Plans, policies and reports

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

District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

(Notified version 2006)

Hearing reports index

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

Topic:	Matiatia (mixed use)
Report to:	Independent Commissioners
Author:	Sarah Nairn
Date:	04 August 2008
Group file:	314/274019

1.0 Introduction

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to the Matiatia (mixed use) land unit ('Matiatia') 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 Matiatia. 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

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

3.1 Proposed Matiatia provisions

The Matiatia land unit is applied at Matiatia, which is a harbour at the western end of Waiheke. The characteristics of Matiatia are as follows:

"High visual amenity due to its coastal location and surrounding headlands and hill slopes, many of which are revegetating.
The wharf and ferry building located at the northern end of the beach. The wharf and ferry building act as the main transport terminal for passenger ferry services to and from Waiheke.
Passenger transport services (buses and taxis) located to the rear of the ferry building.
High numbers of people moving in and out of the area at times of ferry departure and arrival.
A large area on the valley floor (approximately 5ha) which is mostly used for at grade carparking but also contains the Harbourmaster building and a variety of smaller activities.
The storage and carparking activities located on the privately owned site on the northern side of Ocean View Road.
An esplanade reserve located adjacent to the Matiatia Bay foreshore that is used for public recreation.
A regenerating wetland (approximately 4ha) located on the valley floor to the side and rear of the large flat area. The wetland flows out to Matiatia Bay".

The Matiatia provisions also identify that the existing development on the valley floor is not befitting its location at the 'gateway' to the island, particularly because of the expansive carparking, ad hoc appearance of existing buildings and the lack of activities and services for ferry passengers. In order to remedy this situation, the Council, as the owner of the land at Matiatia, intends to undertake a comprehensive redevelopment. This comprehensive redevelopment is intended to provide the activities and services needed by the people using the area as well as enhancing the landscape character and natural features of the area.

The strategy or framework for this redevelopment is to divide the land unit into three different areas so that each area can be developed and used in different ways. A summary of each of the areas is as follows:

1. Transport area � the transport area is divided into transport area A and transport area B. Transport area A is located directly behind the wharf and ferry building and makes specific provision for the passenger transport (buses, taxis and other multiple occupancy vehicles) and wharf associated activities located in this area. Transport area B is located further up Ocean View Road on its northern side. This area provides for the existing storage and carparking activities developed on this site.

2. Mixed use area � this area is located on the valley floor and will used for a mixed use development. It is intended that the activities within this area will meet the needs of island residents (e.g. dwellings retail, offices and restaurants and cafes) and the needs of visitors (e.g. visitor accommodation and function facilities). Some activities (e.g. cafes) will meet the needs of both residents and visitors.

The built environment of a mixed use development is very important as the buildings create a 'sense of place' and entice people to use the activities located within the area. To ensure that buildings are attractive, inviting and maintain the landscape character of Matiatia, buildings within the mixed use area require consent as a restricted discretionary activity.

Carparking and other transport infrastructure have also been provided for within this area in recognition that these activities are vital to the transport role of the land unit. It is, however, recognised that the final form of these activities and the road will need to be determined in conjunction with the final form of the mixed use development.

The amount of activity provided for in the mixed use development has been set at a level, by the threshold controls, which can be serviced in terms of water supply and wastewater disposal. Wastewater from the mixed use development will be treated and disposed of by the Owhanake wastewater treatment plant located on the upper hill slopes on the northern side of the valley. Water will be supplied from the bore located behind the Harbourmaster's building and from rainwater capture.

3. Wetland area - includes the wetland located to the side and rear of the mixed use area. In the past, the wetland has been drained and used for pastoral farming but in recent times the wetland has regenerated as a result of weed eradication and increased water flows. As well as contributing to the visual amenity and ecology of the area the wetland also plays a valuable 'polishing' role for the Owhanake wastewater treatment plant.

3.2 Basis for the Matiatia provisions

3.2.1 Plan change 38

The Matiatia provisions are primarily based on the provisions of plan change 38 � Matiatia to the Operative District Plan ('plan change 38'). The history of this plan change is set out below:

In 2002, the then owners of the land, Waitemata Infrastructure Limited (WIL) applied for a plan change (plan change 38 � Matiatia) to change the planning provisions in the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section � Operative 1996 ('the Operative Plan') which related to the land on the valley floor at Matiatia.
Following the public submission and hearing process, the Council declined the plan change in March 2003. The decision was subsequently appealed to the Environment Court.
The appeal to the plan change was heard by the Environment Court in December 2004. At this hearing a range of parties were represented including the Council, the Auckland Regional Council ('ARC'), the Community and People of Waiheke ('CAPOW') and the Gulf District Plan Association Inc ('GDPA').
In March 2005, the Environment Court released an interim decision on the plan change. This decision identified that there should be provision for up to 10,000m² of development on the WIL owned land and a range of other key findings. A copy of the key findings from the interim decision is attached as Appendix 4.
As the Environment Court decision was an interim decision rather than a final decision, the parties to the appeal were requested to work together to amend the plan change to give effect to the findings of the interim decision.
In addition to the amendments put forward by the parties to the appeal, a peer review of the plan change was undertaken by an independent planning consultant. The scope of this review was limited to ensuring general workability of the provisions, consistency of wording, structure and format and compatibility of the plan change with the Operative Plan.
In November 2006, the Environment Court approved the detailed provisions of the plan change in their entirety. A summary of these provisions is attached as Appendix 5.

3.2.2 Changes made to reflect ownership of the land at Matiatia and to ensure consistency with the other parts of the Plan.

While the Matiatia provisions have primarily been based on the provisions of plan change 38 some changes have made in order to reflect the Council ownership of the land at Matiatia and to ensure that the provisions relating to Matiatia are clear and use wording and techniques that are consistent with the other parts of the Plan The history to the Council ownership of the land at Matiatia is contained in Appendix 6. A summary of these changes is set out below:

The five precincts in plan change 38 have become three areas in Matiatia (mixed use). This is because it is not necessary to have two areas relating to mixed use development as the provisions for each were essentially the same. The transport and parking precincts have been rolled into one area but the differences between the two areas are recognised through different activity tables and development controls.
The mixed use area has been extended over Ocean View Road. This amendment will provide more flexibility for the location of buildings and recognises that the road may need to be realigned.
A development control has been incorporated to ensure that carparking buildings will not be located within 100m of mean high water springs. This gives effect to the Environment Court's finding that carparking buildings in this area should be discouraged for reasons of visual amenity and traffic safety and congestion.
The subdivision and financial contribution provisions are now contained in the subdivision and financial contribution sections of the plan.
The noise provisions are consistent with the approach taken in Ostend and Oneroa.
The standard development controls are contained in the development controls section along with the standard development controls of the other land units.
General re-wording and formatting for clarity and consistency reasons, particularly in the activity table.
The vegetation clearance and earthworks controls are now consistent with the provisions in the other land units.
The assessment criteria for new buildings have been amended to be more targeted and to ensure good design outcomes and that sustainability principles are given effect to.
The 500m² limit on activities that was contained in the activity table in plan change 38 has become a development control for clarity reasons.

It is important to recognise that the above changes do not alter the key findings of the Environment Court on plan change 38. Rather, the changes ensure that the provisions of the Plan:

Provide a framework for the comprehensive development of the land by the Council. In this regard it should be noted that when the provisions of plan change 38 were originally prepared the ownership of the land on the valley floor was split between the Council and WIL.
Ensure the best possible outcome for the layout of development on the valley floor
Are clear and easily understood
Use wording and formatting which is consistent with the other parts of the Plan.

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

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

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

4.2 Submissions opposed to the Matiatia provisions in their entirety

Submissions dealt with in this section: 692/11, 724/11, 746/11, 861/11, 898/12, 931/11, 1162/11, 1596/30, 1596/31, 1596/33, 1596/34, 1704/11, 1705/11, 1706/11, 2570/1, 2576/1, 2771/14, 3061/93 and 3648/11.

4.2.1 Decisions requested

These submissions seek that the provisions of clause 10a.18 are withdrawn in their entirety and either re-drafted or marked "in development" until such a time as a greater consensus is on the future of Matiatia is reached and until the various environmental concerns raised in the Environment Court decision on plan change 38 have been proven.

4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

With respect to achieving a greater consensus on the Matiatia provisions, it is considered that this is not only unlikely given the wide variety of views on Matiatia, but also unnecessary as district plan provisions are not prepared on the basis of voting or consensus but rather on the merits of the provisions.

In terms of the environmental considerations raised in the Environment Court decision, it is assumed that the submitter is referring to the matters that were left unresolved by the Environment Court's interim decision. These matters were all resolved by the parties working together and through a further hearing in the Environment Court and a final decision was issued by the Environment Court and the plan change was made operative.

Over and above the matters outlined above, the Matiatia provisions do not need to be withdrawn as they provide a clear and comprehensive set of objectives, policies and rules which will guide and manage the future development of Matiatia. Evidence of this can be seen in the objectives and policies for the land unit which address both the development which is to occur (namely the provision of transport infrastructure and a mixed use development) and the environmental considerations such as the landscape character and the natural features and resources of the area.

Planner's recommendation about the submissions opposed to the Matiatia provisions in their entirety:

That submissions 692/11, 724/11, 746/11, 861/11, 898/12, 931/11, 1162/11, 1596/30, 1596/31, 1596/33, 1596/34, 1704/11, 1705/11, 1706/11, 2570/1, 2576/1, 2771/14, 3061/93 and 3648/11 be rejected.

