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

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

1.0 Introduction

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006 ('the Plan'). The submissions considered in this report are those which have been coded as 'miscellaneous' as it has not been possible to more specifically identify the provisions of the Plan (if any) to which they relate. The Plan was publicly notified on 18 September 2006. The closing date for lodging submissions was 11 December 2006. The submissions 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 various miscellaneous submissions. 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 dealt with in conjunction with the submissions to which they relate.

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

2.0 Statutory framework

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

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

1. Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and
2. Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and
3. 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:

1. "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:
2. the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of—
   1. the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and
   2. 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:
   3. the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:
3. ...
4. The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:
5. 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 Analysis of submissions

3.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions of a miscellaneous nature 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.

The submissions considered in this report are those which have been coded as 'miscellaneous' as it has not been possible to more specifically identify the provisions of the Plan (if any) to which they relate. Some of the submissions are outside the scope of this process as they are not 'on' the Plan but seek decisions which cannot be addressed within the Plan.

A list of the prime submissions considered in this report, together with the related further submissions, is contained in appendix 1 . Appendix 2 contains the summaries 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 will be considered by the council at the start of the hearing process and for the purposes of this report it is assumed that they have been accepted as provided for under sections 37 and 37A of the RMA.

3.2 Submissions about specific sites or localised areas

Submissions dealt with in this section: 336/1, 506/1, 794/3, 1139/6, 2630/3, 2735/1, 3501/10, 3501/13, 3551/7

3.2.1 Decisions requested

3.2.1.1 Waiheke

Submission 336/1 requests that any development on the site (of the proposed supermarket) facing Belgium Street, Ostend, adjacent to the bus stop, be required to incorporate free park and ride parking (precise numbers to meet with any council guidelines). The address of proposed supermarket site is 13-19 Belgium Street, and 20-28 Putiki Road.

Submission 794/3 seeks action by the council to control the noxious weeds and pine trees on the council controlled foreshore at Te Whau Point.

Submission 1139/6 seeks the development of reserve management plans for Lot 1 DP67008 Wilma Road, Ostend in accordance with council's statutory duty to provide such plans.

Submission 2735/1 asks that all those provisions relating to Lot 2 DP202513 (230 Church Bay Road) be deleted and replaced with the relevant provisions of the operative Plan or any such words that would have the same effect as those in the operative Plan.

3.2.1.2 Rangitoto

Submission 506/1 requests that the Islington Bay wharf on Rangitoto is always kept in a safe and operative state and that the steps on the northern end be kept in a safe and usable condition.

3.2.1.3 The Noises

Submission 3551/7 asks that the council consider reclassifying the Noises from category rural 2 to rural 3 for rating purposes/rates relief. The submission attaches a letter sent to relevant part of the council on 25 November 2003 requesting such relief. The submission states that similar letters were sent in January and September 2004.

3.2.1.4 Great Barrier

Submission 2630/3 seeks a special taskforce be set up to return Professor Harnett's land at Tryphena, Great Barrier. The submission does not identify the land affected, but is probably referring to 47ha of land at 46 and 46A Blackwell Drive, Tryphena.

Submission 3501/10 asks that there be no spraying around Schooner Bay, Puriri Bay and in particular 80 Schooner Bay Road. The submitters have an organic vineyard on their property and have experienced problems with drift spray from council contractors spraying for weeds. Submission 3501/13 requests that the Schooner Bay Dive Club take ownership of the wharf in Puriri Bay.

3.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

3.2.2.1 Waiheke

13-19 Belgium Street (336/1)

Currently the vacant 'supermarket' site in Belgium Street is informally used as a park and ride. There is community interest in providing for this informal use to continue and this has been considered by the council's Transport Division who have discussed it with the landowner. It would be unreasonable for the council to require the owner of the proposed supermarket site at Belgium Street to provide free park and ride parking in association with any development. The correct process for the council is to reach agreement with the landowner to either provide, lease or sell some of the land for use as a park and ride. If the council wishes to protect the land for this purpose, it could use the notice of requirement process under the RMA. The council's Transport Division would need to promote such a notice of requirement. It is recommended that submission 336/1 be rejected as this issue cannot be addressed by an amendment to the Plan.

Te Whau Point foreshore ( 794/3)

Control by the council of noxious weeds and pine trees on the foreshore at Te Whau Point is an operational issue and should not be addressed in the Plan. It is therefore recommended that submission 794/3 be rejected. Council's parks staff do recognise the need for weed control on Waiheke reserves. Priority is currently being given to areas where:

• large weed-free areas of public land have been established (Matiatia valley)
• weed control will enable public access; or
• where a neighbour or volunteer is proposing to clear weeds from a significant amount of neighbouring land.

This submission will be referred to the council's Arts, Culture and Recreation Division for its consideration.

Te Toki reserve (1139/6)

Submission 1139/6 appears to be referring to Te Toki reserve (Lots 1 and 2, DP196914). Reserve management plans are developed under the Reserves Act 1977, rather than under the RMA or the Plan. For this reason it is recommended that submission 1139/6 which seeks a reserve management plan for a reserve in Wilma Road, Ostend, be rejected. This submission will be referred to the council's Arts, Culture and Recreation Division for its consideration.

230 Church Bay Road ( 2735/1)

Submission 2735/1 states that the Plan restricts further development of 230 Church Bay Road. However the submission does not identify specific concerns with the Plan. The site at 230 Church Bay Road is classified as rural 2 (western landscape) in the Plan and most of it is subject to the significant ridgeline area control. A very small coastal part of the site is affected by a scheduled geological item 8-1. Under the operative Plan, the site is classified as land unit 22 with most of it also being subject to the significant ridgeline control.

There is insufficient information in the submission to enable any further assessment of its merits. It is recommended that submission 2735/1 be rejected.

3.2.2.2 Rangitoto (506/1)

Maintenance of the Islington Bay wharf is an operational matter and it is not appropriate to address it in the Plan, particularly as the wharf is probably located below mean high water springs and therefore within the planning jurisdiction of the Auckland Regional Council. Moreover, in terms of ownership, the wharf is the responsibility of the Department of Conservation (DOC), rather than the council. It is recommended that submission 506/1 be rejected.

3.2.2.3 The Noises ( 3551/7)

Rates classification and rating relief is not a matter that is dealt with in the Plan. It is therefore recommended that submission 3551/7 be rejected. The submission will be referred to the council's Finance Division for its consideration. It is noted that rural 2 is listed in the council's current LTCCP as being the correct rating category for The Noises. Properties with a 'rural 3' rating classification are charged no rates.

For completeness, it is noted that the Noises is identified as a site of ecological significance in both the operative and the proposed Plans.

3.2.2.4 Great Barrier

46 and 46A Blackwell Drive ( 2630/3)

The request for a special taskforce to be set up to return Professor Harnett's land is outside the scope of the Plan. It is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Spraying at Schooner Bay Road ( 3501/10)

The council's weed spraying activities are an operational issue and not dealt with in the Plan. Spraying is also a matter which is controlled at the regional level in the Auckland Regional Council's ('ARC') Air, Land and Water Plan. It is therefore recommended that submission 3501/10 be rejected.

It is noted that the council has a weed management policy ¹ which applies to all land administered by Auckland City on the Auckland Isthmus and throughout the Hauraki Gulf islands, with emphasis on council parks, reserves and roadsides. For Great Barrier, the weed management practice is no herbicide use on roadsides, except for specific environmentally damaging weeds and for non-spray application on tar seal edges and around culverts as required; and no spraying in the vicinity of schools.

Puriri Bay wharf ( 3501/13)

The ownership of the wharf in Puriri Bay is not a matter that can be dealt with in the Plan. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about specific sites or localised areas

That submissions 336/1, 506/1, 794/3, 1139/6, 2630/3, 2735/1, 3501/10, 3501/13, 3551/7 be rejected

3.3 Submissions about social, economic or community issues

Submissions dealt with in this section: 725/2, 1136/2, 1166/18, 1166/21, 1206/4, 1281/1, 1653/9, 1722/10, 2714/1, 2726/1, 2762/7, 2766/10, 2766/15, 2766/19, 3715/2, 3715/3, 3715/4

3.3.1 Decisions requested

Submission 725/2 refers to the Plan also including growth and population control. The submission appears to seek that this be added to a new part 15 - Sustainable management and operational methodologies.

Submission 1136/2 asks that all decisions regarding the provision of services for community and cultural wellbeing be prefaced with a clear understanding that the historical providers of services and utilities will not continue to receive uncontested favourable status so that the Plan does not support unconditionally nor uncritically the continuance of outmoded technologies and their various forms of product, service and delivery method merely because those forms of infrastructure currently exist or have a monopoly within the market.

Submission 1166/18 states that the Plan needs to facilitate a broader approach to Waiheke's economic development (beyond tourism) to ensure the island has a greater degree of self sufficiency in terms of goods and services.

Submission 1166/21 (from Waiheke) and submission 2726/1 (from Great Barrier) are both about affordable housing. Submission 1166/21 states that the Plan needs to consider inclusionary zoning to ensure a supply of affordable housing. Submission 2726/1 states that the council should see the benefit of a low cost development area or regime on Great Barrier for low income people.

Submission 1206/4 asks that the concept of community gardens be looked at and encouraged as a resource for the future.

Submission 1281/1 seeks mechanisms and controls for securing, protecting and enhancing public lands - walkways, reserves, road reserves, for the general community's enjoyment/recreation.

Submission 1653/9 wishes the library, gallery, cinema, theatre etc to remain on the Artworks site but in a much more suitable building.

Submission 1722/10 seeks clear and effective demarcation of public coastal reserve.

Submission 2714/1 (from Great Barrier) and submission 2762/7 (from Waiheke) are both about consultation. Submission 2714/1 seeks a cooperative plan - work alongside, don't close down, local input (for Great Barrier). As a whole, submission 2714 opposes the Plan and expresses concern about the consultation process. Submission 2762/7 states that audits, surveys, forums and other means of investigation and decision-making regarding social, cultural, economic and health issues must be initiated by council to make proper proposals for a revised Plan.

