Plans, policies and reports

YOU ARE IN: Your council > Plans, policies and reports

District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

(Notified version 2006)

Hearing reports index

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

Topic:	Land unit - Commercial 7 (wharf)
Report to:	The Hearing Panel
Author:	Sarah Smith, assistant planner
Date:	2 May 2008
Group file:	314/274018

1.0 Introduction

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to land unit Commercial 7 (wharf) 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 Commercial 7. This report discusses the submissions (grouped by subject matter or individually) and includes recommendations from the planner who prepared this report. The recommendations identify whether each submission should be accepted or rejected (in full or in part) and what amendments (if any) should be made to the Plan to address matters raised in submissions. Further submissions are not specifically addressed but are dealt with in conjunction with the submissions to which they relate.

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

2.0 Statutory framework

This section of the report briefly sets out the statutory framework within which the council must consider the submissions. In preparing this report the submissions and, in particular, the decisions requested in the submissions, have been considered in light of the relevant statutory matters. These were summarised by the Environment Court in Eldamos Investments Limited v Gisborne District Council W 047/05 where the court set out the following measures for evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other methods in district plans:

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

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

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

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

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

Along with section 5, part 2 of the RMA includes sections 6 (matters of national importance), 7 (other matters) and 8 (Treaty of Waitangi), which set out a range of matters that the council needs to recognise and provide for in achieving the purpose of the RMA. Those matters are also relevant when considering submissions.

The Plan must assist the council to carry out its functions under section 31 of the RMA. These functions are:

"(a) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district:

(b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of�

(i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and

(ii) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and

(iia) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development, subdivision, or use of contaminated land:

(iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:

(d) The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:

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

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

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

3.0 Background

This section of the report sets out background information about the topic under consideration. It identifies how the Plan deals with Commercial 7.

Commercial 7 is applied to paved areas of land behind the wharf structures at Orapiu and Kennedy's Point on Waiheke, at Sandy Bay on Rakino and to the wharves at Tryphena, Okupu, Whangaparapara and Port Fitzroy on Great Barrier.

It provides for the maintenance of existing structures such as boat ramps as well providing for the construction of other wharf and transport associated activities. This land unit provides the opportunity to develop these areas to result in the efficient operation of wharf, transport and recreation facilities.

The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 1994 states that it is a national priority to preserve the natural character of the coastal environment by encouraging appropriate use and development in areas where the natural character has already been compromised and avoiding sprawling use and development in the coastal environment.

Land unit commercial 7 has been applied to areas of land that are highly modified with moderate visual amenity values. The natural character of the coastal environment in these areas has already been compromised and therefore the land unit provides the opportunity for further development to occur in these modified environments as opposed to sprawling.

The development that is provided for within this land unit will enable the efficient operation of wharf, transport and recreation facilities while protecting the coastal environment from potential adverse effects.

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about Commercial 7 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 Commercial 7 together with the related further submissions is contained in appendix 1. Appendix 2 contains the summary of the decisions requested by the submissions considered in this report. Any amendments to the Plan recommended in response to submissions are identified in this section of the report and are further detailed in appendix 3.

The list of submissions contained in appendix 1 may include some submissions and further submissions which were received 'late', ie they were received after the closing date for lodging submissions (11 December 2006) or further submissions (28 May 2007). All late submissions were considered by the hearing panel at the start of the hearing process and the panel has already waived the failure to comply with the time limit for any late submissions or further submissions listed in appendix 1. This has been done in accordance with sections 37 and 37A of the RMA.

4.2 Submissions about amendments

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1255/1, 1255/2

4.2.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1255/1 seeks for amendments to clauses 10a.17.1 - 10a.17.4 to recognise and provide for the recreational function of this zone.

Submission 1255/2 seeks for clause 10a.17.3 to be amended to include an objective and attendant policy that provide for the continued use of this zone for recreational boating activities.

4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The submission states that in addition to commercial facilities these areas include boat launching facilities for recreational purposes and that sections 10a.17.1 to 10a.17.4 fail to recognise the important recreational function of this zone.

Land unit commercial 7 facilitates the movement of freight, traffic and people on and off the islands for commercial and recreational purposes. In addition, the land unit provides facilities such as boat launching ramps for recreational use. This is an important function for the land unit as water activities are a substantial component of the islands' lifestyle. It is therefore appropriate to recognise these significant recreational facilities that contribute to the recreational needs of the community.