4.3 Submissions about the statutory framework.

Submissions dealt with in this section: 127/4, 157/4, 161/4, 162/4, 170/4, 304/4, 376/4, 513/4, 516/4, 547/5, 571/4, 577/4, 638/4, 649/4, 671/4, 680/2, 689/4, 692/9, 700/4, 712/4, 718/4, 724/9, 735/4, 744/4, 746/9, 781/4, 791/4, 796/4, 804/4, 813/4, 822/4, 840/4, 861/9, 867/4, 881/4, 891/4, 898/10, 905/4, 923/4, 931/9, 948/4, 948/5, 1001/4, 1016/4, 1055/7, 1144/4, 1162/9, 1166/4, 1238/4, 1293/4, 1312/3, 1704/9, 1705/9, 1706/9, 1855/4, 1856/4, 1857/4, 1858/4, 1859/4, 1860/4, 1861/4, 1862/4, 1863/4, 1864/4, 1865/4, 1866/4, 1867/4, 1868/4, 1869/4, 1870/4, 1871/4, 1872/4, 1873/4, 1874/4, 1875/4, 1876/4, 1877/4, 1878/4, 1880/4, 1881/4, 1882/4, 1883/4, 1884/4, 1885/4, 1886/4, 1887/4, 1888/4, 1889/4, 2115/4, 2118/4, 2120/4, 2126/4, 2279/4, 2560/4, 2570/5, 2576/5, 2651/4, 2659/4, 2671/4, 2705/4, 2771/12, 2777/4, 2785/4, 2789/4, 2827/4, 2839/4, 2840/4, 2945/4, 2946/4, 2949/4, 2952/4, 2956/4, 2960/4, 2964/5, 2968/4, 2972/4, 2976/4, 2980/4, 2980/5, 2984/4, 2988/4, 2998/4, 3003/4, 3013/4, 3015/4, 3061/97, 3170/4, 3186/4, 3188/4, 3205/4, 3214/4, 3231/4, 3237/4, 3243/4, 3254/4, 3265/4, 3269/4, 3271/4, 3280/4, 3285/4, 3310/4, 3323/4, 3332/4, 3344/4, 3347/4, 3350/4, 3359/4, 3377/4, 3391/4, 3392/4, 3394/4, 3397/4, 3418/4, 3515/4, 3516/4, 3532/4, 3533/4, 3540/4, 3546/4, 3564/4, 3577/4, 3587/4, 3592/4, 3622/4, 3647/4, 3648/9 and 3825/4.

4.3.1 Decisions requested

These submissions seek that the Matiatia provisions are amended to give effect to the HGMPA and/or the RMA and/or the LGA.

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

These submissions are not supported as the section 32 analysis undertaken has confirmed that the Matiatia provisions are consistent with the statutory framework provided by the RMA, the LGA and the HGMPA. In particular, the section 32 analysis noted that:

"the proposed land unit provisions also give effect to the relevant national and regional planning documents as the provisions provide for the appropriate use and 'development of area while protecting the landscape character and natural features of the area".

In addition to the above, it is also relevant to note that the Environment Court undertook a detailed examination of the relevant statutory documents as part of the hearing and decision process on plan change 38 and concluded that plan change 38 (which has essentially been "rolled over" into the Matiatia provisions) is consistent with the relevant statutory documents and that the section 32 analysis was adequately undertaken.

With respect to community consultation extensive community consultation on the future development of Matiatia was undertaken as part of the Good Ideas Search. This consultation included seeking feedback from the community on the "principles" for redevelopment of Matiatia, undertaking a Good Ideas Search that was open to both design professionals and the community and seeking feedback from the community of the designs submitted. This consultation is consistent with the consultation and community involvement principles and requirements of the HGMPA, the RMA and the LGA.

Planner's recommendations about submissions in relation to the statutory framework:

That submissions 127/4, 157/4, 161/4, 162/4, 170/4, 304/4, 376/4, 513/4, 516/4, 547/5, 571/4, 577/4, 638/4, 649/4, 671/4, 680/2, 689/4, 692/9, 700/4, 712/4, 718/4, 724/9, 735/4, 744/4, 746/9, 781/4, 791/4, 796/4, 804/4, 813/4, 822/4, 840/4, 861/9, 867/4, 881/4, 891/4, 898/10, 905/4, 923/4, 931/9, 948/4, 948/5, 1001/4, 1016/4, 1055/7, 1144/4, 1162/9, 1166/4, 1238/4, 1293/4, 1312/3, 1704/9, 1705/9, 1706/9, 1855/4, 1856/4, 1857/4, 1858/4, 1859/4, 1860/4, 1861/4, 1862/4, 1863/4, 1864/4, 1865/4, 1866/4, 1867/4, 1868/4, 1869/4, 1870/4, 1871/4, 1872/4, 1873/4, 1874/4, 1875/4, 1876/4, 1877/4, 1878/4, 1880/4, 1881/4, 1882/4, 1883/4, 1884/4, 1885/4, 1886/4, 1887/4, 1888/4, 1889/4, 2115/4, 2118/4, 2120/4, 2126/4, 2279/4, 2560/4, 2570/5, 2576/5, 2651/4, 2659/4, 2671/4, 2705/4, 2771/12, 2777/4, 2785/4, 2789/4, 2827/4, 2839/4, 2840/4, 2945/4, 2946/4, 2949/4, 2952/4, 2956/4, 2960/4, 2964/5, 2968/4, 2972/4, 2976/4, 2980/4, 2980/5, 2984/4, 2988/4, 2998/4, 3003/4, 3013/4, 3015/4, 3061/97, 3170/4, 3186/4, 3188/4, 3205/4, 3214/4, 3231/4, 3237/4, 3243/4, 3254/4, 3265/4, 3269/4, 3271/4, 3280/4, 3285/4, 3310/4, 3323/4, 3332/4, 3344/4, 3347/4, 3350/4, 3359/4, 3377/4, 3391/4, 3392/4, 3394/4, 3397/4, 3418/4, 3515/4, 3516/4, 3532/4, 3533/4, 3540/4, 3546/4, 3564/4, 3577/4, 3587/4, 3592/4, 3622/4, 3647/4, 3648/9 and 3825/4 be rejected.

4.4 Submissions seeking that little or no development occurs at Matiatia

Submissions dealt with in this section: 497/1, 554/1, 607/1, 608/1, 1867/5, 2946/5, 2949/5, 2952/5, 2988/6 and 3214/10.

4.4.1 Decisions requested

These submissions seek that Matiatia either remain much as it is today or be developed as a regional park with provision for tourists (e.g. museum, information centre). Submission 3214/10 also seeks that much of the Matiatia land should be covenanted in perpetuity to prevent any further future large scale development.

4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

These submissions pose the question as to whether further development at Matiatia should occur at all. The answer to this question is yes and the reasons for this are as follows:

Further development is required to ensure that the transport infrastructure that is necessary in order to service the ferries and recognise that Matiatia is the main transport hub on the island.
Additional activities and service are required in order to ensure that the needs of the residents and visitors using the area are met.
Further development is required in order to replace the existing ad hoc layout of development with a co-ordinated development that reflects the coastal location of the site and the character of the island.
Additional development at Matiatia has the potential to enhance the economic wellbeing of the island by providing a further location for business enterprise and employment to occur.
Additional development at Matiatia has the potential to enhance the social wellbeing of the island by providing a further location for people to meet and interact and to improve safety at night through activities that attract people.
The work undertaken various experts has determined that an increased level of development can occur on the site without resulting in adverse effects on the environment, particularly in terms of water, wastewater, noise, visual and transport effects.
As owner of the land, the council has made it clear that the land was not purchased for a park and therefore a level of development is contemplated

Overall, it can be seen that provision for additional development at Matiatia has the potential to result in a number of positive outcomes for the island. In contrast, providing for no or little additional development would result in the inefficient use of land and a 'gateway' to the island that does not meet the needs of the residents and visitors using it.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking that little or no development occur at Matiatia:

That submissions 497/1, 554/1, 607/1, 608/1, 1867/5, 2946/5, 2949/5, 2952/5, 2988/6 and 3214/10 be rejected.