Submission 2766/10 asks the council to adopt a code of practice and rights-centred philosophy in the treatment of complaints.

Submission 2766/15 states that the Plan must incorporate and reflect the sense of values held by communities; address the many problems and deficiencies in the current operations and procedures; and be open-minded. It must not attempt to control and dictate everything. The council must not be given the power to interfere without mandate in areas of personal responsibility, tastes, lifestyle choices and values. Rather its function is as an 'enabler' of decisions by affected persons and a 'promoter' of human well-being.

Submission 2766/19 seeks the immediate creation of a citizen's advocate or council ombudsman to protect civil and human rights and deal with abuses of powers.

Submissions 3715/2, 3715/3 and 3715/4 states that the Plan should give priority to social well-being/community outcomes (as per section 5 of the RMA, section 7(2)(a)(ii) of the HGMPA, and section 91 of the LGA) by supporting the adoption of a Waiheke long-term community plan ('LTCCP'); implementing a Waiheke Island gulf design panel; and by supporting greater devolved governance for the Waiheke Community Board.

3.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

3.3.2.1 Submission 725/2

This submission does not identify what amendments are sought to the Plan to address growth and population control. It is recommended that this submission be rejected.

3.3.2.2 Submission 1136/2

This submission 1136/2 does not identify what amendments, if any, are sought to the Plan to address concerns about the historical providers of services and utilities. In addition, the matters raised are outside the scope of the Plan. The submission should be rejected.

3.3.2.3 Submission 1166/18

This submission does not identify what amendments, if any, are sought to the Plan to facilitate a broader approach to Waiheke's economic development (beyond tourism). The definition of sustainable management (which is the purpose of the RMA) includes enabling people and communities to provide for their economic wellbeing. Some of the ways in which the Plan has regard to economic wellbeing are by providing for:

• the use and development of properties at a level consistent with the need to protect natural and physical resources
• commercial and industrial uses in commercial land units
• commercial uses in the Matiatia (mixed use) land unit
• home occupations
• farming and horticulture
• network utilities.

It is recommended that this submission be rejected.

3.3.2.4 Submissions 1166/21 and 2726/1

Inclusionary zoning (referred to in submission 1166/21) is when a district plan requires a certain share of new construction to be affordable to people with low to moderate incomes. Submission 1166/21 does not further explain how the Plan should use this technique. Submission 2726/1 also does not identify how the Plan should be amended to provide a low cost development area or regime.

It is recommended that these submissions be rejected. If the council wanted to introduce inclusionary zoning, it would need to be certain that this would have the desired outcome given the many factors which influence housing costs. Housing affordability is a complex issue which is influenced by a wide range of factors not controlled by the district plan. Those factors include household incomes; inflation; overseas exchange rates; finance availability; compliance with Building Act regulations; costs associated with construction materials, transport and labour. The principal direction that the council has taken on affordable housing is to seek to enter into a partnership with other agencies, such as Housing New Zealand, to develop a demonstration project.

3.3.2.5 Submission 1206/4

Submission 1206/4 does not identify what, if any, amendments are sought to the Plan in order to encourage community gardens. The submission does not further explain the concept of community gardens. However the term is usually used to refer to a communal gardening venture which uses vacant open space.

The council does have a policy on community gardens which is available online ². People who wish to establish a community garden on council land (such as public open space) are required to submit a proposal which includes the information set out in section 6.0 of the policy.

Under the Plan rules for the recreation land units, community gardens would fit within the definition of 'community facilities' and are permitted in recreation 2 (community facilities and sports parks) and in parts of recreation 3 (Rangihoua Park).

It is recommended that this submission be rejected as it does not seek or require any amendments to the Plan.

3.3.2.6 Submission 1281/1

This submission seeks mechanisms and controls for securing, protecting and enhancing public lands. In terms of securing public lands, the Plan provides for this in part 6 - Financial contributions. The Plan provides for protecting and enhancing reserve land through the recreation 1, 2 and 3 land units. For road reserves, the Plan includes controls protecting trees on legal roads. Unformed legal roads identified on the planning maps are subject to the land unit controls. It is recommended that this submission be rejected to the extent that it seeks amendments to the Plan.

3.3.2.7 Submission 1653/9

The council has sought feedback on three options for the future development of the library, service centre, and Artworks complex. This consultation is not part of the district plan process, and any decision by the council as to whether or not the library and other activities will remain on the Artworks site will be made outside of the Plan. The Plan can provide for such activities on that site but cannot require them to remain there. For this reason it is recommended that submission 1653/9 be rejected.

The Artworks site is at 2-4 Korora Road, Oneroa. The northern part of 2 Korora Road is classified as commercial 1 (Oneroa village). The southern part of 2 Korora Road and all of 4 Korora Road is classified as island residential 1 (traditional residential). There are other submissions (including submission 2103/4 lodged by the council) which seek to apply a commercial 1 classification to all of the Artworks site. Reclassifying the site in this manner would better provide for the activities occurring on the Artworks site. This will be considered in a subsequent hearing report.

3.3.2.8 Submission 1722/10

This submission, seeking a clear and effective demarcation of public coastal reserve, probably results from the issues which have arisen on Waiheke due to the encroachment of private land uses onto adjacent public land. This is an operational issue which the Waiheke service centre is well aware of and is taking enforcement action on where required. The council has also resolve to fund an encroachment officer, party in this financial year and fully in 2008/2009. It is not appropriate to address this matter in the Plan and is therefore recommended that the submission be rejected to the extent that it seeks amendments to the Plan.

3.3.2.9 Submissions 2714/1 and 2762/7

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 2714/1 and 2762/7 be rejected.

3.3.2.10 Submissions 2766/10 and 2766/19

Submissions 2766/10 and 2766/19 raise operational issues about the council's treatment of complaints and request a council ombudsman. It is not appropriate for the district plan to deal with such matters. These submissions should be rejected.

3.3.2.11 Submission 2766/15

It is recommended that submission 2766/15 be rejected as it makes various general statements of a philosophical and ideological nature without seeking any specific decision.

3.3.2.12 Submissions 3715/2, 3715/3 and 3715/4

It is recommended that submissions 3715/2, 3715/3 and 3715/4 be rejected as it is not appropriate for the Plan to comment on whether Waiheke should have its own LTCCP or on governance issues. With regard to the design panel, this is an operational issue and does not need to be referred to in the Plan. However it is noted that the council does convene on an as-required basis a specialist design panel for the Hauraki Gulf islands, known as the environmental design panel. Panel members are selected for their knowledge of, and professional experience in, the gulf islands and have been briefed on council policies and strategies on Waiheke and the gulf. The panel is convened on an 'as required' basis. Its purview extends to all island developments that are:

• multiple residential or mixed use developments
• large scale visitor facility developments, commercial and entertainment facilities
• ridgeline developments (determined on a case by case basis)
• large scale development in rural areas, for example land units 20, 21 and 22 (now rural 1 and 2)
• large scale developments, including all new buildings and major alterations to buildings within the commercial and retail zones within policy areas (now settlement areas)
• developments which have the potential to impact on significant landscape features, for example coastal cliffs or significant coastal headlands
• any major council development projects
• large scale development adjacent to reserve areas.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about social, economic or community issues

That submissions 725/2, 1136/2, 1166/18, 1166/21, 1206/4, 1281/1, 1653/9, 1722/10, 2714/1, 2726/1, 2762/7, 2766/10, 2766/15, 2766/19, 3715/2, 3715/3, 3715/4 be rejected.

3.4 Submissions about the map base for the outer islands

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2104/1, 2396/1, 2397/1, 2398/1, 2547/1

3.4.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2104/1, which is from the council, seeks to amend the aerial and cadastral base used in the planning maps for the outer islands to take into account the availability of more accurate and up-to-date information such as the aerial photography taken between September 2005 and February 2006 as part of the regional LIDAR ('light detection and ranging technology') flights. It seeks consequential adjustments to land unit boundaries.

Submissions 2396/1, 2397/1, 2398/1 are identical and all ask for the aerial photography used as a basis for the planning maps to be updated to 2006/2007. These submissions particularly relate to the property at Hector Sanderson Road, Great Barrier (Lot 2 DP349202) shown on sheet 54 of the planning maps. These submissions express concern that the aerial photography does not accurately record current land use activities, infrastructure and heritage.

Submission 2547/1, from a Great Barrier resident, requests that an up to date version of the cadastral lines be shown on the planning maps, as they currently show cadastral lines pre 1995.

3.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Background

The aerials used for the outer islands planning maps were flown in 1999 and 2003. The 2003 aerials are ortho-corrected for spatial accuracy and cover the settled areas at Tryphena, Medlands, Claris, Port Fitzroy, Whangaparapara, Okiwi and Okupu. These aerials were commissioned by the council, and the coverage was limited due to the high cost of aerial photography. The 1999 aerials are not ortho-corrected and are therefore less accurate due to the distortions that occur in aerial photography.

The cadastral base, which shows the property boundaries, was extracted from the council's geospatial information system ('GIS').

The council also has aerial photography (or digital imaging) taken between September 2005 and February 2006 as part of the regional LIDAR ('light detection and ranging technology') flights. That photography needed colour correction and was not available early enough to be used in the production of the outer islands planning maps. Even with the colour correction that has subsequently occurred, these aerials have a 'patchwork quilt' appearance and are not of a standard that is suitable for the planning maps.

As part of a regional project new aerials for Great Barrier were scheduled to be flown and processed in 2007. However this timetable is weather dependent and has already been delayed. These aerials will be ortho-corrected to avoid spatial distortions.

Analysis

While it is helpful to have the most up-to-date cadastral boundaries on the planning maps, this is not critical. It would have also been useful to have more recent aerial photography for those parts of Great Barrier not included in the 2003 photography. However due to cost and logistical reasons this information is not available. It is considered that the combination of the 1999 and 2003 aerials used in the planning maps is acceptable. It should be noted that the aerials used in the operative Plan were flown in 1990. It is recommended that submissions 2104/1, 2396/1, 2397/1, 2398/1 and 2547/1 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about the map base for the outer islands

That submissions 2104/1, 2396/1, 2397/1, 2398/1, 2547/1 be rejected.

