District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

(Notified version 2006)

Hearing reports index

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

Topic:	Part 3 - Strategic Management Areas
Report to:	The Hearing Panel
Author:	Peter Rawson / Sarah Nairn
Date:	June 2007
Group file:	314/274006

1.0 Introduction

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to part 3 - Strategic management areas (SMAs) of the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006 ('the Plan'). The Plan was publicly notified on 18 September 2006. The closing date for lodging submissions was 11 December 2006. The submissions and summary of decisions requested were publicly notified for further submission on 29 April 2007. The closing date for lodging further submissions was 28 May 2007.

This report has been prepared under section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 ('the RMA'), to assist the hearings panel to consider the submissions on part 3 - Strategic management areas (SMAs). This report discusses the submissions (grouped by subject matter or individually) and includes recommendations from the planner who prepared this report. The recommendations identify whether each submission should be accepted or rejected (in full or in part) and what amendments (if any) should be made to the Plan to address matters raised in submissions. Further submissions are not specifically addressed but are dealt with in conjunction with the submissions to which they relate.

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

2.0 Statutory framework

This section of the report briefly sets out the statutory framework within which the council must consider the submissions. In preparing this report the submissions and, in particular, the decisions requested in the submissions, have been considered in light of the relevant statutory matters. These were summarised by the Environment Court in Eldamos Investments Limited v Gisborne District Council W047/05 where the court set out the following measures for evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other methods in district plans:

The objectives of the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:

Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s32(3)(a)); and

Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and

Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1).

The policies, rules, or other methods in the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:

Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan (s32(3)(b)); and

Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and

Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and

(If a rule) achieve the objectives and policies of the Plan (s76(1)(b)).

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

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

Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

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:

"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:

the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of -

the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and

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:

the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:

...

The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:

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

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

The Plan must "give effect to" any national policy statement and any New Zealand coastal policy statement (s75(3)(a) and (b)).

The Plan must "give effect to" the regional policy statement (made operative after 10 August 2005) (s75(3)(c)).

The Plan must be "not inconsistent with" any regional plan (s75(4)).

The council must ensure that that the Plan does not conflict with sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 ("the HGMPA"). Section 10 of the HGMPA requires that sections 7 and 8 of that Act be treated as a New Zealand coastal policy statement under the RMA.

3.0 Background

As outlined in clause 3.1 'Introduction' of the Plan:

Strategic management areas are a framework to provide a strategic direction for resource management in the Hauraki Gulf. When combined with the more localised directions provided by the settlement areas and land units, a comprehensive and integrated approach to resource management is achieved.

Different islands have their own character and identity so three strategic management areas are assigned:

Great Barrier.

Waiheke.

Other islands.

This part of the Plan addresses each of the three strategic management areas, identifying the issues that need to be addressed and the objectives and policies that are to be achieved at a strategic level. This is followed by a strategy that outlines the tools used in the Plan to address the issues and achieve the objectives and policies.

The reasons for altering from the operative Plan approach to SMAs are:

The existing SMAs on GBI are based on 17 water catchments and are not the most effective mean of managing land use and development. They split the island into a number of parts, instead of integrating those parts and creating a strategic vision. Many of the objectives and policies are very similar and create unnecessary duplication.

There were two SMA's for Waiheke, one for the eastern end and one for the western end. This approach meant that there was not a strategic vision for the island as a whole.

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about part 3 - Strategic management areas and recommends how the panel could respond to the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions. The submissions are addressed under subject headings. While the relevant statutory matters (identified in section 2.0 of this report) will not necessarily be referred to directly, the discussion and recommendations have given appropriate consideration to these and any other relevant matters.

A list of the submissions which raise issues about part 3 - Strategic management areas together with the related further submissions is contained in appendix 1 . Appendix 2 contains a summary of the decisions sought in submissions to part 3 - Strategic management areas. 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 Submissions about clause 3 - strategic management areas (general)

Submissions dealt with in this section:

307/1, 377/1, 565/1, 631/1, 642/1, 648/1, 655/1, 694/1, 703/1, 716/1, 727/1, 741/1, 874/1, 884/1, 908/1, 935/1, 961/1, 1055/52, 1134/1, 1668/1, 1669/1, 1670/1, 1671/1, 1672/1, 1673/1, 1674/1, 1675/1, 1676/1, 1677/1, 1678/1, 1679/1, 1680/1, 1681/1, 1682/1, 1683/1, 1684/1, 2129/1, 2286/1, 2573/1, 2575/1, 2714/3, 2793/1, 2819/1, 2834/1, 2934/1, 2942/2, 3061/25, 3215/1, 3208/1, 3229/1, 3235/1, 3252/1, 3288/1, 3304/1, 3313/1, 3320/1, 3335/1, 3341/1, 3355/1, 3365/1, 3372/1, 3382/1, 3558/1 and 3808/1.

4.2.1 Decisions requested

The submissions in relation to the SMA provisions in general relate to the following issues:

Reassessment of the SMA's to address concerns in relation to sustainable management, integrated Waiheke wastewater, waters and catchment management and better interfacing with the ARC, HGMPA and the LGA s91.

Provide a theme for growth alternatives (for Great Barrier).

Provide issues, objectives, policies and assessment criteria in a separate section of part 3 - SMA's that enhance public open space.

Reject part 3 and revert to the operative plan.

4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.2.2.1 Submissions relating to the reassessment of the SMA's

Submissions 307/1, 377/1, 565/1, 631/1, 642/1, 648/1, 655/1, 694/1, 703/1, 716/1, 727/1, 741/1, 874/1, 884/1, 908/1, 935/1, 961/1, 1055/52, 1134/1, 1668/1, 1669/1, 1670/1, 1671/1, 1672/1, 1673/1, 1674/1, 1675/1, 1676/1, 1677/1, 1678/1, 1679/1, 1680/1, 1681/1, 1682/1, 1683/1, 1684/1, 2129/1, 2286/1, 2573/1, 2575/1, 2793/1, 2834/1, 2942/2, 3061/25, 3215/1, 3208/1, 3229/1, 3235/1, 3252/1, 3288/1, 3304/1, 3313/1, 3320/1, 3335/1, 3341/1, 3355/1, 3365/1, 3372/1, 3382/1, 3558/1 and 3808/1 seek that the SMA's be reassessed to take account of a number of concerns:

To provide for sustainable management

To provide for integrated Waiheke wastewater, waters and catchment management

To better interface with the HGMPA (including establishing a carrying capacity) and the Local Government Act 2002 ('LGA').

With respect to sustainable management, the section 32 analysis undertaken has already confirmed that the provisions of part 3 already provide for sustainable management as set out in section 5 of the RMA. It should also be recognised that the objectives and policies of the SMA's use a number of terms and phrases which are consistent with sections 5-8 of the RMA. To demonstrate this the objective for the Waiheke SMA is set out below and the words and terms which are consistent with sections 5-8 of the RMA are underlined:

"To provide for the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of the Waiheke community while ensuring the protection of the landscape character and natural features of the island".

In terms of integrated wastewater and waters and catchment management, this approach is not supported for the following reasons:

No catchment management plans have been prepared for Waiheke and, as such, there is not adequate information on which to prepare district plan provisions. It should also be noted that it is unlikely that any catchment management plans will be prepared in the near future due to the time and expense required to prepare such plans

Even if catchment management plans did exist for Waiheke, it is not considered that such plans would be an appropriate basis on which to prepare a "strategic framework" for the island. This is because catchment management plans focus on the management of water whereas a "strategic framework" should address a variety of issues ranging from the provision of open space, protection of natural features to enabling use and development.

Catchment management was the basis for the 17 SMA's that are applied to Great Barrier in the Operative Plan. These provisions were not considered to be entirely successful as they did not provide an overall vision for the island, were not based on actual catchment management plans and the provisions of the SMA's overlapped with other plan provisions. It should also be noted that there are no submissions from Great Barrier seeking that the catchment management based SMA's be reinstated.

The primary function of the council is the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land. Having regard to this function and the tests of section 32, it is considered more appropriate to have SMA provisions that are focused on the use, development or protection of land rather than catchment management.

A further issue with respect to integrated wastewater and waters and catchment management, is that submission 3061/25 identifies that the SMA's for Waiheke in the Operative Plan are "catchment based". This is not correct as in the Operative Plan there are two SMA's for Waiheke (one for the eastern end and one for the western end of the island) neither of which is catchment based.

In relation to the interface of the SMA's with the HGMPA, the section 32 analysis confirmed that the provisions of the SMA give effect to the HGMPA. In particular, it should be recognised that SMA's provide a strategic framework that helps to provide for "integrated management" as required by section 3 of the HGMPA.

With respect to the interface of the SMA's with the LGA, it is not clear from the submission which part of the LGA is being referred to. However, if the submitters are referring to the community outcomes of the long term council community plan ('LTCCP'), it is considered that the provisions of the SMA's are consistent with the LTCCP as one of the intentions of the SMA's is to give effect to the community outcome that seeks to ensure that the "Hauraki Gulf and its islands have a unique identity" by creating a strategic framework for each island or groups of islands.

For the reasons outlined above, submissions 307/1, 377/1, 565/1, 631/1, 642/1, 648/1, 655/1, 694/1, 703/1, 716/1, 727/1, 741/1, 874/1, 884/1, 908/1, 935/1, 961/1, 1055/52, 1134/1, 1668/1, 1669/1, 1670/1, 1671/1, 1672/1, 1673/1, 1674/1, 1675/1, 1676/1, 1677/1, 1678/1, 1679/1, 1680/1, 1681/1, 1682/1, 1683/1, 1684/1, 2129/1, 2286/1, 2573/1, 2575/1, 2793/1, 2834/1, 2942/2, 3061/25, 3215/1, 3208/1, 3229/1, 3235/1, 3252/1, 3288/1, 3304/1, 3313/1, 3320/1, 3335/1, 3341/1, 3355/1, 3365/1, 3372/1, 3382/1, 3558/1 and 3808/1 are not supported.

4.2.2.2 Submission relating to providing a theme for growth alternatives

Submission 2714/3 seeks a theme for growth alternatives (for Great Barrier). The submission does not provide any indication as to what sort of "growth alternatives" would be appropriate and, as such, the submitter may wish to elaborate on this further at the hearing.

Notwithstanding, this submission is not supported as it is considered that the SMA for Great Barrier provides a clear and logical framework for growth and development. In particular, the objectives and policies of the SMA seeks to consolidate growth and development in and around the existing settlement areas and the strategy notes that this approach has a number of benefits, including:

Providing identified areas for commercial and retail activities to establish and obtain the benefits of being located near to other activities

Protecting the surrounding landscape and natural features from inappropriate development

Encouraging the use of existing infrastructure and maximising the possibilities of shared infrastructure

Ensuring that agriculture and horticultural activities will be able to continue to contribute to the lifestyle and economy of the island

Providing for the use and development of the ancestral lands of Ngati Rehua

Addressing the social needs of the community by providing places for people to meet and socialise.

For the reasons outlined above, submission 2714/3 is not supported.

4.2.2.3 Submission relating to public open space

Submission 2934/1 seeks that issues, objectives, policies and assessment criteria to enhance public open space be added in a dedicated section. The submission makes particular reference to including a separate section in part 3 - SMA's.

This submission is not supported for the following reasons:

Each SMA contains a policy that seeks to provide for the use and development of land for conservation and recreation purposes and a strategy which makes explicit reference to the land units which provide for recreation and conservation purposes. As these provisions are more than adequate, it is not considered necessary to prepare a further section dedicated to open space

The submission seeks that assessment criteria relating to public open space should be included. This is not appropriate as the SMA's do not contain assessment criteria as their function is to provide a strategic framework not assessment criteria (which are provided in part 11 of the Plan)

If the SMA's were rewritten as sought in the submission, they would no longer relate to a 'place' e.g. Great Barrier instead they would relate to an 'issue' e.g. public open space. The consequence of this is that the unique character and identity of each island would no longer be recognised.

For the reasons outlined above, submission 2934/1 is not supported.

4.2.2.4 Submission relating to rejecting part 3 - strategic management areas

Submission 2819/1 seeks that part 3 be rejected and replaced with the provisions of the Operative Plan. The reasons given in the submission are summarised below:

The provisions do not adequately address the requirements of the RMA and particularly the requirements of sections 5-8

The provisions do not adequately reflect the environmental and socio economic context of the island (Waiheke), sustainable land use and development and the submitters land in particular (no address is given for the specific site that the submitter is referring to)

The section 32 documentation in no way reflects the rationale for the proposed plan and any changes should reflect an effects based solution, not a prescriptive approach

The provisions do not address future growth or the provision for a new village.

As identified in 4.2.2.1 above, it is considered that the provisions of part 3 already seek to provide for sustainable management as set out in section 5 of the RMA. It is also considered that these provisions take account of the environmental and socio economic context of Waiheke as these issues were identified as part of the consultation process, notably the public meetings, the telephone survey and the focus groups. The objective in 3.3.4 also specifically refers to the "economic and social wellbeing of the Waiheke community".

With respect to the section 32 analysis, it is considered that this analysis was adequately undertaken in that the objectives and policies of the Plan were analysed for appropriateness and the alternative options were assessed.

