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
| Topic: |
Landform 6 (regenerating slopes) land unit |
| Report to: |
The Hearing Panel |
| Author: |
Deborah Kissick |
| Date: |
27 August 2008 |
| Group file: |
314/274014-006
|
1.0 Introduction
This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that
were received by the council in relation to the landform 6 (regenerating 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 6 (regenerating 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:
- 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—
(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:
- 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 Landform 6 (regenerating slopes)
land unit.
Clause 10a.7.1 describes the land unit as follows:
"This land unit is applied to extensive areas of regenerating bush where kanuka
and manuka are the predominant vegetation.
Regenerating slopes is characterised by:
- High natural character and visual amenity value, as a result of its visual
prominence (in both coastal locations and as a backdrop to settlement areas) and
its unbroken expansive qualities.
- Varying rates of regeneration due to differences in factors such as soil quality
and stability, aspect and exposure.
- High ecological values, especially in areas where the regenerating vegetation
has been long established and consequently there is an increased diversity of podocarp
and broadleaf species and wildlife habitats.
- Small, scattered and unobtrusive buildings, if there are buildings at all.
- Isolated pockets of erosion particularly on north facing slopes.
Overall, regenerating slopes makes a significant contribution to the natural
character, ecological and the visual amenity value of the islands."
Clause 10a.7.4 sets out the following strategy for the land unit:
"The resource management strategy is to limit activities to those of a low intensity
and to require buildings to be assessed to ensure that there will be no adverse
effects on the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of the land
unit."
4.0 Analysis of submissions
4.1 Introduction
This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about
the landform 6 (regenerating 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 the landform 6 (regenerating
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. 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.
This report will deal with the text relating to the landform 6 (regenerating
slopes) land unit and the landforms 1-7 (general) report will consider any requests
for land to be reclassified from or to landform6.
4.2 Submissions about the entire landform 6 (regenerating slopes) land unit
Submissions dealt with in this section:
284/3,
1284/4,
2598/4,
3061/75,
3788/1,
3788/3,
3788/4,
3791/1,
3791/3,
3791/4,
3794/1,
3794/3,
3794/4
4.2.1 Decisions requested
Submissions
284/3,
1284/4
& 2598/4
seek that the provisions of the land unit, in relation to land use activities should
be amended so that a more proactive approach to sustainable development is encouraged
and facilitated. A comprehensive management plan approach could also be adopted.
Submission
3061/75 states that the land unit lacks recognition of the application of the
HGMPA and rules etc in response to the application and for habitat values.
Submissions
3788/1,
3791/1,
3794/1
seek that the current classification of landform 6 be withdrawn and for the council
to commit wider consultation with landowners for a practical definition based on
both use and geomorphological form.
Submission
3788/3,
3791/3,
3794/3
seek to encourage reforestation within the land unit by positive action and compensation.
Submissions
3788/4,
3791/4,
3794/4
seek compensation for landowners whose asset values are negatively affected by the
Plan's regime
4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
4.2.2.1 Submissions
284/3,
1284/4,
2598/4
– proactive approach to sustainable management
The submissions seek that the land unit take a more proactive approach to sustainable
development through amendments to the land use activities. The submissions state
that the land unit does not allow a sustainable approach to the management and enhancement
of the land and it is suggested that a comprehensive management plan could be adopted.
It should be noted that the purpose of the RMA is to promote sustainable management
of natural and physical resources. Sustainable management is a complex concept,
which involves a range of considerations, including the following;
- Managing the adverse effects of human activities on the environment
- Considering the natural environment
- Enabling people to meet their needs
- Considering future generations
The Plan is one of the tools, which the council uses to promote sustainable management,
and is most effective when used together with other council regulatory and non-regulatory
methods and initiatives.
The Plan encourages, and in some cases requires that particular methods be used
as part of development to promote sustainable management. One example of this, in
relation to landform 5 (productive land) is the controlling of the type, scale and
location of activities and development in order to avoid, remedy or mitigate any
adverse effects on the environment.
The submitter suggests that a comprehensive management plan could be adopted
as a way of achieving a more proactive approach to sustainable development. A comprehensive
management plan is a means of providing for integrated land use and subdivision
proposals that relate to the whole of a property and include land management, enhancement
and environmental protection outcomes.
The topic of comprehensive management plans has been addressed in the hearing
report for text – general and land units and settlement areas – general, and part
12 subdivision. These hearing reports do not recommend amending the Plan to provide
for comprehensive management plans as sought by submitters.
Rural property management plans are provided for as a permitted activity within
the land unit. Provision of these management plans within the land unit allows property
owners to plan the land use of their property is a holistic way.
It is considered that part 12 – Subdivision, of the Plan already appropriately
recognises the relationship between subdivision and the effects on landscape character
from built forms (such as dwellings) that may arise from subsequent land use activities
on any new sites created.
As discussed in the above mentioned hearing reports, comprehensive management
plan type provisions are sometimes used in district plans to secure replanting or
protection of existing bush or other features in return for allowing smaller site
sizes than would otherwise be permitted. However it is considered that the Plan
already provides appropriately for this by means of the subdivision provisions (in
clauses 12.9.3 and 12.9.4) relating to the protection of significant environmental
features, and associated cluster subdivision.
It is considered that rural property management plans provide a holistic approach
to land use which promotes sustainable development. Therefore it is recommended
that the submission be rejected.
4.2.2.2 Submission
3061/75 - lack of reference to HGMPA and habitat values
Section 9(3) of HGMPA requires the Council to ensure that:
"...any part of a district plan that applies to the Hauraki Gulf, its island,
and catchments, does not conflict with section 7 and 8 of this Act."
Section 10 of the HGMPA requires sections 7 and 8 of this Act to be treated as
a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement ('NZCPS'). Under section 75(3) of the RMA,
a district plan must give effect to any NZCPS.
Sections 7 and 8 of HGMPA read as follows:
"7. Recognition of national significance of Hauraki Gulf
(1) The interrelationship between the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments
and the ability of that interrelationship to sustain the life-supporting capacity
of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf and its islands are matters of national significance.