3.5 Submissions about other mapping matters

Submissions dealt with in this section: 136/2, 947/1, 1210/1, 1281/3, 1548/2, 2103/1, 2103/2, 2103/3, 2103/10, 2104/2, 2191/1, 2628/2, 3410/1, 3410/2, 3424/2, 3509/2, 3510/2, 3554/3, 3584/2

3.5.1 Decisions requested

Submission 947/1 asks that Rotoroa be mapped on one planning map as an entity. It is currently split between sheets 24 and 26.

There are a number of submissions from Rocky Bay residents (136/2, 1548/2, 2628/2, 3424/2, 3509/2, 3510/2, 3554/3, 3584/2) stating that the point at the eastern end of Omiha has never been called 'Goldies Point' and that this name should be removed from the Plan.

Submission 1281/3 asks for the maps to be redone as there are gross errors, protection zones, ridgelines etc.

Submissions 2103/1, 2103/2, 2103/3, 2103/10 and 2104/2 are from the council and seek minor amendments to the maps and street index. Submission 2103/1 seeks corrections to the Waiheke street index which appears at the start of the inner islands maps. Submissions 2103/2, 2103/3, and 2104/2 seek amendments to the planning maps to correct location names, and to include additional street names on the Waiheke maps. Submission 2103/10 seeks a correction to the northern coastline of Ponui.

Submission 2191/1 seeks an amendment to identify 8 and 10 Pohutukawa Avenue, Rocky Bay as two separate lots.

Submission 1210/1 wants the maps to include all minor stream and wetland systems, and all the major ephemeral watercourses that feed into them. Submission 3410/1 asks the council to map and identify all watercourse, seasonal and year round including wetlands before the Plan is law, by a person educated / experienced to do so on foot. Submissions 3410/2 seeks amendments to the maps to include bridle paths.

3.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

3.5.2.1 Rotoroa (947/1)

The fact that Rotoroa is divided between two map sheets is a minimal inconvenience to users of the Plan. In addition the maps are clear. It is recommended that submission 947/1 be rejected.

3.5.2.2 Rocky Bay

It does appear from submissions that the name 'Goldies Point' is not known or used by residents. The name is also not recognised by the Geographic Board. It is therefore recommended that submissions 136/2, 1548/2, 2628/2, 3424/2, 3509/2, 3510/2, 3554/3 and 3584/2 be accepted and that the name 'Goldie Point' or 'Goldies Point' be removed from the Plan. 'Goldies Point' appears on sheet 15 of the planning maps (both maps 1 and 2), and 'Goldie Point' appears in the character statement for Rocky Bay contained in appendix 3.

With regard to submission 2191/1, it is appropriate to correct the cadastral base for the planning maps to show the property boundary between 8 and 10 Pohutukawa Avenue. It is recommended that this submission is accepted. However it is noted that the inclusion or otherwise of the boundary line on the planning maps does not affect the application of the Plan to these properties.

3.5.2.3 Redo the maps ( 1281/3)

Submission 1281/3, from a Waiheke group, states that there are errors in the maps but does not identify them further or fully explain the concerns it raises about the ridgelines and protection zones as shown on the maps. This submission contains insufficient information to enable its merits to be further analysed and it is recommended that it be rejected.

3.5.2.4 Street index, location names, and Ponui coastline

The amendments sought in submissions 2103/1, 2103/2, 2103/3, 2103/10 and 2104/2 from the council are minor corrections and improvements to mapping information which will assist the users of the Plan. It is recommended that these submissions be accepted.

As is noted in these submissions, the council could make these amendments without further formality (and without notification) using clause 16(2) of schedule 1 of the RMA. However because the submission process is available at this time, the council has decided to use that process to address these minor errors and alterations of minor effect.

3.5.2.5 Bridle paths ( 3410/2)

It is recommended that submission 3410/2, which asks to have all bridle paths shown on the planning maps, be rejected. While it may be useful to have a map of all bridle paths on the public record, the planning maps is not the appropriate place to show this information. The purpose of the planning maps is to assist in showing how the rules in the Plan apply to properties. If the maps are used to show other extraneous information, this will detract from the purpose of the maps and their legibility.

3.5.2.6 Streams and wetlands ( 1210/1 and 3410/1)

It is not practicable for the council to map and identify all watercourses and wetlands (seasonal or year round) or to attempt to show on the planning maps all the minor stream and wetland systems and major ephemeral watercourses that feed into them. This would require a considerable amount of additional mapping work and would affect the legibility of the maps. It is recommended that submissions 1210/1 and 3410/1 be rejected.

The submission 1210/1 states that including this information would indicate that the streams and wetland systems have vital ecological value in the district. The Plan does recognise the ecological value of streams and wetland by specifying protection yards for wetlands and water bodies (see clause 10c.5.7) and by applying the landform 4 (wetland systems) land unit. This is a more realistic and workable approach than trying to map every wetland and watercourse including ephemeral ones.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about other mapping matters

That submissions 947/1, 1210/1, 1281/3, 3410/1 and 3410/2 be rejected That submissions 136/2, 1548/2, 2628/2, 3424/2, 3509/2, 3510/2, 3554/3, 3584/2 be accepted and that the Plan be amended according to: Delete the words 'Goldies Point' from sheet 15, maps 1 and 2 Amend the sixth paragraph of appendix 3 as follows: The essential qualities of the Rocky Bay conservation area are thus made up of the centre itself with its major component items, the central bush-clad reserve, the shoreline of Pohutukawa Avenue from the centre to the site of the original wharf and its remains, and the opposite shoreline towards the east. eastwards towards Goldie Point. That submission 2103/1 be accepted and the street index that appears in the front of the planning maps for the inner islands be amended accordingly as follows: Delete the following streets as they are found on Rakino, not on Waiheke: Askew Avenue Jane York Place Marine Park Avenue Ocean View Crescent Sandford Way South Pacific Road Woody Bay Road Amend the entries for Cable Bay Lane and Park Point Drive to include a reference to sheet 7 as well as sheet 31. Amend the entry for The Esplanade by deleting the reference to sheet 3. Amend the entry for The Strand by deleting the references to sheets 4 and 10. Add an entry for Alan Murray Lane (sheet 1), in alphabetical order. That submission 2103/2 be accepted and the planning maps for Waiheke be amended accordingly to include additional street names to assist users of the Plan. That submission 2103/3 be accepted and the planning maps for the inner islands be amended accordingly to: Correct the spelling of the following place or bay names: Change Kennedys Point and Kennedys Bay to Kennedy Point and Bay (sheets 8 and 9) Change Tikitikiatonga Point to Tikitikiatongi Point (sheet 21) Change Chamberlins Bay to Chamberlains Bay (sheet 26) Change Te Raeokahu Point to Te Rae o Kahu Point (sheet 31) Correct the spelling of other place or bay names or location details where any errors are identified. That submission 2103/10 be accepted and sheet 26, map no. 2 be amended accordingly so that the alignment of the northern coastline of Ponui is identical to that shown on map no. 1 of sheet 26. That submission 2104/2 be accepted and the planning maps for the outer islands be amended accordingly to: Correct the spelling of the following place or bay names: Change Takawhero Point (Rakitu Island) to Tokawhero Point (sheet 44) Change Kaiaraara Bay to Kaiarara Bay (sheet 47) Correct the spelling of place or bay names or location details where any errors are identified. That submission 2191/1 be accepted and that sheet 15, maps nos. 1 and 2, be amended accordingly to show the lot boundary between 8 and 10 Pohutukawa Avenue.

3.6 Submissions about landscape

Submissions dealt with in this section:

Group 1: 126/1, 156/1, 163/1, 168/1, 303/1, 378/1, 569/1, 576/1, 590/1, 592/1, 620/1, 644/1, 661/1, 670/1, 682/1, 690/1, 705/1, 707/1, 713/1, 717/1, 729/1, 739/1, 803/1, 811/1, 820/1, 829/1, 845/1, 868/1, 886/1, 897/1, 904/1, 922/1, 939/1, 954/1, 1023/1, 1055/12, 1149/1, 1166/5, 1215/1, 1292/1, 1661/1, 1743/1, 1744/1, 1745/1, 1746/1, 1747/1, 1748/1, 1749/1, 1750/1, 1751/1, 1752/1, 1753/1, 1754/1, 1755/1, 1756/1, 1757/1, 1758/1, 1759/1, 1760/1, 1761/1, 1762/1, 1763/1, 1764/1, 1765/1, 1766/1, 1767/1, 1768/1, 1769/1, 1770/1, 1771/1, 1772/1, 1773/1, 1774/1, 1775/1, 1776/1, 1777/1, 2119/1, 2130/1, 2132/1, 2173/1, 2280/1, 2635/1, 2660/1, 2672/1, 2702/1, 2772/1, 2784/1, 2790/1, 2825/1, 2837/1, 2841/1, 2953/1, 2957/1, 2961/1, 2965/1, 2969/1, 2973/1, 2977/1, 2981/1, 2985/1, 2989/1, 2999/1, 3010/1, 3012/1, 3019/1, 3061/98, 3185/1, 3193/1, 3204/1, 3222/1, 3225/1, 3238/1, 3248/1, 3255/1, 3279/1, 3284/1, 3302/1, 3309/1, 3324/1, 3331/1, 3345/1, 3351/1, 3358/1, 3361/1, 3378/1, 3387/1, 3514/1, 3531/1, 3534/1, 3537/1, 3545/1, 3575/1, 3629/1, 3652/1, 3563/1, 3819/1, 3835/1, 3853/1, 3854/1

