accommodation for seasonal visitors. That submissions 1243/21, 1552/2, 2760/1 be rejected

5.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding part 2 - 'resource management overview' and appendix 10 of the Proposed Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section 2006.

The report recommends whether submissions should be accepted or rejected and how associated further submissions should be dealt with, and how the Plan should be modified as a result. These recommendations are made prior to the hearing of submissions and therefore without the benefit of evidence which may be presented at that time. At this stage before the hearing, it is recommended that this part of the Plan be approved, with amendments (as outlined in appendix 3), for the reasons outlined in this report.

	Name and title of signatories	Signature
Author	Peter Rawson, Senior Planner: Islands
Reviewer	Megan Tyler, Manager: islands
Approver	Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning

Appendix 1

List of submissions and further submissions (228KB)

Appendix 2

Summary of decisions requested (71Kb PDF)

Appendix 3

• Recommended changes to the Plan part A
• Recommended chanes to the Plan part B