4.5 Submissions in relation to mixed use development at Matiatia

Submissions dealt with in this section: 127/2, 157/2, 161/2, 162/2, 170/2, 304/2, 376/2, 513/2, 547/3, 571/2, 577/2, 589/1, 596/1, 638/2, 649/2, 671/2, 671/5, 689/2, 692/1, 700/2, 712/2, 718/2, 724/1, 735/2, 744/2, 746/1, 781/2, 791/2, 796/2, 804/2, 813/2, 822/2, 840/2, 861/1, 867/2, 881/2, 891/2, 898/1, 899/2, 899/3, 899/5, 905/2, 923/2, 931/1, 948/2, 1001/2, 1016/2, 1047/1, 1055/6, 1144/2, 1162/1, 1166/2, 1177/1, 1177/2, 1238/2, 1293/2, 1704/1, 1705/1, 1706/1, 1855/2, 1856/2, 1857/2, 1858/2, 1859/2, 1860/2, 1861/2, 1862/2, 1863/2, 1864/2, 1865/2, 1866/2, 1867/2, 1868/2, 1869/2, 1870/2, 1871/2, 1872/2, 1873/2, 1874/2, 1875/2, 1876/2, 1877/2, 1878/2, 1880/2, 1881/2, 1882/2, 1883/2, 1884/2, 1885/2, 1886/2, 1887/2, 1888/2, 1889/2, 2115/2, 2118/2, 2120/2, 2126/2, 2279/2, 2560/2, 2651/2, 2659/2, 2671/2, 2705/2, 2771/1, 2777/2, 2785/2, 2789/2, 2827/2, 2839/2, 2840/2, 2945/2, 2946/2, 2949/2, 2952/2, 2956/2, 2960/2, 2964/3, 2968/2, 2972/2, 2976/2, 2980/2, 2984/2, 2988/2, 2998/2, 3003/2, 3013/2, 3015/2, 3061/95, 3170/2, 3186/2, 3188/2, 3205/2, 3214/2, 3231/2, 3237/2, 3243/2, 3254/2, 3265/2, 3269/2, 3271/2, 3280/2, 3285/2, 3310/2, 3323/2, 3332/2, 3344/2, 3347/2, 3350/2, 3359/2, 3377/2, 3391/2, 3392/2, 3394/2, 3397/1, 3418/2, 3515/2, 3516/2, 3532/2, 3533/2, 3540/2, 3546/2, 3564/2, 3577/2, 3587/2, 3592/2, 3622/2, 3647/2, 3648/1 and 3825/2

4.5.1 Decisions requested

These submissions raise three issues in that they either oppose mixed use development at Matiatia in its entirety, oppose the use of the term "mixed use" in the title of the land unit or consider that the provisions need to be amended to better recognise the gateway function of Matiatia.

4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.5.2.1 Submissions opposing mixed use development

Mixed use development is characterised by a range of activities in one location. This means that people can go to one place to meet a variety of needs. and that people tend to stop and enjoy the place in its own right.

It is expected that a mixed use development at Matiatia would have the following benefits:

It would support and enhance the transportation function of the area by providing a range of services for people using the ferry, carparking and passenger transport services and by creating a place with high amenity and safety so that people enjoy the use of those services.
The development will meet the needs of both the residents and visitors using the area. For example, residents may purchase convenience items like bread and milk, whereas visitors may use a visitor centre, accommodation or food and beverage services.
The integrated and comprehensive form of development will create an attractive, interesting and vital 'gateway' to the island.
Convenient access to facilities will reduce the number of vehicle trips on the island.
Increased viability and support for the businesses located on the site and enhanced economic wellbeing for the island in general.
The efficient use of land and buildings.
The resident population of the mixed use development will increase the feeling of safety and vitality in the area, particularly in the evening.
A distinctive 'sense of place' due to the island location and the intensity of the activity

The reasons given in the submissions for opposing mixed use development put forward the view that mixed use development does not fit with the Waiheke character, Matiatia should not be a destination in itself and that the community has not mandated a mixed use development. These concerns are not accepted for the following reasons:

A mixed use development can fit with the Waiheke character or aesthetic provided that it has been designed in an appropriate manner. The requirements for a restricted discretionary consent for all new buildings will ensure that this is so.
Matiatia is already a destination in itself in that people go there specifically to catch the ferry. While a mixed use development will enhance that feeling of a destination this is a positive outcome as it means that people are more likely to enjoy their Matiatia experience.
The Matiatia provisions are the outcome of a public process which has debated the merits of the provisions and which culminated in the Environment Court mandating the appropriateness of mixed use development at Matiatia when it made its decision on plan change 38.

Overall, having considered the benefits of mixed use development and the concerns raised in submissions, the submissions opposing mixed use development at Matiatia are not supported.

4.5.2.2 Submissions opposing the use of the term mixed use in the title of the land unit

The Matiatia provisions were given the title Matiatia (mixed use) in recognition of the fact that a mixed use development will be undertaken on the valley floor at Matiatia. Notwithstanding this, it is acknowledged that Matiatia is primarily seen as the gateway to the island given that the main passenger ferry service is located at Matiatia. Consequently, it is recommended that the title of the land unit is amended to be Matiatia (gateway) as this title is general enough to recognise not only recognises the passenger ferry service but also the mixed use development, the carparking and passenger transport activities and the wetland area.

4.5.2.3 Submissions seeking amendments to better recognise the gateway function of Matiatia

The 'gateway' function of Matiatia is implicit throughout the Matiatia provisions. However, these submissions are supported to the extent that the actual term 'gateway' could be used more frequently throughout the land unit as a means of describing Matiatia. As such, the following amendments are proposed:

Bullet point 2 of clause 10a.18.1 Introduction is amended to read:

Its 'gateway' function which results from the wharf and ferry building located at the northern end of the beach. The wharf and ferry building act as the main transport terminal for passenger ferry serves to and from Waiheke".

An additional issue is included in clause 10a.18.2 which states:

" How to ensure that Matiatia is developed as a truly effective and attractive 'gateway' to Waiheke".

An additional assessment criteria is added to clause 10a.18.8.2(2) which states:

" the extent to which the proposed building(s) reflect the 'gateway' function of Matiatia".

It should be noted that the above amendments do not remove the term mixed use in its entirety from the provisions as may have been contemplated by these submissions. This is because the provisions provide for a mixed use development and therefore it is more than appropriate to use this term to describe the nature and form of development which is to be undertaken.

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to mixed use development at Matiatia.

That submissions 127/2, 157/2, 161/2, 162/2, 170/2, 304/2, 376/2, 513/2, 547/3, 571/2, 577/2, 589/1, 596/1, 638/2, 649/2, 671/2, 671/5, 689/2, 700/2, 712/2, 718/2, 735/2, 744/2, 781/2, 791/2, 796/2, 804/2, 813/2, 822/2, 840/2, 867/2, 881/2, 891/2, 899/2, 899/3, 899/5, 905/2, 923/2, 948/2, 1001/2, 1016/2, 1047/1, 1055/6, 1144/2, 1166/2, 1177/2, 1238/2, 1293/2, 1855/2, 1856/2, 1857/2, 1858/2, 1859/2, 1860/2, 1861/2, 1862/2, 1863/2, 1864/2, 1865/2, 1866/2, 1867/2, 1868/2, 1869/2, 1870/2, 1871/2, 1872/2, 1873/2, 1874/2, 1875/2, 1876/2, 1877/2, 1878/2, 1880/2, 1881/2, 1882/2, 1883/2, 1884/2, 1885/2, 1886/2, 1887/2, 1888/2, 1889/2, 2115/2, 2118/2, 2120/2, 2126/2, 2279/2, 2560/2, 2651/2, 2659/2, 2671/2, 2705/2, 2777/2, 2785/2, 2789/2, 2827/2, 2839/2, 2840/2, 2945/2, 2946/2, 2949/2, 2952/2, 2956/2, 2960/2, 2964/3, 2968/2, 2972/2, 2976/2, 2980/2, 2984/2, 2988/2, 2998/2, 3003/2, 3013/2, 3015/2, 3061/95, 3170/2, 3186/2, 3188/2, 3205/2, 3214/2, 3231/2, 3237/2, 3243/2, 3254/2, 3265/2, 3269/2, 3271/2, 3280/2, 3285/2, 3310/2, 3323/2, 3332/2, 3344/2, 3347/2, 3350/2, 3359/2, 3377/2, 3391/2, 3392/2, 3394/2, 3397/1, 3418/2, 3515/2, 3516/2, 3532/2, 3533/2, 3540/2, 3546/2, 3564/2, 3577/2, 3587/2, 3592/2, 3622/2, 3647/2 and 3825/2 be rejected and submissions 692/1, 724/1, 746/1, 861/1, 898/1, 931/1, 1162/1, 1171/1, 1704/1, 1705/1, 1706/1, 2771/1 and 3648/1 be accepted in part.

4.6 Submissions in relation to the activities provided for at Matiatia

Submissions dealt with in this section: 516/1, 516/2, 589/3, 596/3, 607/2, 608/2, 671/7, 680/5, 1173/2, 1596/37, 1856/5, 2570/2, 2570/3, 2576/2, 2576/3, 2576/7, 2771/7, 2771/9, 2988/5, 3214/6, 3214/7 and 3214/8.

4.6.1 Decisions requested

These submissions raise the following issues in relation to the activities provided for by the Matiatia provisions:

Opposition to the activity table and threshold controls for the mixed use area
There should be little or no provision for retail or residential activities
Retail should be focussed on visitors to provide a point of difference with other centres
There should be provision for visitor activities only including visitor accommodation
There should be a well staffed visitor information centre at Matiatia. Such a centre could include a cafe, Waiheke source retail and a conference centre.
If residential development is to be provided for it should be for people working at Matiatia or be Council flats located on the current Owhanake carpark
Fuel supplies should be reclassified from a permitted activity to a restricted discretionary activity
Boarding house or hostel, care centres, community facilities, dwellings, healthcare facilities, retail, stormwater retention ponds and visitor accommodation should be reclassified from permitted activities to discretionary activities
Provision should be made for visitor information, minimal retail, purveying of local water based leisure activities, an education centre based on local ecology and sustainable island water and wastewater management, some visitor accommodation and if commercially viable a further convention centre.

4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.6.2.1 Opposition to the activity table and threshold controls for the mixed use area.

The activity table for the mixed use area sets out the status of activities in this area while the threshold controls limits the amount of each type of activity that can occur, so that ultimately a mix of activities will occur on the site.