Group 2: 126/3, 156/3, 163/3, 168/3, 303/3, 378/3, 569/3, 576/3, 590/3, 592/3, 620/3, 644/3, 661/3, 670/3, 682/3, 690/3, 705/3, 707/3, 713/3, 717/3, 729/3, 739/3, 803/3, 811/3, 820/3, 829/3, 845/3, 868/3, 897/4, 904/3, 922/3, 939/3, 954/3, 1023/3, 1027/2, 1055/14, 1149/3, 1215/3, 1292/3, 1661/3, 1743/3, 1744/3, 1745/3, 1746/3, 1747/3, 1748/3, 1749/3, 1750/3, 1751/3, 1752/3, 1753/3, 1754/3, 1755/3, 1756/3, 1757/3, 1758/3, 1759/3, 1760/3, 1761/3, 1762/3, 1763/3, 1764/3, 1765/3, 1766/3, 1767/3, 1768/3, 1769/3, 1770/3, 1771/3, 1772/3, 1773/3, 1774/3, 1775/3, 1776/3, 1777/3, 2119/3, 2130/3, 2132/3, 2173/3, 2280/3, 2635/3, 2660/3, 2672/3, 2702/3, 2772/4, 2784/3, 2790/3, 2825/3, 2837/3, 2841/3, 2953/3, 2957/3, 2961/3, 2965/3, 2969/3, 2973/3, 2977/3, 2981/3, 2985/3, 2989/3, 2999/3, 3010/3, 3012/3, 3019/3, 3061/99, 3185/3, 3193/3, 3204/3, 3222/3, 3225/3, 3238/3, 3248/3, 3255/3, 3279/3, 3284/3, 3302/3, 3309/3, 3324/3, 3331/3, 3345/3, 3358/3, 3361/3, 3378/3, 3387/3, 3514/3, 3531/3, 3534/3, 3537/3, 3545/3, 3563/3, 3575/3, 3629/3, 3652/3, 3819/3, 3835/3, 3853/3, 3854/3

Group 3: 303/6, 378/6, 569/6, 576/6, 644/6, 670/6, 705/6, 707/6, 713/6, 729/6, 739/6, 868/6, 886/6, 904/6, 922/6, 939/6, 954/6, 1055/17, 1149/6, 1743/6, 1744/6, 1745/6, 1746/6, 1747/6, 1748/6, 1749/6, 1750/6, 1751/6, 1752/6, 1753/6, 1754/6, 1755/6, 1756/6, 1757/6, 1758/6, 1759/6, 2173/6, 2280/6, 2635/4, 2702/6, 2784/6, 2837/6, 2999/6, 3061/100, 3185/6, 3204/6, 3222/6, 3225/6, 3238/6, 3255/6, 3279/6, 3284/6, 3302/6, 3309/6, 3324/6, 3331/6, 3345/6, 3351/6, 3358/6, 3361/6, 3378/6, 3545/4, 3563/6, 3575/4, 3652/6, 3819/6

Others: 1055/29, 2711/1, 2728/2, 3398/4

3.6.1 Decisions requested

The submissions identified above as group 1, seek clear integration of waste water, waters and catchment management, with landscape provisions and protection with explicit linkages and relationships shown.

The group 2 submissions seek definition of significant landscape / view shafts with clear linkages to rules to protect them. Submission 1055/29 seeks to identify iconic view shafts on the Plan and protect them from loss by buildings or plantings.

The group 3 submissions seek appropriate provision for ONLs (outstanding natural landscapes). Similarly submission 3398/4 asks that the council recognise outstanding natural landscapes as defined at the regional level and provide accordingly, eg in building controls. Submission 2711/1 asks for removal of any outstanding landscape value off farm land and states that this sort of zone should be placed with the consent of the owner. Similarly submission 2728/2 suggests that private title needs to be left out of outstanding landscape value.

3.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

3.6.2.1Integrated water and catchment management and landscape provisions

The group 1 submissions do not clearly identify any deficiencies with the Plan or describe how it should be amended to meet their concerns. It is therefore not possible to analyse the merits of these submissions further and it is recommended that they be rejected.

These submissions refer to waters and catchment management which is predominantly an ARC function. The council's functions under the RMA regarding water are limited to "the control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of the water in rivers and lakes" (s31(1)(e)).

3.6.2.2View shafts

The group 2 submissions do not identify any particular views as being of concern. Almost all the submissions are from Waiheke residents and none are identifiable as being from Great Barrier or any other Hauraki Gulf islands. It is therefore likely that the submissions are concerned about views on Waiheke rather than on other islands.

Like the operative Plan, the proposed Plan does not seek to specifically protect any public views. Protection of public views was a matter that was raised in consultation, including by the Waiheke focus group that considered landscape matters. The council's landscape consultant, Hudson Associates, did some preliminary assessment of ten public views on Waiheke. That assessment is summarised in a document entitled Waiheke Island View Report ³. The report identifies that in order to retain some of the views considered, it may be necessary to control the potential development or vegetation that could occur on adjacent private properties. The report also identified that, in some cases, management of vegetation on adjacent council owned land such as road berms or reserves would be required to retain views.

The council did not include any controls in the Plan specifically aimed at protecting public views because it did not have sufficient information to formulate an effective control or justify its introduction. Any view shafts would need to be defined by survey so that the permitted heights of trees and buildings could be accurately identified. The implications of these limitations for private property would need to be carefully considered. Also the Plan generally seeks to promote planting and retention of vegetation, and has extended the vegetation controls on Waiheke to also apply to exotic trees. To then limit the height or planting of vegetation in some locations, would create some potential conflicts within the Plan.

It is noted that proposed change 8 (landscape and volcanic cones) to the regional policy statement identifies some views to volcanic cones as being of regional significance. This includes views from the Auckland isthmus to Browns Island and Rangitoto. Change 8 does not identify any other views within the Hauraki Gulf islands as being of regional significance.

It is recommended that the group 2 submissions be rejected.

3.6.2.3Outstanding landscape

The group 3 submissions and submission 3398/4 suggest the Plan does not appropriately recognise outstanding natural landscapes as defined at the regional level - in for example building controls. The submissions do not further identify what their specific concerns are about this matter or how the Plan should be amended. In formulating the Plan (including the land units, activity statuses and development controls), the council considered the implications of the proposed change 8 (landscape and volcanic cones) to the regional policy statement. Some of the ways in which the Plan has regard to plan change 8 are as follows:

• By seeking to consolidate development in the existing settled areas of Great Barrier and protect the outstanding natural landscape surrounding those areas.
• By seeking to maintain the large scale rural character of the eastern end of Waiheke and the village style development of the western end.
• By allocating a restricted discretionary activity status to building works in the more sensitive landscapes so that the council can assess the scale, form, colour and location of buildings within the landscape.
• By limiting the height of buildings within significant ridgeline areas.
• By setting minimum site sizes for subdivisions at a level consistent with maintaining the visual amenity, natural landscape character and amenity value of each land unit or settlement area.

Change 8 is still at the proposed stages and this limits the weight that can be given to it as it may be substantially altered by the submission and appeal process. While the council is generally supportive of the change, it does have some concerns, which it has addressed in submissions and further submissions and given evidence in support of at the ARC hearing.

Submissions 2711/1 and 2728/2 are both from the same Great Barrier landowner. These submissions do not identify any particular property as being of concern. Rather they oppose in principle any identification of private land as 'outstanding landscape value'. It is recommended that these submissions be rejected. Under the RMA, in achieving the purpose of the Act, the council is required to recognise and provide for the following as a matter of national importance:

"The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use and development."

(s6(b))

In providing for this matter of national importance, the council may need to restrict the subdivision, use and development of private as well as public lands. It is noted that this submitter has lodged other submissions, some of which are more specific, which will be considered in other hearing reports.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about landscape