The continued use of this zone for recreational boating activities will be provided for through the recognition of the recreational function of the land unit.

It is recommended that submissions 1255/1 and 1255/2 be accepted and the following amendments be made:

Clause 10a.17.1 be amended to include the following bullet point:
Facilities for the recreational use of the coastal environment.
Clause 10a.17.2 be amended to include the following as a new issue:
How to ensure the efficient and safe operation of recreational activities.
The objective in clause 10a.17.3 be amended to state:
To ensure the efficient operation of the wharf , and transport and recreation facilities while protecting the character of the adjoining coastal environment from the potential adverse effects of activities and buildings.
A new policy be added to clause 10a.17.3 to state:
By providing for recreational activities and facilities to establish and operate within the land unit.
Clause 10a.17.4 be amended to state:
The resource management strategy is to provide wharf and transport associated activities and buildings so so that the efficient operation of the wharf facilities can occur as well as contributing to the recreational needs of the islands.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments

That submissions 1255/1 and 1255/2 be accepted and that clause 10a.17.1 to clause 10a.17.4 be amended accordingly to recognise the important recreational function of this land unit.

4.3 Submissions about fuel supplies

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1596/27

4.3.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1596/27 seeks for the provision of fuel supplies to be reclassified as restricted discretionary with emphasis on appropriate containment and clean up provisions and other safety related features to ensure any such facility is appropriate to the location and safe in operation.

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Marine fuelling services are a permitted activity under clause 10a.17.5. This is an appropriate status for marine fuelling services as the rules under Part 9 - Hazardous facilities and contaminated land of the Plan and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act) manage the specifics of the fuel itself.

Part 9 of the Plan adequately manages hazardous facilities to ensure that the use, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous substances are provided for. Part 9 determines the activity status of any hazardous facility based on the properties of the hazardous substance such as explosive, flammable and toxic. The thresholds, measured in tonnes or cubic metres, determine whether a consent is required or whether an activity can be carried out as of right.

Under part 9 there are minimum performance standards that apply to all hazardous facilities regardless of their consent status. These performance standards provide for the construction of facilities in such a manner that the number of spillages of hazardous substances is minimised and the effects of any spillages that may occur are managed.

The performance standards control spill containment systems, stormwater grate marking, washdown areas, underground storage tanks and signage.

It is considered most likely that marine fuelling services will require a resource consent through clause 9.5.3(2) which states that following is a restricted discretionary activity:

"The retail sale of fuel, up to a storage of 100,000 litres of petrol and up to 50,000 litres of diesel in underground storage tanks, provided it can be demonstrated that the Code of Practice for the Design, Installation and Operation of Underground Petroleum Systems, Department of Labour (Occupational Safety and Health) 1992 is adhered to."

The purpose of the HSNO Act is to protect the environment and the health and safety of communities by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected as the HSNO Act and the provisions in part 9 effectively address the management of hazardous substances to ensure the effects on the environment and human health are controlled.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking change of status

That submission 1596/27 be rejected.

4.4 Submissions about removing the land unit

Submissions dealt with in this section: 749/1, 2579/1, 3595/1, 3712/1

4.4.1 Decisions requested

These submissions seek for the removal of land unit commercial 7 (wharf) from the area behind the Orapiu Wharf (at the intersection of Hunterville and Anzac Road).

The submissions further state that:

the wharf zone covers approximately 1000m2 that is currently scheduled road
the only paved areas behind Orapiu Wharf is Anzac Road itself
there is no scope within the area for construction of additional facilities that might further enhance the operation of the wharf or transport facilities
all of the area identified lies less than 2m above mean high water springs and therefore any activity within this area is not a permitted but a discretionary activity under the Plan (Part 8.6.1eii)
there are no provisions in the Plan to protect and preserve vehicular and pedestrian activity within the area, particularly access for residents on Hunterville Road
rules for commercial 7 allow construction of a boat ramp as a permitted activity, when local residents have vigorously opposed this option in the past and that any development or expansion of the current facilities should be subject to the full resources consent process
there do not appear to be standards for permitted activities relating to infrastructure and services in the Plan, thus traffic generation cannot be assessed when considering the suitability of particular permitted activities.

4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Land unit commercial 7 has been placed on the paved area behind Orapiu Wharf due to the opportunity for development and to provide for the maintenance of current activities. It is not appropriate to remove this land unit from this area for the following reasons.

