District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

(Notified version 2006)

Street index | Planning maps | Text | Appendices | Annexures | Section 32 material | Plan modifications | Help | Notified - Home | Decision - Home

Hearing reports index

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

1.0 Introduction

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to the landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) land unit 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 the landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) land unit. 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:

a. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s32(3)(a)); and
b. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and
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:

a. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan (s32(3)(b)); and
b. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and
c. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and
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
(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment."

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

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

"(a) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district:
(b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of—

(i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and
(ii) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and
(iia) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development, subdivision, or use of contaminated land:
(iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:

(c) ...
(d) The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:
(e) The control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of water in rivers and lakes."

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

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

3.0 Background

This section of the report sets out background information about the topic under consideration. It identifies how the Plan deals with landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) land unit.

Clause 10a.2.1 describes the land unit as follows:

"This land unit is applied to steep coastal cliffs, exposed coastal slopes and offshore islets and stacks.

Coastal cliffs and slopes is characterised by:

• A steep, rugged, wild and dynamic landscape which defines the coastal margins.
• Visual prominence due to its exposed coastal location.
• Sparse vegetation, including cliff associations and unprotected remnant gully vegetation.
• Small pockets of grazed land, some of which is regenerating.
• Instability, exposure, and varying degrees of erosion.
• An absence of buildings or structures.

Overall, coastal cliffs and slopes has high natural character values and a rugged, visually prominent landscape."

Clause 10a.2.4 sets out the following strategy for the land unit:

"The visual prominence and natural character value of this land unit is so high, that the resource management strategy is to not specifically provide for activities and buildings to occur at all and to require a large minimum site size for subdivision within the land unit."

The land unit is a combination of land unit 1 (coastal cliffs) and land unit 7 (steep infertile coastal slopes) from the Operative Plan. Land previously classified as land unit 1 or 7 has been checked to determine whether the landform 1 classification is appropriate.

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) land unit 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 landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) land unit 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.

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.

This report will deal with the text relating to the landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) land unit and the landforms 1-7 (general) report will consider any requests for land to be reclassified from or to landform1.

4.2 General submissions about the entire landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) land unit

Submissions dealt with in this section: 537/3, 877/1, 1250/18, 1307/1, 1319/1, 1379/1, 1416/1, 1461/1, 1522/1, 1913/1, 1915/1, 1922/1, 1988/1, 2139/1, 2162/1, 2212/1, 2238/1, 2271/1, 2368/1, 2389/1, 2489/1, 2864/1, 3061/60, 3679/1, 3743/1, 3768/1, 3798/1

4.2.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 877/1, 1307/1, 1319/1, 1379/1, 1416/1, 1461/1, 1522/1, 1913/1, 1915/1, 1922/1, 1988/1, 2139/1, 2162/1, 2212/1, 2238/1, 2271/1, 2368/1, 2389/1, 2489/1, 2864/1, 3679/1, 3743/1, 3768/1, 3798/1 seek to amend the title of the land unit from 'coastal cliffs and slopes' to 'coastal cliffs'

Submissions 537/3 and 1250/18 seek to retain clause 10a.2 with no amendments unless they strengthen the protection measures for the land unit.

Submission 3061/60 states that the land unit lacks reference to HGMPA, natural hazards, future proofing and landscape issues.

4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.2.2.1 Submissions 877/1, 1307/1, 1319/1, 1379/1, 1416/1, 1461/1, 1522/1, 1913/1, 1915/1, 1922/1, 1988/1, 2139/1, 2162/1, 2212/1, 2238/1, 2271/1, 368/1, 2389/1, 2489/1, 2864/1, 3679/1, 3743/1, 3768/1, 3798/1 – amend title of land unit

Land unit 1 (coastal cliffs) and land unit 7 (steep infertile coastal slopes) from the Operative Plan have been replaced with the landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) land unit in the Proposed Plan. Combining these two lands units is considered appropriate as both land units:

• Are visually prominent
• Relate to steep coastal areas
• Aim to preserve soils and vegetation
• Have landscapes with high natural character.

Combining the two land units from the operative plan is in line with community feedback, which sought clearer, less complicated provisions within the Proposed Plan.

The overall intention of the land unit is to protect coastal areas from modification by activities

and buildings. This level of protection is necessary in order to retain the high level of natural

character and visual prominence of these areas. The provisions of landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) also give effect to the relevant national and regional planning documents as they ensure the protection of the natural character of the coastal environment and areas of "outstanding natural landscape", both of which are matters of national importance under the RMA.