That submissions 126/1, 156/1, 163/1, 168/1, 303/1, 378/1, 569/1, 576/1, 590/1, 592/1, 620/1, 644/1, 661/1, 670/1, 682/1, 690/1, 705/1, 707/1, 713/1, 717/1, 729/1, 739/1, 803/1, 811/1, 820/1, 829/1, 845/1, 868/1, 886/1, 897/1, 904/1, 922/1, 939/1, 954/1, 1023/1, 1055/12, 1149/1, 1166/5, 1215/1, 1292/1, 1661/1, 1743/1, 1744/1, 1745/1, 1746/1, 1747/1, 1748/1, 1749/1, 1750/1, 1751/1, 1752/1, 1753/1, 1754/1, 1755/1, 1756/1, 1757/1, 1758/1, 1759/1, 1760/1, 1761/1, 1762/1, 1763/1, 1764/1, 1765/1, 1766/1, 1767/1, 1768/1, 1769/1, 1770/1, 1771/1, 1772/1, 1773/1, 1774/1, 1775/1, 1776/1, 1777/1, 2119/1, 2130/1, 2132/1, 2173/1, 2280/1, 2635/1, 2660/1, 2672/1, 2702/1, 2772/1, 2784/1, 2790/1, 2825/1, 2837/1, 2841/1, 2953/1, 2957/1, 2961/1, 2965/1, 2969/1, 2973/1, 2977/1, 2981/1, 2985/1, 2989/1, 2999/1, 3010/1, 3012/1, 3019/1, 3061/98, 3185/1, 3193/1, 3204/1, 3222/1, 3225/1, 3238/1, 3248/1, 3255/1, 3279/1, 3284/1, 3302/1, 3309/1, 3324/1, 3331/1, 3345/1, 3351/1, 3358/1, 3361/1, 3378/1, 3387/1, 3514/1, 3531/1, 3534/1, 3537/1, 3545/1, 3575/1, 3629/1, 3652/1, 3563/1, 3819/1, 3835/1, 3853/1, 3854/1 be rejected. That submissions 126/3, 156/3, 163/3, 168/3, 303/3, 378/3, 569/3, 576/3, 590/3, 592/3, 620/3, 644/3, 661/3, 670/3, 682/3, 690/3, 705/3, 707/3, 713/3, 717/3, 729/3, 739/3, 803/3, 811/3, 820/3, 829/3, 845/3, 868/3, 897/4, 904/3, 922/3, 939/3, 954/3, 1023/3, 1027/2, 1055/14, 1149/3, 1215/3, 1292/3, 1661/3, 1743/3, 1744/3, 1745/3, 1746/3, 1747/3, 1748/3, 1749/3, 1750/3, 1751/3, 1752/3, 1753/3, 1754/3, 1755/3, 1756/3, 1757/3, 1758/3, 1759/3, 1760/3, 1761/3, 1762/3, 1763/3, 1764/3, 1765/3, 1766/3, 1767/3, 1768/3, 1769/3, 1770/3, 1771/3, 1772/3, 1773/3, 1774/3, 1775/3, 1776/3, 1777/3, 2119/3, 2130/3, 2132/3, 2173/3, 2280/3, 2635/3, 2660/3, 2672/3, 2702/3, 2772/4, 2784/3, 2790/3, 2825/3, 2837/3, 2841/3, 2953/3, 2957/3, 2961/3, 2965/3, 2969/3, 2973/3, 2977/3, 2981/3, 2985/3, 2989/3, 2999/3, 3010/3, 3012/3, 3019/3, 3061/99, 3185/3, 3193/3, 3204/3, 3222/3, 3225/3, 3238/3, 3248/3, 3255/3, 3279/3, 3284/3, 3302/3, 3309/3, 3324/3, 3331/3, 3345/3, 3358/3, 3361/3, 3378/3, 3387/3, 3514/3, 3531/3, 3534/3, 3537/3, 3545/3, 3563/3, 3575/3, 3629/3, 3652/3, 3819/3, 3835/3, 3853/3, 3854/3 be rejected. That submissions 303/6, 378/6, 569/6, 576/6, 644/6, 670/6, 705/6, 707/6, 713/6, 729/6, 739/6, 868/6, 886/6, 904/6, 922/6, 939/6, 954/6, 1055/17, 1149/6, 1743/6, 1744/6, 1745/6, 1746/6, 1747/6, 1748/6, 1749/6, 1750/6, 1751/6, 1752/6, 1753/6, 1754/6, 1755/6, 1756/6, 1757/6, 1758/6, 1759/6, 2173/6, 2280/6, 2635/4, 2702/6, 2784/6, 2837/6, 2999/6, 3061/100, 3185/6, 3204/6, 3222/6, 3225/6, 3238/6, 3255/6, 3279/6, 3284/6, 3302/6, 3309/6, 3324/6, 3331/6, 3345/6, 3351/6, 3358/6, 3361/6, 3378/6, 3545/4, 3563/6, 3575/4, 3652/6, 3819/6 be rejected. That submissions 1055/29, 2711/1, 2728/2, 3398/4 be rejected.

3.7 Submissions about coastal issues

Submissions dealt with in this section:

Group 1: 542/1, 542/2, 542/3, 542/4

Group 2: 302/1, 374/1, 570/1, 575/1, 636/1, 639/1, 643/1, 652/1, 672/1, 685/1, 715/1, 732/1, 737/1, 797/1, 805/1, 806/1, 814/1, 823/1, 869/1, 888/1, 911/1, 921/1, 926/1, 955/1, 1019/1, 1040/1, 1055/20, 1153/1, 1166/8, 1231/1, 1240/1, 1720/1, 1721/1, 1722/1, 1723/1, 1724/1, 1725/1, 1726/1, 1727/1, 1728/1, 1729/1, 1730/1, 1731/1, 1732/1, 1733/1, 1734/1, 1735/1, 1736/1, 1737/1, 1738/1, 1739/1, 1740/1, 1741/1, 1742/1, 2113/1, 2116/1, 2281/1, 2783/1, 2831/1, 2992/1, 3004/1, 3189/1, 3203/1, 3217/1, 3224/1, 3239/1, 3244/1, 3256/1, 3266/1, 3272/1, 3276/1, 3282/1, 3308/1, 3326/1, 3328/1, 3339/1, 3353/1, 3363/1, 3368/1, 3383/1, 3417/1, 3562/1, 3623/1, 3818/1

3.7.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 542/1, 542/2, 542/3 and 542/4 relate to Onetangi Beach on Waiheke. The submissions seek recognition in the Plan of the following matters:

• the importance to residents and the community of the beaches in western Waiheke, and Onetangi in particular
• the importance of the enhancement of Onetangi Beach by the preserving and improving of its present features and characteristics
• the priority which must be accorded to Onetangi Beach as Auckland's most at risk beach
• the importance of the establishment of a programme that will deal with protection of both the Strand and its embankment as well as the beach.

The group 2 submissions listed above seek the reprioritising of coastal amenity areas within the Plan.

3.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

3.7.2.1Onetangi Beach

Background

The Plan recognises Onetangi Beach as an 'at risk' beach which is affected by erosion. Planning map 2 (sheet 11) identifies an erosion risk zone at Onetangi Beach affecting the legal road (The Strand) and the northern part of the properties fronting onto The Strand as well as some additional properties at the eastern end of the beach. The objectives, policies and rules in part 8 - Natural hazards, of the Plan protect the natural defences (eg vegetation and dunes) and physical features within natural hazard areas (such as an erosion zone) from human activities which may exacerbate the effects of erosion. Policy 8.3.3(2) seeks to avoid hard engineering structures as far as practicable and the rules and assessment criteria in clause 8.6 provide a framework for assessing any resource consent applications for buildings or earthworks within a natural hazard area.

As is noted in submission 542, the legal road 'The Strand' extends northwards to mean high water springs. This means that the legal road includes dune and beach areas, and there is no land unit applied to these areas.

Submission 542/1

In terms of recognising the importance of the beaches in western Waiheke and Onetangi in particular, other subparts of submission 542 address this in more detail by seeking specific amendments to part 3 of the Plan and clause 10a.22 (recreation 1). Those matters will be considered in other submission reports. It is recommended that the more general request contained in 542/1 be rejected.

Submissions 542/2, 542/3 and 542/4

Submissions 542/2, 542/3 and 542/4 should be rejected to the extent that they seek amendments to the Plan. The concerns raised in these submissions are partly met by the application of an erosion risk zone at Onetangi Beach however the submissions state that the Plan is deficient. The zone provides for the protection of Onetangi Beach and recognises that it is an at risk beach subject to erosion. These Plan controls form part of the council's programme to address erosion at Onetangi Beach. The council can undertake a range of other protection and enhancement measures as part of its operational activities. Those measures do not need to be specifically addressed in the Plan - but more intrusive measures will require a resource consent. To date the council has successfully undertaken dune planting, and has better defined accessways to the beach. Other measures which have been considered include:

• a gabion dune toe wall
• changing parking arrangements to remove it from the most sensitive areas
• diverting stormwater flow
• beach nourishment
• an alternative treatment system for the waste from the toilet block.

Money has been allocated this financial year (2007-2008) to investigate design solutions and trial new technology to protect the formed road (The Strand) from coastal erosion. Construction is programmed for 2008-20009. The council is seeking a less intrusive solution than gabion baskets.

3.7.2.2Coastal amenity areas

The Plan identifies some beach front locations within island residential 1 (traditional residential) as being subject to an additional limitation described as 'coastal amenity area'. This limitation applies to the beach front land at Oneroa, Palm Beach, Blackpool and Onetangi. Within island residential 1, additional controls are placed on buildings in the coastal amenity area so that they do not compromise the character and amenity of the coast. Within the coastal amenity area, a resource consent for a restricted discretionary activity is required for buildings, including for relocation, alterations or additions. Elsewhere within the land unit such building work, when associated with a permitted activity (such as a dwelling), does not require a consent.

The Plan only identifies coastal amenity areas within island residential 1. However coastal issues are addressed in a wide variety of other ways in the Plan such as:

• by classifying some land in coastal locations as landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) and landform 2 (dune systems and sand flats)
• by classifying esplanade reserves as recreation 1 (local parks and esplanade reserves)
• by requiring (in clause 10c.5.7) coastal protection yards in all land units and settlement areas where development or activities are provided for
• by identifying scheduled items in coastal locations eg ecologically significant sites, archaeological sites
• by identifying some natural hazards in coastal locations ie the erosion risk zones at Onetangi Beach, and Kennedy Point
• by including rules and guidelines on esplanade reserves in part 12 - Subdivision.

Other subparts of the group 2 submissions seek additional decisions related to coastal amenity areas such as extension of this control to all beach front locations, and a non-complying activity status for subdivisions within the coastal amenity area. Those matters will be considered in other hearing reports.

It is not clear exactly what amendments the group 2 submissions are seeking when they ask for 'the reprioritising of coastal amenity areas in the Plan'. The coastal amenity areas are given priority in the Plan by imposing additional controls on development within the those parts of island residential 1. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about coastal issues

That submissions 302/1, 374/1, 542/1, 542/2, 542/3, 542/4, 570/1, 575/1, 636/1, 639/1, 643/1, 652/1, 672/1, 685/1, 715/1, 732/1, 737/1, 797/1, 805/1, 806/1, 814/1, 823/1, 869/1, 888/1, 911/1, 921/1, 926/1, 955/1, 1019/1, 1040/1, 1055/20, 1153/1, 1166/8, 1231/1, 1240/1, 1720/1, 1721/1, 1722/1, 1723/1, 1724/1, 1725/1, 1726/1, 1727/1, 1728/1, 1729/1, 1730/1, 1731/1, 1732/1, 1733/1, 1734/1, 1735/1, 1736/1, 1737/1, 1738/1, 1739/1, 1740/1, 1741/1, 1742/1, 2113/1, 2116/1, 2281/1, 2783/1, 2831/1, 2992/1, 3004/1, 3189/1, 3203/1, 3217/1, 3224/1, 3239/1, 3244/1, 3256/1, 3266/1, 3272/1, 3276/1, 3282/1, 3308/1, 3326/1, 3328/1, 3339/1, 3353/1, 3363/1, 3368/1, 3383/1, 3417/1, 3562/1, 3623/1, 3818/1 be rejected

3.8 Submissions about streams and wetlands

Submissions dealt with in this section: 651/3, 677/3, 723/3, 929/3, 964/3, 1017/3, 1664/3, 1664/4, 1665/3, 1666/3, 1667/3, 1667/4, 3061/70, 3574/13, 3643/3, 3650/3

3.8.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 651/3, 677/3, 723/3, 929/3, 964/3, 1017/3, 1664/3, 1665/3, 1666/3, 1667/3, 3643/3, 3650/3 ask that streams and wetland sites that have been omitted from Plan and from SES (sites of ecological significance) be included, through consultation with residents and interested parties (eg Forest and Bird's Wetland Group). Similarly submission 3061/70 states that there needs to be a mechanism to identify and protect steams and water features that do not appear either in landform 4 (wetland systems) or in a site of ecological significance.

