Plans, policies and reports

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

District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

(Notified version 2006)

Hearing reports index

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

Topic:	Network Utility Services
Report to:	The Hearing Panel
Author:	Bruce Young
Date:	8 May 2008
Group file:	314/274008

1.0 Introduction

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to Network Utility Services of the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006 ('the Plan'). The Plan was publicly notified on 18 September 2006. The closing date for lodging submissions was 11 December 2006. The submissions were publicly notified for further submission on 29 April 2007. The closing date for lodging further submissions was 28 May 2007.

This report has been prepared under section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 ('the RMA'), to assist the hearings panel to consider the submissions on Network Utility Services. 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 W 047/05 where the court set out the following measures for evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other methods in district plans:

The objectives of the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:
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).
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—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:

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

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

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

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

3.0 Background

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

Part 5 is a new chapter for network utility services in recognition of their unique nature and function. The current operative plan rely on the specific land unit rules in which the utility services are to be located.

Network utility services include electricity, telecommunications, roading and wastewater.

New definitions are added for telecommunication network, electricity network, roading network and wastewater network.

Key changes from the operative plan include:

Separate objectives and policies
Activity table-lists and identifies the consent status of various types of activities associated with network utilities
Development controls for utility services located in land units and road
Assessment criteria for discretionary activities and restricted discretionary activities
New concepts of underground, aboveground and overhead. Definitions are included in the plan
Reference to other documents e.g Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Code, Code of Practice for working in the road
Reference to the National Environment (NES) Standards for telecommunication facilities in the road reserve. The NES is currently in the process of being drafted into regulation.

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about part 5 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 of this report) will not necessarily be referred to directly, the discussion and recommendations have given appropriate consideration to these and any other relevant matters.

A list of the submissions which raise issues about part 5 together with the related further submissions is contained in appendix 1. Appendix 2 contains copies of the submissions and further submissions. Any amendments to the Plan recommended in response to submissions are identified in this section of the report and are further detailed in appendix 3.

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

4.2 Submissions about Part 5

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1076/1, 1084/2, 1139/5, 1166/19, 2293/1, 3061/41

4.2.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1076/1 requests:

Retain proposed reference/inclusion of telecommunication sites as network utility services throughout the Plan.

Submission 1084/2 requests:

Amend the plan to provide for navigational aids, air traffic control facilities and flight information services as permitted activities in appropriate land units and settlement areas.

Submission 1139/5 requests:

The removal of part 5 Utilities and reintroduction of community mandated controls in line with the strategic importance of Lot 1 DP67008 Wilma Road, Ostend.

Submission 1166/19 requests:

Facilitate the development of community and household scale infrastructure esp. for water supply and electricity.

Submission 2293/1 requests:

Seeks amendment by modifying at the appropriate places esp rules, activity table for the construction, operation and maintenance of roads (in part 5) to ensure sound environmental outcomes. These outcomes will affect culvert pipes and public open space. Most places where roadworks intersect with streams and wetlands there is no effective fish bypass.

Submission 2294/2 requests:

Change the Activity table rule at clause 5.5.1 Construction ... of road network to "Restricted Discretionary"

Submission 3061/41 requests:

Remove Part 5.0 Network utilities from the Plan along with consequential removal of Part 10c.5.6 and 10c.5.6.1 and replacement with community mandated policies and rules and such wider changes to the Plan consequent thereon.

4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.2.2.1 Submission 1076/1

Part 5 refers to various telecommunication services located underground, aboveground and overhead and provides for their use in the activity table in clause 5.5.1. It also refers to specific telecommunication equipment such as antennas, cell phone masts etc. Part 14 also outlines the definition of 'telecommunication network' and specifically lists various equipment. No changes are specifically sought to the plan by the submission and accordingly it is recommended that submission 1076/1 be accepted.