(2) The life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Gulf and its islands
includes the capacity—
(a) to provide for—
(i) the historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship of the tangata
whenua of the Gulf with the Gulf and its islands; and
(ii) the social, economic, recreational, and cultural well-being of people and
communities:
(b) to use the resources of the Gulf by the people and communities of the Gulf
and New Zealand for economic activities and recreation:
(c) to maintain the soil, air, water, and ecosystems of the Gulf.
8. Management of Hauraki Gulf
To recognise the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and
catchments, the objectives of the management of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and
catchments are—
(a) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the life-supporting
capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments:
(b) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the natural, historic,
and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments:
(c) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of those natural,
historic, and physical resources (including kaimoana) of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands,
and catchments with which tangata whenua have an historic, traditional, cultural,
and spiritual relationship:
(d) the protection of the cultural and historic associations of people and communities
in and around the Hauraki Gulf with its natural, historic, and physical resources:
(e) the maintenance and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the contribution
of the natural, historic, and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands,
and catchments to the social and economic well-being of the people and communities
of the Hauraki Gulf and New Zealand:
(f) the maintenance and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the natural, historic,
and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, which contribute
to the recreation and enjoyment of the Hauraki Gulf for the people and communities
of the Hauraki Gulf and New Zealand."
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.
It is considered that the protection of the expansive, open, rural character
of the land unit will ensure that the amenity values of the areas are maintained
and enhanced and that the provision of productive activities, within the already
modified environments, efficiently contributes to the economic and social wellbeing
of the community. Both these examples relate specifically to requirements of both
the RMA and HGMPA.
It is considered that specific reference to HGMPA is not necessary within the
land unit.
Clause 10a.7.2 refers to the significant resource management issues of the land
unit as needing to provide for productive activities while maintaining the expansive,
open nature and rural character of the land unit.
The submission also raises concern about a lack of recognition of habitat values
within the land unit. The objectives and policies of the land unit recognise
the ecological amenity values of the land unit which includes the values of habitat.
The objective seeks to protect the ecological amenity of the regenerating slopes
from the adverse effects of activities and buildings through limiting activities
which are provided for in the land unit and controlling the scale, form, colour
and location of new buildings.
Therefore, it is considered that the land unit does make reference to the value
of habitat in the land unit through the recognition of ecological values of the
land unit. It is recommended that the submission be rejected.
4.2.2.3 Submissions
3788/1,
3791/1,
3794/1
– re-consultation with landowners
The consultation undertaken by the council during the preparation of the Plan
is outlined in clause 1.3.7 of the Plan. Further information is available on the
council's website. The panel can be satisfied that the level of consultation meets,
and at times exceeds, the requirements of the RMA and of the Local Government Act
2002. In terms of public participation, the submission and hearing process provides
a further opportunity for public involvement. As the panel can be satisfied with
the level of consultation, it is recommended that submissions
3788/1,
3791/1
and 3794/1
be rejected.
4.2.2.4 Submissions
3788/3,
3791/3,
3794/3
– reforestation
The submitters seek encouragement of reforestation through positive action and
compensation for landowners.
Reforestation is not currently defined in the Plan and it is not considered necessary
to specifically provide for the activity within the Plan as it is considered that
reforestation has only positive effects and therefore does not call for inclusion
in the activity table
Section 85 of the RMA clearly identifies that compensation is not payable in
respect of controls on land. Section 85 does provide for a landowner to use the
submission process to challenge a provision in the plan on the grounds that they
consider that the land would be incapable of reasonable use. It is not considered
that the restrictions on activities within the landform 6 land unit make land within
the land unit incapable of reasonable use.
It is therefore recommended that the submission be rejected.
4.2.2.5 Submissions
3788/4,
3791/4,
3794/4
– compensation for landowners
The submitters seek compensation for landowners who claim to be negatively affected
by the Plan's regime. In its supporting reasons the submission notes that the Plan
does not provide for any serious economic use or potential in the land unit. It
states that the restrictions applied to buildings, clearance provisions, access,
and possible uses are too narrow to permit a serious level of economic planning,
and the consent process is too onerous and expensive for owners which to develop
land.
As discussed in section 4.2.2.4 above, section 85 of the RMA clearly identifies
that compensation is not payable in respect of controls on land. Section 85 does
provide for a landowner to use the submission process to challenge a provision in
the Plan on the grounds that they consider that the land would be incapable of reasonable
use.
It is considered that although the activities within the land unit are restricted
through the objectives, policies and rules to those of low intensity to avoid adverse
effects on the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of the land
unit, there is sufficient opportunity for use of the land through the activities
listed as permitted within the activity table. These include dwellings and use of
the dwellings for home occupations and homestays, visitor accommodation for up to
10 people and horticulture. There are also discretionary activities provided for
within the land unit which allow further use of the land where it is considered
the activities are appropriate.
It is recognised that the Plan requires that new buildings constructed within
the land unit obtain resource consent as a restricted discretionary activity. The
land unit has high visual prominence in both coastal locations and as a backdrop
to settlement areas and that therefore it is important that the scale, form and
location of any new buildings are assessed for their suitability for inclusion within
the land unit.
It is therefore considered that the Plan makes suitable allowance for activities
within the landform 6 (regenerating slopes) land unit while taking into account
that the high ecological values and natural character requires protection. It is
recommended that the submissions be rejected.
| Planner's recommendations for submissions about the entire landform
6 (regenerating slopes) land unit
That submissions
3788/3,
3791/3,
3794/3
be accepted in part with amendments to the Plan made according to Appendix 3.
That submissions
284/3,
1284/4,
2598/4,
3061/75,
3788/1,
3788/4,
3791/1,
3791/4,
3794/1,
3794/4
be rejected.
|
4.3 Submissions about clause 10a.7.5 Rules - activity table
Submissions dealt with in this section:
16/1,
109/3,
111/4,
256/1,
261/1,
285/1,
315/1,
466/1,
467/1,
512/5,
1067/1,
1087/1,
1176/1,
1176/3,
1176/5,
1186/1,
1186/3,
1250/25,
1250/26,
1276/1,
1276/3,
1276/5,
1280/4,
1523/3,
1525/1,
1525/2,
1525/3,
1525/4,
1540/1,
1540/2,
1540/3,
1540/4,
1541/3,
2538/1,
2541/1,
2554/7,
2648/1,
2648/3,
2648/5,
3061/76,
3104/2,
3618/1,
3618/3,
3618/5,
3788/2,
3788/5,
3788/6,
3788/7,
3791/2,
3791/5,
3791/6,
3791/7,
3794/2,
3794/5,
3794/6,
3794/7.