Submissions 1664/4 and 1667/4 seek, in relation to wetlands, the introduction of additional planning tools, especially for the implementation of comparative good science operational management tools for ecological catchment management, and for integrated wastewater, waters and catchment management.

Submission 3574/13 states that sedimentation and pollution of wetlands must be taken particular account of in all proposals for subdivision or development.

3.8.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

It is recommended that submissions 651/3, 677/3, 723/3, 929/3, 964/3, 1017/3, 1664/3, 1665/3, 1666/3, 1667/3, 3643/3 and 3650/3 be rejected as they do not identify any specific land to be included within a site of ecological significance or to be classified as landform 4 (wetland systems). It would be unreasonable for the council to classify additional land as a site of ecological significance or landform 4 except in response to a specific submissions which clearly identify the areas of land and which have been open to further submission.

Submission 3061/70 should be rejected to the extent that it seeks amendments to the Plan. The Plan specifies protection yards for wetland and water bodies. This adequately protects streams and wetlands which are not identified as landform 4 or as being within a site of ecological significance.

Submissions 1664/4 and 1667/4 should be rejected. They do not identify how the Plan should be amended to introduce additional planning tools for wetlands. In terms of the reference to catchments, waters and wastewaters, it is noted that the council's functions under the RMA regarding water are limited to 'the control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of the water in rivers and lakes' (s31(1)(e)). The ARC has far more extensive functions in relation to water.

With regard to submission 3574/13, the earthworks rules in clause 10c.5.6 of the Plan ensure that sedimentation and pollution of wetlands is considered in all proposals for subdivision and development. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected to the extent that it seeks any amendments to the Plan.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about streams and wetlands

That submissions 651/3, 677/3, 723/3, 929/3, 964/3, 1017/3, 1664/3, 1664/4, 1665/3, 1666/3, 1667/3, 1667/4, 3061/70, 3574/13, 3643/3, 3650/3 be rejected

3.9 Submissions about recycling and solar heating

Submissions dealt with in this section: 503/1, 1206/1, 1206/2, 1206/3

3.9.1 Decisions requested

Submission 503/1 asks the council to lobby the government to identify solar water heating as a necessary end and to provide a subsidy for home owners to change. Submission 1206/1 seeks a new network utility - the collection (and composting) of organic (kitchen and garden) waste by the council. Submission 1206/2 wants the public to be encouraged and educated into the values of composting and for literature to be provided about how to compost. Similarly, submission 1206/3 seeks more education about recycling.

3.9.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

These submissions all relate to matters that occur outside the Plan and for that reason it is recommended that they be rejected. The submissions refer to council's role as advocate to central government and its role as provider of recycling services (including educative material). It is noted that the council does provide information about recycling, composting and worm farming. Information is available on the council's website, and in pamphlet form (eg 'How to' composting and 'Smart gardening' guides). The council also runs free composting courses for interested members of the community.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about recycling and solar heating

That submissions 503/1, 1206/1, 1206/2 and 1206/3 be rejected.

3.10Submissions about other environmental matters

Submissions dealt with in this section: 664/3, 953/3, 1055/19, 2630/2

3.10.1 Decisions requested

Submission 664/3 asks that all decisions stemming from the Plan be directed at enhancing the ecological sustainability, health and viability of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.

Submission 953/3 asks the council to provide strategies for limited growth, towards the aim of enlisting the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park as a world heritage site to conserve through proving natural criteria that would make it a site of outstanding natural importance to the common heritage of humankind; or pitching this as an ideal.

Submission 1055/19, which relates to Waiheke, asks that close consideration to be given to areas that require re-vegetation.

Submission 2630/2 states that the council should follow the example of Brisbane City Council and encourage sister and friendship cities to support marine park conservation and the protection of migratory species under the Ramsar ⁴ convention, the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) ⁵, the RMA, and the Plan.

3.10.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

3.10.2.1Submission 664/3

This submission should be rejected to the extent that it seeks any amendments to the Plan. All decisions stemming from the Plan should be directed at achieving the purpose of the RMA. The purpose of the RMA, the functions of the council under that Act, and the relationship between the RMA and the HGMPA are set out in section 2.0 of this report. When assessing an application for resource consent for the Hauraki Gulf, its islands and catchments, the council is required to have regard to the matters set out in section 7 and 8 of the HGMPA. That requirement is acknowledged in clause 11.2(2) of the Plan.

3.10.2.2Submission 953/3

Submission 953/3 should be rejected due to it general nature and failure to identify what amendments are sought to achieve the decision requested.

3.10.2.3Submission 1055/19

Submission 1055/19 should be rejected due to it general nature and failure to identify what amendments are sought to achieve the decision requested. The Plan does not prevent revegetation and encourages or requires it in some instances.

3.10.2.4Submission 2630/2

Submission 2630/2 should be rejected due to it general nature and failure to identify what amendments are sought to achieve the decision requested. It is noted that the Plan does protect species habitat through identification of ecologically significant sites, and the protection of vegetation and wetlands. The extent to which the council encourages its sister and friendship cities to support marine park conservation and the protection of migratory species is not a matter which should be addressed in the Plan.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about other environmental matters

That submissions 664/3, 953/3, 1055/19, 2630/2 be rejected.

3.11Submissions about compensation, property values and development rights

Submissions dealt with in this section: 9/1, 52/2, 3787/1, 3787/2, 3787/4, 3790/1, 3790/2, 3790/4, 3793/1, 3793/2, 3793/4

3.11.1 Decisions requested

Submission 9/1 states that if a property is of a larger size but the council dictates that it can not be further developed by subdivision, the value of the property should be that of a single unit of average size.

Submission 52/2 asks the council to instruct its lawyers to research the legal case law on the larger legal principle raised by a concern about significant ridgeline areas and existing rural subdivisions. The submission states that it seems unreasonable that one can buy an approved section in good faith, and then later find new restrictions have been laid on it, making it more costly, difficult and uncertain to secure consent to build.

Submissions 3787/1, 3790/1 and 3793/1 ask the council to recognise that the previous district plan wrongly omitted compensation as an issue that needed adequate provisions within the Plan. Submissions 3787/2, 3790/2 and 3793/2 ask the council to recognise that there is an obligation to provide compensation where the Plans provisions seriously affect property owners ability to use, develop and enjoy their properties for their economic, social and cultural well-being. Submissions 3787/4, 3790/4 and 3793/4 ask the council to offer compensation for landowners whose asset values are negatively affected by the Plan's regime.

3.11.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

3.11.2.1Submission 9/1

The content of submission 9 is somewhat unclear. This submission was received early in the submission process and the submitter was invited to use the correct submission form and more clearly set out the changes they wanted the council to make. However they declined.

This submission does raise an issue about how district plan restrictions are taken into account in valuing a property. District plan rules are one of a range of factors which influence property values and the process of property valuation is outside the scope of the Plan. It is therefore recommended that the submission be rejected.

3.11.2.2Submission 52/2

It is recommended that submission 52/2 be rejected. It does not in itself seek any amendments to the Plan. Other subparts of submission 52 do seek amendments and they will be considered in other hearing reports.

In terms of the issue raised about Plan rules changing over time, the RMA clearly envisages that this may occur as the Act requires a district plan to be reviewed every ten years and provides for plan changes and variations to occur at other times. Section 10 of the RMA, which deals with existing use rights, recognises that changes in district plans may lead to a situation where previously complying activities now contravene a district plan.

3.11.2.3Compensation

It is recommended that submissions 3787/1, 3787/2, 3787/4, 3790/1, 3790/2, 3790/4, 3793/1, 3793/2 and 3793/4 be rejected. In order for the council to achieve the purpose of the RMA and fulfil its functions under that Act, the Plan will need to control development on private land. For sites with natural or heritage values, a greater degree of control is generally necessary placing greater limitations on landowners' ability to use and develop their properties. 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 a plan on the grounds that they consider that the land would be incapable of reasonable use. However the submissions listed above are general in nature and are not specific to any particular property.

Section 85(1) of the RMA provides that:

"An interest in land shall be deemed not to be taken or injuriously affected by reason of any provision in a plan unless otherwise provided for in this Act".

(underlining added)

While compensation may not be available, section 85(2) goes on to provide as follows:

"Notwithstanding subsection (1), any person having an interest in land to which any provision or proposed provision of a plan or proposed plan applies, and who considers that the provision or proposed provision would render that interest in land incapable of reasonable use, may challenge that provision or proposed provision on those grounds—

1. In a submission made under Part 1 of the First Schedule in respect of a proposed plan or change to a plan; or
2. In an application to change a plan made under clause 21 of Schedule 1."

(underlining added)

Subsection (3) then sets out the Environment Court's jurisdiction to direct the modification, deletion or replacement of plan provisions, as follows:

"Where, having regard to Part 3 (including the effect of section 9(1)) and the effect of subsection (1), the Environment Court determines that a provision or proposed provision of a plan or a proposed plan renders any land incapable of reasonable use, and places an unfair and unreasonable burden on any person having an interest in the land, the Court, on application by any such person to change a plan made under clause 21 of Schedule 1, may—

1. In the case of a plan or proposed plan (other than a regional coastal plan), direct the local authority to modify, delete, or replace the provision; and... "

(underlining added)

'Reasonable use' is explained further in subsection (6) including:

" ... the use or potential use of land for any activity whose actual or potential effects on any aspect of the environment or on any person other than the applicant would not be significant".