4.2.2.2 Submission 1084/2

Section 166 of the RMA states:

Meaning of ..."network utility operator"...-In this Act-...means a person who-

(g) Is an airport authority as defined by the Airport Authorities Act 1966 for the purposes of operating an airport as defined by that Act; or

(h) Is a provider of any approach control service within the meaning of the Civil Aviation Act 1990;...

It is considered that providing for navigational aids, air traffic control facilities and flight information services is appropriate for facilitating flight movements to and from the gulf islands. The RMA provides for an airport authority to provide for these facilities. What is unclear in the submission is the location of facilities and in what appropriate land unit and settlement areas that they could be located. Given the nature and function of navigational aids, air traffic control facilities and flight information services, providing for these facilities as a permitted activity in certain land units (with the exception of landforms 1,2,4 and 7 which would require a non-complying activity consent application) and settlement areas is considered appropriate. However it would be useful for the submitter to outline the scale of the equipment and what land units in the islands could be appropriate for placing the equipment. It is recommended that the submission be rejected subject to the submitter outlining the nature and scale of navigation equipment and where these could be placed in the gulf islands at the hearing.

4.2.2.3 Submissions 1139/5,

It is unclear in submission 1139/5 how to Part 5 relates to land at Lot 1 DP 67008.

Part 5 has been developed in recognition of the unique nature and function of network utility services and how they enable the community to provide for their social and economic well being. The chapter also ensures that the establishment of network utility services do not detract from the visual amenity of the environment or heritage values of the gulf islands. Where it is proposed to establish services within sensitive landscapes, scheduled items and additional limitations, resource consent would be required.

As stated in the S32 report, a separate chapter is justified for managing network utility services. The pre notification consultation and formal submission and further submission periods provided extensive opportunity for the community of the HGI to be involved in plan development. The large number of submissions and further submissions indicates good community involvement in the process. Therefore it is recommended that submission 1139/5 be rejected.

In addition to the above, the submitter may wish to clarify the extent of the relationship between Part 5 and Lot 1 DP 67008 at the hearing.

4.2.2.4 Submission 1166/19

Electricity reticulation is provided on Waiheke island by Vector Limited. Power to Great Barrier (and other islands) is provided by generators. Water supply is generally through rainwater collection (water tanks) or bore water. The submission being considered in this section of the report is too general to be the basis of any recommended changes to the Plan. In addition, the proposed provisions in the land units in the plan enable the development of community and household scale infrastructure e.g solar power panels, water tanks. In particular, the definition of residential accessory building will enable the provision of solar panels, water tanks and individual wind turbines. Therefore it is recommended that submission 1166/19 be rejected.

4.2.2.5 Submission 2293/1, 2294/2

These submissions seeks the construction, operation and maintenance of roads (in part 5) to ensure sound environmental outcomes.

Specifically, the submissions seek amendments to the activity table in clause 5.5.1 by classifying the construction and maintenance of roads as a restricted discretionary activity and to add a new assessment criteria relating to the construction of fish bypass.

This submission is not supported. The Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water is the primary document for the management of beds, rivers, lakes, streams in the Auckland region in terms of section 13 of the RMA:

13. Restriction on certain uses of beds of any lake or river,-

(1) No person may, in relation to the bed of any lake or river,-

(a) Use, erect, reconstruct, place, alter, extend, remove, or demolish any structure or part of any structure in, on, under or over the bed; or

(b) Excavate, drill, tunnel, or otherwise disturb the bed; or

(c) Introduce or plant any plant or any part of plant (whether exotic or indigenous) in, on , or under the bed; or

(d) Deposit any substance in, on or under the bed; or

(e) Reclaim or drain the bed-

Unless expressly allowed by a rule in the regional plan and in any relevant proposed regional plan or a resource consent...

The Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water sets thresholds for permitted, controlled, restricted discretionary, discretionary and non-complying activities. One of the general conditions placed on all activities is listed in clause 7.5.2A(a) of the plan:

The passage of fish and other aquatic organisms both up and down stream shall be maintained, where it already occurs on existing structures, and provision shall be made for the passage of fish and other aquatic organisms on new or reconstructed structures;

In determining the standard relating to fish passage, the regional plan refers to the ARC Technical Publication 131: Fish Passage-Review and Guidelines for the Auckland Region.

It is considered that the above statutory document and associated guidelines are the appropriate mechanisms when assessing the construction, operation and maintainance of roads. In addition, it is considered that given the context of roads where they have been:

Located on land which has been vested or dedicated as road; and
The road is identified as formed on the planning maps

The effects of constructing, operation and maintaining the existing road network are considered minor and that this activity be retained as a permitted activity in clause 5.5.1.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that submission 2293/1and 2294/2 be rejected.

4.2.2.6 Submission 3061/41

Submission 3061/41 seek the removal of Part 5, removal of Part 10c.5.6 and 10c.5.6.1 and re-introduction of community mandated policies and rules and wider changes to the plan and consequential changes.

The removal of clause 10c.5.6 and 10c.5.6.1 is not supported. These sections of the plan relate to earthworks. Specifically, clauses 10c.5.6.1(3) and 10c.5.6.1(7) relates to trenching for utility services and the use, maintenance and upgrading of existing formed public roads respectively.

There will be instances where earthworks for utility services are essential, for example, undergrounding cables and maintaining roads. Conditions have been developed to ensure that there are minimal effects and to minimise potential for erosion and sedimentation that can have adverse effects on water bodies, wetlands and coastal systems. Clause 10c.5.6.2 of the plan sets out the permitted activity standards for earthworks. Good practice and guidelines are also referred to in appendix 16-Erosion and sediment control guidelines for earthworks of the plan. It is considered that these requirements in the plan are sufficient to ensure good environmental outcomes.

Therefore it is recommended that submission 3061/41 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions 1076/1, 1084/2, 1139/5, 1166/19, 2293/1 & 3061/41

That submissions 1076/1, 1084/2 , 1139/5, 1166/19, 2293/1, 2294/2, 3061/41 be rejected.

That submission 1076/1 be accepted with no changes to the text.

4.3 Submissions about clause 5.1

Submissions dealt with in this section: 519/4, 941/6, 1250/10, 1250/11, 1250/12, 1250/13

4.3.1 Decisions requested

Submission 519/4 requests:

Amend clause 5.1 paragraph 3, third sentence, to read (additions are shown underlined) "It is also recognised that some utility operators have specific legislative rights under legislation that expressly provides for utility services."

Submission 941/6 requests:

That the wording below be adopted by the council in the (clause 5.1):

"Network utility services provide an important part of the overall physical resources for the islands. They are also a means of providing for the economic and social wellbeing for the island communities.
It is also recognised that utility operators have specific legislative rights under legislation that expressly provides for utility services.
The council recognises the importance of utility services:

Submission 1250/10 requests:

Remove general reference to wastewater from clause 5.1.

Submission 1250/11 requests:

Include a new section in clause 5.1 for the ongoing maintenance only, of the Owhanake Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Submission 1250/12 requests:

State in clause 5.1 that wastewater on Waiheke will continue to be treated and disposed of through on site systems.

Submission 1250/13 requests:

State in clause 5.1 that grey water recycling systems will be required for all new development.

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.3.2.1 Submission 519/4

It is accepted that some utility operators have specific legislation to enable provision of utility services particularly within the road reserve. This legislation includes Electricity Act, Telecommunications Act and Local Government Act. Recently the government has confirmed that new standards will apply to telecommunication facilities within the road reserve (i.e National Environmental standards).

Therefore it is recommended that submission 519/4 be accepted.

4.3.2.2 Submission 941/6

The submission supports the following wording in clause 5.1 of the plan:

"Network utility services provide an important part of the overall physical resources for the islands. They are also a means of providing for the economic and social wellbeing for the island communities.
It is also recognised that utility operators have specific legislative rights under legislation that expressly provides for utility services.
The council recognises the importance of utility services:

It is recommended that submission 941/6 be accepted.