The submission is incorrect in stating that the provisions of the Plan are not effects based, as while the Plan may be more prescriptive than the Operative Plan, the provisions have still been prepared under the effects based regime of the RMA and are in line with the functions of the Council as set out in section 76(1) of the RMA which states:

"A territorial authority may, for the purpose of -

Carrying out its functions under this Act; and

Achieving the objectives and policies of the plan, -

include rules in a district plan."

In terms of growth on Waiheke, this issue is adequately dealt with in section 4.7.2.13 of this report.

For the reasons outline above, submission 2819/1 is not supported.

Planner's recommendations about submissions to clause 3 - strategic management areas (general):

That submissions 307/1, 377/1, 565/1, 631/1, 642/1, 648/1, 655/1, 694/1, 703/1, 716/1, 727/1, 741/1, 874/1, 884/1, 908/1, 935/1, 961/1, 1055/52, 1134/1, 1668/1, 1669/1, 1670/1, 1671/1, 1672/1, 1673/1, 1674/1, 1675/1, 1676/1, 1677/1, 1678/1, 1679/1, 1680/1, 1681/1, 1682/1, 1683/1, 1684/1, 2129/1, 2286/1, 2573/1, 2575/1, 2793/1, 2834/1, 2942/2, 3061/25, 3215/1, 3208/1, 3229/1, 3235/1, 3252/1, 3288/1, 3304/1, 3313/1, 3320/1, 3335/1, 3341/1, 3355/1, 3365/1, 3372/1, 3382/1, 3558/1 and 3808/1 be rejected

That submission 2714/3 be rejected

That submission 2934/1 be rejected

That submission 2819/1 be rejected.

4.3 Submissions about clause 3.2 - Great Barrier strategic management area

Submissions dealt with in this section:

941/2, 941/3, 966/2, 966/3, 1101/62, 1101/63, 1101/64, 1243/22, 1243/23, 1243/24, 1243/25, 1243/26, 1243/27, 1243/28, 1243/29, 1243/30, 1287/87, 1287/88, 1287/89, 1288/21, 1288/22, 1288/23, 1288/24, 1288/25, 1288/26, 1289/70, 1289/71, 1289/72, 1289/73, 1388/1, 1388/2, 1388/3, 1388/4, 2106/1, 2310/1, 2311/1, 2311/2, 2641/2, 2641/5, 2906/1, 2933/1, 3521/23, 3521/26, 3521/29, 3521/32, 3521/33, 3521/34, 3521/35, 3521/36, 3521/37, 3521/38 and 3574/9.

4.3.1 Decisions requested

The submissions in relation to clause 3.2 - Great Barrier strategic management area relate to the following issues:

Submissions supporting the Great Barrier strategic management area.

Submissions in opposition to the Great Barrier strategic management area.

Submissions relating to agriculture and horticulture.

Submissions relating to infrastructure.

Submissions relating to economic and population growth.

Submissions relating to development outside settlement areas .

Submissions relating to the need to protect "historic heritage".

Submissions relating to subdivisions and clause 3.2.3(5).

Submissions relating to the adding the words "enhancing and restoring" and "coastal ecosystems".

Submissions relating to outstanding natural landscapes and natural features.

Miscellaneous submissions.

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.3.2.1 Submissions supporting the Great Barrier strategic management area

The following submissions support aspects of the Great Barrier strategic management area:

Submission 3521/23 seeks that the objective in clause 3.2.3 be retained

Submission 3574/9 supports the proposal that development should be consolidated in particular areas of the island and acknowledges that this will make infrastructure management more effective

Submission 2906/1 seeks that the objective in clause 3.2.3 and the associated policies be retained

Submission 1243/30 seeks that clause 3.2.4(1)(d) in the strategy should be retained (this aspect of the strategy states "ensuring that agricultural and horticultural activities can continue to contribute to the lifestyle and economy of the island")

Submission 966/2 seeks to retain clause 3.2.1 which states "Tourism, transport and accommodation activities have experienced significant growth on the island, particularly the tourism industry".

Submissions 966/2, 1243/30, 3574/9, 3521/23 and 2906/1 are supported (albeit that changes to clause 3.2.3 are recommended below).

4.3.2.2 Submission in opposition to the Great Barrier strategic management area

Submission 2310/1 seeks a comprehensive review of clause 3.2 in every respect. The reasons given in the submission are stated as follows:

"The section makes insufficient recognition of the economic and social needs of residents"

"The section does not recognise or deal with the economic and population decline of the island"

"Economic modelling is poor".

With respect to the recognition of the economic and social needs of residents, it is considered that the Great Barrier SMA does recognise these needs. In particular, the following parts of the SMA are noted:

Clause 3.2.2 sets out the significant resource management issues for the island, one of which is "How to assist economic growth on the island, particularly growth in the tourism industry"

The objective in clause 3.2.3 states: "to provide for the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of the Great Barrier community..."

Policy 3.2.3(1) states "By providing for growth and development to occur within, and in some instances around, existing settlements.

The resource management strategy in clause 3.2.4 states that settlement plans have been prepared to "provide identified areas for commercial and retail activities to establish...." and to address "the social needs of the community by providing places for people to meet and socialise".

With respect to population decline, this matter is addressed in section 4.3.2.5 below.

The final matter raised in the submission is that "economic modelling is poor". It is not clear how or why the submitter has come to this view, but irrespective of this it is considered that the council did take account of the economy of the Island when preparing the Plan. In particular, the council commissioned a report from Strateg.Ease and Capital Strategy Limited entitled "Economic influences on the future of Great Barrier Island".

For the reasons outlined above, submission 2310/1 is not supported.

4.3.2.3 Submissions relating to agriculture and horticulture

Submissions 1243/22, 1243/23 and 1243/29 seek to place further emphasis on the role of agriculture and horticulture on Great Barrier in the SMA. These submissions are addressed in turn below:

Submission 1243/22 seeks to include a paragraph within the first four paragraphs of clause 3.2.1 Introduction to the Great Barrier SMA which identifies that agricultural land plays an important role in defining the character of Great Barrier. While it is accepted that agricultural land does play an important role in defining the character of Great Barrier, this submission is not supported as paragraph eight of clause 3.2.1 already highlights the role of agriculture and horticulture on the island by stating:
"In terms of the economy of the island, agriculture and horticulture activities have a long history on Great Barrier and consequently make a significant contribution to the self sufficient character of the island."

Submission 1243/23 seeks that the words "agriculture and horticulture" be added after the words "tourism industry" in clause 3.2.2(2). Clause 3.2.2(2) states:
"How to assist economic growth on the island, particularly growth in the tourism industry."

It is recognised that agriculture and horticulture contribute to the economy of the island and, as such, these activities are "permitted activities" in a number of the land units that are applied to the island. However, the intention behind placing particular emphasis on the "tourism industry" in clause 3.2.2(2) was to reflect the consultation and background research that highlighted that the tourism industry is a vital component for the growth of the island economy into the future. This was particularly clear from the research undertaken by the Centre for Research, Evaluation and Social Assessment (CRESA) and Strateg.Ease and Capital Strategy Limited.

Submission 1243/29 seeks that the words "agriculture and horticulture" are be added after the words "community purposes" in clause 3.2.3(6). Clause 3.2.3(6) states:
"By facilitating the use and development of land for conservation, recreation and community purposes"

This submission is supported in part as there should be a policy included in the Great Barrier SMA which relates to facilitating the use and development of land for agriculture, horticulture and other activities. However, it is considered that this should be a separate policy in clause 3.2.3 (as set out below) rather than being added onto clause 3.2.3(6):

'By facilitating the use and development of land outside the settlement areas for agriculture, horticulture and tourism'

Note: the amendment proposed above is further addressed in section 4.3.2.6 below.

For the reasons outlined above, submissions 1243/22 and 1243/23 are not supported and submission 1243/29 is supported.

4.3.2.4 Submissions relating to infrastructure

Submissions 941/2 and 941/3 seek that network utilities be better recognised in the issues and policies of the Great Barrier SMA. These submissions are addressed in turn below.

Submission 941/2 seeks that clause 3.2.2(5) Issues be amended as follows:
"How to encourage the further development of essential infrastructure on the island such as wharves, airports, ~~telecommunications equipment~~ network utility equipment, quarries and shared infrastructure such as water and wastewater systems and power generation"

This submission is supported as "network utility equipment" is a more generic term than "telecommunications equipment" and therefore will apply to a wider range of essential infrastructure.

Submission 941/3 seeks that clause 3.2.3(7) Policies be amended as follows:
"By providing for the appropriate development of essential infrastructure such as airports, roads, wharves, network utilities and quarries"

This submission is also supported as network utilities are part of the essential infrastructure on the island and therefore should be recognised in the policy.

For the reasons outlined above, submissions 941/2 and 941/3 are supported.

4.3.2.5 Submissions relating to economic and population growth

There are four submissions that seek amendments to the resource management issues in clause 3.2.2 of the Plan in relation to economic and population growth. These submissions are addressed below:

Submission 966/3 raises a concern that the resource management issues in clause 3.2.2 "fails to identify what the significant resource management issues facing Great Barrier actually are". The submission places particular emphasis on the tourism industry.
This submission is not supported as it is considered that clause 3.2.2 does identify the "strategic level" significant resource management issues for Great Barrier. It should be recognised that the issues in clause 3.2.2 were compiled by taking account of the results of the consultation that occurred on the island and the background research that was undertaken by the Centre for Research, Evaluation and Social Assessment (CRESA) and Strateg.Ease and Capital Strategy Limited.

Submissions 1388/1, 1388/2 seek that the following new clauses be added into clause 3.2.2:

"How to promote viable economic growth for residents of the island"

"How to increase the population size to a sustainable level"

In respect of the proposed new clause in relation to economic growth, this amendment is not considered necessary as the issue of economic growth is already covered by clause 3.2.2(2) which states: "How to assist economic growth on the island, particularly growth in the tourism industry".

With to population growth, it is considered that this is an issue for the island, however, it is considered that the wording of the proposed new clause should be amended to make it clear that the Plan is not the sole determinant of population growth and can only provide opportunities for population growth to occur. The recommended wording is set out below:

"How to provide opportunities for population increase on the island"

Submission 1288/22 seeks that clause 3.2.2(2) is amended to be more specific by adding the underlined words:
"How to assist economic growth on the island, particularly growth in the tourism industry, by creating a liberal planning framework achieving sustainability outcomes".

This amendment is not considered appropriate as the role of the "resource management issues" is to simply set out the "issue" not to detail how the issue will be addressed ( it is the role of the objectives and policies to indicate how the issues will be addressed).

For the reasons outlined above, submission 1388/2 is supported and submissions 966/3, 1388/1 and 1288/2 are not supported.

4.3.2.6 Submissions relating to development outside settlement areas

There are nine submissions to the Plan which seek to facilitate and recognise activities and development outside the settlement areas. In particular:

Submission 1298/71 opposes clause 3.2.3 "as it fails to support a sustainable resource management framework appropriate to the island. The policy of concentration on existing settlements and 'limited' use outside of there is to flexible and not responsive to the limited extent and nature of private land on the island in the context of social and economic circumstances"

Submission 2311/1 seeks that clause 3.2.4(3) should be amended to recognise development outside settlement areas

Submission 1288/26 seeks that clause 3.2.4 needs to be amended to recognise that tourism related uses are appropriate outside of settlement areas and that dispersion not concentration can be a means to integrate tourism with protection of the natural environment. That will better reflect the proposed Plan activity lists

Submission 1388/3 seeks that clause 3.2.3(1) should be amended to read "By promoting growth and development throughout the island"

Submission 1243/24 seeks that clause 3.2.3(2) be amended as follows: "by limiting the level of residential development..."

Submissions 1101/63, 1287/88, 1288/24, 1289/72 seeks that there should be another policy that encourage and enables growth and develop to occur on sites outside of settlement areas and in dispersed locations where the comprehensive development proposals support the resource management issues in clause 3.2.2.

These submissions are supported to the extent that there are agricultural, horticultural and tourism activities occurring outside of the settlement areas which need to be recognised. It is considered that this issue has been addressed by the additional policy that was proposed in section 4.3.2.3 which states:

'By facilitating the use and development of land outside the settlement areas for agriculture, horticulture and tourism'

For the reasons outlined above, submissions 1101/63, 1287/88, 1288/24, 1289/72, 1243/24, 1388/3, 1288/26, 2311/1 and 1298/71 are supported in part.

4.3.2.7 Submissions relating to the need to protect "historic heritage"

Submissions 3521/33 and 3521/34 seek that the protection of "historic heritage" is recognised in the issues, objectives and policies of the Great Barrier SMA while submissions 2641/2 and 2641/5 seek that the protection of "heritage values" (or similar) is recognised in the issues, objective and policies of the Great Barrier SMA.

As the protection of "historic heritage" is required by section 6(f) of the RMA it is considered that amending the issues, objectives and policies to incorporate the protection of historic heritage is appropriate. It is also considered that the words "historic heritage" should be used as compared to "heritage values" in order to be consistent with the RMA.

For the reasons outlined above, submissions 2641/2, 2641/5, 3521/33 and 3521/34 are supported in part.