The submissions which oppose the activity table and threshold controls are not supported as to significantly amend or delete these provisions would mean that a mixed use development would not occur on the site and as identified above a mixed use development is the most appropriate form of development for Matiatia.

4.6.2.2 Minimal retail and residential activity

The Matiatia provisions provide for up to 3500m² of retail, restaurants, cafes and other eating places and up to 5000m² of dwellings. To place this in context, this provision means that approximately one third of the development could be retail, restaurants, cafes and other eating places and up to half the development could be residential dwellings.

These figures were devised on that basis of commercial viability, the need for a mix of activities on the site and the value that the activities would add to the overall development. Each of these factors is addressed below:

The amount of residential, retail, restaurants, cafes and other eating places provided for ensure that it is commercially viable to construct and establish the activities and that there is enough critical mass of activity to ensure their on-going success.
Placing upper limits on groups of activities means that one or two activities cannot dominate the overall development. It also ensures that there will be activities on the site that meet the needs of both the residents and visitors using the area.
In terms of value added, retail, restaurants, cafes and other eating places add value by providing the opportunity for both residents and visitors to relax and enjoy a meal and to purchase products which could range from necessities like bread and milk to Waiheke produced products. The value added by residential dwellings derives from the fact that the presence of residents on the site will ensure a 24 hour people presence and thereby increase the feeling of security and vitality as well as supplying housing.

To amend these provisions so that there is little or no provision for retail or residential activities would mean that the overall development would not benefit from these activities and that ultimately a commercially viable mixed use development may not be achieved. Furthermore, amendments to these provisions would run contrary to the findings of the Environment Court whose decision to approve the plan change ultimately mandated both the provision for these activities and the amount of each activity. Consequently, these submissions are not supported.

4.6.2.3 Retail should be focussed on visitors and have a point of difference from other centres

It is agreed that it is logical that any future retail activities located at Matiatia should be focussed on visitors and that there should be a point of difference between the retail activities at Matiatia and the retail activities occurring at other centres. The potential impact of additional retail on existing retail centres such as Oneroa was a key consideration when determining the amount of retail at Matiatia. However, it is not appropriate for district plan provisions to address these matters as examining the detail of the products sold in each shop is a matter for the shop owners and possibly any body corporate or landowner. Consequently, these submissions are not supported.

4.6.2.4 There should be provision for visitor activities only (including visitor accommodation)

These submissions are not supported as the intention of the Matiatia provisions is to create a 'gateway' to the island. This means that the activities located at Matiatia should serve both the visitors coming to the island and the residents using the ferry service. Furthermore, there is no resource management reason as to why the activities located at Matiatia should not provide for residents (including residents at living at Matiatia as well as visitors to the island).

4.6.2.5 There should be a visitor information centre (including a cafe, Waiheke retail and a conference centre).

It is agreed that it is logical for a visitor information centre and associated activities to be located at Matiatia. The submission is accepted in part as the Matiatia provisions already provide for a visitor information centre, caf� and a conference centre (see table 10a.18.5.3.)

4.6.2.6 Residential development should be limited to those working at Matiatia or be affordable housing for island workers

These submissions are not supported as limiting the use of residential dwellings at Matiatia to those that work at Matiatia or as affordable housing for island workers could unduly impact on the commercial viability of the development. The issue of affordable housing is a complex one and is currently being considered in a Parliamentary Select Committee. It would be inappropriate to make a commitment in the Plan to provide affordable housing at this time.

4.6.2.7 Fuel supplies

This submission seeks that fuel supplies are reclassified from permitted activities to restricted discretionary activities with an emphasis on appropriate containment and clean up provisions and other safety related features. The submission is not supported as marine fuelling services an expected and appropriate activity to be permitted in Transport area A (i.e. around the wharf). In addition, the issues of containment and clean up will be addressed through the provisions of Part 9 � Hazardous facilities and contaminated land.

4.6.2.8 Reclassification from permitted activities to discretionary activities

This submission seeks that boarding house or hostel, care centres, community facilities, dwellings, healthcare facilities, retail, stormwater retention ponds and visitor accommodation are reclassified from permitted activities to discretionary activities. The submission is not supported as each of these activities can make a positive contribution to the range of activities and services provided on the site and it is considered that the activities will not generate adverse effects which need to be controlled through the resource consent process in this location.

4.6.2.9 Provision for specific activities

This submission seeks that provision is made for visitor information, minimal retail, purveying of local water based leisure activities, an education centre based on local ecology and sustainable island water and wastewater management, some visitor accommodation and if commercially viable a further convention centre. As these activities have already been provided for in the Matiatia provisions (see table 10a.18.5.3) it is not necessary to make any further amendment to the Plan.

Planner's recommendations about submissions in relation to the activities provided for at Matiatia:

That submissions 671/7, 3214/7 and 3214/8 be accepted in part with no changes to the plan

and submissions 516/1, 516/2, 589/3, 596/3, 607/2, 608/2, 680/5, 1173/2, 1596/37, 1856/5, 2570/2, 2570/3, 2576/2, 2576/3, 2576/7, 2771/7, 2771/9, 2988/5, and 3214/6 be rejected.

4.7 Submissions in relation to the scale of development at Matiatia

Submissions dealt with in this section: 127/3, 157/3, 161/3, 162/3, 170/3, 304/3, 376/3, 513/3, 516/3, 547/4, 571/3, 577/3, 638/3, 649/3, 671/3, 689/3, 692/10, 700/3, 712/3, 718/3, 724/10, 735/3, 744/3, 746/10, 781/3, 791/3, 796/3, 804/3, 813/3, 822/3, 840/3, 861/10, 867/3, 881/3, 891/3, 898/11, 899/6, 899/9, 905/3, 923/3, 931/10, 948/3, 1001/3, 1016/3, 1047/2, 1144/3, 1162/10, 1166/3, 1173/1, 1177/3, 1238/3, 1293/3, 1312/2, 1704/10, 1705/10, 1706/10, 1855/3, 1856/3, 1857/3, 1858/3, 1859/3, 1860/3, 1861/3, 1862/3, 1863/3, 1864/3, 1865/3, 1866/3, 1867/3, 1868/3, 1869/3, 1870/3, 1871/3, 1872/3, 1873/3, 1874/3, 1875/3, 1876/3, 1877/3, 1878/3, 1880/3, 1881/3, 1882/3, 1883/3, 1884/3, 1885/3, 1886/3, 1887/3, 1888/3, 1889/3, 2115/3, 2118/3, 2120/3, 2126/3, 2279/3, 2560/3, 2570/7, 2576/7, 2651/3, 2659/3, 2671/3, 2705/3, 2771/13, 2777/3, 2785/3, 2789/3, 2827/3, 2839/3, 2840/3, 2945/3, 2946/3, 2949/3, 2952/3, 2956/3, 2960/3, 2964/4, 2968/3, 2972/3, 2976/3, 2980/3, 2984/3, 2988/3, 2998/3, 3003/3, 3013/3, 3015/3, 3061/94, 3061/96, 3170/3, 3186/3, 3188/3, 3205/3, 3214/3, 3231/3, 3237/3, 3243/3, 3254/3, 3265/3, 3269/3, 3271/3, 3280/3, 3285/3, 3310/3, 3323/3, 3332/3, 3344/3, 3347/3, 3350/3, 3359/3, 3377/3, 3391/3, 3392/3, 3394/3, 3397/2, 3418/3, 3515/3, 3516/3, 3532/3, 3533/3, 3540/3, 3564/3, 3577/3, 3587/3, 3592/3, 3622/3, 3647/3, 3648/10 and 3825/3

4.7.1 Decisions requested

The decisions requested in these submissions relate to reducing the scale of development provided for as a permitted activity. In particular, the majority of submissions seek that the scale of development as a permitted activity is limited to 5000m² .

4.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

These submissions either do not provide any rationale as to why development at Matiatia should be limited to 5000m ²or cite that the 5000m² limit should be imposed as that was the limit in the Land unit 25 � wharf provisions of the Operative Plan (prior to plan change 38 being approved by the Environment Court). This reasoning is not accepted as the Environment Court examined the provisions of Land unit 25 � wharf and found that the provisions of Land Unit 25 "would enable up to approximately 17,000m² of gross floor area by way of permitted activity or controlled activity consents" and that the provisions were "outdated and inappropriate in many ways, especially as regards the important "Waiheke gateway" function the land provides".

In contrast, the provision for up to 10,000m² of development to occur as a permitted activity has been based on sound rationale and is backed up by expert opinion. In particular, the Environment Court determined that up to 10,000m ² of development would be appropriate as tourism, economic and commercial viability factors require a reasonable level of permitted development and as development at this scale would not generate adverse effects in terms of water supply, wastewater disposal, traffic and parking or visual effects. The Environment Court decision also noted that 10,000m² was the level tentatively suggested on behalf of CAPOW at the hearing.

As there has been no change in circumstance that would militate against the findings of the Environment Court decision, there is no reason not to rollover the finding into the Matiatia provisions.