Planner's recommendations for submissions about compensation, property values and development rights

That submissions 9/1, 52/2, 3787/1, 3787/2, 3787/4, 3790/1, 3790/2, 3790/4, 3793/1, 3793/2, 3793/4 be rejected.

3.12Submissions seeking an extension of time

Submissions dealt with in this section: 76/1, 129/5, 130/5, 132/5, 172/5, 237/5, 241/5, 242/5, 243/5, 244/5, 270/5, 271/5, 272/5, 274/5, 335/1, 1033/1, 3425/5, 3426/5, 3427/5, 3428/5, 3429/5, 3430/5, 3431/5, 3432/5, 3433/5, 3434/5, 3435/5, 3436/5, 3437/5, 3438/5, 3439/5, 3440/5, 3441/5, 3442/5, 3443/5, 3444/5, 3445/5, 3446/5, 3447/5, 3448/5, 3449/5, 3450/5, 3451/5, 3452/5, 3453/5, 3454/5, 3455/5, 3456/5, 3457/5, 3458/5, 3459/5, 3460/5, 3461/5, 3462/5, 3463/5, 3464/5, 3465/5, 3466/5, 3467/5, 3468/5, 3469/5, 3470/5, 3471/5, 3472/5, 3473/5, 3474/5, 3475/5, 3476/5, 3477/5, 3478/5, 3479/1, 3479/5, 3480/5, 3481/5, 3482/5, 3483/5, 3484/5, 3485/5, 3486/5, 3488/5, 3489/5, 3490/5, 3491/5, 3492/5, 3493/5, 3494/5, 3495/5, 3496/5, 3497/5, 3498/5, 3499/5, 3500/5, 3501/5, 3502/5, 3503/5, 3504/5, 3505/5, 3506/4, 3507/5, 3511/5, 3581/4, 3851/5, 3857/5

3.12.1 Decisions requested

Submission 76/1 seeks an extension of time to fully endeavour to relate to the contents of the Plan, comprehend the scope of the Plan's interior, and form more considered opinions. Submission 335/1 seeks an extension of time for submissions until 15 February 2007. Submission 1033/1 asks that the decision to implement the Plan be put on hold while all ratepayers are given a further 6 months to divulge the financial impacts on their respective properties, and then present any recommendations to council. The remaining submissions listed above seek more time - at least three months - with an adequate consultation process to sort out responses to the Plan.

3.12.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

It is recommended that these submissions be rejected. The Plan was notified on 18 September and closed for submissions on 11 December thus providing a submission period of 59 working days after the date of notification. This exceeds the minimum submission period set down in the RMA of 40 working days after the date of notification. In response to requests for an extension of time the council's general manager: city development publicly indicated in a media release that he would strongly recommend to the hearing panel that it accept late submissions received up to 8 January 2007. As noted in section 3.1 of this report, all late submissions will be considered by the council at the start of the hearing process.

Planner's recommendations for submissions seeking an extension of time:

That submissions 76/1, 129/5, 130/5, 132/5, 172/5, 237/5, 241/5, 242/5, 243/5, 244/5, 270/5, 271/5, 272/5, 274/5, 335/1, 1033/1, 3425/5, 3426/5, 3427/5, 3428/5, 3429/5, 3430/5, 3431/5, 3432/5, 3433/5, 3434/5, 3435/5, 3436/5, 3437/5, 3438/5, 3439/5, 3440/5, 3441/5, 3442/5, 3443/5, 3444/5, 3445/5, 3446/5, 3447/5, 3448/5, 3449/5, 3450/5, 3451/5, 3452/5, 3453/5, 3454/5, 3455/5, 3456/5, 3457/5, 3458/5, 3459/5, 3460/5, 3461/5, 3462/5, 3463/5, 3464/5, 3465/5, 3466/5, 3467/5, 3468/5, 3469/5, 3470/5, 3471/5, 3472/5, 3473/5, 3474/5, 3475/5, 3476/5, 3477/5, 3478/5, 3479/1, 3479/5, 3480/5, 3481/5, 3482/5, 3483/5, 3484/5, 3485/5, 3486/5, 3488/5, 3489/5, 3490/5, 3491/5, 3492/5, 3493/5, 3494/5, 3495/5, 3496/5, 3497/5, 3498/5, 3499/5, 3500/5, 3501/5, 3502/5, 3503/5, 3504/5, 3505/5, 3506/4, 3507/5, 3511/5, 3581/4, 3851/5, 3857/5 be rejected.

3.13Submissions about various miscellaneous matters

Submissions dealt with in this section: 52/3, 71/1, 98/1, 104/2, 152/1, 280/1, 518/23, 953/2, 1166/20, 1288/57, 1758/7, 2311/3, 2630/5, 2630/6, 2717/4, 2766/18, 2766/20, 3422/3, 3574/5

3.13.1 Decisions requested

Submission 52/3 requests the council to add to its geographic information system ('GIS'), both the designated building platform location and text identifying all the conditions set out and placed against the title.

Submission 71/1 from a Great Barrier resident asks for farmers to be given a farming zone that is applied to the whole farm.

Submission 98/1 opposes the Plan and expresses concern about:

• the format and construction of Plan documents
• information given by the council representatives on Great Barrier
• the lack of recognition given to carbon sinks and credits.

The submission asks for a policy on carbon sinks and credits to be incorporated in the Plan.

Submission 104/2 opposes the Plan, and states that the Barrier should not be preserved as a playground for Auckland alone without the wellbeing of the local population being considered.

Submission 152/1 does not request any decision but expresses concern about the wording of the Plan.

Submission 280/1, from a Barrier resident, opposes the Plan and states that the accent and tenor of the Plan is too much like a rural property management plan for DOC. The submission suggests that individuals need the scope and incentive to guide their own destiny.

Submission 518/23 asks that there be no increase in density in reticulated areas. In non-reticulated areas, the Plan should prevent development which then makes reticulation necessary, ie run-off from properties and density of development to be controlled.

Submission 953/2 asks the council to follow through on its council publication 'caring for one of Auckland's greatest treasures - Hauraki Gulf Islands Strategic Plan' (especially page 5) to give effect to the stated aims:

1. "to listen to what the people of gulf say they want for their communities"
2. "to adopt a holistic approach to planning and management"
3. "that the council's organisational structure, planning documents, programmes and actions all identify, plan and manage issues (relating to the Hauraki Gulf) in a cooperative and integrated way"
4. "that the Hauraki Gulf islands are protected and understood and can be 'enjoyed' by current and future generations 'forever' ".

Submission 1166/20 states that the Plan needs to incentivise demand side management of resources through consent processes. This submission relates to the issues of housing affordability on Waiheke, regional energy shortages, national rising oil prices and climate change.

Submission 1288/57 seeks amendments to the Plan to enable the decision requested by the submitter to be applied to the submitter's land and all private land on Great Barrier, as well as for the Plan provisions per se. The submitter owns 276ha of land at Medlands.

Submission 1758/7 states that Waiheke should not be a suburban extension of the isthmus.

Submission 2311/3 states that land use clauses and maps should be added throughout the Plan.

Submission 2630/5 seeks the implementation of a 'lawyer-free zone' ('LAF') ie deny access to lawyers, law cases, law firms, legal staff, and litigation methodology in the management of the Hauraki Gulf human environment.

Submission 2630/6 asks that the universities of the Commonwealth and the sister cities and the friendship cities be informed of the new strategic direction.

Submission 2717/4 states that Maori land has little need to be in the Plan. There's no partitions to let this land become tradable.

Submission 2766/18 states that to evolve a district plan in the current context with an appropriately open mind, council must firstly examine the wide range of historical developments which have occurred since 1991, inviting public contributions to such a review. It can then proceed to articulate the 'issues'. The submission then includes a list of 18 subjects to be considered for this purpose.

Submission 2766/20 states that the second district plan should actually be an attempt to manifest the full intention of local government legislation at the highest levels of principle, reviewing progress within the balanced philosophical framework which the legislation requires, and should perceive itself as a fresh statement of overall purpose or mission, which re-directs the political and practical roles of local government towards neglected aspects of human wellbeing, and ensures the democratising devolution of powers required by law, to produce a new manifesto for the coming decade.

Submission 3422/3 asks, under section 32, to sight the analysis documents involved in the latest zoning changes (with specific reference to Great Barrier) made without consultation with the submitters.

Submission 3574/5 states that a wider and holistic view should be taken of any development proposal, rather than a focus only on the individual proposal within a particular consent application. This should be both in terms of consideration from a catchment perspective and an island-wide perspective.

3.13.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

3.13.2.1Submission 52/3

As a whole, submission 52 raises concerns about the situation where a property may have a designated building platform identified in a resource consent, and is then subsequently affected by a significant ridgeline area. In response to this concern, submission 52/3 seeks to require the council to include in its GIS the location of the designated building platform, and the text identifying all of the conditions set out and placed against the title.

The submission is incorrect when it states that because the GIS is a day to day tool used by the council's planners, it becomes a de facto part of the operative district plan. The council does use its GIS to display information from the district plan, but the GIS also includes other information which is not part of the district plan - for example drainage information, wind zones, contour lines, aerial photography, property addresses and owners' names and addresses.

In accordance with RMA requirements the council keeps records of all resource consents granted within its district. Currently the council does not use the GIS system to show information about resource consents. This may change in the future when the council moves to an upgraded GIS system. However the manner in which the council stores and displays such information is process issue which does not relate to the content of the Plan. It is therefore recommended that submission 52/3 be rejected.

3.13.2.2Submission 71/1

Submission 71/1 should be rejected as it gives no reasons to justify the request for a farming zone to apply to the whole of a farm. On Great Barrier, the Plan does appropriately provide for pastoral farming in three land units - in the sand flats area of landform 2 (dune systems and sand flats), in landform 3 (alluvial flats) and in landform 5 (productive land). However many properties on Great Barrier will contain several landform land units owing to the different physical characteristics existing in different parts of the property. It is noted that there are other submissions (including ones from this submitter) asking for land on Great Barrier to be reclassified to landform 3 or 5. There are also submissions which propose a new farming land unit for Great Barrier. Those submissions will be considered in other hearing reports.