4.3.2.8 Submissions relating to subdivision and clause 3.2.3(5)

Submissions 1243/25, 1243/26, 1243/27, 1243/28 seek amendments to clause 3.2.3(5) for the following reasons:

To take account of concerns that the policy pays insufficient attention to the rights of owners to use land which has natural features on it

To take account of concerns at the provision of subdivision opportunities in return for the protection of significant environmental features. The submission also puts forward the view that a consensus from the public should be sought on this issue

To take account of concerns that protected areas do not become havens for feral animals

To give effect to the following regime with respect to the protection of natural features: there should be no basic restriction on the clearance of bush of the drainage of wetlands. The council may identify such resources and make that knowledge available to relevant landowners. The individual landowner would have the opportunity to 'register' the resource, thereby agreeing (perhaps by way of contract) to protect the resource. The agreement would not be binding on subsequent landowners but could contain a provision requiring resource consent for the development of the resource. The landowner would also have the opportunity to enter into a covenant with the council or other organisation such as the QE II trust that would permanently protect the land and would be binding on subsequent landowners.

Clause 3.2.3(5) states:

"By protecting natural features, such as wetland systems, indigenous vegetation and wildlife habitats from the adverse effects of use and development".

With respect to the submitter's concern that the policy pays insufficient attention to the rights of owners to use land that has a natural feature on it, this submission is not supported for the following reasons:

Appropriate recognition is given to the right of landowners to use land in the other policies of the SMA and in the amendment proposed in section 4.3.2.3 above.

The protection of natural features is a matter of national importance under section 6 of the RMA.

The policy seeks to avoid the adverse effects of the use and development of land which is consistent with the council's functions under section 31 of the RMA.

Part of the character and identity of Great Barrier is its natural environment, and as such, it is appropriate to protect the natural features that make up this environment.

In terms of the submitter's concerns about subdivision and the protection of natural features it is considered that these are specific concerns about provisions contained in another part of the Plan. As such, it is not appropriate to address these concerns in the SMA..

For the reasons outlined above, submissions 1243/25, 1243/26, 1243/27, 1243/28 are not supported.

4.3.2.9 Submissions relating to the words "enhancing and restoring" and "coastal ecosystems"

Submissions 3521/26, 3521/29 and 3521/37 seek to add the words "coastal ecosystems" and "enhancing and restoring" to clause 3.2.3(5). Clause 3.2.3(5) states:

"By protecting natural features, such as wetland systems, indigenous vegetation and wildlife habitats from the adverse effects of use and development.

With respect to adding the words "coastal ecosystems" to clause 3.2.3(5), this amendment is supported as coastal ecosystems are an important part of the natural environment of the other islands and should therefore be recognised in the policies of the SMA.

In relation to adding the word "enhancing" to clause 3.2.3(5) this amendment is also supported as enhancement of the environment is appropriate is some circumstances, such as subdivision where a significant environmental feature is to be protected. However, as "enhancement" is not appropriate in every circumstance, it is considered that the words "where appropriate" should also be added to the policy. It is noted that the use of the term "enhancement where appropriate" is consistent with section 8 of the HGMPA.

Adding the word "restoring" to clause 3.2.3(5) is not supported as restoration of a natural feature or area is more likely to be the result of a private initiative rather than the result of the provisions of the Plan. It is also considered that "restoration" is provided for by the term "enhancement".

For the reasons outlined above, submission 3521/29 is supported and submissions 3521/26 and 3521/37 are supported in part.

4.3.2.10Submissions relating to natural landscapes and natural features

There are three submissions relating to the use of the terms used to describe the landscape on Great Barrier. These submissions are addressed below:

Submissions 3521/35 and 3521/36 seek to "standardise and clarify the terms used in relation to 'outstanding natural landscapes and natural features" where they are used in clauses 3.2.3 and 3.2.3(2) 3.2.3(4). In particular, the submission highlight that clause 3.2.3(2) uses the term "natural landscape" while clauses 3.2.3 and 3.2.3(4) uses the term "natural landscape character". The submission also highlights that the RMA uses the term "outstanding natural landscapes".
This submission is supported as using standardised terms improves the clarity of the Plan. Accordingly, it considered that the term "natural landscape character" should be replaced with the term "natural character" throughout clause 3.2. It should be noted that the use of the word "natural character" is consistent with section 6 of the RMA.

Using the term "outstanding natural landscape" as sought in the submission is not supported as the provisions of the Plan relate to areas in addition to those which identified as "outstanding natural landscapes" in the Auckland Regional Policy Statement 1999.

Submission 3521/38 seeks that clause 3.2.4(2) be amended to address natural character in its own right and landscape in its own right. Clause 3.2.4(2) is the strategy for the Great Barrier SMA and states as follows:
"Development controls ensure that development inside and outside the settlement areas does not have an adverse effect on the natural character of the landscape and the natural features of the island".

It is not considered appropriate to split the policy so that separate policies address natural character in its own right and landscape in its own right as the term "natural character" includes the landscape. It would also will result in unnecessary duplication within the Plan.

For the reasons outlined above, submission 3521/35 and 3521/36 are supported and submission 3521/38 is supported in part.

4.3.2.11Miscellaneous submissions

There are a number of submissions to clause 3.2 which address topics that do not neatly fall into one of the subheadings above. These submissions are addressed in turn below;

Submission 2106/1 seeks to amend the cross reference in paragraph 5 of clause 3.2.1 from "annexure 1 - The history of human settlement of the islands" to "annexure 1a - history of human settlement of the island". This submission is supported as annexure 1a is the correct title not annexure 1.

Submission 2933/1 seeks that a further issue be added to clause 3.2.2 - Issues and consequential objectives, polices, assessment criteria and rules be added to address the following issue "how to provide for the perceptual conflicts between motor vehicles and cyclist and the pedestrian as they use public open space". This submission is not supported as the issue is not of "strategic importance" for Great Barrier in the same vein as "How to assist economic growth" or "How to protect the natural landscape character". As such, the issue should not be included in part 3 of the Plan. It should be noted that the submitter has made a similar submission to part 13 - connectivity and linkages of the Plan and, as such, this issue will also be addressed in the report on that part of the Plan.

Submission 3521/32 seeks that clause 3.2.1 - Introduction to the SMA be amended to make "reference to the lack of detailed and accurate recording of cultural heritage resources of the island within a GPS environment, and the fact that a schedule of these resources has not been included in the Plan". This submission is not supported as clause 3.2.1 - Introduction is intended to provide an context and description of Great Barrier rather than addressing the details of the work that has or has not been done on a specific issue such as heritage. In addition, the submitter has not made it clear what benefits would accrue from such a statement.

Submissions 1101/64, 1287/89, 1288/25 and 1289/73 seek that clause 3.2.4 is amended to protect key infrastructure and more importantly the protection of the landscape and amenity of the island. This submission is not supported as:

Clauses 3.2.4(4) and 3.2.4(5) identify that activity based land units and council designations have been applied to protect important infrastructure such as wharfs, community facilities, the airfields at Claris and Okiwi and the Claris landfill.

Clause 3.2.4(2) identifies that development controls will be used to ensure that development does not have an adverse effect on the landscape and amenity of the islands.

Submission 2311/2 seeks that the council should consult with the Great Barrier community board and the wider Great Barrier community to agree on land use characteristics which are appropriate to Great Barrier.
Formal consultation has already been undertaken with the Great Barrier community (which includes the members of the community board). This consultation was undertaken from April to July 2005 and included:

Public meetings, workshops, nga hui, and one on one meetings

Inviting written feedback on a consultation document which contained issues and options papers on a wide range of topics.

The council commissioned an independent research company to undertake a phone survey in late 2005. The survey was of a randomly selected sample of 1002 on-island residents and off-island ratepayers of Waiheke, Great Barrier and Rakino. The questionnaire used for the survey was designed to get responses on the key issues that had emerged from the consultation process and stakeholder feedback.

It is also considered that if the community board or members of the Great Barrier community do not agree with any of the characteristics of the Great Barrier SMA they will have, or should have, put in a submission to amend that characteristic. In this instance, the submitter has not sought any particular changes to the characteristics included in the Great Barrier SMA. Accordingly, this submission is not supported.

Submissions 1101/63, 1287/88, 1288/24, 1289/72, 1101/62, 1287/87, 1288/21 and 1289/70 raise concern about the wording of clause 3.2.2 - Issues to better reflect that the Plan is focused on management and not solely limitations. These submissions are not supported as the resource management issues have been specifically phrased in accordance with best planning practice.

For the reasons outlined above, submission 2106/1 is supported and submissions 2933/1, 3521/32, 1101/64, 1287/89, 1288/25, 1289/73, 2311/2 1101/63, 1287/88, 1288/24, 1289/72, 1101/62, 1287/87, 1288/21 and 1289/70 are not supported.

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to clause 3.2 - Great Barrier strategic management area

That submissions 966/2, 1243/30 and 3574/9 be accepted and submissions 3521/23 and 2906/1 be accepted in part.

That submission 2310/1 is rejected.

That submissions 1243/22 and 1243/23 be rejected and submission 1243/29 be accepted in part and the Plan be amended accordingly by adding a new policy into clause 3.2.3 which states:
"By facilitating the use and development of land outside settlement areas for agriculture, horticulture and tourism activities".

That submissions 941/2 and 941/3 be accepted and the Plan be amended accordingly by:

Amending clause 3.2.2(5) to state: "How to encourage the further development of essential infrastructure on the island such as wharves, airports, ~~telecommunications equipment~~ network utility equipment, quarries and shared infrastructure such as water and wastewater systems and power generation"

Amending clause 3.2.3(7) to state: "By providing for the appropriate development of essential infrastructure such as airports, roads, wharves, network utilities and quarries".

That submission 966/3, 1388/1 and 1288/2 are rejected and submission 1388/2 be accepted and the plan amended accordingly by adding a new issue into clause 3.2.2 which states:
"How to provide opportunities for population increase on the island".

That submissions 1101/63, 1287/88, 1288/24, 1289/72, 1242/24, 1388/3, 1288/26, 2311/1 and 1298/71 are accepted in part.

That submissions 2641/2, 2641/5, 3521/33 and 3521/34 be accepted in part and the Plan be amended accordingly by:

Amending clause 3.2.2(1) to state: "How to protect the historic heritage, natural landscape character and natural features of the island"

Amending clause 3.2.3 to state: "To provide for the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of the Great Barrier community while ensuring the protection of the historic heritage, natural landscape character and the natural features of the island"

A new policy being inserted into clause 3.2.3 which states: "By protecting the historic heritage of the island".

That submission 1243/25, 1243/26, 1243/27, 1243/28 are rejected.

That submission 3521/29 be accepted and submissions 3521/26 and 3521/37 be accepted in part and the Plan be amended accordingly by amending clause 3.2.3(5) to state:
"By protecting and, where appropriate, enhancing the natural features, such as wetland systems, indigenous vegetation, wildlife habitats and coastal ecosystems from the adverse effects of use and development".

That submissions 3521/35 and 3521/36 are accepted and submission 3521/38 is accepted in part and the Plan is amended accordingly by replacing the words "natural landscape character" with "natural character" throughout clause 3.2.

That submissions 2933/1, 3521/32, 1101/64, 1287/89, 1288/25, 1289/73, 2311/2 1101/63, 1287/88, 1288/24, 1289/72, 1101/62, 1287/87, 1288/21 and 1289/70 are rejected and submission 2106/1 is accepted and the Plan is amended accordingly by amending the cross reference in clause 3.2.1 to state:
"annexure 1a - The history of human settlement of the islands".

4.4Submissions about clause 3.3 Waiheke strategic management area - general

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1155/1, 3200/2, 3375/2, 3521/24, 3574/15

4.4.1Decisions requested

Submission 1155/1 requests to reinstate Strategic Management Area 18: Western Waiheke pages 57 to 59 of the operative Plan.

Submissions 3200/2 and 3375/2 request the following decision:

That the Council will "encourage those people who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the matter to present their views (s82(1)(b) Local government Act 2002)" as prescribed in the Councils consultation policy (with specific reference to clause 3.3).

Submission 3521/24 requests retain the objectives in the strategic management areas for Waiheke (clause 3.3)

Submission 3574/15 requests supports the intent of the Plan not to promote more large scale development on the eastern or western sides of Waiheke.

4.4.2Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.4.2.1 Submission 1155/1

The reasons submission 1155/1 has for this relief is so as to protect and re affirm the community values and beliefs which validate the cultural, historical, heritage, ecological and strategic values that this management area stands for and which provides for, and underpins, the sustainable management of the area.

One strategic management area has been established for Waiheke. The reason for this is to ensure that there is a strategic vision for the island as a whole instead of two subparts. Nevertheless, the different planning characteristics within western and eastern Waiheke have been recognised in clause 3.3.1 of the Plan through statements, which highlight the differences in their characteristics. The relevant parts of clause 3.3.1 are outlined below:

Western and eastern Waiheke

Waiheke has developed into two areas with different planning characteristics:

Western Waiheke
Western Waiheke (refer figure 3.1 - Western and eastern Waiheke) is characterised by a series of villages such as Oneroa, Blackpool, Surfdale, Ostend, Onetangi and Rocky Bay. These villages contain most of the island's population and are the centres of economic and social activity on the island. Interspersed between these villages are small areas of land with a rural character and amenity. Also within western Waiheke, peninsulas such as Te Whau, Church Bay, Park Point and Owhanake have been developed for rural-residential living, often with large areas of regenerating bush to mitigate the adverse effects of built development.