Planner's recommendations about submissions on the scale of development at Matiatia:

That submissions 127/3, 157/3, 161/3, 162/3, 170/3, 304/3, 376/3, 513/3, 516/3, 547/4, 571/3, 577/3, 638/3, 649/3, 671/3, 689/3, 692/10, 700/3, 712/3, 718/3, 724/10, 735/3, 744/3, 746/10, 781/3, 791/3, 796/3, 804/3, 813/3, 822/3, 840/3, 861/10, 867/3, 881/3, 891/3, 898/11, 899/6, 899/9, 905/3, 923/3, 931/10, 948/3, 1001/3, 1016/3, 1047/2, 1144/3, 1162/10, 1166/3, 1173/1, 1177/3, 1238/3, 1293/3, 1312/2, 1704/10, 1705/10, 1706/10, 1855/3, 1856/3, 1857/3, 1858/3, 1859/3, 1860/3, 1861/3, 1862/3, 1863/3, 1864/3, 1865/3, 1866/3, 1867/3, 1868/3, 1869/3, 1870/3, 1871/3, 1872/3, 1873/3, 1874/3, 1875/3, 1876/3, 1877/3, 1878/3, 1880/3, 1881/3, 1882/3, 1883/3, 1884/3, 1885/3, 1886/3, 1887/3, 1888/3, 1889/3, 2115/3, 2118/3, 2120/3, 2126/3, 2279/3, 2560/3, 2570/7, 2576/7, 2651/3, 2659/3, 2671/3, 2705/3, 2771/13, 2777/3, 2785/3, 2789/3, 2827/3, 2839/3, 2840/3, 2945/3, 2946/3, 2949/3, 2952/3, 2956/3, 2960/3, 2964/4, 2968/3, 2972/3, 2976/3, 2980/3, 2984/3, 2988/3, 2998/3, 3003/3, 3013/3, 3015/3, 3061/94, 3061/96, 3170/3, 3186/3, 3188/3, 3205/3, 3214/3, 3231/3, 3237/3, 3243/3, 3254/3, 3265/3, 3269/3, 3271/3, 3280/3, 3285/3, 3310/3, 3323/3, 3332/3, 3344/3, 3347/3, 3350/3, 3359/3, 3377/3, 3391/3, 3392/3, 3394/3, 3397/2, 3418/3, 3515/3, 3516/3, 3532/3, 3533/3, 3540/3, 3564/3, 3577/3, 3587/3, 3592/3, 3622/3, 3647/3, 3648/10 and 3825/3 be rejected.

4.8 Submissions in relation to the development controls

Submissions dealt with in this section: 537/8, 1596/40, 1596/41, 1596/42, 1596/43, 1881/5, 2105/4, 2105/5, 2771/8, 3521/95.

4.8.1 Decisions requested

The decisions requested by these submissions are as follows:

That point 1 of clause 10a.18.6.4 is reworded so that it does not provide 10,000m² plus 12,000m² of development at Matiatia.
Amend the first sentence of clause 10a.18.6.3 Activities abutting open space, by replacing the term "visitor facilities" with "visitor accommodation".
The foreshore area should be reserved for gradual development of the type of commercial, retail, and above all transportation uses of high transport hubs such as the Auckland airport.
The maximum building height in clause 10a.18.6.1 should be 10m
The maximum building height should be 1 storey
Any development at Matiatia needs to be well back from the beach and must not compromise the wetlands on two sides
Unless buildings are solely designed for residential use, then such use should be restricted to upper floors, with retail etc exclusive on the ground level in clause 10a.18.6.3
Clarification as to the intent of the 4:1 ratio of dwellings to other uses is clause 10a.18.6.4 (Threshold controls)
Amend clause 10a.18.6.10 Setback from mean high water springs, by adding the following additional sentence after the first sentence:

'However this rule does not apply to public carparking areas existing as at September 2006. 'Or alternative wording to like effect.

Amend clause 10a Rule 18.6.11(2)(e) to include the underlined text or words to like effect :

"Details of water reduction fittings and other water conservation measures that will be put in place with written confirmation that all such fixtures will be maintained in place ".

Amend clause 10a.18.6.12 following the table as below:

" Any bulk water supply tank must be accessible for use by the New Zealand Fire Service Commission".

4.8.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.8.2.1 Reword clause 10a.18.6.4

This submission seeks that point 1 of clause 10a.18.6.4 is reworded so that it does not provide 10,000m² plus 12,000m² of development at Matiatia. Clause 10a.18.6.4 states:

"The aggregate gross floor area (gfa) of all threshold activities (i.e. those activities marked with a * in the activity table at clause 10a.18.5.3) must not exceed 10,000m² as a permitted activity or 12,000m ² as a discretionary activity".

This submission is supported and the proposed rewording is as follows:

1. "The establishment of a threshold activity (i.e. those activities marked with a * in the activity table at clause 10a.18.5.3) where the aggregate gross floor area (gfa) of all threshold activities is less than 10,000m² is a permitted activity".

2. "The establishment of a threshold activity (i.e. those activities marked with a * in the activity table at clause 10a.18.5.3) where the aggregate gross floor area (gfa) of all threshold activities is between 10,000m² and 12,000m² is a discretionary activity".

4.8.2.2 Amend clause 10a.18.6.3 Activities abutting open space

This submission seeks to amend the first sentence of clause 10a.18.6.3 Activities abutting open space, by replacing the term "visitor facilities" with "visitor accommodation". This submission is accepted as the term "visitor accommodation" is used throughout and is defined in the Plan whereas the term "visitor facilities" is not.

4.8.2.3 Gradual development of the foreshore

This submission seeks that the foreshore area should be reserved for gradual development of the type of commercial, retail, and above all transportation uses of high transport hubs such as the Auckland airport.

It is not exactly clear what the submitter means by "foreshore area". However, if the term "foreshore area" means the esplanade reserve area then this submission is not supported as this area is not only outside of the Matiatia provisions but development in this area would significantly detract from the landscape and cultural character of Matiatia. Alternatively, if the submitter is simply referring to the land on the valley floor at Matiatia then it is considered that the submitters' concerns have already been met as the Matiatia provisions already provide for the type of commercial, retail and transportation uses of other high transport hubs.

4.8.2.4 Building height

These submissions seek that building height is either limited to one storey in height or 10m in height. Neither of these submissions is accepted as the visual assessments undertaken on behalf of WIL, ACC and CAPOW at the Environment Court hearing all confirmed that buildings up to 13m in height (in the southern side of the mixed used area) could be accommodated at Matiatia without resulting in adverse effects on the visual amenity and landscape character of Matiatia.

4.8.2.5 Set back from the beach and wetland area

It is considered that the submissions seeking to ensure that development at Matiatia is setback from the beach and wetland area have already been met by the setback provisions contained in table 10c.3 which requires development in the mixed use area to be setback 30m from mean high water springs and 10m from the wetland. In addition to these setback provisions, clause 10a.18.6.10 requires carparking areas and car parking buildings to be setback 100m from mean high water springs. Accordingly, these submissions are accepted with no changes to the plan.

4.8.2.6 Residential use limited to upper floors

This submission seeks that unless buildings are solely designed for residential use, then such use should be restricted to upper floors, with retail etc exclusively on the ground level in clause 10a.18.6.3. Clause 10a.18.6.3 states:

"Dwellings and visitor accommodation must not comprise more than 50 per cent (in aggregate) of the ground floor of buildings adjoining areas identified as open space, as required by clause 10a.18.6.2 above".

The intent of this rule and that of the submitter is the same in that both provisions seek to ensure that active uses such as retail and cafes are not located on the ground floor of buildings which is a common technique to ensure that places are active and inviting for users.

On balance it is considered that the rule sought by the submitter is the most effective in that it applies in all circumstances rather than just adjoining open space. As such, this submission is supported and the recommended wording is as follows:

" Unless a building is solely designed for residential or visitor accommodation use, then such activities shall not be located on the ground floor".

4.8.2.7 4:1 ratio of dwellings

This submission seeks clarification as to the intent of clause 10a.18.6.4(3) which states:

"In addition to the above, dwellings, visitor accommodation and tourist complexes must achieve a ratio of 4m² of gross floor area to 1m ²of gross floor area of retail premises and/or restaurants, cafes and other eating places and/or all other activities".

The intent of this rule is to ensure that the development at Matiatia does not only contain dwellings, visitor accommodation and tourist complexes i.e. if 4000m ²gross floor area of these activities is to be established there must be 1000m² of some other activities on the site as well. It is however acknowledged that the clarity of this rule could be improved by amending the wording as follows:

For every 4m� of GFA of dwellings, visitor accommodation, function facility or tourist complex, there shall be a minimum of 1m� GFA of all other activities .

4.8.2.8 Amend clause 10a.18.6.10

This submission seeks to amend clause 10a.18.6.10 Setback from mean high water springs, by adding the following additional sentence after the first sentence:

'However this rule does not apply to public carparking areas existing as at September 2006.'Or alternative wording to like effect.

This submission is supported as the 100m setback from mean high water springs is only intended to apply to new carparking areas and buildings (the intent of this rule is to ensure that new medium to large scale carparking areas do not dominate the foreshore and detract from the landscape character of Matiatia).

4.8.2.9 Amend clause 10a Rule 18.6.11(2)(e)

This submission seeks to amend clause 10a Rule 18.6.11(2)(e) to include the underlined text or words to like effect :

"Details of water reduction fittings and other water conservation measures that will be put in place with written confirmation that all such fixtures will be maintained in place. "

This submission is supported as the additional wording sought clarifies that all water reduction fittings will not only be put in place at the time of construction but will be maintained. It is recommended that the wording be altered slightly to read:

"Details of water reduction fittings and other water conservation measures that will be put in place with written confirmation that all such fixtures will be maintained as part of an on-going maintenance programme. "

4.8.2.10 Amend clause 10a.18.6.12

This submission seeks to amend clause 10a.18.6.12 following the table as below:

"Any bulk water supply tank must be accessible for use by the New Zealand Fire Service Commission".