It is important for the council to be consistent in its application of land unit commercial 7 across the islands.
Commercial 7 provides the opportunity to enhance the operation of the wharves and associated facilities by providing for activities such as boat launching ramps and marine fuelling services to occur as of right. For instance, this will allow the council as a landowner to carry out maintenance of boat ramps as of right which will benefit all users.
The activities and facilities provided by Commercial 7 create benefits for the community and therefore there is a greater good provided by having this land unit applied to the area behind Orapiu Wharf.
It is important to consolidate wharf and transport related activities in this vicinity rather than allow sprawling development, particularly as the area has already been highly modified and does not have high visual amenity values. This is supported by policy 1.1.1 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 1994:
"It is a national priority to preserve the natural character of the coastal environment by:
1. encouraging appropriate subdivision, use or development in areas where the natural character has already been compromised and avoiding sprawling or sporadic subdivision, use or development in the coastal environment."
Orapiu Wharf is the only wharf on the eastern side of the island; it is an important asset that needs to be maintained and provided with opportunities for development. Land unit commercial 7 allows for this as of right.

Scope for development

There is scope for development of the area to further enhance the operation of the wharf and transport facilities such as fuel services. This area may have some constraints, however development can still occur, it will be at a scale and size that is appropriate for the small area. Therefore this does not provide good reason for removing the zoning.

Access

The submitters state that there are no provisions in the Plan to protect and preserve vehicular and pedestrian activity within the area and in particular access for residents on Hunterville Road.

Firstly it should be noted that Hunterville Road is not strictly designed to accommodate vehicle traffic as it was specifically a walking track for pedestrians.

In regards to access to Hunterville Road, there are certain provisions in the Local Government Act 1974 (which are still in force) that provide protection to access. The council has the statutory authority to construct on a road any facilities for the safety, health or convenience of the public or for the control of traffic or the enforcement of traffic laws. However, this can only occur if in the opinion of the council, the construction will not unduly impede vehicular traffic entering or using the road.

The ability to drive over the land will not be affected by placing the land unit over the road as it is a permitted activity under the provisions of the Plan. Clause 5.5.1 makes network utility services existing at 18 September 2006 a permitted activity, and the definition for network utility services includes the construction, operation and maintenance of roads. Therefore the use of the existing road is a permitted activity.

It is also noted that as the council owns the land for road the risk of activities being undertaken that impede vehicular traffic is very low as being the owner of the land the council would be very unlikely to allow development that would impede vehicular traffic.

In addition, as Anzac Road is a public road, members of the public have, with certain qualifications, a right of passage over it.

The submitter also states that there are no provisions in the Plan to protect and preserve vehicular and pedestrian activity in this area. This is not correct, as there are objectives and policies in part 13 of the Plan that ensure the council provides for pedestrians and vehicles. Clause 13.3.3 and 13.3.5 both address roading, cycling and walking.

The relevant parts of clause 13.3.3 are stated below:

"To recognise and provide for the existing road system as an important resource for an integrated transport network, while managing it to ensure the adverse effects on the surrounding environment are minimised.

Policies

By providing for and enhancing the road network to ensure it is safe, effective and efficient for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.

By reducing conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists around key community focal points, such as wharves, commercial centres, schools and other public facilities."

The relevant parts of clause 13.3.5 are stated below:

"1. To improve cycling and pedestrian access to key community focal points such as residential areas, wharves, commercial centres, schools, and other public facilities.

Policies

1. By recognising that the road network must provide for pedestrians and cyclists as well as vehicles.

...

3. By providing for the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians, especially around key community focal points and public facilities."

It is therefore appropriate for this area of land to remain in land unit commercial 7, as there are provisions in the Plan that provide for pedestrians and vehicles and the Local Government Act provides sufficient protection of access.

It is also noted that Hunterville Road is an unformed 'paper' road and therefore has been wrongly identified on the planning map. This error will need to be amended in a future plan change.

Zoning on the road

The commercial 7 land behind Orapiu Wharf is part of Anzac Road. This part of Anzac Road is unlike the rest of the road as it widens with a relatively large paved area on the cliff side of the formed carriageway. The road also comes to a dead-end when it gets to the wharf and so there is little to no through-traffic, only that which is generated by users of Hunterville Road, which as mentioned above is an unformed road that has only been 'formed' by the residents. Therefore, it is appropriate for it to be zoned commercial 7 and used for additional purposes.

Clause 8.6.1

Some development activities such as buildings may have a discretionary status in the commercial 7 area behind Orapiu Wharf due to clause 8.6.1 in the Plan which states:

"The activities listed below are discretionary activities.