Eastern Waiheke
Eastern Waiheke (refer figure 3.1 ) is characterised by a working landscape of large scale, agricultural and horticultural activities. Also within eastern Waiheke are a number of important natural features such as large areas of indigenous vegetation, undeveloped beaches and significant ecological areas. Intensive development is limited to a very small area on the southeastern coast of the island at Orapiu.

This pattern of development and the natural features on the island, such as, white sandy beaches and large areas of indigenous vegetation means that the Waiheke landscape has high visual amenity value. In some areas, particularly on the eastern end of the island, the landscape values are so high that they are recognised as being important on a regional and national level.

Figure 3.1 titled 'Western and eastern Waiheke' is a map of Waiheke which shows where the western and eastern parts of Waiheke are. The division between eastern and western Waiheke is the same as that identified in the western and eastern strategic area map within the operative Plan.

The resource management issues, operatives and strategy within the part 3.3 of the Plan provide further clarity of the different planning approaches undertaken between western and eastern Waiheke.

This planning approach comprehensively addresses the broad level planning issues affecting Waiheke and recognises the differences between western and eastern Waiheke. Further detail is provided within clause 3.3.5 'resource management strategy', and part 10a of the Plan, within the area based and landform based land units.

Therefore submission 1155/1 is not supported.

4.4.2.2 Submissions 3200/2 and 3375/2

As outlined in clause 1.3.7 of the Plan there has been significant public consultation in preparation for drafting the proposed Plan. Further consultation was undertaken during the notification period of the Plan. The Plan development process is now entering the hearing stage. Therefore any person who has made a submission or further submission on the Plan can attend a hearing to provide further detail on the issue(s) raised in a submission or further submission.

Therefore, the consultation process is consistent with the requirements of the Local Government Act, Resource Management Act and council's consultation policy. There is no need to alter the Plan and therefore submissions 3200/2 and 3375/2 are not supported.

4.4.2.3 Submissions 3521/24 and 3574/15

Submissions 3521/24 and 3574/15 are supported as far as they support specific provisions within clause 3.3.

Planner's recommendations about clause 3.3 Waiheke strategic management area - general

That submissions 3521/24 and 3574/15 be accepted

That submissions 1155/1, 3200/2 and 3375/2 be rejected

4.5Submissions about clause 3.3.1 Waiheke strategic management area - Introduction

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/19, 618/20, 618/21, 618/22, 618/23, 1093/8, 1101/65, 1101/66, 1101/67, 1101/68, 1101/69, 1250/1, 1286/25, 1286/26, 1286/27, 1286/28, 1286/29, 1287/90, 1287/91, 1287/92, 1287/93, 1287/94, 1289/74, 1289/75, 1289/76, 1289/77, 1289/78, 2878/26, 2878/27, 2878/28, 2878/29, 2878/30

4.5.1Decisions requested

Submissions 618/19, 1101/65, 1286/25, 1287/90, 1289/74, 2878/26 request the following decision:

Clause 3.3.1 should be amended to include the more recent history and development of the western landscape area including Te Whau, Church Bay, Park Point and Owhanake. The Plan erroneously describes those areas as having been developed for rural residential living, often with large areas of regenerating bush to mitigate the adverse effects of built development.

Submissions 618/20, 1101/66, 1286/26, 1287/91, 1289/75, 2878/27 request the following decision:

There are significant diverse small scale productive land uses within these 'rural' areas and the planning methodologies should be recognised as representing a sustainable (including economically sustainable) model for the HGI context that can be carried over into other parts or the HGI including Great Barrier and the eastern end of Waiheke.

Submissions 618/21, 1101/67, 1286/27, 1287/92, 1289/76, 2878/28 request the following decision:

Amended wording in clause 3.3.1 is needed to set out the means through which a more holistic management of landscape including reinforcement of landform protection, natural systems, visual amenity and ecological enhancement.

Submissions 618/22, 1101/68, 1286/28, 1287/93, 1289/77, 2878/29 request the following decision:

The Plan (specifically clause 3.3.1) places an entirely invalid interpretation on the evolution of landscape and land uses in these areas. It is also simplistic to define Waiheke as comprising two areas with different planning characteristics and that should be amended to properly reflect the identity of the parts of Waiheke as defined as long ago as in the Waiheke Landscape Study - albeit with and updated in terms of recent trends of development etc.

Submission 1093/8 requests the following decision:

Amend the paragraph at clause 3.3.1 beginning "This pattern of development" to read as follows:

"This pattern of development and the natural features on the Island, such as, white sandy beaches, large areas of indigenous vegetation and areas interspersed with attractive vineyards and olive groves means that the Waiheke landscape has high visual amenity value".

Submission 1250/1 requests the following decision:

Retain clause 3.3.1 but amend the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentence under the heading Western Waiheke to read:

"These villages contain most of the island's population and are the centres of economic and social activity on the island. Interspersed between these villages are ~~small~~ areas of land with a rural character and amenity. Also within western Waiheke, peninsulas such as Te Whau, Church Bay, Park Point and Owhanake have been developed for rural - ~~residential~~ lifestyle living, often with large areas of regenerating bush to mitigate the adverse effects of built development."

Submissions 618/23, 1101/69, 1286/29, 1287/94, 1289/78, 2878/30 request the following decision:

The description in clause 3.3.1(2) of Eastern Waiheke also needs amendment as it is misleading. There are a number of small scale activities that include mixed use activities, home working, bush and landscape enhancement programme and tourism.

4.5.1.1 Submissions 618/19, 1101/65, 1286/25, 1287/90, 1289/74, 2878/26

Part 1 of clause 3.3.1 provides a broad overview of the character of western Waiheke. Land at Te Whau, Church Bay, Park Point, Owhanake and Thompson's Point have a rural 2 (western landscape) land unit applying to them. Further detail on the character of these areas is provided within the introduction section of this land unit, clause 10.20.1, as set out below:

Western landscape is characterised by:

Its coastal location in that all land within the land unit either adjoins the coastline or is part of the wider coastal environment.

Large areas of environmental significance, in particular wetland areas and areas of native vegetation.

High natural character and visual amenity due to the large areas of regenerating native bush, and the coastal cliffs and slopes.

A rural-residential style of living at Owhanake, Church Bay, Park Point and Te Whau. Thompsons Point is currently farmed.

Small scale rural activities, primarily with a horticulture focus.

The landscape values of the land unit are those of a cultural landscape containing four key elements:

The openness and productivity of a rural landscape.

The natural character of a regenerating landscape.

The amenity of a low density residential landscape.

The visual prominence of a coastal landscape.

Overall, western landscape provides for a rural-residential style of living with high natural character and landscape values.

It is unnecessary to provide further detail on the history and development of these areas because this will not provide added value to the Plan. While areas of bush did exist prior to the development of these areas, planting in certain circumstances has played a role in further integrating buildings into these landscapes.

In addition, annexure 1a titled 'the history of human settlement of the islands' provides more detail on the history of the islands. It will provide greater clarity in the interpretation of the Plan and to these submitters by altering the reference to annexure 1 within clause 3.3.1 to annexure1a.

Therefore, submissions618/19, 1101/65, 1286/25, 1287/90, 1289/74, 2878/26 are supported in part, only as far as it relates to making the above alteration within the Plan.

4.5.1.2 Submission 1250/1

This submission seeks the removal of the words 'small' and 'residential' in reference to Te Whau, Church Bay, Park Point and Owhanake in clause 3.3.1(1). The submission considers that the word small is subjective and undermines the significance of these areas in maintaining the visual amenity and village character of Waiheke.

The removal of the word 'small' is supported because some of these areas are reasonably significant in size and the word does not add value to the overall intent of the paragraph.

The removal of the word 'residential' from the word rural-residential is not supported. This term most accurately reflects the characteristics of the sites within the developed rural 2 (western landscape) land unit. Section 4.5.1.1 of this report above outlined the characteristics of this land unit.

The Plan does not provide for or envisage within these locations site areas of 2000m ² as allowed within the island residential 1 or island residential 2 land unit. This is reinforced by the description of the land unit and the imposition within table 12.1 of the Plan of minimum site areas of 25 hectares. Although within Thompsons Point an average of one site per 7.5 hectares is allowed as part of a comprehensive development.

Therefore submission1250/1 is accepted in part.

4.5.1.3 Submissions 618/20, 618/21, 1101/66, 1101/67, 1286/26, 1286/27, 1287/91, 1287/92, 1289/75, 1289/76, 2878/27, 2878/28

These submissions generally seek changes which are covered in other parts of the Plan. Clause 3.3.1 provides a broad overview of the Waiheke strategic management area, without going into too much specificity.

The resource management issues, objective, policies and strategy within clauses 3.3.3-3.3.5 provide further detail, but still at a broad Waiheke wide level on how land use is managed within the Plan. These parts of the Plan provide a broad framework under which the more specific land units and landforms (part 10a of the Plan) within Waiheke have been developed.

Within the introduction to the rural 2 land unit, clause 10a.20.1, reference is made to small scale rural activities, primarily with a horticultural focus. In addition, farming, horticulture and visitor accommodation for up to 10 people are permitted activities within this land unit. Therefore rural activities are recognised within the Plan.

The matters raised in these submissions are addressed within clause 3.3 and other parts of the Plan, therefore no alterations to the Plan are necessary.

Therefore, submissions 618/20, 618/21, 1101/66, 1101/67, 1286/26, 1286/27, 1287/91, 1287/92, 1289/75, 1289/76, 2878/27, 2878/28 are not supported.

4.5.1.4 Submissions 618/22, 1101/68, 1286/28, 1287/93, 1289/77, 2878/29

John Hudson of Hudson and Associates Landscape Architects was involved throughout the development, and drafting of the Plan. His report titled Hauraki Gulf Islands District Plan Review Landscape Report was included as part of the section 32 material notified with the Plan.

Relevant parts of this report which reference how the landscape character of Waiheke was considered in the development of the Plan is outlined below.

The landscape character of the Gulf Islands can be broadly divided into cultural or natural. Great Barrier Island (GBI) has a predominately natural landscape character, its landscape elements are large scale, and nature is dominant. Waiheke, on the other hand, is predominately a cultural landscape, its landscape elements are small scale, and nature is accessible.

Recognition of the cultural nature of the Waiheke landscape has influenced the land unit descriptions, resource management issues, objectives policies and rules pertinent to each land unit. Being a cultural landscape, it has arrived at its present state through human activity, and it is able to continue to develop and change through ongoing human activity. An example is the transformation of the pastoral landscape to a viticultural landscape on Waiheke.

The development of the Plan therefore recognised the different landscape characters within the gulf as a whole and Waiheke specifically. Clause 3.3.1 appropriately divides the Waiheke strategic management area into two areas, eastern and western Waiheke.

The descriptions within this section briefly highlight the differences between these two areas, which is based on the landscape character of these areas. Western Waiheke comprises the area where the majority of settlement has occurred and eastern Waiheke has more of a rural character.

It should be noted that the submissions have not articulated how the Plan should be altered to give effect to this submission.

Therefore submissions 618/22, 1101/68, 1286/28, 1287/93, 1289/77 and 2878/29 are not supported.

4.5.1.5 Submission 1093/8

Submissions 1093/8 seeks changes to a sentence within clause 3.3.1 as highlighted below through underlining and ~~strike throughs~~ :

This pattern of development and the natural features on the island, such as, white sandy beaches, ~~and~~ large areas of indigenous vegetation and areas interspersed with attractive vineyards and olive groves means that the Waiheke landscape has high visual amenity value.

It is unnecessary to include this addition to this sentence for the following reasons:

Vineyards and olive groves are not the only activities that are undertaken within the rural areas of Waiheke and it would be inappropriate to place additional emphasis on these activities.

Rural character, amenity and land use within western and eastern Waiheke are referenced earlier within clause 3.3.1. While these references do not specifically mention vineyards and olive groves they do include these activities.

The descriptions within clause 3.3.1 are being deliberately broad as a way to provide an overview on the character and amenity of Waiheke. The inclusion of specific activities as proposed by this submission is inappropriate at this high level.

Further detail on the character and amenity, and type of land uses within these rural areas is outlined within the rural 1 (rural amenity) land unit.

Therefore this submission is not supported.

4.5.1.6 Submissions 618/23, 1101/69, 1286/29, 1287/94, 1289/78, 2878/30

Clause 3.3.1(2) of the plan states:

Eastern Waiheke (refer figure 3.1 ) is characterised by a working landscape of large scale, agricultural and horticultural activities. Also within eastern Waiheke are a number of important natural features such as large areas of indigenous vegetation, undeveloped beaches and significant ecological areas. Intensive development is limited to a very small area on the southeastern coast of the island at Orapiu.

This part of the Plan describes the general and dominant characteristics of the eastern part of Waiheke. It does not intend or need to describe all the activities which operate within this part of Waiheke.

Further detail on the characteristics of particular areas is provided in the landforms which apply to particular parts of eastern Waiheke. These include landform 5 (productive land), landform 6 (regenerating slopes and landform 7 (forest and bush areas).