This submission is supported as the additional wording sought clarifies that the bulk water supply is to be accessible by the New Zealand Fire Service Commission, however it is also recommended that an "and" is included in front of the additional wording so as to make it clear that both parts of the explanation apply.

Planner's recommendations about submissions in relation to the development controls:

That submissions 537/8, 2105/4, 2105/5, 3521/95 be accepted, submissions 1596/41, 1596/43 be accepted in part and submissions 1596/40, 1596/42, 1881/5, 2771/8 be rejected.

4.9 Submissions in relation to the Environment Court decision on plan change 38

Submissions dealt with in this section: 589/2, 596/2, 616/1, 899/8, 1052/1, 3293/1, 3293/2.

4.9.1 Decisions requested

These submissions seek that the Matiatia provisions should follow or conform closely with the final agreed peer reviewed version of plan change 38, particularly with respect to the building design and environmental assessment criteria, the subdivision provisions, carparking buildings and the activity table (in particular the activity table should record community consultation).

4.9.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

As identified above, the Matiatia provisions essentially "roll over" the provisions of plan change 38 which means that the key outcomes of plan change 38 and the Matiatia provisions will be the same e.g. 10,000m² of mixed use development is provided for at Matiatia. However, it was not possible or appropriate to copy the provisions in their entirety for the following reasons:

The peer review version of plan change 38 was specifically prepared to "fit in" and "be consistent with" the format, wording and provisions of the Operative Plan. Consequently, changes had to be made to the provisions to make sure that they could be consistent with the provisions of the Plan. For example, the terms "visitor accommodation" and "function facilities" have been used in place of the term "visitor facilities" as this term is not used in the Plan.
The peer review process identified a number of changes that were desirable but could not be made because they were either "outside the scope" of the submissions made to the plan change or "outside the scope" of the peer review process. These changes have now been made.
As outlined in 3.2.2 above, changes have been made to reflect the fact that the Council has purchased the land at Matiatia from WIL. For example, the front carparking area has been included in the mixed use precinct so that buildings can now be located on this area.
Any document can always be improved upon, particularly with respect to the wording, clarity and layout of provisions. To not make such changes would be contrary to good planning practice and contrary to the provisions of section 32 of the Act which seek to ensure that all district plan provisions are as effective and efficient as possible.

With respect to the specific concerns raised in the submissions, the following comments are made:

While the assessment criteria for new buildings seek the same outcomes as those in plan change 38 they have been redrafted to ensure that they are in keeping with current practice (bearing in mind that the plan change 38 provisions were prepared in 2002 and assessment criteria relating to building design have moved on considerably since this time). These criteria in the Plan are also more rigorous than those in Plan Change 38 in that they now include sustainability outcomes that were not there before and duplicitous criteria have been removed.
The subdivision provisions achieve the same outcome as those in plan change 38 but are now located in the subdivision section of the plan like all of the other subdivision provisions. This is appropriate as it means that parts of the subdivision section do not need to be unnecessarily repeated or cross referenced in the Matiatia provisions.
The Plan includes a 100m setback for carparking buildings from MHWS. While this differs from the provisions of plan change 38 (which included a non-complying status for carparking buildings on the front carpark) the outcome is the same i.e. that a carparking building cannot be located adjoining the foreshore. This change was necessary as the Matiatia provisions have included the front carpark in the mixed use area rather than it being a separate precinct with a separate activity table as in plan change 38.
The activity table for the mixed use zone essentially includes the same activities that were provided for in plan change 38 except that different terms e.g. function facilities have been used as the Plan so that the provisions of the activity table are consistent with the other parts of the Plan (including the definitions). Some changes were also required to provide for the "rolling together" of precincts 1 and 2 into one area (the mixed use area).

Overall, while changes to the provisions have been made it is still considered that the provisions are as close as possible to plan change 38 and as such the submissions are accepted with no changes to the plan.

Planner's recommendations about submissions on the Environment Court decision on plan change 38:

That submissions 589/2, 596/2, 616/1, 899/8, 1052/1, 3293/1, 3293/2 be accepted with no changes.

4.10 Submissions in relation to the protection of the landscape values, natural character and Waiheke built form

Submissions dealt with in this section: 571/5, 680/1, 692/2, 692/5, 724/2, 724/5, 746/2, 746/5, 861/2, 861/5, 898/2, 898/5, 899/4, 931/2, 931/5, 1055/5, 1162/2, 1162/5, 1704/2, 1704/5, 1705/2, 1705/5, 1706/2, 1706/5, 2570/4, 2576/4, 2771/2, 2771/5, 2968/5, 3214/5, 3332/5, 3648/2 and 3648/5

4.10.1 Decisions requested

These submissions seek that the Matiatia provisions are amended to ensure and/or increase the protection of the landscape values and natural character of Matiatia and to require any new development to be of a character which is in keeping with the built form of Waiheke (as opposed to the character of the isthmus).

Submissions 692/5, 724/5, 746/5, 861/5, 898/5, 931/5, 1162/5, 1704/5, 1705/5, 1706/5, 2771/5, 3648/5 also seek that the building and environmental design criteria are amended so that their "rigor and detail" is increased.

4.10.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

These submissions are not supported as the Matiatia provisions already recognise and protect the landscape values and natural character of Matiatia and ensure that development is in keeping with the built form of Waiheke. The following provisions in particular should be noted:

Clause 10a.18.1 Introduction states that Matiatia is characterised by "high visual amenity due to its coastal location and surrounding headlands and hill slopes, many of which are revegetating".
Clause 10a.18.2 Issues states "How to ensure that the built environment of Matiatia is attractive and safe and will not have adverse effects on the landscape character of Matiatia Bay" and "How to protect the wetland area from the adverse effects of use and development".
Clause 10a.18.3.1 Objective and policies states "To develop a safe and efficient transport network while maintaining the landscape character of Matiatia" and "By ensuring that medium to large scale caparking areas and carparking buildings are not located adjoining the esplanade reserve nor are highly visible to those arriving at Matiatia, in order to avoid adverse effects on the landscape character of Matiatia".
Clause 10a.18.3.2 Objective and policies states "To create a safe and attractive mixed use development that will meet the needs of the residents and visitors using the area while maintaining the landscape character of Matiatia" and "By ensuring that the built environment is designed to be safe and attractive and does not have adverse effects on the landscape character of Matiatia"
Clause 10a.18.3.3 Objective and policies states "To ensure that development at Matiatia does not have adverse effects on natural features and resources and gives effect to sustainability principles" and "By limiting the use and development that can occur in the wetland area to public recreation activities and associated structures".
Clause 10a.18.4 Resource management strategy states "...To ensure that buildings are attractive, inviting and maintain the landscape character of Matiatia, buildings within the mixed use area require consent as a restricted discretionary activity....".
Clause 10a.18.6 � development controls for the mixed use area contains rules which limit the height, setback and coverage of buildings which are all controls which seek to protect the landscape character and natural features of Matiatia.
Clause 10a.18.8.2 Buildings in the mixed use area contains a set of assessment criteria which will be used when assessing any application for a new building in the mixed use area. One of these criteria states "the extent to which the building(s) is designed to maintain the landscape character and amenity of Matiatia.

With respect to the concern that the building and environmental design criteria are not rigorous enough, these submissions are not supported as the criteria contained in clause 10a.18.8 provide a comprehensive set of criteria which address all relevant matters including building form and materials, building location, landscaping, open space and pedestrian walkways, vehicle access and carparking, residential dwellings and sustainable design.

Planner's recommendations about submissions in relation to the protection of the landscape values, natural character and Waiheke built form

That submissions 571/5, 680/1, 692/2, 692/5, 724/2, 746/2, 746/5, 861/2, 861/5, 898/2, 898/5, 899/4, 931/2, 931/5, 1055/5, 1162/2, 1162/5, 1704/2, 1704/5, 1705/2, 1705/5, 1706/2, 1706/5, 2570/4, 2576/4, 2771/2, 2771/5, 2968/5, 3214/5, 3332/5, 3648/2 and 3648/5 be rejected.

4.11 Submissions in relation to the transport function of Matiatia

Submissions dealt with in this section: 671/6, 692/3, 692/4, 724/3, 724/4, 746/3, 746/4, 857/1, 861/3, 861/4, 898/3, 898/4, 899/7, 931/3, 931/4, 1162/3, 1162/4, 1177/4, 1596/32, 1596/35, 1596/36, 1596/38, 1596/39, 1704/3, 1704/4, 1705/3, 1705/4, 1706/3, 1706/4, 2771/3, 2771/4, 3214/9, 3271/5, 3648/3 and 3648/4.

4.11.1 Decisions requested

While these submissions all relate to the transport function of Matiatia, the decisions sought are varied:

An island wide transport plan must be prepared before any development is finalised
The Matiatia provisions need to make adequate recognition of Matiatia as the primary transport hub for the island especially with respect to providing for adequate public carparking and transport infrastructure.
The first priority should be facilities to give access to forms of transport both to, from and within the island.
The allocation of carparking to residents, nursing mothers and the general public
Policy 6 of Clause 10a.18.3.1

4.11.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.11.2.1 Island wide transport plan

While it is accepted that an Island-wide transport plan would have a number of benefits for the island in general, it is not necessary that this plan is prepared prior to the Matiatia provisions being finalised. This is because the Matiatia provisions provide an overall framework for the transport issues and, as such, does not militate against whatever the outcomes of the Island wide transport plan may be. For example, Transport area A simply identifies that the area behind the wharf should be used for public transport activities but exactly how those activities are located and what facilities are provided will be left up to the design stage. Consequently these submissions are not supported.