Any of the following:

The location of any land use development activity, building, permanent structure, fence or wall.

Exterior additions or alteration to, or change or use of, any building or structure.

The placement of any septic tank, wastewater treatment and disposal system, effluent disposal field, underground storage tank, water tank or stormwater pipe or soakage field.

Any earthworks.

...

When located as follows:

...

ii. In any of the following locations, subject to any more accurate natural hazard information identified in the planning maps to the contrary:

...

at an elevation less than 3m above mean high water springs if the activity is within 20m of mean high water springs

at an elevation less than 2m above mean high water springs if the activity is located more than 20m from mean high water springs."

This does not provide reason to remove the land unit from this area. Clause 8.6.1 provides further protection to areas that have elevations of less than three metres that are within 20 metres of mean high water springs but does not prohibit such activities to occur within these areas. Clause 8.6.1 also provides an exemption to activities where "a report from an appropriately qualified engineer establishes that the land is not subject to, and will not be subject after any proposed activity, building or other structure is completed, to any of the following:

flooding, in a 1 in 100 year storm
coastal erosion over a 50 year time frame
instability or erosion."

Boat ramps

It is supported that boat launching ramps and jetties should go through a resource consent process at Orapiu Wharf, as opposed to the permitted activity status in the proposed plan as notified. The submitter raises concern around the restricted access and parking facilities.

The land behind Orapiu Wharf classified commercial 7 does not have enough area to provide for the associated parking facilities that would be required should a boat launching ramp or jetty be constructed. For the successful operation of a boat ramp, sufficient parking for vehicles and boat trailers would need to be provided. It is not appropriate to change the activity status of boat launching ramps and jetties for all wharves in this land unit as the majority of them all have existing boat ramps and space for parking. The permitted status of boat ramps applied to these areas allows for the maintenance of existing boat ramps to occur as of right. This is appropriate.

Therefore it is recommended that the activity status of boat launching ramps and jetties at the paved area behind Orapiu Wharf be amended to a restricted discretionary activity status, with the council restricting its discretion for boat launching ramps and jetties at Orapiu to:

location
traffic generation
parking.

It is recommended that these submissions be accepted in part in so far as they support boat ramps going through a resource consent process.

Standards for permitted activities

The Plan does not use blanket standards for permitted activities as in the operative plan. An activity is given a permitted status if the council believes that any adverse effects are acceptable provided that the development controls and any other standards are met. Therefore it is not necessary to assess traffic generation for permitted activities. It is considered that traffic generation does not need to be considered for the activities provided for in this land unit, with the exception of boat launching ramps and jetties in the area behind Orapiu Wharf, as discussed above.

It is also noted that Part 13 - connectivity and linkages considers traffic effects.

It is not appropriate to remove land unit commercial 7 from the land behind Orapiu Wharf for the reasons outlined above.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking removal of land unit from Orapiu Wharf.

That submissions 749/1, 2579/1, 3595/1 and 3712/1 be accepted in part and the Plan be amended accordingly:

Clause 10a.17.5

Activity Status

Boat launching ramps and jetties (including boat trailer parks) in all areas except for the area behind Orapiu Wharf P

Boat launching ramps and jetties (including boat trailer parks) in the area behind Orapiu Wharf RD

Legend

RD = Restricted discretionary

Insert the following new clause after clause 10a.17.6:

Assessment matters

1. Matters of discretion for boat launching ramps and jetties in the area behind Orapiu wharf

When considering an application for resource consent for boat launching ramps and jetties in the area behind Orapiu wharf, the council has restricted its discretion to considering the following matters:

location

traffic generation

parking.

4.5 Submissions about definitions

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1596/28

4.5.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1596/28 seeks for boat ramps, both private and public, to be in practice defined as 'wharves' and be recognised appropriately in this Plan.

4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The submitter admits confusion about the status of other foreshore structures, in particular boat ramps, as it appears to them that nowhere in the Plan are these recognised or defined in any way other than when they are directly associated with a wharf complex.

The Plan does not provide a definition for either wharves or boat ramps. A boat ramp differs from a wharf and so should not be defined as a wharf. They have a different purpose, use, scale and are structurally different.

Defining boat ramps as wharves is irrelevant as defining a private or public boat ramp as a wharf will not change the land unit classification of that foreshore structure. Defining boat ramps as wharves would not add any further value to the Plan and would not change the provisions regarding these structures.