3.13.2.3Submission 98/1

This submission asks for a policy in the Plan on carbon sinks and credits. The submission does not identify what form the policy should take. Neither is it clear whether the submitter opposes or supports this concept.

The mechanisms for establishing and calculating carbon sinks and credits should be set at a central government level rather than by local councils. Central government is establishing a Permanent Forest Sink Initiative (PFSI) which would enable landowners to establish permanent forest sinks and obtain tradable emission units (carbon credits) in proportion to the carbon sequestered in their forests. The emission units would be compliant with the Kyoto Protocol. The PFSI is to be administered by the Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry. Submissions to the proposed regulations which will form the statutory framework closed on 14 May 2007. The PFSI would promote indigenous rather than exotic plantings and may also provide for a sustainable harvesting regime.

The Plan would not be a barrier to landowners planting more indigenous vegetation. However sustainable harvesting is likely to require a resource consent owing to the vegetation protection controls contained in the Plan. Depending on its scale, sustainable harvesting may also require consent as forestry.

It is recommended that the request in submission 98/1 for a policy on carbon sinks and credits be rejected.

It appears from the submission that the submitter was unable to locate the map key and explanation of the zoning symbols. This information is at the front of each of the map volumes and is also available online. The submission also states that the Plan is excessive and its contents are not presented as to be readily understandable by a person who is not computer literate. However, along with the electronic copy of the Plan available online or on disk, the council also provided hard copies at the appropriate service centres and libraries.

3.13.2.4Submission 104/2

This submission should be rejected to the extent that it opposes the Plan. The Plan does not seek to preserve Barrier as a playground for Auckland without considering the wellbeing of the local population. Rather the Plan seeks to achieve the purpose of the RMA (which is outlined in section 2.0 of this report).

3.13.2.5Submission 152/1

This submission should be rejected as it seeks no relief but makes a non-specific statement about the wording of the Plan.

3.13.2.6Submission 280/1

It is recommended that submission 280/1 be rejected to the extent that it seeks amendments to the Plan. The Plan seeks to achieve the purpose of RMA and this necessitates appropriate limitations on the use and development of land.

3.13.2.7Submission 518/23

It is recommended that this submission be rejected as it seeks a generalised relief about density of development without identifying any specific concerns with the level of development provided for in the Plan.

In terms of reticulation, the commercial portion of Oneroa village is connected to the Owhanake wastewater management plant. Otherwise wastewater in the islands is disposed of through a wide range of on-site disposal systems.

When compared with the operative Plan, the proposed Plan does provide for more intensive development in the commercial areas of Oneroa. It extends the boundary of the commercial area of Oneroa village to the west by classifying as commercial 1 (Oneroa village) some land previously classified as traditional residential. The Plan also allows additional building coverage and impervious surface area for sites in commercial 1 which are connected to the Owhanake wastewater management plant (see clause 10c.4.9.1(2)(b) and table 10c.2).

The new development provided for within the Matiatia (mixed use) land unit will also be serviced by the Owhanake wastewater management plant. However the level of development provided for in this land unit is the same as in the operative Plan (as inserted by plan change 38).

For non-reticulated areas, the Plan provides for a level of development which is consistent with wastewater disposal needs. The impervious surface area control (clause 10c.4.9) has been introduced to provide for on-site stormwater disposal.

3.13.2.8Submission 953/2

Submission 953/2 quotes from the introduction to the Hauraki Gulf islands strategic plan which was published by the council in 2002. The introduction includes the following statements:

"The greatest challenge is conservation of the islands' natural environments and unique lifestyles - at the same time as catering for increased numbers of visitors.

Auckland City's response to this challenge has been to listen to what the communities of the gulf say they want for their communities and to adopt a holistic approach to planning and management. As a result, its organisational structure, planning documents, programmes and actions all identify, plan and manage issues in a cooperative and integrated way.

Like the island communities, Auckland City's aim is that the Hauraki Gulf islands are protected, understood and enjoyed forever"

The submission quotes these general introductory statements out of context. Nevertheless these statement are consistent with the approach that has been taken in the development of the Plan. The council has undertaken consultation with the island communities as outlined in clause 1.3.7 of the Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to assist the council to carry out its functions under section 31 the RMA which includes "integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated material and physical resources of the district" (s31(1)(a)). In developing the Plan, input has been received from various groups within council responsible for matters such as transport, recreation, drainage and district plan administration and implementation. This is consistent with ensuring that council's organisational structure, planning documents, programmes and actions work together in co-operative and integrated manner. The Plan recognises the need to protect the islands for future generations.

Submission 953/2 should be rejected to the extent that it opposes the Plan.

3.13.2.9Submission 1166/20

Submission 1166/20 does not explain how the Plan could be amended to incentivise demand side management of resources through consent processes. Demand side management ('DSM') involves actions that influence the amount or timing of energy consumed by end users. Given the lack of supporting information in this submission it is not possible to assess the merits of this submission further. It should be rejected.

3.13.2.10Submission 1288/57

Submission 1288/57 should be rejected because it lacks specificity. It seeks amendments to the Plan to apply decisions requested elsewhere within submission 1288. Other subparts of submission 1288 (there are 101 subparts) contain more specific requests which will be considered in other hearing reports.

3.13.2.11Submission 1758/7

This submission should be rejected to the extent that it opposes or seeks changes to the Plan. The Plan does not treat Waiheke as an urban extension of the isthmus.

3.13.2.12Submission 2311/3

This submission is generalised and unclear and does not specify what changes are sought to the Plan. The submission as a whole raises concerns about the use of the landform land units on Great Barrier and suggests that more regard should be had to land use. It is recommended that this submission be rejected. In formulating the land units the council has had regard to the use of the land as well as its physical characteristics.

3.13.2.13Submission 2630/5

This submission, which seeks a 'lawyer-free zone', is unrealistic. It should be rejected as it seeks a decision which is both beyond the scope of the Plan and contrary to the operation of New Zealand law.

3.13.2.14Submission 2630/6

This submission should be rejected as it raises matters that are best dealt with outside of the Plan. Even if the council decides to accept some other subparts of submission 2630, it would be inappropriate for the council to, as part of this Plan process, commit to informing the universities of the commonwealth, and the sister cities and the friendship cities of the new strategic direction.

3.13.2.15Submission 2717/4

This submission should be rejected as Maori land does need to be included in the Plan. The tradability or otherwise of land has no bearing on whether or not it should be included in the Plan. Under section 6(e) of the RMA, the council is required, as a matter of national importance, to recognise and provide for "the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga".

3.13.2.16Submission 2766/18

The tenor of submission 2766 as a whole is to oppose the entire Plan, raise a range of philosophical and ideological issues, and assert that there has been a lack of democracy in the process used to formulate the Plan. The submission as a whole seeks a recommencement of the process of development of the Plan with more community consultation. Submission 2733/18 includes suggestions as to how the council should undertake the recommenced process, including what subject matter it should consider and seek public contributions to.

It is recommended that submission 2766/18 be rejected to the extent that it opposes the Plan and seeks a recommenced consultation process. The consultation undertaken by the council during the preparation of the Plan is outlined in clause 1.3.7 of the Plan and 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 LGA. 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, there is no need for a new review process.

3.13.2.17Submission 2766/20

The general tenor of submission 2766 is outlined in section 3.13.2.16 above. Submission 2766/20 needs to be considered in that context. It is recommended that submission 2766/20 be rejected. It does not actually seek any changes to the Plan but makes a generalised philosophical and ideological statement about what a second district plan should attempt to achieve. In response to the submission, it is noted that the district plan must assist the council to carry out its functions under section 31 of the RMA (as outlined in section 2.0 of this report). It is not the role of a district plan to state a council's overall purpose or mission, or to ensure devolution of powers, or to produce a council manifesto for the coming decade.

3.13.2.18Submission 3422/3

Submission 3422/3 should be rejected to the extent that it seeks amendments to the Plan. The submission seeks to view section 32 documents which are publicly available.

3.13.2.19Submission 3574/5

This submission does not seek any changes to the Plan but makes a statement about the wider context within which a development proposal should be considered. It is not clear whether the submission is referring only to development proposals which require a resource consent or whether it is also intended to refer to development proposals which are a permitted activity under the Plan. It is assumed that the reference is to resource consent applications as the council clearly does not have any ability under the Plan to modify or impose additional conditions on development proposals that comply with the Plan in all respects. For resource consent applications, sections 104 to 104D of the RMA deal with consideration and determination of applications. For restricted discretionary activities, the council must consider only those matters specified in the plan or proposed plan to which it has restricted exercise of its discretion.

It is recommended that submission 3574/5 be rejected to the extent that it seeks amendments to the Plan

Planner's recommendations for submissions about various miscellaneous matters

That submissions 52/3, 71/1, 98/1, 104/2, 152/1, 280/1, 518/23, 953/2, 1166/20, 1288/57, 1758/7, 2311/3, 2630/5, 2630/6, 2717/4, 2766/18, 2766/20, 3422/3, 3574/5 be rejected.

4.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions coded as miscellaneous which have been lodged to 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 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	Katherine Dorofaeff, senior planner
Reviewer	Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands
Approver	Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning

Appendix 1

List of submissions and further submissions (146Kb PDF)

Appendix 2

Summary of decisions requested (83Kb PDF)

Appendix 3

Recommended amendments to the Plan (63Kb PDF)

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

1. Available online

2. Available online

3. Available online

4. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands is an intergovernmental treaty which provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. It was adopted in the Iranian city of Ramsar in 1971 and came into force in 1975. New Zealand is a contracting party. www.ramsar.org

5. The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as CMS or Bonn Convention) aims to conserve terrestrial, marine and avian migratory species throughout their range. It is an intergovernmental treaty, concluded under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme, concerned with the conservation of wildlife and habitats on a global scale. New Zealand is a party. www.cms.int