4.11.2.2 Transport hub

The submissions seeking that the Matiatia provisions make adequate recognition of Matiatia as a transport hub are supported without changes to the plan as it is considered that these provisions already do make adequate provision for transport infrastructure such as carparking and public transport. Examples of this are:

The objective in clause 10a.18.3.1 states "To develop a safe and efficient transport network which maintaining the landscape character of Mataitia"
Policies 1, 2, 4 and 5 of clause 10a.18.3.1 state:

1. "By identifying a specific area for the safe and efficient operation of wharf-associated activities, passenger transport so that these activities have priority over single occupancy vehicles.

2. By providing for the further development of carparking areas and buildings and other transport infrastructure where such development will enhance the safety and efficiency of the transport network at Matiatia.

4. By providing for the relocation of Ocean View Road, if that is necessary to achieve a safe and efficient road layout and if road stopping procedures have been undertaken.

5. By requiring safe and convenient pedestrian walkways between the wharf and the mixed use development and carparking areas and buildings".

Carparking, passenger transport and taxi stands are permitted activities in Transport area A
Carparking to service the mixed use development and carparking that exists at September 2006 is a permitted activity in the mixed use area.

4.11.2.3 Priority to transport to from and within the island

This submission seeks that priority is given to transport to and from Waiheke and around the island (it is unclear as to whether this priority status includes private vehicles). It is considered that the Matiatia provisions do afford priority status to transport to and from and around the island in that Transport area A (the area closest to the wharf) has been specifically identified for this purpose. In addition policy 1 of clause 10a.18.3.1 (as outlined above) also gives priority status to passenger transport over single occupancy vehicles. Accordingly, this submission is accepted without changes to the Plan.

4.11.2.4 Allocation of carparking

These submissions seek that greater consideration and specific provisions (i.e. numbers of carparks) is made within the Matiatia provisions for residents carparking, nursing mothers and the general public.

These submissions are not supported as the Matiatia provisions are not intended to determine the detailed layout of the carparking spaces and other activities. The detailed layout of carparking spaces and other activities will come at the design stage. In addition it is not efficient or effective to "lock in" the carparking layout in the district plan as this does not allow for on-going improvements or opportunities that may arise to achieve a better outcome.

4.11.2.5 Policy 6 of Clause 10a.18.3.1

These submissions oppose policy 6 in clause 10a.18.3.1 and also seek clarification as to what is meant by "medium to large" parking areas/buildings or by "highly visible from the water" in clause 10a.18.3.1. Policy 6 states:

"By ensuring that medium to large scale carparking areas and buildings are not located adjoining the esplanade reserve nor are highly visible to those arriving at Matiatia, in order to avoid adverse effects on the landscape character of Matiatia".

The term "medium to large scale" carparking areas and buildings was used so that it was clear that the policy does not apply to smaller scale carparking activities, such as 15 disabled carparks, but does apply to a multilevel carparking building or a 300 space at grade carpark.

The term 'highly visible to those arriving at Mataiatia' is intended to address the concerns of the Environment Court that significant amounts of carparking (whether at grade on in a building) adjoining the foreshore reserve would have adverse effects on the landscape character of Matiatia.

Planner's recommendations about submissions in relation to the transport function of Matiatia:

That submission 671/6 be accepted with no changes to the plan and submissions 692/3, 692/4, 724/3, 724/4, 746/3, 746/4, 857/1, 861/3, 861/4, 898/3, 898/4, 899/7, 931/3, 931/4, 1162/3, 1162/4, 1177/4, 1596/32, 1596/35, 1596/36, 1596/38, 1596/39, 1704/3, 1704/4, 1705/3, 1705/4, 1706/3, 1706/4, 2771/3, 2771/4, 3214/9, 3271/5, 3648/3 and 3648/4 be rejected.

4.12 Submissions in relation to the Owhanake wastewater treatment plant

Submissions dealt with in this section: 550/1, 550/2 and 3026/10.

4.12.1 Decisions requested

These submissions seek that that Owhanake wastewater treatment plant is not upgraded to service the development at Matiatia and that "the development and Matiatia be serviced by septic tanks like the rest of the island".

4.12.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The provision of wastewater disposal facilities to service the development at Matiatia was the subject of much discussion and evidence at the Environment Court hearing on plan change 38. Ultimately, it was concluded by the relevant experts and the Environment Court that a development of up to 10,000m2 could be serviced by the Owhanake wastewater treatment plant without resulting in adverse effects on the surrounding environment. As such, the submissions seeking to ensure that the Matiatia development is not serviced by the Owhanake treatment plant are not supported.

Submission 3026/10 puts forward the view that development at Matiatia should use septic tanks like the rest of the island. It is noted that the commercial development at Oneroa is already serviced by the Owhanake treatment plant rather than septic tanks and over and above that it is more appropriate to use an existing wastewater treatment plant to service the development, particularly as the evidence presented to the Environment Court confirmed that the use of the plant would not have significant adverse effects on the environment.

With respect to the upgrading of the treatment plant to accommodate the development at Matiatia, this matter is not controlled by the Matiatia provisions of the Plan but is controlled through the Notice of Requirement and operating conditions contained in Appendix 7 of the Plan as notified.

Planner's recommendations about submissions in relation to the Owhanake wastewater treatment plant:

That submissions 550/1, 550/2 and 3026/10 be rejected.

4.13 Submissions in relation to the protection of heritage values at Matiatia

Submissions dealt with in this section: 554/1, 680/4, 692/8, 724/8, 746/8, 861/8, 898/9, 931/8, 1162/8, 1290/3, 1704/8, 1705/8, 1706/8, 2559/3, 2570/6, 2576/6, 2771/11, 2952/6, 3061/92, 3214/11 and 3648/8.

4.13.1 Decisions requested

These submissions address both European and Maori heritage issues and specifically request the following:

That the Matiatia provisions to retain the Alison Homestead at Matiatia.
That there is more recognition given to Maori heritage at Matiatia, particularly with respect the guardianship (kaitiakitanga) role of the community and to the protection of the urupa located on the foreshore and the valley floor.

4.13.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The heritage values of the Alison Homestead have been assessed as part of the review of the heritage items on the island. This assessment identified that the building does not have sufficient heritage value to warrant heritage protection. As such, these submissions are not supported.

With respect to the protection of Maori heritage it is accepted that the provisions as they are currently drafted do not adequately address this matter and, as such, the following amendments are proposed:

1. An additional issue is added to clause 10a.18.2 which states:

"How to protect the Maori heritage values associated with the site, particularly the urupa".

2. Objective in clause 10a.18.3.2 is amended to read:

"To create a safe an attractive mixed use development that will meet the needs of the residents and visitors using the area while maintaining the landscape character and Maori heritage values of Matiatia "

3. The following additional sentence is added to the third paragraph under the mixed use area heading of clause 10a.18.4 Resource Management Strategy:

"The restricted discretionary activity consent process also provides the opportunity to assess applications for buildings in order to ensure that they will not have an adverse effect on the urupa at Matiatia"

4. The following additional matter is added to the assessment criteria for building location in clause 10a.18.8.2(2)(b):

"The building will be located and/or constructed in a manner which will ensure that the building does not have an adverse effect on any potential burial sites (the information supplied by the ground penetrating radar study should be used to determine this along with a physical groundwork that may be required in order to determine if a "potential" burial site is a burial site in actuality)".

It is not considered necessary to identify the urupa on a map in the Plan as sought by submission 3061/92 as the ground penetrating radar study that identified the urupa is available from the heritage division of City Planning. In addition, it would be inappropriate to make such information so widely available without the express permission of the iwi affected.

Submissions 1290/3 and 2559/3 also raise concern about the effect of vehicle driving over the foreshore on the urupa. While it is accepted that such an activity could have an adverse effect on the burial sites located on the foreshore, it is noted that the foreshore area is located outside of the Matiatia provisions i.e.has a Recreation 1 classification. This issue has been passed on to the Arts, Community and Recreation group of the Council who have responsibility for managing such areas.

For the above reasons, the submissions in relation to the Alison Homestead are not supported and the submissions in relation to the protection of Maori heritage are supported in part.

Planner's recommendations about submissions in relation to the protection of heritage values at Matiatia:

That submissions 554/1, 2570/6, 2576/6 and 680/4 are rejected and submissions 692/8, 724/8, 746/8, 861/8, 898/9, 931/8, 1162/8, 1290/3, 1704/8, 1705/8, 1706/8, 2559/3, 2771/11, 2952/6, 3061/92, 3214/11 and 3648/8 are accepted in part.