It is unnecessary to alter this part of the Plan and submissions 618/23, 1101/69, 1286/29, 1287/94, 1289/78, 2878/30 are not supported.

Planner's recommendations regarding submissions about clause 3.3.1 Waiheke strategic management area - Introduction

That submission 1250/1 be accepted in part by altering the sentence below within clause 3.3.1(1) to read as follows [changes to the sentence are for clarity purposes only]
Interspersed between these villages are ~~small~~ areas of land with a rural character and amenity.

That submissions 618/19, 1101/65, 1286/25, 1287/90, 1289/74 and 2878/26 are supported in part by altering the reference to annexure 1 in clause 3.3.1 to annexure 1a.

That submissions 618/20, 618/21, 618/22, 618/23, 1093/8, 1101/66, 1101/67, 1101/68, 1101/69, 1286/26, 1286/27, 1286/28, 1286/29, 1287/91, 1287/92, 1287/93, 1287/94, 1289/75, 1289/76, 1289/77, 1289/78, 2878/27, 2878/28, 2878/29, 2878/30 be rejected

4.6Submissions about clause 3.3.2 - Essentially Waiheke

Submissions dealt with in this section: 584/2, 618/25, 1014/2, 1055/1, 1101/71, 1250/2, 1286/31, 1287/96, 1289/80, 2878/32, 3222/7, 3387/4, 3715/1

4.6.1Decisions requested

Submission 584/2 request the following decision:

To include the principles and strategies of the Essentially Waiheke document.

Submissions 618/25, 1101/71, 1286/31, 1287/96, 1289/80, 2878/32 request the following decision:

The statement that the five principles (of Essentially Waiheke) are reflected in the Waiheke strategic management area needs to be amended as it is incorrect - the strategic management area does not for example properly address employment or economic development.

Submission 1014/2 request the following decision:

Have "Essentially Waiheke" included as a legal part of the operational and proposed Plans.

Submission 1055/1 request the following decision:

Make amendments to the Plan to take into account "Essentially Waiheke.

Submission 1250/2 request the following decision:

Retain clause 3.3.2

Submission 3222/7 request the following decision:

Effectively apply the principles and strategies of "Essentially Waiheke".

Submission 3387/4 request the following decision:

Print entire copy of Essentially Waiheke into the Plan.

Submission 3715/1 request the following decision:

Give priority to social well-being/community outcomes as per RMA S5, HGMPA S 7 (2)(a)(ii), LGA S91, by better integrating Essentially Waiheke into the Plan

4.6.2Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.6.2.1 Submissions 584/2, 618/25, 1014/2, 1055/1, 1101/71, 1250/2, 1286/31, 1287/96, 1289/80, 2878/32, 3222/7, 3387/4, 3715/1

How Essentially Waiheke should be considered within the Plan was one of the issues contained within the issues and options papers which formed the basis of the initial consultation on the Plan. Feedback was divided on how this should be done. It is considered that clause 3.3.2 as proposed is the most effective method of integrating this document within the Plan for the following reasons:

The entire Plan when viewed as a whole achieves the intent of Essentially Waiheke as outlined within the 5 central principals. For example, rules within part 10a and 10c promote environmental protection.

These are varied but range from the identification of coastal amenity areas which are beach front locations within the island residential 1 (traditional residential) land unit where development is controlled to coastal, wetland and water body protection yards.

Another example is that the protection of Waiheke's character is promoted within the Plan by controlling development where there is a high character and amenity, for example within the island residential 2 (bush residential) land unit. Development controls i.e. height, ridgeline controls etc provide further control on buildings.

As described in clause 3.3.2 of the Plan " Essentially Waiheke - A Village and Rural Communities Strategy is a non-statutory strategic document which sets out a community approved framework for Waiheke's development." Many of the key principles, strategies and actions identified within the document are outside the jurisdiction of the Plan.

For example, under the principle of environmental protection there is the strategy of "promote and facilitate 'Beach care', Waicare and Landcare programmes with local communities, interest groups and Iwi" . The council achieves this strategy by supporting these programmes but this is not strictly a district plan matter. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to accept this document into the RMA framework of the Plan.

Essentially Waiheke also seeks collaboration and advocacy with other agencies, for example Auckland Regional Council and central government agencies (education, health etc). Again, this is not a matter for the Plan.

Including Essentially Waiheke wholly or partially within the Plan would unnecessarily lengthen and complicate the Plan with no added value.

The Plan in no way contradicts Essentially Waiheke but is necessarily focussed on resource management matters.

Therefore submissions 584/2, 618/25, 1014/2, 1055/1, 1101/71, 1286/31, 1287/96, 1289/80, 2878/32, 3222/7, 3387/4 and 3715/1 are not supported and submission 1250/2 is supported.

Planner's recommendations about clause 3.3.2 - Essentially Waiheke

That submission 1250/2 be accepted

That submissions 584/2, 618/25, 1014/2, 1055/1, 1101/71, 1286/31, 1287/96, 1289/80, 2878/32, 3222/7, 3387/4 and 3715/1 be rejected

4.7Submissions about clause 3.3.3 - Resource Management Issues

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/26, 941/4, 966/4, 1093/9, 1101/72, 1243/31, 1250/3 1256/1, 1286/32, 1287/97, 1289/81, 2641/3, 2761/1, 2761/2, 2761/3, 2761/4, 2761/5, 2878/33, 2932/2, 2933/2, 3521/39

4.7.1Decisions requested

Submissions 618/26, 1101/72, 1286/32, 1287/97, 1289/81, 2878/33 request the following decision:

Clause 3.3.3(1) should reference 'sustainably manage' not 'protect'.

Submission 941/4 request the following decision:

Issue 3.3.3 (7) be amended as follows (or words to similar effect):

"How to provide for the further development of essential infrastructure on the island, including network utility services".

Submission 966/4 request the following decision:

Retain the intent of the following text in clause 3.3.3(2) but redraft it into the overview (Waiheke) section, rather than as a significant resource management issue: "How to assist economic growth particularly tourism."

Submission 1093/9 request the following decision:

Amend clause 3.3.3 by adding to or amending as follows:

At 1. Add: " ... including the special character of the viticultural landscape".

At 2. Amend to: "How to assist economic growth and local employment, particularly growth in the wine and tourism industry".

At 3. Amend to: "How to protect the range of living and working environments available on the Island".

At 5. Insert: "... and the rural village style of development ..."

At 8. Add: "... without adversely impacting the rural economy and environment".

Submission 1243/31 request the following decision:

Provide some description of, or a definition of 'rural character' as it relates to clause 3.3.3(5)

Submission 1250/3 request the following decision:

Retain clause 3.3.3 points 1-7 and 9, but remove point 8.

Submission 1256/1 request the following decision:

Include a specific issue in the proposed Plan which identifies that housing on Waiheke Island is unaffordable for some sectors of the community which has the effect of undermining overall community diversity and functioning, and in the absence of an appropriate response, the severity of this problem is likely to increase over the lifetime of the Plan (or similar such issue).

Submission 2641/3 request the following decision:

Amend clause 3.3.3 to state the following or similar:

Resource management issues

How to protect the heritage values, landscape character, visual amenity and natural features of the island.

Submission 2761/1 request the following decision:

A list of issues needs to be drawn up for clause 3.3.3 on the basis of feedback from established sectors of the community, particularly from specific recommendations from neighbourhood committees and forums based on the existing "land units".

Submission 2761/2 request the following decision:

Matters of character and identity as mentioned in clause 3.3.3 must be given valid and specific shape and form by the discrete communities. Such consultation processes will require collation by council, and further report to the neighbourhood groups for review and determination.

Submission 2761/3 request the following decision:

Clause 3.3.3 (3) should be rephrased "the protection and enhancement of the diversity of lifestyle opportunities on the island".

Submission 2761/4 request the following decision:

Clause 3.3.3 (5) should be expanded to include "the rural, commercial and other styles of development in the western areas".

Submission 2761/5 request the following decision:

Add to following issue to clause 3.3.3 " How to find means of resolving conflicting interests arising within and between neighbourhoods in a way that maximises personal freedom, resourcefulness, innovation and other social or cultural values, whilst promoting social order, cohesion and community spirit".

Submission 2932/2 request the following decision:

Seeks an issue be added to clause 3.3.3 that identifies the essential ingredients of a separate village and seeks to ensure those ingredients remain.

Submission 2933/2 request the following decision:

I seek the addition of a further issue at clause 3.3.3 and consequential Objectives, Policies, Assessment Criteria and Rules arising from the issue that addresses an issue in the form of "How to provide for the perceptual conflicts between the motor vehicle and the cyclist and the pedestrian as they use public open space ?".

Submission 3521/39 request the following decision:

Amend clause 3.3.3 to address the RMA section 6 (f) requirement - "How to protect historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development".

4.7.2Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.7.2.1 Submissions 618/26, 1101/72, 1286/32, 1287/97, 1289/81 and 2878/33

Clause 3.3.3(1) states "how to protect the landscape character and natural features of the island". The submitters relief request the replacement of the word 'protect' with 'sustainably manage'.

The word 'protect' provides a clearer indication for people reading the Plan of the intent of council in regards to landscape character and natural features. It is also more consistent with the outstanding natural landscapesrequirements of plan change 8 of the Regional Policy Statement and one of the principals of Essentially Waiheke to "protect and enhance Waiheke's character" .

Therefore submissions 618/26, 1101/72, 1286/32, 1287/97, 1289/81 and 2878/33 are not supported.

4.7.2.2 Submission 941/4

Clause 3.3.3(7) states "how to provide for the further development of essential infrastructure on the island". The submitter wants the inclusion of the words ",including network utility services" at the end of this issue.

This is appropriate, network utility services are defined in the Plan and include a range of infrastructure serves including roads, telecommunication, stormwater, airport, lighthouse etc. This will add clarity that this issue includes such services.

Therefore, submission 941/4 is supported.

4.7.2.3 Submission 966/4

Issue 2 within clause 3.3.3 states " how to assist economic growth, particularly tourism ". This submission seeks that this issue be redrafted into the overview (Waiheke) section. It is assumed that the submitter means clause 3.3.1 of the Plan.

It is considered that this issue is appropriate within this location and as drafted because it forms part of the general issues which affect Waiheke. Putting this issue within part 3.3.1 is inappropriate because this section provides only a broad overview of the characteristics of Waiheke and doesn't discuss issues facing the island.

Therefore submission 966/4 is not supported.

4.7.2.4 Submission 1093/9

This submission seeks amendments to a number of the issues within clause 3.3.3. The amendments for each specific issue are discussed separately below. The changes to the text as requested by the submitter are identified through listing each issue with the amendment underlined for clarity only.

Issue 3.3.3(1)

How to protect the landscape character and natural features of the island, including the special character of the viticultural landscape.

The character of the viticultural landscape is included within the term 'landscape character'. To specifically mention viticultural landscape within this issue will place additional emphasis on this use over other uses within the landscape, for example sheep farming, which is considered as inappropriate.

Therefore this part of submission 1093/9 is not supported.

Issue 3.3.3(2)

How to assist economic growth and local employment, particularly growth in the wine and tourism industry.

The inclusion of the reference to 'and local employment' is supported because local employment growth could reduce Waiheke's heavy reliance on obtaining employment within the Isthmus. This is more of a sustainable option as it would reduce the necessity of Waiheke island residents commuting to the City.

In consultation prior to the development of the Plan it was highlighted that tourism was considered to be an important economic driver for the future of the gulf. It is considered that referencing wine would unnecessarily and inappropriately place an emphasis on this activity above others.

Therefore this part of submission 1093/9 is supported in part in relation to the addition of "and local employment" into issue 3.3.3(2).

Issue 3.3.3(3)

How to protect the range of living and working environments available on the island.

This is appropriate as it will highlight that there is both living and working environments within Waiheke. Therefore this part of submission 1093/9 is supported.

Issue 3.3.3(5)

How to maintain the large scale, rural character of eastern end of the island and the 'village' style of development on the western end of the island.

This part of submission 1093/9 seeks inclusion of the words "and the rural village style of development" within issue 3.3.3(5), although the relief does not clarify where specifically the submitter seeks these words to be added to this issue. It is assumed within this analysis that the submitter seeks these words added to the end of the issue.

The inclusion of these words to issue 3.3.3(5) is not supported because it is unclear what the term "rural village style of development" means and the essence of issue 5 is how to maintain the distinctive character of the eastern verses the western end of Waiheke. Issue 3 is directed at protecting the different type of living environments within Waiheke. Therefore this part of submission 1093/9 is not supported.

Issue 3.3.3(8)

How to ensure that there is sufficient land available for residential use without adversely impacting the rural economy and environment.

This is supported because there should be a balance between providing for the needs of residential and rural uses within Waiheke.

Therefore, this part of submission 1093/9 is supported.

4.7.2.5 Submission 1243/31

There is a brief description of the characteristics of eastern Waiheke within clause 3.3.1(2) of the Plan, further detail on the character of the specific areas of eastern Waiheke is provided within individual land units, for example landform 5 (productive land). Therefore, it is unnecessary to specifically define rural character.

Therefore, submission 1243/31 is not supported.