The submitter also seeks for foreshore structures and boat ramps that are not within land unit commercial 7 to be recognised appropriately in the Plan.

It is not necessary to formally recognise these structures in the Plan as they are private stand-alone structures with no associated facilities. Many of these private structures are within the Auckland Regional Council's jurisdiction (i.e. below mean high water springs), so it is not appropriate to recognise them in the Plan.

Boat ramps and other foreshore structures, outside of the wharf land unit, have an appropriate status of non-complying activity in the Plan as they are not provided for. Such structures are in, or likely to be in, sensitive coastal environments that are not highly modified. It is therefore appropriate that such structures outside of land unit commercial 7 have to go through the resource consent process.

It is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking definitions

That submission 1596/28 be rejected.

4.6 Submissions about setting requirements

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1596/29

4.6.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1596/29 seeks for a set of requirements for any proposal to build any new foreshore structure, including a wharf.

4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

To place a set of requirements on a proposal to build any new foreshore structure would necessitate the council to give such activities a restricted discretionary, discretionary or a non-complying status. Under these three activity classifications a set of conditions can be applied to the proposal through the resource consent process.

The only foreshore structure that land unit commercial 7 permits and consequently cannot place requirements on the activity, is boat launching ramps and jetties. A permitted status for boat launching ramps and jetties is appropriate for two main reasons.

Firstly, jetties exist primarily in the area of Auckland Regional Council (ARC) jurisdiction and therefore a person would need to go through an extensive resource consent process to construct a jetty, and the ARC have the ability to set conditions. The Plan is only thereby allowing jetties authorised by the ARC to be constructed to the mainland in this land unit.

Secondly, boat launching ramps are areas where the road continues down into the water body, i.e. they are a concreted surface. Boat ramps will not cause more than minor effects on the visual amenity of the area. Boat ramps are permitted in these areas due to the highly modified environment and the moderate visual amenity values that exist. Such facilities are expected to be seen in these areas.

There is a low likelihood of a new boat ramp being constructed in these areas zoned commercial 7 as these areas mostly contain boat ramps already. Therefore the need is for maintenance of the existing boat ramps in this area. The permitted status of boat launching ramps allows the council as a landowner to maintain these ramps as of right.

Constructing a wharf is not a listed activity and therefore by default is a non-complying activity, where the council may impose a wide range of conditions. These conditions will be formed on a case-by-case basis dependent on many factors including the proposal and site, and therefore it is not appropriate to place a blanket set of conditions on new wharf proposals.

A significant portion of a wharf is in the Auckland Regional Council's jurisdiction and therefore consent would have to be granted by ARC and any conditions imposed would have to be adhered to.

For a new wharf to be constructed to the mainland it will have to pass one of the threshold tests, due to its non-complying activity status. The two tests are:

The adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be minor; or
The activity will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the district plan.

Therefore the council and the Auckland Regional Council have the opportunity to create a set of conditions for new wharf proposals, however these would be determined on a case by case basis and not defined in the Plan. The other foreshore structure in this land unit, boat ramps and jetties, cannot have a set of conditions because they have a permitted status; however a set of conditions is not required.

Subject to clarification from the submitter, it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking a set of requirements

That submission 1596/29 be rejected.

4.7 Submissions about integrated management

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3521/94

4.7.1 Decisions requested

Submission 3521/94 seeks for clause 10a.17 to be amended to recognise the need for integrated management across the line of mean high water springs.

4.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The mean high water springs line is the boundary between the statutory jurisdiction of the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) and Auckland City Council.

It is agreed that working together with the ARC is beneficial with activities such as boat ramps, jetties and wharves. Therefore it is recommended that a new note 3 be added which acknowledges the jurisdiction of the ARC. It is best practice to assess resource consents from both councils contemporaneously.

It is recommended that this submission be accepted in part.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking integrated management

That submission 3521/94 be accepted in part and the Plan be amended accordingly to add a note to clause 10a.17.5:

Notes:

3. Activities that exist below mean high water springs are in Auckland Regional Council jurisdiction and may require a resource consent under the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal.

4.8 Submissions about development provisions

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3061/91

4.8.1 Decisions requested

Submission 3061/91 states that the overriding consideration that applies to land unit commercial 7 is that it does not contain provisions which permit development/ subdivision that is contrary to maintaining the essential character and heritage of the island and the type, style and scale of buildings recognised within that character and island scale in particular.