4.3.1 Decisions requested
Submissions
16/1,
111/4,
256/1,
285/1,
1525/2,
1525/3,
1540/2,
1540/3,
2538/1,
3104/2,
3788/2,
3791/2,
3794/2
raise matters in relation the provision of home and commercial firewood harvesting
and vegetation clearance. Decisions requested by the submitters include:
- Home firewood harvesting, of an unrestricted size as a permitted activity
- Cutting of manuka under 6m for home use (wood burning stoves)
- Commercial firewood harvesting as a permitted activity
- Provide for firewood use of 10-20m 3 per year
- Permit harvesting of kanuka and manuka for domestic heating of 7 m 3
per annum
- Vegetation clearance of 20% of a total site on suitable slopes
- Reasonable bush clearance for economic activities as a permitted activity
Submissions
261/1,
1525/1,
1540/1,
3788/7,
3791/7,
3794/7
raise matters in relation to the construction and relocation of buildings and to
the alterations and additions to the exterior of existing buildings. Decisions requested
by the submitters include:
- Additions and alterations be provided as a permitted activity
- Removal of additions and alterations from the activity table or change to permitted
- Change of status for the construction and relocation of buildings and additions
and alterations to existing buildings from restricted discretionary activities
to discretionary activities.
- Submissions
466/1,
467/1,
1250/25,
1250/26,
3788/6,
3791/6,
3794/6
raise matters in relation to visitor accommodation. Decisions requested by the
submitters include:
- Visitor accommodation as a permitted activity
- Allow visitor accommodation for up to 20 people as a permitted activity on
sites greater than 2ha
- Restrict visitor accommodation for up to 10 people to a discretionary activity
Submissions
315/1,
512/5,
1176/1,
1176/3,
1176/5,
1186/1,
1186/3,
1276/1,
1276/3,
1276/5,
1525/4,
1540/4,
1523/3,
1541/3,
2554/7,
2648/1,
2648/3,
2648/5,
3618/1,
3618/3,
3618/5,
3061/76,
3788/5,
3791/5,
3794/5
raise matters in relation to multiple dwellings and caretakers cottages. Decisions
requested by the submitters include:
- Multiple dwellings provided for worker accommodation or more family houses
as a permitted activity
- Caretakers cottages on land more than 4ha as a permitted activity
- Either a visitor accommodation facility or multiple dwelling to be provided
as a permitted activity in addition to the principal dwelling
- Multiple dwellings as a permitted activity
- Multiple dwellings as a controlled activity on sites with an area of 4ha or
more
- Multiple dwellings as a permitted activity on sites greater than 2ha
- Include new criteria tying caretakers cottages to plant and animal pest eradication
and control programmes and native plant replanting programmes
Submission
1067/1 seeks to educational facilities as a permitted activity within the land
unit and submission
1087/1 seeks to make educational facilities exempt from compliance with the
development controls listed in part 10c.
Submission
2541/1 seeks
to provide for camping facilities within the land unit as a discretionary activity.
Submission
109/3 relates
specifically to 375 Aotea Road, Great Barrier and seeks that the Plan provide for
energy generation systems, communication systems, water supply systems and walking
tracks and other recreational related structures (i.e. signs and shelters) as a
permitted activity.
Submission
1280/4
seeks that recognition is given to independent sleeping facilities (sleep outs)
being established in accessory buildings.
4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
Commercial firewood harvesting
The matter of commercial firewood harvesting has been addressed in the hearings
report for landforms – general. It is noted in this report that it is suitable to
provide for commercial firewood harvesting in the landform 6 (regenerating slopes)
land unit.
Currently commercial firewood harvesting is defined in part 14 of the Plan as:
" Commercial firewood harvesting means the harvesting of manuka, kanuka
or any exotic species for the production and sale of firewood. It does not include
other activities associated with the milling or processing of trees."
Commercial firewood harvesting is provided for as a discretionary activity in
landform 3 (alluvial flats) and landform 5 (productive land). It is noted that commercial
firewood harvesting is not required to comply with any other vegetation controls
contained in part 10c of the Plan.
It is considered that a management plan should be required with each application
for commercial firewood harvesting so that matters such as the phasing and amounts
of felling are addressed and can be considered by the council. Further work is required
to incorporate the need for a management plan into the provisions for commercial
firewood harvesting.
It is considered that provision for commercial firewood harvesting could be accommodated
within landform 6 (regenerating slopes) as this land unit contains extensive areas
of regenerating bush in varying rates of regeneration. It is considered suitable
to include commercial firewood harvesting in this land unit, as this is where vegetation
is most abundant and therefore the impacts of vegetation removal are less.
It is considered that the discretionary status of the activity allows the Council
to assess each application for commercial firewood harvesting on a case by case
basis. It is considered that the most efficient way of ensuring that firewood harvesting
is sustainable is to ensure that all commercial operations are required to obtain
resource consent. This way, the Council is able to ensure that harvesting is kept
to a sustainable level.
It is recommended that commercial firewood harvesting be included in landform
6 (regenerating slopes) as a discretionary activity.
Domestic firewood harvesting
It is recognised that the Plan does not currently make specific allowance for
domestic firewood harvesting and it is considered that this activity could be more
appropriately provided for. It is noted however that the Plan does permit the removal
of Kanuka of up to 6m in height on Great Barrier.
As discussed in the hearings report for landforms 1-7 (general), it is considered
important to include a definition of the activity to outline what is intended by
domestic firewood harvesting. The following definition could be appropriate:
"Domestic firewood harvesting
Means the harvesting of any species of vegetation for the purpose of domestic
firewood.