4.7.2.6 Submission 1250/3

The retention of issues 1-7 and 9 of clause 3.3.3 is supported as far as it relates to incorporating the changes recommended in other submissions within this part of the report.

The removal of issue 8 which states "how to ensure that there is sufficient land available for residential use" is not supported because this is considered an important resource management issue and it would also conflict with part of the relief of submission 1093/9 which is discussed in section 4.7.2.4 of this report above.

Therefore, submission 1250/3 is supported in part.

4.7.2.7 Submission 1256/1

Housing affordability is becoming an increasing problem not just within Waiheke but Auckland and New Zealand wide. There is an increasing disparity between average wages and average housing prices with housing in New Zealand now becoming one of the most unaffordable in the western world.

Council does not have provisions within the proposed Plan, or the Central Area or Isthmus District Plans that deal with affordable housing. In addition, current Council policy on affordable housing concentrates its focus on entering into partnerships with outside agencies to produce affordable housing demonstration project(s).

Not withstanding this, there are a variety of different internationally recognised techniques, which deal with the issue of affordable housing within district plans. It should be noted though, that the use of these measures overseas is under completely different planning legislation, which can aid in the implementation of these techniques.

To date, the majority of these techniques have not been used in district plans within New Zealand.

Some of these techniques are:

Up zoning - Increased density to allow greater opportunities for affordable housing

Inclusionary zoning - Requirement that larger housing developments provide a certain percentage of affordable housing units

Performance based zoning - Reduce compliance costs by simplifying district plan controls

Bonus density - Encourage the provision of affordable units through extra development potential

Transferable Development Rights - Allow for additional development potential for affordable housing schemes provided there is a transfer of development potential from lower density to higher density areas.

Require larger business developments to provide some affordable housing units

Allowing minor household units or 'granny flats'

Problems with these methods of encouraging affordable housing include:

Ensuring that once affordable housing is developed, that it remains affordable into the future

Equity issue of who should 'pay' for any potential affordable housing developed i.e. should it be the general ratepayer, developer etc

Lack of experience within New Zealand of encouraging affordable housing through district plan provisions

It is also questionable how much of an impact any of these techniques would make on the general affordability of housing within the Hauraki Gulf Islands.

There are also other, non district plan related methods to encourage affordable housing, these include financial incentives i.e. rates relief, Council provision, partnerships etc.

Overall, it is considered that this is a matter which is better considered as part of any potential future discussion on how to deal with growth on Waiheke and therefore an additional issue should not be added within clause 3.3.3 in relation to this matter.

Therefore, submission 1256/1 is not supported.

4.7.2.8 Submission 2641/3 and 3521/39

Submission 2641/3 requests changes to clause 3.3.3(1) so that it reads [changes have been underlined for clarity]:

How to protect the heritage values, landscape character, visual amenity and natural features of the island.

Submission 3521/39 seeks the inclusion of an issue which reads "how to protect historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development".

Heritage values are protected through a variety of different mechanisms within the Plan, therefore the reference to them within this issue is supported. Although it is more appropriate to use the term 'historic heritage' because this is referenced in section 6(f) of the RMA.

The reference to landscape character and natural features within this issue broadly encompasses visual amenity. Therefore, it is unnecessary to specifically mention this within clause 3.3.3(1).

Therefore, submission 2641/3 and submission 3521/39 is supported in part.

4.7.2.9 Submission 2761/1 and 2761/2

As described within section 1.3.7 of the Plan there has been significant consultation in 2005 prior to drafting the Plan. Consultation continued once the Plan was notified to ensure that there was a high awareness within the community that the Plan's process was being undertaken and to explain the Plan. The fact that there have been over 3800 submissions indicates a good awareness of, and input into, the process. The submission, further submission and hearings process provides a further opportunity for the community of the gulf to have their say.

A number of these issues reflect some of the feedback gained through this consultation. It is unnecessary to provide a further or different consultation process to give effect to these submissions.

Therefore, submissions 2761/1 and 2761/2 are not supported.

4.7.2.10 Submission 2761/3

Submission 2761/3 requests changes to clause 3.3.3(3) so that it reads "the protection and enhancement of the diversity of lifestyle opportunities on the island."

This clause as notified reads "how to protect the range of living environments available on the island."

This issue provides greater clarity than the amendment proposed by this submission on its intent. In addition, part of the relief of submission 1093/9 which this report recommends should be accepted in part (see section 4.7.2.4 above) relates to this clause. The support of submission 2761/3 would conflict with the relief of part of submission1093/9.

Therefore, submission 2761/3 is not supported.

4.7.2.11 Submission 2761/4

Submission 2761/4 requests changes to clause 3.3.3(5) so that it includes "the rural, commercial and other styles of development in the western areas"

This clause as notified reads "how to maintain the large scale, rural character of eastern end of the island and the 'village' style of development on the western end of the island.

It is unnecessary at this high level to mention the type of activities that occur within western Waiheke because it has been briefly described within clause 3.3.1(1) and additional detail is provided within the relevant land unit. In addition, the intent of this issue is to highlight the differences in character of the two parts of Waiheke and the importance of maintaining this difference in character.

Therefore, submission 2761/4 is not supported.

4.7.2.12 Submission 2761/5

Submission 2761/5 requests the following additional issue to be added to clause 3.3.3:

How to find means of resolving conflicting interests arising within and between neighbourhoods in a way that maximises personal freedom, resourcefulness, innovation and other social or cultural values, whilst promoting social order, cohesion and community spirit.

This proposed new issue is not supported for the following reasons:

It is not a significant resource management issue

It is overly broad, and open to a variety of different interpretations, with the result that there would be no added value in including this issue

Therefore, submission 2761/5 is not supported.

4.7.2.13 Submission 2932/2

This submission seeks that an additional issue be added to clause 3.3.3 that identifies the essential ingredients of a new village.

The Plan has deliberately not mentioned how potential growth should be accommodated on Waiheke. This is because initial consultation prior to the drafting of the Plan showed that there was a mix of views on how growth should be accommodated and even if growth should be accommodated at all. Over half of feedback received on the Waiheke growth issue either wanted limited growth (status quo) or no growth. Only a minority of people supported a new village.

The 2006 census shows that Waiheke has a usually resident population of 7689. This is below the low population projection for Waiheke from the 2001 census of 8220 people.

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% from the 14.9% 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.

Prior to identifying how growth should be accommodated within Waiheke, if at all, it is essential that a thorough consultation process be entered into with the community of Waiheke on this issue. This will be outside the current district plan process but may result in changes to the Plan in the future.

Therefore, submission 2932/2 is not supported.

4.7.2.14 Submission 2933/2

This submission seeks an additional issue within clause 3.3.3 which reads "how to provide for the perceptual conflicts between the motor vehicle and the cyclist and the pedestrian as they use public open space."

This submission is not supported as the issue is not of "strategic importance" for Waiheke in the same vein as "How to assist economic growth" or "How to protect the natural landscape character". As such, the issue should not be included in part 3 of the Plan.

In addition, the issue is specific to transport and therefore better located within the connectivity and linkages section, part 13 of the Plan. There are issues, objectives and policies within part 13 of the Plan, which achieve the intent of this issue. For example within clause 13.2.6(1) of the Plan it states "how to encourage a safe and efficient pedestrian and cycle network in the islands."

Therefore submission 2933/2 is not supported.

Planner's recommendations clause 3.3.3 - Resource Management Issues

That submissions 2641/3 and 3521/39 be accepted in part and issue 3.3.3(1) of the Plan be amended to read [addition underlined for clarity only]
How to protect the historic heritage, landscape character and natural features of the island.

That submission 1093/9 be accepted in part and issue 3.3.3(2) of the Plan be amended to read [addition underlined for clarity only]
How to assist economic growth and local employment, particularly growth in the tourism industry.

That submission 1093/9 be accepted in part and issue 3.3.3(3) of the Plan be amended to read [addition underlined for clarity only]
How to protect the range of living and working environments available on the island.

That submission 941/4 be accepted and issue 3.3.3(7) of the Plan be amended to read [addition underlined for clarity only]
How to provide for the further development of essential infrastructure on the island, including network utility services.

That submission 1093/9 be accepted in part and issue 3.3.3(8) of the Plan be amended to read [addition underlined for clarity only]
How to ensure that there is sufficient land available for residential use without adversely impacting the rural economy and environment.

That submission 1250/3 be accepted in part

That submission 2641/3 be accepted in part

That submissions 1093/9 be rejected in part

That submissions 618/26, 966/4, 1101/72, 1243/31, 1256/1, 1286/32, 1287/97, 1289/81, 2761/1, 2761/2, 2761/3, 2761/4, 2761/5, 2878/33, 2932/2 and 2933/2 be rejected .

4.8Submissions about clause 3.3.4 - Waiheke objective and policies

Submissions dealt with in this section: 542/6, 542/7, 618/27, 618/28, 618/29, 618/30, 618/31, 941/5, 1093/10, 1101/73, 1101/74, 1101/75, 1101/76, 1101/77, 1243/32, 1243/33, 1250/4, 1286/33, 1286/34, 1286/35, 1286/36, 1286/37, 1287/98, 1287/99, 1287/100, 1287/101, 1287/102, 1289/82, 1289/83, 1289/84, 1289/85, 1289/86, 2641/6, 2762/1, 2762/2, 2762/3, 2762/4, 2762/5, 2762/6, 2878/34, 2878/35, 2878/36, 2878/37, 2878/38, 3521/27, 3521/30, 3521/40

4.8.1Decisions requested

Submissions 542/6 and 542/7 request that the policies within clause 3.3.4 and resource management strategies within clause 3.3.5 recognise the need to preserve and enhance beaches.

Submissions 618/27, 1101/73, 1286/33, 1287/98, 1289/82, 2878/34 request the following decision:

The objective and the allied policies in clause 3.3.4 need to be amended so that they promote positive sustainable change and not simply retention of existing patterns of development.

Submissions 618/28, 1101/74, 1286/34, 1287/99, 1289/83, 2878/35 request the following decision:

Policy 2 of clause 3.3.4 is not appropriate in regards to the validity of large scale rural developments being the appropriate means to achieve the Plan outcomes and in fact the opposite is likely. The wording should be changed to reflect the appropriateness of applying the types of provisions that land unit 21 and 22 encompass and also by including the notion of comprehensive management approaches to secure diverse landscapes and land uses.

Submissions 618/29, 1101/75, 1286/35, 1287/100, 1289/84, 2878/36 request the following decision:

Policy 3 of clause 3.3.4 needs amending as it is inconsistent with a) Essentially Waiheke and b) determines a growth strategy direction outside of those matters being addressed in the Plan (which is a deficiency in terms of achieving the purpose of a Plan review per se). There is no specific analysis in the Plan that identifies the validity or otherwise of future village settlement at the eastern end including the Ngati Paoa land or a satellite at Orapiu for example much less a debate on the appropriateness of discrete cluster of settlement as a appropriate growth management strategy.

Submissions 618/30, 1101/76, 1286/36, 1287/101, 1289/85, 2878/37 request the following decision:

Objective 3.3.4 does not support the proposed policies as they do not identify properly how the three key dimensions of the objective will be achieved thus the Plan requires substantive amendment.

Submissions 618/31, 1101/77, 1286/37, 1287/102, 1289/86, 2878/38 request the following decision:

The Plan provisions need to be amended to focus on an understanding of the future management needs of the general environment and landscape promoting and encouraging diverse and innovative developments set within the emergent cultural landscape that has evolved since the 1980's.

Submission 941/5 requests the following decision:

Objective 3.3.4 (7) be amended to read (or words to similar effect) :

"By providing for the appropriate development of essential infrastructure including network utility services".

Submission 1093/10 requests the following decision:

Amend clause 3.3.4 by adding as follows:

At 1. Insert: "... existing pattern of development, including viticulture and winemaking, and ..."

Submission 1243/32 requests retain clause 3.3.4(2).

Submission 1243/33 requests the following decision:

Amend clause 3.3.4(4) and other relevant parts of the Plan to take into account concerns that the policy pays insufficient attention to the rights of owners to use that land.

Submission 1250/4 requests the following decision:

Retain clause 3.3.4 with no amendments unless the amendments strengthen the intention of the objectives and policies.

Submission 2641/6 requests the following decision:

Amend clause 3.3.4 by inserting the words "heritage values" before the words "the natural landscape values" in the objective and by inserting a new policy, which reads: "By protecting heritage values".

Submission 2762/1 requests the following decision:

The policies in clause 3.3.4 to be rewritten to reflect and protect the diversity of actual land uses, including rural and commercial

Submission 2762/2 requests the following decision:

The policies in clause 3.3.4 to reflect a (revised) list of issues in clause 3.3.3 and accurately follow their format.

Submission 2762/3 requests the following decision:

The policies in clause 3.3.4 for eastern Waiheke to be transparently derived from the views and preferences of the residents in the affected land areas, in consultation and negotiation with other neighbourhoods and the community as a whole.

Submission 2762/4 requests the following decision:

Add the following words to clause 3.3.4 (4) : "and the enhancement and protection of suitable activities and lifestyles within the landscape".

Submission 2762/5 requests the following decision:

Further investigation into the meaning and direction of "economic, social and cultural wellbeing" is clearly required to give meaning, substance, and direction to these goals (see clause 3.3.4).