4.3.2.3 Submission 1250/10

The reference to wastewater in clause 5.1 is in recognition of existing infrastructure (Owhanake wastewater treatment plant-clause 4.8 of the plan) on the islands and in particular Waiheke island. It is appropriate to recognise this type of infrastructure given its existence. Therefore it is recommended that submission 1250/10 be rejected.

4.3.2.4 Submission 1250/11

The reference to Owhanake Wastewater Treatment Plant and its ongoing maintenance is addressed in the Notice of requirement (Designation 1-14) and can be more appropriately managed through conditions on the designation. In addition clause 4.8 of the plan also recognises the treatment plant be provided for by way of designation. It is not appropriate to address this in the introduction to Part 5. Therefore it is recommended that submission 1250/11 be rejected.

4.3.2.5 Submission 1250/12, 1250/13,

The introduction to Part 5 only refers to wastewater in a general sense and not specifically with policy matters pertaining to on-site systems or requiring grey water recycling systems for all new developments. Furthermore, such systems may not be suitable for some sites and/or circumstances. In this regard, it would be more appropriate to address such matters on a case by case basis and through clause 4.8-Wastewater on policy matters. Therefore it is recommended that submissions 1250/12 and 1250/13 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions 519/4, 941/6, 1250/10, 1250/11, 1250/12 and 1250/13

That submissions 519/4, 1250/10, 1250/11, 1250/12 and 1250/13 be rejected.

That submission 519/4 be accepted and that clause 5.1, paragraph 3, third sentence be amended to read (additions are shown underlined):

It is also recognised that some utility operators have specific legislative rights under legislation that expressly provides for utility services.

That submission 941/6 be accepted with no changes to the text.

4.4 Submissions about clause 5.2

4.4.1 Decisions requested

Submission 941/7 requests that issues in clause 5.2 (1)-(3) be adopted.

Submission 941/8 requests:

The issues clause 5.2 be amended by including further issues as follows, or words of similar effect:

"The most appropriate resource management techniques to provide for the wide range of public works and network utilities in the District Plan.

How to provide for the efficient development, operation and maintenance of public works and network utilities.

How to co-ordinate the provision of public works and network utilities with the demands for new or intensified development".

4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.4.2.1 Submission 941/7

Submission 941/7 is accepted.

4.4.2.2 Submission 941/8

It is considered that the issues outlined in clause 5.2 encapsulate the issues with respect to providing and managing the effects of network utility services. The first issue raised in the submission is not considered an issue with respect to providing for network utilities. It is a decision making process on which is the best method within the RMA techniques for managing utility services within the district. Furthermore, as an issue, a desired outcome should be stipulated and it is difficult to envisage monitoring the "appropriate resource management technique."

The second issue raised by the submission is provided for within clause 5.2(1) and is encapsulated within objective 5.3.1 of the plan. In addition, this is further reinforced by the policies aligned with the objective.

The third issue as outlined in the submission can be covered through a range of other techniques and processes outside of the RMA which can effectively address these matters such as memorandum of understanding agreements, documents such as code of practice for working in the road and co-operation between council and utility operators.

Overall, it is considered that the issues in 5.2 are appropriate. Therefore, it is recommended that submission 941/8 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions 941/7 and 941/8

That submission 941/8 be rejected.

That submission 941/7 be accepted with no changes to the text.

4.5 Submissions about clause 5.3.1

4.5.1 Decisions requested

Submission 941/9 requests:

Objective 5.3.1 (or words to similar effect) be adopted.

Submission 941/12 requests:

Policies 5.3.1 (1)-(8) (or words to similar effect) be adopted.

Submission 941/13 requests:

Policy 5.3.1(5) be amended as follows (or words to similar effect):

"5. By encouraging the co-ordination and co-location of works between network utility operators to minimise environmental impacts and community disruption , where practicable ."