It does not include other activities associated with the milling or processing
of trees or the sale of firewood."
This definition should be included in part 14 – Definitions, of the Plan.
It is considered that both Waiheke and Great Barrier have needs for domestic
firewood harvesting, although it is recognised that the residents on Great Barrier
are more reliant on firewood as a source of home heating, water heating and cooking.
It is recognised that the vegetation controls on Waiheke and Great Barrier are
also different. There are no exotic species vegetation controls on Great Barrier,
while on Waiheke, any exotic tree over 8m in height or 800mm girth is protected.
Indigenous vegetation is also treated differently on the two islands. On Great Barrier
it is a permitted activity to remove kanuka of up to 6m while it is only permitted
to remove kanuka and manuka of up to 3m on Waiheke. It is therefore considered that
separate provisions must be made for domestic firewood harvesting on each island.
It is considered that domestic firewood harvesting should be included in all
the landform land units where dwellings are provided for to ensure that all landowner
can meet their domestic firewood needs. It is therefore necessary to provide for
domestic firewood harvesting as a permitted activity in the following land units:
- landform 2 (sand flats area only)
- landform 3 (alluvial flats)
- landform 5 (productive land)
- landform 6 (regenerating slopes)
- landform 7 (forest and bush areas)
It is also considered important to ensure that only the required amount of firewood
is obtained by landowners each year. It is considered that 5m 3 of firewood
will adequately provide for the domestic firewood needs of any dwelling. It is therefore
recommended that this amount be provided as a permitted activity, per site, over
a 12 month (January to December) period.
It is suggested that the following standards and terms be inserted into each
land unit where domestic harvesting will be provided for:
Rules – standards and terms for domestic firewood harvesting
Domestic firewood harvesting will only be considered as a permitted activity
where all of the following standards are met.
1. No more than 5m 3 of firewood is harvested per site, per 12
month (January to December) period is generated.
2. For Waiheke, indigenous vegetation up to 3m in height and exotic vegetation
up to 8m in height is used.
3. For Great Barrier, indigenous vegetation up to 6m in height is used. Exotic
vegetation can be used for domestic firewood on an 'unlimited basis' (i.e. there
are no restrictions on height or volume)
Proposals which do not meet these standards are a discretionary activity.
It is also suggested that a note be included below the activity tables for landforms
2 (sand flats area only), 3 (alluvial flats), 5 (productive land), 6 (regenerating
slopes) and 7 (forest and bush areas) to confirm that domestic firewood harvesting
"is not expected to comply with the vegetation clearance controls set out in part
10c – Development controls for land units and settlement areas".
Assessment criteria will be required in part 11, in particular, under clause
11.3.2. This criteria will be used for assessing proposals which are discretionary
because they do not meet the standards and terms listed above. It is recommended
that the following assessment criteria be applied to an application for domestic
firewood harvesting:
- The extent to which the proposed activity will adversely effect the natural
environment
- Whether the proposed activity affects natural habitats and ecological values
- Whether the proposed activity affects visual and amenity values
- Whether any mitigation measures have been included in the application such
as replanting elsewhere on the property
- Whether there are species listed in appendix 6 – list of threatened and unusual
plant and animal species located within or adjacent to the area subject to the
activity
- Whether the proposed activity is likely to result in subsidence or erosion
- Whether the applicant can display a need for the quantity proposed
Vegetation/Bush clearance
It is recognised that the rules relating to vegetation clearance in the Plan
could be amended to be made clearer and easier to use.
Currently the Plan allows for 1000m 2 of indigenous vegetation clearance
in landform 6 (regenerating slopes) however it is noted that this figure is not
quantified to specify the time period for which this applies.
This topic is addressed in more detail in the hearing report for part 10c and
therefore no recommendations on this matter will be made in this report.
4.3.2.2 Submissions
261/1,
1525/1,
1540/1
– alterations and additions to buildings
The submitter seeks that the following clause is either removed from the activity
table or changed to a permitted status:
"Alterations and additions to the exterior of existing buildings including buildings
used for any of the other activities listed in this table. However this does not
apply to minor alterations and additions as defined in part 14 – Definitions.
Currently, the activity holds a restricted discretionary activity status as does
the construction and relocation of buildings.
Changing the activity status of alterations and additions to permitted would
mean that resource consent would not be required for the additions provided they
fell within the development controls listed in part 10c.
The restricted discretionary status of additions and alterations allows the council
to apply discretion over whether the proposed additions and alterations are appropriate
as they relate to scale, form, colour and location.
Landform 6 (regenerating slopes) land unit has high ecological values, natural
character and visual amenity values as a result of its visual prominence (in both
coastal locations and as a backdrop to settlement areas).
It is considered that due to the visual prominence of the land unit, controls
over the built form within the land unit is important to avoid adverse effects on
the natural character. The restricted discretionary status of building activities
within the land unit recognise that whilst the activity for which a building will
be used may be permitted, the building itself needs to be restricted in its scale,
form, colour and location in order to avoid any adverse effects it could have on
the outstanding natural environment.
Currently buildings within the land unit are small, scattered and unobtrusive
and it is important that this is maintained as much as possible when allowing new
development within the land unit.
It is therefore considered that the submission be rejected and the restricted
discretionary status remain on additions and alterations within the activity table.
4.3.2.3 Submissions
3788/7,
3791/7,
3794/7
– construction, relocation, alteration and additions to buildings
The submitters seek that the restricted discretionary status of both construction
and relocation of buildings and alterations and additions to existing buildings
be reduced to a discretionary status.
It is likely that the submitters have misunderstood the hierarchy of activities
when it comes to discretionary and restricted discretionary activities. The discretionary
category is a more rigorous and onerous requirement than restricted discretionary.
However, what is clear from the submission is that the submitters seek to liberalise
the activity status relating to building, relocation, alterations and additions
within the landform 6 (regenerating slopes) land unit.
As discussed in 4.3.2.2 above, the restricted discretionary status as applied
to alterations and additions, and also to construction and relocation of buildings,
is applied separately to the activity for which the building is used for. Buildings
within the land unit are small, scattered and unobtrusive and it is important for
the character of the land unit that the development of buildings are kept as limited
as possible to avoid any adverse effects.