Submission 2762/6 requests the following decision:

Council must ensure that decisions an "appropriate infrastructure" as per clause 3.3.4(7) are made "by" the affected community, not "for" it, in terms of its purposes in section 10 of the LGA.

Submission 3521/27 requests the following decision:

Amend clause 3.3.4(5) by adding the words 'enhancing and restoring'

Submission 3521/30 requests the following decision:

Amend clause 3.3.4(5) by adding the words 'coastal systems'

Submission 3521/40 requests the following decision:

Amend clause 3.3.4(5) to "By protecting, enhancing and restoring natural features...wildlife habitats and coastal systems".

4.8.2Planner's analysis and recommendations

Clause 3.3.4 contains an objective and eight policies regarding Waiheke.

4.8.2.1 Submissions 618/27, 618/31, 1101/73, 1101/77, 1250/4, 1286/33, 1286/37, 1287/98, 1287/102, 1289/82, 1289/86, 2878/34, 2878/38 - general relief about clause 3.3.4

These submissions, which make general relief on the entirety of clause 3.3.4, have been considered and the following comments made:

In the pre notification consultation on the Plan there was a strong message given by the community of the importance of retaining the distinctive character of eastern and western Waiheke. This objective and these policies achieve this intent.

Clause 3.3.4 promotes sustainable management because the objective and policies provide at a broad Waiheke wide level an appropriate balance between providing for activities to occur while protecting the important landscape character and natural features of Waiheke.
Therefore, submissions 618/27, 618/31, 1101/73, 1101/77, 1286/33, 1286/37, 1287/98, 1287/102, 1289/82, 1289/86, 2878/34, 2878/38 are not supported.

The retention of clause 3.3.4 as notified is supported, subject to changes recommended in other submissions as discussed and recommended below. Therefore, submission 1250/4 is supported in part.

4.8.2.2 Submissions 618/30, 1101/76, 1286/36, 1287/101, 1289/85, 2641/6, 2878/37 about objective 3.3.4

These reliefs seek changes to the objective within clause 3.3.4. This objective is listed below:

To provide for the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of the Waiheke community while ensuring the protection of the landscape character and the natural features of the island.

Submissions 618/30, 1101/76, 1286/36, 1287/101, 1289/85, 2878/37

Objective 3.3.4 does support the underling policies for the following reasons:

It appropriately balances the need for activities and development to occur while protecting the landscape character and natural features of Waiheke.

The policies provide clear direction at a broad level of how the objective will be achieved. Objectives, policies and rules within subsequent parts of the Plan provide further, more detailed direction, on this matter.

For these reasons submissions 618/30, 1101/76, 1286/36, 1287/101, 1289/85, 2878/37 are not supported.

Submission 2641/6

This submission seeks changes to the objective within clause 3.3.4 and the addition of a new policy. This relief requests the addition of the words 'heritage values' after the words 'the protection of', within this objective and a new policy within clause 3.3.4 to read:

By protecting heritage values.

There are significant heritage values within Waiheke worthy of protection. These have been identified through a variety of different mechanisms within subsequent parts of the Plan. It is a statutory requirement to consider heritage under the Historic Places Act, Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act and the RMA, therefore it is appropriate to provide broad direction for the protection of heritage values through an alteration to this objective and an additional policy.

Heritage values are protected through objectives, policies and rules within the Plan therefore this part of the submission is appropriate, although as described in section 4.7.2.8 above it is more appropriate to use the term 'historic heritage'. Therefore, submission 2641/6 is supported in part.

Submission 2762/5

The economic, social and cultural wellbeing of people are matters which have to be considered when managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources, as set in the purpose, section 5 of the RMA.

There is no strict definition of this term within the Act as it varies on the particular circumstances of an area or proposal. In regards to objective 3.3.4, simply put this objective seeks an appropriate balance between providing for people to live, work and play within Waiheke while protecting the landscape character and natural features of the island. This objective is sufficiently clear to provide this direction, and therefore no changes to give effect to this submission are required.

Therefore, submission 2762/5 is not supported.

4.8.2.3 Submissions 542/6, 2762/1, 2762/2, 2762/3 - general relief about policies or new policies within clause 3.3.4

Submissions 542/6 and 542/7

These policies and the resource management strategy provide for the protection of beaches, for example policy 5 as states "by protecting natural features, such as wetland systems, indigenous vegetation and wildlife habitats." Objectives, policies and rules within other parts of the Plan, for example the identification of coastal amenity areas where the construction of buildings are a restricted discretionary activity, also provide for the protection of beaches.

Among the functions of the Auckland Regional Council is the management of the use of the coastal marine area. The coastal marine area is defined in part 2 of the RMA as "the foreshore, seabed, and coastal water, and the air space above the water" . The landward boundary is the line of mean high water springs, which means a significant amount of beaches on Waiheke are under the jurisdiction of the Auckland Regional Council not the Auckland City Council.

No changes to the policies are considered necessary and therefore submissions 542/6 and 542/7 are not supported.

Submissions 2762/1, 2762/2, 2762/3

These submissions have been considered and the following comments made:

The policies within clause 3.3.4 on a broad scale do reflect the land uses within Waiheke. It is unnecessary to specifically mention land use types because this is too detailed for this type of overview, and they are described in more detail in subsequent parts of the Plan. Therefore, submission 2762/1 is not supported.

Submissions which seek specific changes to the issues within clause 3.3.3 of the Plan are discussed within 4.7.2 of this report. Changes have been recommended where considered appropriate. Policies within clause 3.3.4 are consistent with these issues and therefore do not need to be altered. Therefore, submission 2762/2 is not supported.

As outlined in clause 1.3.7 there was significant consultation prior to preparing the Plan. The variety of feedback received as part of this consultation informed what should be in the Plan. The submission, further submission and the hearings process provide further scope for residents to state their views. There is no added value in undertaking further consultation on the policies within clause 3.3.4 and doing so would inappropriately extend the time period for decisions to be made on the Plan. Therefore, submission 2762/3 is not supported.

4.8.2.4 Submissions 618/28, 618/29, 941/5, 1093/10, 1101/74, 1101/75, 1243/32, 1243/33, 1286/34, 1286/35, 1287/99, 1287/100, 1289/83, 1289/84, 2762/4, 2762/6, 2878/35, 2878/36, 3521/27, 3521/30, 3521/40 - about specific policies within clause 3.3.4

Submission 1093/10 - Policy 3.3.4(1)

This submission seeks the insertion of the words "existing pattern of development, including viticulture and winemaking, and" within policy 3.3.4(1), although it doesn't state where these words should be inserted. It is assumed that the submission seeks this policy to read:

By providing for 'village' style activities and development to occur in western Waiheke, while ensuring that the existing pattern of development, including viticulture and wine making, and the visual amenity of the area is maintained. [Additions requested by submission to policy 3.3.4(1) have been underlined for clarity only].

The inclusion of these words will place undue and inappropriate emphasis on the viticulture and wine making industries over and above other activities that occur within Waiheke. It is inappropriate to mention specific activities within these policies as they provide broad guidance on how the Plan manages activities within Waiheke. Further detail is provided within subsequent parts of the Plan.

Therefore, submission 1093/10, is not supported.

Submissions 618/28, 1101/74, 1243/32, 1286/34, 1287/99, 1289/83, 2878/35 - Policy 3.3.4(2)

Policy 3.3.4(2) states:

By providing for large scale, rural activities to occur in eastern Waiheke, while ensuring that such development does not detract from the natural landscape and natural features of the island.

This policy is appropriate because it provides broad direction of how the Plan provides for activities within eastern Waiheke. Further detail is provided within the relevent land units which relate to the eastern Waiheke, for example landform 5 (productive land), landform 6 (regenerating slopes) and landform 7 (forest and bush areas).

For these reasons submissions 618/28, 1101/74, 1286/34, 1287/99, 1289/83, 2878/35 are not supported and submission 1243/32 is supported.

Submissions 618/29, 1101/75, 1286/35, 1287/100, 1289/84, 2878/36 - Policy 3.3.4(3)

Policy 3.3.4(3) states:

By ensuring that 'village' style activities and development on western Waiheke do not spread into or occur within eastern Waiheke so that the distinct character of each end of the island is maintained.

The Plan has deliberately not mentioned how potential growth should be accommodated on Waiheke. This matter has been fully considered in section 4.7.2.13 of this report and it has been confirmed that for the immediate to mid term there is sufficient land within Waiheke for residential purposes.

Therefore, it is unnecessary to alter policy 3.3.4(3) and submissions 618/29, 1101/75, 1286/35, 1287/100, 1289/84 and 2878/36 are not supported.

Submissions 1243/33 & 2762/4 - Policy 3.3.4(4)

Submission 2762/4 seeks the insertion of the words "and the enhancement and protection of suitable activities and lifestyles within the landscape" at the end of policy 3.3.4(4).

Policy 3.3.4(4) as notified states:

By protecting the landscape character of the island, particularly the rural landscapes and landscapes with regenerating bush.

This policy provides clarity that part of the Plan's focus is on protecting the landscape character of Waiheke. There are other policies for example policies 1, 2 and 3 which provide broad direction on how activities should be managed within Waiheke and therefore recognise the rights of land owners to use their land. These policies should be viewed together as a whole instead of individually. Therefore, these policies achieve the intent of submissions 1243/33 & 2762/4 and it is unnecessary to alter policy 3.3.4(4) as requested.

Therefore, submissions 1243/33 & 2762/4 are not supported.

Submissions 580/2, 3521/27, 3521/30 and 3521/40 - Policy 3.3.4(5)

Submissions 3521/27, 3521/30 and 3521/40 seek additions to policy 3.3.4(5). To aid clarity, these have been added in underlined text to the policy as notified, see below:

By protecting, enhancing and restoring natural features, such as wetland systems, indigenous vegetation and wildlife habitats and coastal systems.

The reasons given for these relief's is "for the remaining biodiversity values of Waiheke and other islands to not only be protected but also enhanced and restored (e.g. through fencing, weed and pest control, buffer planting, and restoration of linkages and corridors). It is also recommended that coastal ecosystems are added to reflect the unique natural character of the coastal systems of Waiheke."

While the intent of these submissions is supported, it may not always be practical to enhance or restore all natural features. Adding the word "restoring" to policy 3.3.4(5) is not supported as restoration of a natural feature or area is more likely to be the result of a private initiative rather than the result of the provisions of the Plan. It is also noted that "restoration" is provided for by the term "enhancement".

The inclusion of the reference to 'and where appropriate' is more consistent with Section 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act which specifically refers to the protection and where appropriate, the enhancement of the life-supporting capacity of the environment and natural resources of the Hauraki Gulf.

The Plan does require enhancement of natural features in certain circumstances, for example subdivision within landforms 2-7 and rural 1 provides for protection of significant environmental features.

It is appropriate to include the reference to 'and coastal systems' within this policy as these are important natural features.

Therefore, submissions 3521/27, 3521/30 and 3521/40 are supported in part.

Submission 580/2 seeks the removal of policy 4 of clause 3.3.5. This is not appropriate, as the protection of natural features is a statutory requirement, which is central to maintaining the character and amenity of Waiheke, therefore it is important to highlight this within this policy.

Therefore, submission 580/2 is not supported.

Submissions 941/5 and 2762/6 - Policy 3.3.4(7)

Submission 941/5 seeks additions to policy 3.3.4(7). To aid clarity, these requested changes have been added in underlined text to the policy as notified, see below:

By providing for the appropriate development of essential infrastructure, including utility services.

As described in section 4.7.2.2 above, where the submitter requested the same alteration to issue 3.3.3(7), this alteration is appropriate because network utility services are defined in the Plan and this will add clarity that this policy includes such services.

Therefore, submission 941/5 is supported.

What is an appropriate provision of infrastructure within Waiheke is not necessarily a district plan matter because a significant number of network utility services are owned and operated by outside agencies, i.e. electricity provision. The provision for utility services which are owned and operated by council i.e. roading will follow the requirements of the Local Government Act. No changes to policy 3.3.4(7) are required to give effect to this submission and therefore submission 2762/6 is not supported.

Planner's recommendations about clause 3.3.4 - objective and policies

That submissions 1243/32, 1250/4 is accepted

That submission 2641/6 is accepted in part and the objective within clause 3.3.4 of the Plan amended to read as below (the changes have been underlined for clarity purposes only)
To provide for the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of the Waiheke community while ensuring the protection of the historic heritage, landscape character and the natural features of the island.

That submissions 3521/27, 3521/30 & 3521/40 are accepted in part and policy 5 of clause 3.3.4 of the Plan amended to read as below (the changes have been underlined for clarity purposes only)
By protecting and, where appropriate, enhancing natural features, such as wetland systems, indigenous vegetation ~~and~~ wildlife habitats and coastal systems.

That submission 941/5 is accepted and policy 7 of clause 3.3.4 of the Plan amended to read as below (the changes have been underlined for clarity purposes only)
By providing for the appropriate development of essential infrastructure, including utility services.