The policies and rules of landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) are the most appropriate means of achieving the objective as they provide a clear and effective set of provisions which ensure the protection of the natural character and visual prominence of the coastal environment. It is considered appropriate that the level of protection applied to coastal cliffs extend to the slopes as well.

It is recognised that in some cases, the coverage of the landform 1 land unit extends onto land which is not considered to fall within the definition of coastal cliffs and slopes. Submissions highlight a number of specific instances of this, along with more general submissions seeking that the entire land unit be reassessed. These submissions are addressed in the hearings report for landforms 1-7 (general).

It is considered that the title of the land unit accurately represents which areas of land on the islands that are contained within the land unit and it allows the Plan to provide specific protection and recognition of the high natural character and unique landscape that makes up the landform1 land unit.

It is therefore recommended that the submissions be rejected and that the title of the land unit remain as landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes).

4.2.2.2 Submissions 537/3 and 1250/18 – retain clause 10a.2 landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) land unit

The submitters seek that clause 10a.2 landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) be retained as is, unless the changes strengthen protection measures for the land unit.

It is recommended that these submissions be accepted in that they support the inclusion of the landform 1 land unit within the Plan

4.2.2.3 Submission 3061/60 – lacks reference to HGMPA, natural hazards, future proofing and landscape issues.

The resource management overview of the Plan, and in particular clause 2.3.2, recognises the importance of HGMPA. It is stated here that the Plan covers considerable areas, which are subject to the provisions of HGPMA. It is also considered that the interrelationship between the Hauraki Gulf, its island, and catchments and the ability of that interrelationship to sustain the life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Gulf and its islands are recognised as matters of national significance by HGMPA and by the Plan.

Although there is no specific mention to HGMPA within the landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) land unit, it is inherent that the principles behind the Act have been addressed and considered in the formation of this land unit.

Natural hazards are dealt with in part 8 of the Plan however it is considered that the encouragement for planting and the activity status for buildings being non-complying is consistent with the sensitive nature of this environment.

It is recognised through clause 10a.2.4 - resource management strategy of the land unit that the value of the natural character of the land unit is so high that no buildings or activities have been specifically provided for. This strategy aims to ensure that the land unit is protected from modification and by promoting the planting of ecosourced plants, it is intended that the land unit will maintain and enhance the natural landscape of the coastal cliffs and slopes.

It is not clear what the submitter means by the Plan lacking reference to future proofing, nor is it clear from the submission what relief is sought. At this time, no further analysis of the submission can be made.

It is therefore recommended that the submission be rejected.

4.3 Submissions about clause 10a.2.5 Rules – activity table

Submissions dealt with in this section: 474/1, 526/1, 527/1, 528/1, 529/1, 539/1, 1318/1, 1352/1, 1390/1, 1395/1, 1434/1, 1536/1, 1562/1, 1565/1, 1573/1, 1586/1, 1931/1, 1955/1, 2148/1, 2153/1, 2185/1, 2193/1, 2215/1, 2326/1, 2385/1, 2386/1, 2395/1, 2417/1, 2450/1, 2476/1, 2483/1, 2535/1, 2744/1, 2849/1, 3045/1, 3083/1, 3521/85

4.3.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 526/1, 527/1, 528/1, 529/1, 539/1 seek that residential dwelling be provided for as a restricted discretionary activity

Submissions 474/1, 1318/1, 1352/1, 1390/1, 1395/1, 1434/1, 1536/1, 1562/1, 1565/1, 1573/1, 1586/1, 1931/1, 1955/1, 2148/1, 2153/1, 2185/1, 2193/1, 2215/1, 2326/1, 2385/1, 2386/1, 2395/1, 2417/1, 2450/1, 2476/1, 2483/1, 2535/1, 2744/1, 2849/1 seek that the activity table be amended so that the letting of dwellings for visitor and tourists at a daily tariff is a permitted activity.

Submission 3045/1 seeks that goat farming be provided for as a discretionary activity within the land unit.

Submission 3083/1 seeks that rural property management plans be provided for as a discretionary activity within the land unit.

Submission 3521/85 seeks to retain the provision in clause 10a.2 as the non-complying activity status for all activities other than ecosourced planting is appropriate

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.3.2.1 Submissions 526/1, 527/1, 528/1, 529/1, 539/1 – residential dwellings

The submitters seek inclusion of dwellings as a restricted discretionary activity within the land unit. Currently residential dwellings are not provided for within the landform 1 land unit.