The restricted discretionary status which has been placed on construction allows
the council to control the scale, form, colour and location of new buildings in
order to retain the natural character and high visual amenity values of the land
unit.
It is therefore recommended that the submissions be rejected and that the restricted
discretionary status of construction, relocation, alterations and additions be retained.
The submitters seek a permitted status for this activity to allow them to provide
for worker accommodation or additional family homes (multiple dwellings) to accommodate
staff over busy tourist periods.
Dwellings are provided for within the land unit as a permitted activity while
multiple dwelling hold a discretionary status.
More than one dwelling per site significantly increases the potential for adverse
effects on the natural character of the land unit. Not only is it an additional
building within the land unit that needs to be accommodated but the activities and
modifications to the land for items such as access, parking, wastewater disposal
and utility services etc also need to be provided.
Changing the status of multiple dwellings, to a permitted activity, suggests
that more than one dwelling per site is appropriate on all properties where they
comply with the rules in part 12 – Subdivision. While it is recognised that some
sites may be suitable for more than one dwelling, a permitted activity status does
not take into account the high amenity values and natural character for which characterise
the land unit.
Retaining a discretionary activity status allows the council to use its discretion
over the appropriateness of the proposal on a case by case basis, regardless of
the size of the site and to ensure that any potential adverse effects from development
can be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated.
It is therefore recommended that the submissions be rejected and that the discretionary
activity status be retained for multiple dwellings.
4.3.2.5 Submission
315/1 –
horticulture as a permitted activity and multiple dwellings and homestays as discretionary
activities
The submission states that horticulture should not be a permitted activity within
the land unit and that multiple dwellings and homestays (for over 10 people) should
not be discretionary activities.
"Horticulture means the use of land or buildings for the commercial growing
of vegetables, fruit, berries, nuts, vines, flowers, plants or fungi. It includes
market gardening, orcharding, and viticulture (but not a winery)".
The submitter raises concern over excessive use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides
and herbicides associated with horticultural practises and their effects on waterways.
It should be noted that issues in relation to the application of chemicals to land
are dealt with by the Auckland Regional Council (ARC). Agrichemical spraying for
weed and pest control is considered a permitted activity under the Proposed Auckland
Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water and does not require a resource consent.
It is considered that this is not a matter that can be addressed by the Auckland
City Council through the District Plan. Activities such as weed and insect control,
fertiliser application, pruning, harvesting etc are all considered integral to the
functioning of horticultural activities and are therefore provided for as part of
the activity.
Horticulture is considered an appropriate activity as it is adds to the natural
character of the land unit and does not result in an unnecessary increase in built
form. Horticulture is recognised as an important way in which island residents can
provide for their economic wellbeing and the activities, which are provided for
within the land unit, have been limited in order to avoid any adverse effects on
the environment.
The submission also raises concern that multiple dwellings and homestays for
over 10 people should not be discretionary activities but that more restriction
should be placed on these activities. The submitter believes these activities are
in contravention of the Plan's recognition of the high natural character, visual
amenity and ecological values of the regenerating vegetation within the land unit.
It is thought that the submission has mistakenly referred to homestays as homestays
are restricted to no more than 5 guests excluding the residents of the household
and are provided for within the land unit as a permitted activity. It is believed
that the submitter was meaning to refer to visitor accommodation for more than 10
people and this activity holds a discretionary status in the land unit.
Multiple dwellings are provided for as discretionary activities as it is recognised
that on some sites within the land unit, multiple dwellings may be able to be suitably
integrated with minimal impact on the environment with appropriate design, scale
and location.
Visitor accommodation is provided for as a permitted activity for up to 10 people
as it is recognised that the scale, form and location of such an activity are in
keeping with the resource management strategy for the land unit, which provides
for low intensity activities. It is considered that the effects of the use of a
dwelling and a visitor accommodation to cater for up to 10 people have similar effects
on the environment. It is also considered that visitor accommodation can provide
an income source for landowners, which in turn assists in providing for their social
and economic wellbeing.
The Plan requires a restricted discretionary resource consent for the construction
of any new buildings within the land unit. This requires any new building (and alterations
and additions) to be assessed on its scale, form, colour and location and the council
can decide whether to impose consent conditions or decline the application if the
proposal is deemed unsuitable for inclusion within the land unit.
Reducing the status of these activities to a non-complying activity suggests
that the activity is not at all suitable within the land unit which, as discussed
above, is not considered to be the case within landform 6 (regenerating slopes).
It is therefore recommended the submission be rejected and that the permitted
status of horticulture within the land unit remain as permitted, and that multiple
dwellings and visitor accommodation for more than 10 people remain as discretionary
activities.
Submissions
1250/25
and 1250/26
seek that the status of visitor accommodation for up to 10 people be reduced from
a permitted activity to a discretionary activity within the land unit. Submissions
466/1,
467/1,
3788/6,
3791/6,
3794/6
seek that the permitted status of visitor accommodation for up to 10 people be retained
and that the construction of a building for visitor accommodation for up to 10 people
also be permitted.
Currently, visitor accommodation for up to 10 people is provided for as a permitted
activity within the land unit while visitor accommodation for more than 10 people
is a discretionary activity and the construction and relocation of new buildings
within the land unit.
Visitor accommodation is defined in the Plan as:
Visitor accommodation means land or buildings used for the day to day
accommodation of tourists and short-stay visitors away from their normal place of
residence.
It may include shared or centralised services for the tourists or visitors such
as kitchen and dining facilities, toilet and washing facilities, and recreational
and bar facilities.
It includes any of the following:
- motels and hotels
- backpacker lodges
- serviced rental accommodation for visitors that is offered at a daily tariff
or with a pricing structure that is consistent with short stay accommodation
- timeshare accommodation.
It may include premises licensed under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989.
It does not include any of the following:
- the letting of dwellings
- homestays
- boarding houses and hostels
- camping facilities
- taverns
- restaurants, cafes and other eating places except where these are limited to
the use of people staying in the accommodation and their guests.
It may form part of a tourist complex.