4.14 Submissions in relation to the Good ideas search

Submissions dealt with in this section: 127/1, 157/1, 161/1, 162/1, 170/1, 304/1, 376/1, 513/1, 547/2, 571/1, 577/1, 638/1, 649/1, 671/1, 680/3, 689/1, 692/6, 700/1, 712/1, 718/1, 724/6, 735/1, 744/1, 746/6, 781/1, 791/1, 796/1, 804/1, 813/1, 822/1, 840/1, 861/6, 867/1, 881/1, 891/1, 898/6, 905/1, 923/1, 931/6, 948/1, 1001/1, 1016/1, 1144/1, 1162/6, 1166/1, 1238/1, 1293/1, 1312/1, 1704/6, 1705/6, 1706/6, 1855/1, 1856/1, 1857/1, 1858/1, 1859/1, 1860/1, 1861/1, 1862/1, 1863/1, 1864/1, 1865/1, 1866/1, 1867/1, 1868/1, 1869/1, 1870/1, 1871/1, 1872/1, 1873/1, 1874/1, 1875/1, 1876/1, 1877/1, 1878/1, 1880/1, 1881/1, 1882/1, 1883/1, 1884/1, 1885/1, 1886/1, 1887/1, 1888/1, 1889/1, 2115/1, 2118/1, 2120/1, 2126/1, 2279/1, 2560/1, 2651/1, 2659/1, 2671/1, 2705/1, 2777/1, 2771/6, 2785/1, 2789/1, 2827/1, 2839/1, 2840/1, 2945/1, 2946/1, 2949/1, 2952/1, 2956/1, 2960/1, 2964/2, 2968/1, 2972/1, 2976/1, 2980/1, 2984/1, 2988/1, 2998/1, 3003/1, 3013/1, 3015/1, 3061/82, 3170/1, 3186/1, 3188/1, 3205/1, 3214/1, 3231/1, 3237/1, 3243/1, 3254/1, 3265/1, 3269/1, 3271/1, 3280/1, 3285/1, 3310/1, 3323/1, 3332/1, 3344/1, 3347/1, 3350/1, 3359/1, 3377/1, 3391/1, 3392/1, 3394/1, 3418/1, 3515/1, 3516/1, 3532/1, 3533/1, 3540/1, 3546/1, 3564/1, 3577/1, 3587/1, 3592/1, 3622/1, 3647/1, 3648/6, and 3825/1.

4.14.1 Decisions requested

These submissions seek to integrate community feedback from the Good ideas search into the Matiatia provisions. In particular, it is sought that:

The permitted scale of development is reduced, is in proportion with Waiheke and is human scale
Residential and retail uses are minimal
That Matiatia should have a different character to the mainland
There is an island wide integrated transport plan
Climate change is considered
What attracts people to Waiheke is considered
The Council's conflicts of interest and values are considered
The HGMPA is considered

Submissions 692/6, 724/6, 746/6, 861/6, 898/6, 931/6, 1162/6, 1704/6, 1705/6, 1706/6, 2771/6 and 3648/6 also identify that there is some confusion over the role of the Good ideas search in determining the final form of development at Matiatia.

4.14.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The majority of these matters are addressed in other areas of this report and as such will not be commented on again.

Any perceived conflicts of interest that the Council may have given its role as both landowner and regulatory authority of the land at Matiatia, have been addressed by the fact that the basis of the Matiatia provisions is plan change 38 which was decided on by the Environment Court rather than the Council and as independent commissioners are hearing and deciding on the Matiatia provisions.

As to any confusion around the relationship of the Matiatia provisions to the Good ideas search, this can be best clarified by confirming that the Matiatia provisions provide an overall framework for future development at Matiatia whereas the Good ideas search will determine the final, detailed form of development. These roles are analogous to how the Island Residential 1 � traditional residential provisions provide an overall framework (e.g. 8m height requirement, 4m front yard, 1.5m side yards) for residential dwellings but that the final form of the house (e.g. the exact height, location, layout and materials) will be determined by the landowner.

Planner's recommendations about submissions in relation to the Good ideas search:

That submissions 127/1, 157/1, 161/1, 162/1, 170/1, 304/1, 376/1, 513/1, 547/2, 571/1, 577/1, 638/1, 649/1, 671/1, 680/3, 689/1, 692/6, 700/1, 712/1, 718/1, 724/6, 735/1, 744/1, 746/6, 781/1, 791/1, 796/1, 804/1, 813/1, 861/6, 822/1, 840/1, 867/1, 881/1, 891/1, 898/6, 905/1, 923/1, 931/6, 948/1, 1001/1, 1016/1, 1144/1, 1162/6, 1166/1, 1238/1, 1293/1, 1312/1, 1704/6, 1705/6, 1706/6, 1855/1, 1856/1, 1857/1, 1858/1, 1859/1, 1860/1, 1861/1, 1862/1, 1863/1, 1864/1, 1865/1, 1866/1, 1867/1, 1868/1, 1869/1, 1870/1, 1871/1, 1872/1, 1873/1, 1874/1, 1875/1, 1876/1, 1877/1, 1878/1, 1880/1, 1881/1, 1882/1, 1883/1, 1884/1, 1885/1, 1886/1, 1887/1, 1888/1, 1889/1, 2115/1, 2118/1, 2120/1, 2126/1, 2279/1, 2560/1, 2651/1, 2659/1, 2671/1, 2705/1, 2777/1, 2771/6, 2785/1, 2789/1, 2827/1, 2839/1, 2840/1, 2945/1, 2946/1, 2949/1, 2952/1, 2956/1, 2960/1, 2964/2, 2968/1, 2972/1, 2976/1, 2980/1, 2984/1, 2988/1, 2998/1, 3003/1, 3013/1, 3015/1, 3061/82, 3170/1, 3186/1, 3188/1, 3205/1, 3214/1, 3231/1, 3237/1, 3243/1, 3254/1, 3265/1, 3269/1, 3271/1, 3280/1, 3285/1, 3310/1, 3323/1, 3332/1, 3344/1, 3347/1, 3350/1, 3359/1, 3377/1, 3391/1, 3392/1, 3394/1, 3418/1, 3515/1, 3516/1, 3532/1, 3533/1, 3540/1, 3546/1, 3564/1, 3577/1, 3587/1, 3592/1, 3622/1, 3647/1, 3648/6, and 3825/1 be rejected.

4.15 Miscellaneous submissions

Submissions dealt with in this section: 538/2, 547/1, 718/5, 2945/5, 3397/3.

4.15.1 Decisions requested

The relief sought by these submissions is as follows:

That there is a wharf for swimming at Matiatia
The leaseholder for the Harbourmasters restaurant would like to discuss the plans for Matiatia
Opposes the assumption in clause 10a.18.1 that the existing development at Matiatia is "not befitting its location at the gateway to the island" and that a comprehensive redevelopment needs to be undertaken.
That the entire property at 25 Ocean View Road is included in the mixed use area rather than in Transport area B.
That all subjective criteria are withdrawn

4.15.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.15.2.1 Wharf

It is not possible for district plan provisions to require the construction of a wharf at Matiatia. Such development and expenditure would need to be approved through the Annual Plan process and consents obtained from the Auckland Regional Council. Consequently, this submission is not supported.

4.15.2.2 Harbourmasters leaseholder

It is understood that this submitter is no longer the leaseholder of the Harbourmasters, and as such, the submission may no longer be relevant. Irrespective of this, the leaseholder could discuss the Council's development proposals at any time by contacting staff. As there is no decision requested as a result of this submission the submission is not supported.

4.15.2.3 Existing development at Matiatia

This submitter opposes the statement in clause 10a.18.1 that the existing development at Matiatia is "not befitting its location at the gateway to the island" and that a comprehensive redevelopment needs to be undertaken. This submission is not supported as the existing development at Matiatia is ad hoc and could be improved substantially by a comprehensive development plan. Adding weight to this opinion is the key finding of the Environment Court that the "existing council carpark near the wharf is an eyesore" and the following view of the landscape architect that provided evidence at the hearing on behalf of CAPOW:

"The dominant issue of concern in landscape spatial analytical terms is the need to address the council carparking and associated traffic circulation elements and patterns. It is these final elements of detail that require addressing in a comprehensive way in order to secure a fully resolved outcome in relation to the landscape and visual amenity of the Matiatia Bay identity and ultimately the completion of the implementation of the gateway experience Waiheke Island".

For the above reasons this submission is not supported.

4.15.2.4 Property at 25 Ocean View Road

The lower portion of the property at 25 Ocean View Road is identified as Transport area B in the Matiatia provisions in recognition of the carparking and storage activities that are currently undertaken on this site. Before a recommendation can be made as to whether or not it is appropriate to include this site in the mixed use area the following analysis would be required:

A visual assessment of the effect of including the whole site in the land unit rather than just the lower portion. Particular regard shall be had to the potential adverse effects on the landscape character values of the surrounding area.
A traffic assessment of how such development would impact on the safety and congestion of Ocean View Road.
A planning assessment of the appropriateness of mixed use activity on this site and the planning provisions that would be required in order for a mix of activities to occur.
A infrastructure assessment of how such a development would be serviced in terms of water, wastewater and stormwater and a geotechnical assessment.

Subject to any further information provided by the submitter at the hearings, this submission is not supported at this point in time.

4.15.2.5 Withdrawal of all subjective criteria

This submission raises concern that the assessment criteria, particularly those for new buildings, are too subjective and as such should be withdrawn. The role of assessment criteria is to guide the assessment of a particular proposal, and as such, they may contain elements of subjectivity. It should also be noted that while the terms used in the criteria may not have much meaning to the average person they are well understood by the planning and design professionals that will be using them.

For the above reasons this submission is not supported.

Planner's recommendations about the miscellaneous submissions:

That submissions 538/2, 547/1, 718/5, 2945/5, 3397/3 be rejected.

5.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding the Matiatia provisions of the Proposed Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section 2006.

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

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