The landform 1 land unit has high natural character and is visually prominent due to its exposed coastal location. As such, it is considered appropriate that activities and buildings are specifically not provided for, with the exception of ecosourced planting in order to protect and maintain this unique environment.

The objectives and policies within the land unit seek to protect the coastal cliffs and slopes from modification by activities. It is considered that applying a restricted discretionary activity status to dwellings within the land unit would result in significant modification of the land unit and would therefore be against the objectives and policies.

It is recommended that the submissions be rejected.

4.3.2.2 Submissions 474/1, 1318/1, 1352/1, 1390/1, 1395/1, 1434/1, 1536/1, 1562/1, 1565/1, 1573/1, 1586/1, 1931/1, 1955/1, 2148/1, 2153/1, 2185/1, 2193/1, 2215/1, 2326/1, 2385/1, 2386/1, 2395/1, 2417/1, 2450/1, 2476/1, 2483/1, 2535/1, 2744/1, 2849/1 - letting of dwellings

As discussed in 4.3.2.1, it is recognised that the landform 1 land unit has such high natural character and visual prominence that any modification to the landscape, through buildings and activities other than ecosourced planting, could result in adverse effects on the environment.

As discussed above, dwellings are not provided for within the land unit, this is in line with the objectives and policies for the land unit that seek to protect the coastal cliffs and slopes from modification. Accordingly, it is recommended that the submissions be rejected.

4.3.2.3 Submission 3045/1 – goat farming

The submitter seeks that goat farming be provided for within the land unit as a discretionary activity. Currently there is no provision for farming of any kind within the landform 1 land unit as it is considered that the high natural character with the steep rugged landscape, sparse vegetation and visual prominence of the land unit make it unsuitable to provide for any activities or buildings other than ecosourced planting.

Clause 4.4.1(c) of the Plan prohibits a variety of animal pest species due to the ecological threat they pose to the natural values of the Hauraki Gulf islands. Submissions were received  relating to this part of the Plan and as a result, it was recommended in the hearing report for this part that prohibited animal pests be consistent with the proposed ARPMS 2007– 2012 (Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy) in so far as it applies to possums, goats, wallaby, deer and mustelids. It is noted that the amendments recommended in the hearings reports for part 14 would prohibit feral goats and deer as the ARC only considers goats and deer as pests when they are not held in secure containment.

Therefore whilst it is recognised that in other land units, the farming of goats may be a suitable activity, it is considered that farming of any kind, is against the objectives and policies of the landform 1 land unit.

It is recommended that the submission be rejected.

4.3.2.4 Submission 3083/1 – rural property management plan

Rural property management plan is defined in part 14 of the Plan as follows:

" Rural property management plan means a long term management plan which comprehensively details all land use activities proposed to be undertaken on a site, including the location of buildings and activities, and the mitigation of effects proposed to manage adverse effects from those buildings and activities."

The Plan provides for rural property management plans as a separately listed activity in the following land units:

As discussed in the hearings report for landforms 1-7 (general), rural property management plans are intended to provide a means by which a landowner or occupier can plan comprehensively, and on a long term basis, for the use of a site, and obtain a consent for a range of buildings and activities which may otherwise require a succession of separate consents on an ad hoc basis.

Rural property management plans are not provided for in landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes), landform 4 (wetland systems) or in the dune systems area within landform 2 (dune systems and sand flats). Land with these classifications is environmentally sensitive and the only permitted activity listed within the Plan is ecosourced planting.

It is recognised that rural property management plans provide landowners with the opportunity to plan holistically for development on their properties and it is therefore considered that inclusion of the activity in landforms 1, 2 and 4 could facilitate protection and restoration of these environmentally sensitive areas. It is noted however that the Plan would need to incorporate criteria to ensure that protection and restoration occurs and that these sensitive landforms benefit from rural property management plans.

This issue has been raised in previous hearings and officers are still considering the implications of their inclusion in Landforms 1, 2 & 4. It is considered that further investigation is needed on this matter and will be completed for the decision version of the Plan.

4.3.2.5 Submission 3521/85 - retain activity status

The submitter, Auckland Regional Council, seeks to retain the non-complying activity status for all activities within the land unit other than the permitted activity status for ecosourced planting.

It is recommended that the submission be accepted in that it provides specific support for clause 10a.2.5 Rules – activity table.

5.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) land unit 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 no amendments, for the reasons outlined in this report.

Appendix 1

List of submissions and further submissions

Appendix 2

Summary of decisions requested