Visitor accommodation is provided for as a permitted activity for up to 10 people
as it is recognised that the scale, form and location of such an activity are in
keeping with the resource management strategy for the land unit, which provides
for low intensity activities. It is considered that the effects of the use of a
dwelling and a visitor accommodation to cater for up to 10 people have similar effects
on the environment. It is also considered that visitor accommodation can provide
an income source for landowners, which in turn assists in providing for their social
and economic wellbeing.
The Plan requires a restricted discretionary resource consent for the construction
of any new buildings within the land unit. This requires any new building (and alterations
and additions) to be assessed on its scale, form, colour and location and the council
can decide whether to impose consent conditions or decline the application if the
proposal is deemed unsuitable for inclusion within the land unit.
Submissions
1250/25
and 1250/26
agree that it is appropriate to allow for homestay accommodation within the land
unit due to the fact that the requirements of homestay accommodation require that
it be undertaken within the existing dwelling for not more than 5 guests and therefore
does not result in additional built form within the land unit.
It is considered that the permitted activity status for visitor accommodation
for up to 10 people should be retained and it is therefore recommended that the
submission be rejected.
The submitters seek provision for caretaker accommodation (in addition to the
main dwelling) as a permitted activity within the land unit. The need for on-going
active plant and animal pest eradication and control programmes in areas of forest
and bush is raised as a reason for allowing caretakers accommodation on site where
landowners may not be resident full time.
The provision of caretakers accommodation, as suggested by the submitters will
result in multiple dwellings on a property. It is therefore not considered that
a separate definition for caretakers accommodation is required.
As discussed in 4.3.2.4 above, it is recognised some sites may be able to adequately
accommodate multiple dwellings while taking into account the natural character and
amenity values of the land unit. However, it is considered inappropriate to alter
the status of the activity to allow for this as a permitted activity as this suggests
that all properties are suitable for multiple dwellings.
It is therefore recommended that the submissions be rejected and that no additional
provision be made within the land unit for caretaker accommodation.
4.3.2.8 Submissions
1176/3,
1186/3,
1276/3,
2648/3,
3618/3
– visitor accommodation or a caretaker's cottage
The submitters seek amendment to the land unit to allow either a visitor accommodation
unit or a caretakers cottage as permitted development in addition to the principal
dwelling on a property.
Caretakers cottages are simply an additional residential dwelling and therefore
the effects of a caretakers cottage with a principal dwelling are the same as those
created by two dwellings. It is therefore considered that no additional provisions
are required to allow for caretakers cottages within the Plan as they are no different
from multiple dwellings, which have a discretionary status within the activity table.
Visitor accommodation (both for up to 10 people and over 10 people) is not considered
appropriate as a permitted activity, on a site where a residential dwelling is already
in existence. It is therefore recommended in 4.5.2.6 that visitor facilities for
up to 10 people be allowed on a site in place of a dwelling, as a permitted activity.
It is also recommended that provision for a dwelling and a visitor facility (for
up to 10 people) be allowed as a discretionary activity.
These recommendations ensure that the policies within the land unit are upheld
by limiting activities that can occur within the land unit, especially as the activities
discussed result in an increase in built form.
Visitor accommodation plays a key role in providing for the economic and social
wellbeing of the community. The capacity of visitor accommodation has been considered
for its appropriateness within the land unit, hence the two separate allowances
within the activity table.
It is therefore considered that the submissions should be rejected.
4.3.2.9 Submissions
1067/1 &
1087/1 – education facilities
The submitter (Ministry of Education) seeks that education facilities are provided
for as a permitted activity within the land unit.
Landform 6 (regenerating slopes) is applied to extensive areas of regenerating
bush where kanuka and manuka are the predominant vegetation.
Education facilities is defined in part 14 of the Plan as:
"Educational facilities means land or buildings used to provide regular
instruction or training in accordance with a curriculum by teachers or instructors.
It includes schools, technical institutes, teachers' colleges, universities,
outdoor education centres, sports training establishments and home-schooling for
more than two children not resident on the site.
The activity also includes ancillary administrative, cultural, health, retail
and communal facilities."
Non-productive activities such as educational facilities are limited within the
land unit as they are not in keeping with the rural use and character of the land
unit. It is considered that educational facilities vary in scale and intensity and
as such, the effects of the activities can vary greatly.
The Ministry of Education has designated all of its schools currently located
on both Waiheke (1 kindergarten, 2 primary schools and a high school) and Great
Barrier ( 3 primary schools). It is considered that designation is the most appropriate
way for the Ministry of Education to provide for new educational facilities.
Clause 1.6.5 of the Plan outlines the role of designations. A designation is
a form of land use authorisation which is available to a requiring authority. Requiring
authorities include ministers of the crown, local authorities (such as the council),
or network utility operators. A designation is for a public work such as a school,
police station, road, motorway, park, drainage or infrastructure systems.
The effect of a designation is to override the general provisions of the Plan
and any resource consent, for activities that are consistent with the designated
purpose. Once a designation is included in the Plan, no one may without the prior
written consent of the requiring authority do anything to the affected land that
would prevent or hinder it being used for its designated purpose.
It is therefore considered that educational facilities are not considered appropriate
as a permitted activity within the land unit and it is recommended that the submission
be rejected.
4.3.2.10 Submission
2541/1 –
camping facilities
Camping facilities are not currently provided for in the land unit and therefore
are considered a non-complying activity as per clause 4.2 of the Plan.
The submitter refers in particular to the property at Lot 156, Aotea Parish at
Mangati Bay, Great Barrier. Resource consent was granted in 1988 for a survival
and rehabilitation camp, which has been run at the property since this time, up
until 2 years ago.
Camping facilities are defined in part 14 of the Plan as:
" Camping facilities means land or buildings used or designed to be used
for rent, hire or reward for temporary living places by two or more families or
groups of people living independently of each other.
The temporary living places may include any of the following:
- a tent
- a caravan, campervan or other vehicle occupied either wholly or in part as
a temporary living place.
The families or groups may share common entrances, water supplies, cooking facilities,
toilet and washing facilities, or other premises and equipment."