Submission 941/14 requests:

The explanation for clause 5.3.1 be adopted.

Submission 1116/1 requests:

Amend clause 5.3.1(6) as follows (additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough):

"By ~~requiring~~ encouraging network utility operators to ~~comply~~ be consistent with the Code of Practice for Working in the Road."

Submission 2929/1 requests:

Seeks that policy 5.3.1 (8) be amended to prohibit further overhead lines being put in place in new subdivisions.

4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.5.2.1 Submissions 941/9, 941/12, 941/14

Submissions 941/9, 941/12 and 941/14 are accepted.

4.5.2.2 Submission 941/13

Submission 941/13 amends policy 5.3.1(5) by adding the words "where practicable" at the end of the policy sentence. This amendment is not supported. Firstly, the words add ambiguity to the policy and do not add any value to the general direction the policy is trying to achieve. Furthermore, the policy recognises the difficulty of the RMA in trying to achieve the direction sought (i.e co-ordination and co-location of works), hence the word "encouraging" is used in the policy.

Other methods outside of the RMA are better in achieving the objective. For the above reasons, the submission is rejected.

4.5.2.3 Submission 1116/1

Submission 1116/1 seeks the following amendment:

"By ~~requiring~~ encouraging network utility operators to ~~comply~~ be consistent with the Code of Practice for Working in the Road."

This amendment is not supported. The Code of Practice was developed to provide consistency in the application of standards for working in the road throughout the Auckland region, whether that work is being carried out by councils, utilities or others.

Part 1.2.1 of the Code states "All work shall comply with the requirements of this code ........." and "The RCA and Principal Providers have the prime responsibility for ensuring code compliance at all times".

Further, the road opening notice declaration by the Principal Provider or the Principal Providers agent is an agreement "to comply in full with the requirements of the Code ......".

The submitter (Vodafone NZ Ltd) are a signatory to the Code by virtue of their membership in the Auckland Utilities Operators Group (AUOG) and also the Partnership Agreement was signed on their behalf on 7 December 2006.

Any dispute would generally follow what is provided for in various utility acts-discussion/mediation/District Court/Environment Court.

For the above reasons, it is considered that submission 1116/1 is rejected.

4.5.2.4 Submission 2929/1

Policy 5.3.1(8) states:

"By providing for overhead lines in the appropriate landform land units."

The submission seeks to prohibit further overhead lines being put in place in new subdivisions. The Hauraki Gulf islands Development Code requires undergrounding of new lines (electricity and telecommunication) where new subdivision occurs. The HGI development code is referenced in clause 5.3.1(7) of the plan. In particular clause 8.4.3.3 of the code as a means of compliance states, "...all services shall be underground except for approved surface chambers or above ground plant which shall be of minimum possible size."

In addition, Objective 12.3.8 for subdivision states:

To design subdivisions so that network utility services are installed in a manner that minimises any adverse effects on the environment, including visual amenity, noise, earthworks, dust, spill lighting, electro magnetic field emissions and radio frequency fields (RF).

Policies

1. By requiring at the time of subdivision that electricity and telecommunication services are placed underground.

2. By preventing the installation of utility services which may be sought in conjunction with subdivision where the effect on landscape and amenity values cannot be adequately remedied or mitigated.

Therefore, the matter of undergrounding services at the time of subdivision is also addressed in Part 12 of the plan.

In general, the council will require undergrounding of lines in new subdivisions.

However there are situations where undergrounding may not be appropriate such as where heritage, geological or archaeological features would be compromised by undergrounding. This is addressed in the above policy 2. This would be considered on a case by case basis.

Policy 5.3.1(8) also caters for situations in rural areas (landforms 3 and 5) and formed legal road adjoining rural areas (landform 1-7) where providing for underground lines is expensive due to distance from existing services, where topographical constraints may exist and the nature of existing development or landscape considerations are evident.