4.8.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The submitter states that commercial 7 should not contain any provisions which permit development and subdivision that is contrary to maintaining the essential character and heritage of the island.

It is not entirely clear as to what the submitter is seeking, so it is recommended that the submitter attend the hearing and provide examples and clarification of what is being sought.

It is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking development provisions

That submission 3061/91 be rejected.

4.9 Amendments under clause 16 of Schedule 1 of the RMA

Clause 16 of Schedule 1 of the RMA states:

" 16 Amendment of proposed policy statement or plan

A local authority shall make an amendment to its proposed policy statement or plan to give effect to any direction in a national environmental standard or a national policy statement or to any directions of the Environment Court under section 292.
A local authority may make an amendment, without further formality, to its proposed policy statement or plan to alter any information, where such an alteration is of minor effect, or may correct any minor errors.
A local authority must make an amendment, without further formality, to its policy statement or regional plan or district plan to give effect to a direction to include specific provisions under section 55."

There are two tests to determine whether an alteration is of minor effect or is a minor error.

Minor error

In determining whether an alteration is a minor error, the Courts have adopted a test known as the 'slip rule'. The slip rule allows for the correction of clerical mistakes and accidental omissions in judgements. A minor error is one in which the council seeks only to clarify what is clearly intended by the document and does not in any way make a change to it which alters its meaning.

Minor effect

In determining whether an alteration is of minor effect the test is "does the amendment affect (prejudicially or beneficially) the rights of some member of the public, or is it merely neutral." In this instance, the council must consider whether the change would have been likely to draw submissions and how the change if going to affect members of the public.

In the Plan as notified, the wharf structures have been included in some of the commercial 7 land unit and due to the structures being in Auckland Regional Council's jurisdiction, below mean high water springs, it is recommended that these be removed. These are administrative errors and can be corrected through clause 16.

In regards to Kennedy Point Wharf a small area of land that is council owned and is used as part of the wharf facilities has been omitted from the Commercial 7 land unit. It is appropriate to correct this error and include this area of land in the commercial 7 land unit as it will not prejudicially affect any member of the public or change the meaning of the Plan.

Under clause 16 of schedule 1 the following amendments are to be made:

Remove the wharf structures within the coastal marine area (below Mean High Water Springs) at Whangaparapara Wharf and Tryphena Wharf from the Commercial 7 (wharf) land unit on Sheet 53, Map 1 and Sheet 57, Map 1 of the Maps - Volume 2 Outer Islands.
Remove the Commercial 7 (wharf) land unit from the Okupu Wharf, as this zone has been placed over the wharf structure in the coastal marine area, on Sheet 53, Map 1 of the Maps - Volume 2 Outer Islands. Consequently, the introduction needs to be amended to remove the reference to Okupu Wharf. It is therefore recommended that the first sentence in clause 10a.17.1 be amended to state:
This land unit is applied to the paved areas of land behind the wharf structures at Orapiu and Kennedy's Point on Waiheke, at Sandy Bay on Rakino and to the wharves at Tryphena, Okupu, Whangaparapara and Port Fitzroy on Great Barrier.
Amend the boundaries of land unit commercial 7 at Kennedy Point Wharf to include a small area to the east of the area currently classified as commercial 7, on Sheet 9, Map 1 of the Maps - Volume 1 Inner Islands. This involves a reclassification of this area of land from Rural 1 (rural amenity) to Commercial 7 (wharf).

5.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding land unit Commercial 7 (wharf) of the Proposed Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section 2006.

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

	Name and title of signatories	Signature
Author	Sarah Smith, assistant planner
Reviewer	Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands
Approver	Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning

Amendments to the Plan maps (a)

Amendments to Maps – Volume 1 Inner Islands

Amend the boundaries of land unit commercial 7 at Kennedy Point Wharf to include a small area to the east of the area currently classified as commercial 7, on Sheet 9, Map 1. This involves a reclassification of this area of land from Rural 1 (rural amenity) to Commercial 7 (wharf).

Amendments to Maps – Volume 2 Outer Islands

Remove the wharf structures within the coastal marine area at Whangaparapara Wharf and Tryphena Wharf from the Commercial 7 (wharf) land unit on Sheet 53, Map 1 and Sheet 57, Map 1.

Remove the Commercial 7 (wharf) land unit from the Okupu Wharf, as this zone has been placed over the wharf structure in the coastal marine area, on Sheet 53, Map 1.

Amendments to the Plan maps (b)

Home |
Terms of use