The submitter has stated that resource consent was previously granted to operate
a camping facility and this consent can be reinstated at any time in the future
in accordance with the conditions.
Camping facilities are a cheaper version of visitor accommodation and would generally
accommodate more than 10 people at a time. Visitor facilities for more than 10 people
have a discretionary activity status within the land unit and therefore it seems
appropriate to provide for camping facilities in the same way.
It is therefore considered that this submission be accepted and that camping
facilities be added to clause 10a.7.5 as a discretionary activity.
4.3.2.11 Submission
109/3 -
375 Aotea Road, Great Barrier
The submitter seeks that landform 6 (regenerating slopes) should allow energy
generation systems, communication systems, water supply systems and walking tracks
and other recreation related structures (i.e. signs, shelters) as permitted uses,
particularly in relation to the property at 375 Aotea Road, Great Barrier.
Although not specifically mentioned in the Plan, it is considered that the requirements
of residents and land owners to provide for their functional needs, such as power,
water, communication, waste water disposal etc are considered an inherent part of
the activities allowed in the land unit.
Walking tracks and other recreation related structures (shelters and signs) are
also not specifically mentioned in the Plan. The development controls such as earthworks,
vegetation clearance and the definition of buildings can control these types of
activities.
The Plan is not intending to restrict the day to day functioning of the land
and but instead seeks to control new development to ensure that any adverse effects
on the environment are appropriately considered and addressed where necessary.
The Plan covers conventional utility services in part 5 – Network utility services
and it is addressed in this part the importance of utility services to the islands
but require the effects of these services to be managed in a sustainable manner
that is in accordance with the RMA.
The Plan recognises that the islands have a unique landscape and that some utility
services can detract from the visual amenity of the natural environment. There is
a need to balance between providing utility services and ensuring that they do not
detract from the environment in which they are located.
It is therefore considered that the submission be rejected as the issues raised
by the submitter are already considered to be adequately provided for within the
Plan.
4.3.2.12 Submission
1280/4
- independent sleeping facilities
The submission seeks provision within the land unit for independent sleeping
facilities or 'sleep outs'.
"Sleepout means a building which contains a bedroom or bedrooms. It may
include bathroom and toilet facilities. It does not contain a kitchen sink or dishwashing
facility.
A sleepout must be treated as a building forming part of a dwelling rather than
as an accessory building."
The submission refers to residential accessory buildings and it is noted that
the definition for residential accessory building in the Plan states:
"Residential accessory building means an accessory building which is either:
- Incidental to the use of a dwelling on a site; or
- Incidental to the residential use of a site.
It may include a garage or carport, a shed, a workshop, an office, a building
used for a home occupation, a recreation room, a spa pool or swimming pool.
It does not include any of the following:
- a sleepout or other buildings that generally form part of a dwelling
- a building which contains a kitchen sink or dishwashing facility."
It is noted that other subparts of the submission (
1280/5
and
1280/6) seek amendments to the definitions of dwelling and accessory building
as they relate to sleepouts. Those subparts will be considered in the hearing report
for part 14.
The Plan does not treat sleepouts as accessory residential buildings but considers
them to be part of the dwelling. As such they must be located within a cluster of
buildings which form the dwelling. The approach of treating sleepouts as part of
the dwelling rather than as a residential accessory building has been carried through
from the Operative Plan.
The key characteristic of sleepouts is that they form part of a dwelling. The
Plan does not intend that they be used to provide self-contained residential accommodation.
It is for this reason that the definition of sleepout specifically excludes 'a building
which contains a kitchen sink or dishwashing facility'. As noted above, it is considered
that the addition of a kitchen is the key factor which makes a building self-contained
and causes it to be an additional dwelling, rather than just part of a cluster of
buildings which together form one dwelling.
It is considered that the Plan does make adequate provision for sleep outs as
it is considered that dwellings (one per site) are provided for as a permitted activity
within the land unit. It is recommended that the submission be rejected.
| Planner's recommendations for submissions about clause 10a.
7.5 Rules - activity Table
That submissions
466/1,
467/1,
1250/25,
1250/26,
2541/1,
3788/6,
3791/6,
3794/6
be accepted in part and the Plan be amended in accordance with Appendix 3.
That submissions
16/1,
109/3,
111/4,
256/1,
261/1,
285/1,
315/1,
512/5,
1067/1,
1087/1,
1176/1,
1176/3,
1176/5,
1186/1,
1186/3,
1276/1,
1276/3,
1276/5,
1280/4,
1523/3,
1525/1,
1525/2,
1525/3,
1525/4,
1540/1,
1540/2,
1540/3,
1540/4,
1541/3,
2538/1,
2554/7,
2648/1,
2648/3,
2648/5,
3061/76,
3104/2,
3618/1,
3618/3,
3168/5,
3788/2,
3788/5,
3788/7,
3791/2,
3791/5,
3791/7,
3794/2,
3794/5,
3794/7
be rejected.
|
4.4 Submission relating to clause 10a.7.6 Rules – standards and terms for multiple
dwellings
Submission dealt with in this section:
1280/2
4.4.1 Decisions requested
Submission
1280/2
seeks that the standards and terms for multiple dwellings (as set out in clause
10a.7.6) and any other associated provision be deleted and that multiple residential
units remain a discretionary activity within the landform 6 (regenerating slopes)
land unit.
4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
The submitter seeks that multiple dwellings be assessed on the following criteria:
- The design and appearance of the unit(s) in the context of the objectives/policies
for the land unit and the particular characteristics of the property.
- The scale and density of the proposal being sensitive to the strategy for the
land unit and the particular characteristics of the property
- The effects of the proposal on erosion, ecological values, effluent disposal
and bush regeneration.
Currently clause 10a.7.6 states:
"An application for multiple dwellings will only be considered as a discretionary
activity where one or more of the following criteria are met:
- The resulting number of dwellings on the site will be no more than that which
would occur if the site were subdivided in accordance with the rules inpart 12
- Subdivision applying to this land unit (with one dwelling per site).
- An application is made at the same time for subdivision resulting in the amalgamation
of sites such that the number of dwellings on the new site created would be no
greater than that which could be achieved through locating a dwelling on each of
the original sites.