That submission 2641/6 is accepted in part and clause 3.3.4 of the Plan amended by adding an additional policy (policy 9) which reads (the changes have been underlined for clarity purposes only)
By protecting the historic heritage of the islands

That submissions 542/6, 542/7, 618/27, 618/28, 618/29, 618/30, 618/31, 1093/10, 1101/73, 1101/74, 1101/75, 1101/76, 1101/77, 1243/33, 1286/33, 1286/34, 1286/35, 1286/36, 1286/37, 1287/98, 1287/99, 1287/100, 1287/101, 1287/102, 1289/82, 1289/83, 1289/84, 1289/85, 1289/86, 2762/1, 2762/2, 2762/3, 2762/4, 2762/5, 2762/6, 2878/34, 2878/35, 2878/36, 2878/37 and 2878/38 be rejected.

4.9Submissions about clause 3.3.5 - Resource management strategy

Submissions dealt with in this section: 580/2, 618/32, 1093/11, 1101/78, 1250/5,1 286/38, 1287/103, 1289/87, 2878/39, 3200/1, 3375/1

4.9.1Decisions requested

Submission 580/2 requests the following decision:

Remove clause 3.3.5(5)

Submission 618/32, 1101/78, 1286/38, 1287/103, 1289/87, 2878/39 requests the following decision:

Clause 3.3.5 needs amending as the identified strategy elements reflect past paradigms and need to be forward thinking strategies that pick up on the successes of the operative Plan provisions.

Submission 1093/11 requests the following decision:

Amend clause 3.3.5 by amending as follows:

At 3. Insert: "... visitor facilities, viticulture, winemaking, cafes, entertainment and ..."

Submission 1250/5 requests the following decision:

Retain clause 3.3.5 but remove reference to the Owhanake Wastewater Treatment Plant in point (5).

Submission 3200/1 & 3375/1 requests the following decision:

That a point 6 be added to clause 3.3.5 involving the people of the community in future planning if "the objectives and policies" are to be "achieved in a manner that benefits the long term future of the island as a whole".

4.9.2Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.9.2.1 Submissions 618/32, 1101/78, 1286/38, 1287/103, 1289/87, 2878/39 - General

Clause 3.3.5 - resource management strategy explains broadly, within Waiheke, how the Plan manages land use. These methods comprise area based, landform based and activity based land units, development controls and designations. These methods follow on from the successes of the operative Plan, and are complimentary to, those within the operative Plan. They also provide greater clarity on what is envisaged within the Plan for particular parts of Waiheke. It is also noted that these submissions do not identify what alterations could be made to the Plan.

It is unnecessary to amend the text of clause 3.3.5 to give effect to this submission, therefore submissions 618/32, 1101/78, 1286/38, 1287/103, 1289/87 and 2878/39 are not supported.

4.9.2.2 Submission 1093/11 - point 3

Submission 1093/11 relief requests changes to point 3 of clause 3.3.5, for clarity these changes have been added below in underlined text.

Activity based land units apply in western Waiheke to facilitate a range of activities including retail, industrial, visitor facilities, viticulture, wine making, cafes, entertainment and recreation and community purposes.

The activity based land units as described in point 3 of clause 3.3.5 relate to land units where certain specific activities predominate. For example, the reference to industrial refers to the commercial 5 (industrial) land unit and the reference to visitor facilities refers to the commercial 4 (visitor facilities) land unit.

Viticulture, wine making, cafes and entertainment generally occur in landform based land units i.e. landform 5 (productive land) and area based land units i.e. commercial 1 (Oneroa village). Therefore it is inappropriate to insert this addition into point 3 of clause 3.3.5.

Therefore, submission 1093/11 is not supported.

4.9.2.3 Submissions 580/2 and 1250/5 - point 5

Point 5 of clause 3.3.5 states:

Council designations protect essential infrastructure such as the Owhanake Wastewater Treatment Plant. These designations recognise that this infrastructure is important for both economic and social reasons and consequently needs to be protected and developed appropriately.

There are currently 3 council designations within Waiheke which are the Owhanake Wastewater Treatment Plant and the northern and southern service lane in Oneroa. The reference to the Owhanake Wastewater Treatment Plant is only as an example, although it is the largest and most expensive piece of infrastructure which is designated by council in Waiheke. Therefore, it is appropriate that it is referenced.

Therefore, submissions 580/2 and 1250/5 are not supported.

4.9.2.4 Submissions 3200/1 and 3375/1

The submitter's relief relates to involving the community in future planning. As outlined in clause 1.3.7 of the Plan, there has been significant community input into the formulation of the Plan. The statutory process which is currently being undertaken also has significant community involvement. There is also potential for the public to be involved in resource consent and policy issues under the RMA.

Clause 3.3.5 outlines in a broad way how the issues, objective and policies for Waiheke are integrated in the Plan. It would not add value to include an additional point 6 as requested by these submissions because how community involvement in decision making occurs is set out under legislation, including the RMA and LGA. Also, the Plan is not the only mechanism of community involvement. Community involvement is encouraged as part of other council documents, for example the annual plan and other council decisions for example consultation on the location of a new library within Waiheke is currently being undertaken.

In addition, the district plan does not affect the way decisions are made about how community facilities i.e. community halls or reserves function.

Therefore, submissions 3200/1 and 3375/1 are not supported.

Planner's recommendations about clause 3.3.5 - resource management strategy

That submissions 580/2, 618/32, 1093/11, 1101/78, 1250/5, 1286/38, 1287/103, 1289/87, 2878/39, 3200/1 and 3375/1 be rejected.

4.10Submissions about clause 3.4 other islands' strategic management area

Submissions dealt with in this section:

618/33, 618/34, 1101/79, 1101/80, 1243/34, 1243/35, 1243/36, 1243/37, 1286/39, 1286/40, 1287/104, 1287/105, 1288/27, 1288/28, 1289/88, 1289/89, 2641/4, 2641/7, 2878/40, 2878/41, 3521/25, 3521/28, 3521/31, 3521/41, 3521/42 and 3521/43.

4.10.1 Decisions requested

There were no submissions in opposition to the other islands' SMA, rather the submissions received are either generally supportive or are seeking amendments to the wording of the SMA. A summary of the issues raised is set out below:

Support for the objectives.

Recognition of the role of "agriculture and horticulture" in the other islands.

Recognition of the need to protect "historic heritage".

Amendments to better reflect the differences in development rights between the privately owned other islands and the publicly owned other islands.

Amendments to add the words "enhancing and restoring" and "coastal ecosystems" to the policies.

4.10.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.10.2.1Submissions relating to support for the objective of the other islands' SMA

Submission 3521/25 supports the objective of the other islands' SMA while submissions 618/33, 1101/79, 1286/39, 1287/104, 1288/27, 1289/88 and 2878/40 support the objective to the extent that many of the islands are in fact under Department of Conservation management.

It is recommended that submissions 3521/25, 618/33, 1101/79, 1286/39, 1287/104, 1288/27, 1289/88 and 2878/40 are supported.

4.10.2.2Submissions relating to the recognition of "agriculture and horticulture"

Submissions 1243/34, 1243/35 and 1243/37 seek the inclusion of the words "agriculture and horticulture" in the issues, objectives and policies of the other islands' SMA.

These amendments are not considered necessary as agriculture and horticulture fall within the terms "variety of activities", "other activities" and "range of activities" which are used in the issues, objectives and policies of the other islands' SMA. In addition, clause 3.4.1 Introduction identifies "Ponui which is farmed" as an example of an island that has been developed and used for an "other activity".

For the reasons outlined above, submissions 1243/34, 1243/35 and 1243/37 are not supported.

4.10.2.3Submissions relating to the recognition of "historic heritage"

Submissions 3521/41 and 3521/42 seek that the protection of "historic heritage" is recognised in the issues, objectives and policies of the other islands while submissions 2641/4 and 2641/7 seek that the protection of "heritage values" is recognised in the issues, objectives and policies of the other islands SMA.

As the protection of "historic heritage" is required by section 6(f) of the RMA it is considered that amending the issues, objectives and policies to incorporate historic heritage is appropriate. It is also considered that the words "historic heritage" should be used as compared to "heritage values" in order to be consistent with the RMA.

For the reasons outlined above, submissions 2641/4, 2641/7, 3521/41 and 3521/42 are supported in part.

4.10.2.4Submissions relating to the differences between the privately owned other islands and the publicly owned other islands

Submissions 618/34, 1101/80, 1286/40, 1287/105, 1288/28, 1289/89 and 2878/41 seek that clause 3.4.3 and the associated policies be amended to better reflect the development potential on the privately owned islands. These submissions are not supported as the development potential of the privately owned islands is adequately recognised by clause 3.4.3(3) which states:

"By providing for a range of activities to occur where these activities are of an appropriate nature, scale, form and location".

Submission 1243/36 seeks that clause 3.4.3(1) be amended along with any other relevant parts of the Plan to take account of concerns that insufficient attention is paid to the rights of the owners to use that land. This submission is not supported as the rights of owners to use land is clearly provided for within the SMA and in the other parts of the Plan. More specifically, the strategy for the SMA clearly identifies that "island based land units", "landform based land units" and "activity based land units" have been prepared in order to provide for the use and development of land.

Submissions 618/34, 1101/80, 1286/40, 1287/105, 1288/28, 1289/89 and 2878/41 seek that the resource management strategy (clause 3.4.4) be amended to be more explicit as to how it is intended to balance between the publicly and privately owned islands to secure an overall long term outcome for the other islands. These submissions are not supported as it is considered that the objective for the SMA already provides the balance and long-term outcome sought by the submissions.

Submissions 618/33, 1101/79, 1286/39, 1287/104, 1288/27, 1289/88 and 2878/40 seek that the resource management strategy in clause 3.4.4 be amended to be more innovative and enable a creative future that better explores the opportunities associated with use, management, community and economic development advantages that the HGI landscapes and other islands offer in general. These submissions are not supported as it is considered that the SMA provides a strategic framework in which use and development can occur without unduly restricting creative opportunities for landowners. Notwithstanding, the submitter(s) may wish to elaborate further at the hearing as to the sort of opportunities that could be better enabled by the Plan.

For the reasons, outlined above submissions 618/33, 618/34, 1101/79, 1101/80, 1286/39, 1286/40, 1287/104, 1287/105, 1288/27, 1288/28, 1289/88, 1289/89, 2878/40, 2878/41 and 1243/36 are not supported.

4.10.2.5Submissions relating to the words "enhancing and restoring" and "coastal ecosystems"

Submissions 3521/28, 3521/31 and 3521/43 seek to add the words "coastal ecosystems" and "enhancing and restoring" to clause 3.4.3(1). Clause 3.4.3(1) states:

"By protecting the landscape character and natural features, such as wetland systems, indigenous vegetation and wildlife habitats of the other islands."

With respect to adding the words "coastal ecosystems" to clause 3.4.3(1), this amendment is supported as coastal ecosystems are an important part of the natural environment of the other islands and should therefore be recognised in the policies of the SMA.

In relation to adding the word "enhancing" to clause 3.4.3(1) this amendment is also supported as enhancement of the environment is appropriate is some circumstances, such as subdivision where a significant environmental feature is to be protected. However, as "enhancement" is not appropriate in every circumstance, it is considered that the words "where appropriate" should also be added to the policy. It is noted that the use of the term "enhancement where appropriate" is consistent with section 8 of the HGMPA.

Adding the word "restoring" to clause 3.4.3(1) is not supported as restoration of a natural feature or area is more likely to be the result of a private initiative rather than the result of the provisions of the Plan. It is also noted that "restoration" is provided for by the term "enhancement" as discussed above.

For the reasons outlined above, submission 3521/31 is supported and submissions 3521/28 and 3521/43 are supported in part.

Planner's recommendations about clause 3.4 - other islands' strategic management area

That submissions 3521/25, 618/33, 1101/79, 1286/39, 1287/104, 1288/27, 1289/88 and 2878/40 be accepted in part.

That submissions 1243/34, 1243/35 and 1243/37 be rejected.

That submissions 2641/4, 2641/7, 3521/41 and 3521/42 be accepted in part and the Plan be amended accordingly by:

Amending clause 3.4.2(2) to read "How to protect the historic heritage, landscape character, visual amenity and natural features of the other islands"

Amending clause 3.4.3 to read "To provide for recreation, conservation and other activities while ensuring the protection of the historic heritage, landscape character and the natural features of the other islands"

A new policy being inserted into clause 3.4.3 which states "By protecting the historic heritage of the other islands".

That submissions 618/33, 618/34, 1101/79, 1101/80, 1286/39, 1286/40, 1287/104, 1287/105, 1288/27, 1288/28, 1289/88, 1289/89, 2878/40, 2878/41 and 1243/36 be rejected.

That submission 3521/31 be accepted and submissions 3521/28 and 3521/43 be accepted in part and the Plan be amended accordingly amending clause 3.4.3(1) as follows: "By protecting and where appropriate enhancing the landscape character and the natural features, such as wetland systems, indigenous vegetation, wildlife habitats and coastal ecosystems of the other islands".

5.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding part 3 - Strategic management areas (SMAs) 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

Author Sarah Nairn, Senior Planner: Islands

Reviewer Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands

Approver Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning

Appendix 1

List of submissions and further submissions (234Kb PDF)

Appendix 2

Summary of decisions requested

Appendix 3

To view PDFs download Acrobat Reader from the Adobe website . Further help on how to view PDFs .

Home |
Terms of use