- The dwellings are for papakainga housing.
- The land has been owned co-operatively by a number of individuals since prior
to 29 September 1992.
Proposals which do not meet these standards are a non-complying activity."
The standards and terms for multiple dwellings are consistent in all the land
units where multiple dwellings are provided. Creating multiple dwellings on a site
increases the intensity of use on the site, which can result in further modification
of the environment (e.g. earthworks and vegetation removal) and a proliferation
of built forms in the environment. Therefore, by ensuring that multiple dwellings
applications are assessed in accordance with the minimum site size for the land
unit and/or settlement area, this will provide consistency with part 12 of the plan,
and ensure that multiple dwellings on the site do not generate adverse amenity effects
which detract from the character of the environment and undermine the resource management
strategy and objectives and policies for the land unit.
The criteria suggested by the submitter are aspects which are addressed through
part 12 of the Plan - development controls for land units and settlement areas and
apply to all new buildings that are constructed. It is therefore not considered
necessary to include these matters as criteria specifically for multiple dwellings.
It is therefore recommended that the submission be rejected.
| Planner's recommendations for the submission relating to the
standards and terms for multiple dwellings
That submission
1280/2
be rejected.
|
4.5 Submissions about the provision for farming within the land unit
Submissions dealt with in this section:
526/8,
527/8,
528/8,
529/8,
539/8,
3045/5
4.5.1 Decisions requested
Submissions
526/8,
527/8,
528/8,
529/8,
539/8 seek to provide for farming as a permitted activity within the land unit
for farming operations that were operating prior to the notification of the Plan
Submission
3045/5
seeks that the land unit provide for the farming of goats as a discretionary activity.
4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
Pastoral farming is defined in the Plan as:
" Pastoral farming means the growing of grass and fodder crops on which
stock are grazed.
It does not include the grazing of deer or goats."
The landform 6 (regenerating slopes) land unit does not currently provide for
pastoral farming within the land unit, therefore making it a non-complying activity
as per clause 4.2 of the Plan.
The objectives, policies and rules of the land unit seek to limit the activities
within the land unit to those which avoid adverse effects on the natural character,
ecological and visual amenity value of the land unit and are of a low intensity.
Pastoral farming is not considered to be a low intensity use of the land due to
the large areas of regenerating bush that are required to be cleared in order to
facilitate pastoral farming.
Section 10 of the RMA permits certain existing uses which were lawfully established
to continue despite contravening a rule of a proposed or operative district plan
which subsequently comes into force. Section 10(1) to (3) states:
"(1) Land may be used in a manner that contravenes a rule in a district plan
or proposed district plan if—
(a) Either—
(i) The use was lawfully established before the rule became operative or the
proposed plan was notified; and
(ii) The effects of the use are the same or similar in character, intensity,
and scale to those which existed before the rule became operative or the proposed
plan was notified:
(b) Or—
(i) The use was lawfully established by way of a designation; and
(ii) The
effects of the use are the same or similar in character, intensity, and scale to
those which existed before the designation was removed.
(2) Subject to sections 357 to 358, this section does not apply when a use of
land that contravenes a rule in a district plan or a proposed district plan has
been discontinued for a continuous period of more than 12 months after the rule
in the plan became operative or the proposed plan was notified unless—
(a) An application has been made to the territorial authority within 2 years
of the activity first being discontinued; and
(b) The territorial authority has granted an extension upon being satisfied that—
(i) The effect of the extension will not be contrary to the objectives and policies
of the district plan; and
(ii) The applicant has obtained approval from every person who may be adversely
affected by the granting of the extension, unless in the authority's opinion it
is unreasonable in all the circumstances to require the obtaining of every such
approval.
(3) This section does not apply if reconstruction or alteration of, or extension
to, any building to which this section applies increases the degree to which the
building fails to comply with any rule in a district plan or proposed district plan."
The four legal tests which need to be considered in order to establish existing
use rights under section 10 can be summarised as follows:
- The use must have been legally established
- The effects of the use must be the same or similar in character, intensity
and scale to those which existed before the rule which it infringes became operative
or the proposed plan was notified
- The use must not have been discontinued for a continuous period of more than
12 months
- In relation to a building, the building must not be altered in a manner which
increases the degree to which the building fails to comply with any rule in the
district plan
Any assertion of existing use rights must be assessed and determined on a case
by case basis. It is not appropriate for the council to define or confer existing
use rights in the Plan.
Under section 139A of the RMA, a person can apply to the council for an existing
use certificate. The council may require the applicant provide any further information
that it needs to determine whether it can issue the certificate.
Existing land use was one of the factors that was taken into account when developing
the objectives, policies and rules in the Plan. It is not the only factor - under
section 31 of the RMA the council has the function of 'the control of any actual
or potential effects of the use, development or protection of land'.
It is therefore considered that the submission be rejected as it is not considered
that pastoral farming is an appropriate activity within the landform 6 (regenerating
slopes) land unit.
4.5.2.2 Submission
3045/5
– goat farming
Goat farming is currently not provided for within the Plan and it has been specifically
excluded from the definition of pastoral farming. As discussed in 4.5.2.12 of the
hearing report for landform 5 (productive land) land unit, 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 raised
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 amended Plan would prohibit feral goats and deer
as it only considers goats and deer as pests when they are not held in secure containment.
It is therefore considered that goats, farmed within secure containment could be
appropriate for farming.
However, as discussed in 4.5.2.1, pastoral farming is not considered an appropriate
activity for inclusion within the landform 6 (regenerating slopes) land unit and
it is recommended that the submission be rejected.
5.0 Conclusion
This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding
Landform 6 (regenerating 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 amendments (as outlined in appendix 3), for
the reasons outlined in this report.
| |
Name and title of signatories |
Signature |
| Author |
Deborah Kissick, Planner |
|
| Reviewer |
Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands
|
|
| Approver |
Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning |
|
Appendix 1
List of submissions and further submissions
Appendix 2
Summary of decisions requested
Appendix 3
Recommended amendments to the Plan
Part A
Part B