Any new overhead lines outside of the above matters will require resource consent application so that environmental effects of new overhead lines can be assessed.

Policy 5.3.1(8) is appropriately worded to take into account the above circumstances and is recommended that the wording not be changed.

For the above reasons, it is considered that submission 2929/1 is rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions 941/9, 941/12, 941/13, 941/14, 1116/1 and 2929/1

That submissions 941/13, 1116/1 and 2929/1 be rejected.

That submissions 941/9, 941/12 and 941/14 be accepted with no changes to the text.

4.6 Submissions about clause 5.3.2

4.6.1 Decisions requested

Submission 663/2 requests:

Ban all "up" lighting and remove all "up" lighting in order to eliminate all light scatter to the night sky.

Submission 941/10 requests:

Amend Objective 5.3.2 as follows (or words to similar effect):

"To ensure ... are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated where practicable ."

Submission 941/15 requests:

Policy 5.3.2 (1) be amended to read (or words to similar effect):

"By ensuring that utility services meet appropriate environmental standards so that adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated, where practicable."

Submission 941/16 requests:

Policy 5.3.2(2) (or words to similar effect) be adopted.

Submission 1117/1 requests:

Amend clause 5.3.2(1) as follows (additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough):

"~~By ensuring~~ That utility services meet appropriate environmental standards ~~so that~~ in order to reduce any significant adverse effects ~~do not occur~~."

Submission 1117/2 requests:

Amend the explanation to clause 5.3.2 as follows (additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough):

"The standards have been established to ensure that there is minimal adverse effect on the environment and provide guidance for ~~The standard must be met during~~ the establishment, operation and maintenance of utility services. Should the standards not be met, resource consent will be required to exceed the standards."

4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.6.2.1 Submission 663/2

Submission 663/2 seeks to ban all "up" lighting and remove all "up" lighting in order to eliminate all light scatter to the night sky.

Clause 5.3.2 of the plan addresses the objective of ensuring adverse effects associated with utilities are avoided, remedied or mitigated and includes spill lighting. Spill lighting is controlled by the council's bylaws. Standards are adopted by the bylaw which limits the amount of illumination of lighting which can have adverse effects on properties.

In general the submitter requests that all lighting be downward lighting so that any impacts on the nights sky are minimised. It is acknowledged that greater emphasis can be placed on reducing the adverse effects from lighting on the night sky through appropriate policy and assessment criteria. This is addressed in Part 4 of the plan whereby it has been recommended that:

"By adding a new policy numbered 4.10.1.5 after policy 4.10.1.4:

By avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of lighting on the night sky."

It is considered that the amendment to Part 4 is the appropriate place for mitigating spill lighting.

For the above reasons, it is considered that submission 663/2 be accepted in part and a new policy is added in Part 4 of the plan.

4.6.2.2 Submission 941/10

Submission 941/10 seeks the words "appropriately" and "where practicable" be added in the objective. This amendment is not supported. Section 5(2)(c)of the RMA states "...their health and safety while-... avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment." The section of the RMA does not qualify this with the words "appropriately" and "where practicable."

The submission is concerned that there should be an appropriate balance between providing for utilities and ensuring any adverse effects on development and the community are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

By adding the words "appropriately" and "where practicable" creates ambiguity and does not add any value to the objective as objectives need to be measureable. Such words will often add confusion and uncertainty when assessing proposals and consent applications (i.e what is considered appropriate and where practicable?). It is also good planning practice to keep objectives simple, clear and concise. Adding the words does not achieve this.

In addition, while objective 5.3.1 of the plan does provide for the provision of utility services, objective 5.3.2 is to ensure that any adverse effects generated by network utility services are avoided, remedied and mitigated.

For the above reasons, it is considered that submission 941/10 be rejected.

4.6.2.3 Submission 941/15, 1117/1

Both submissions seek rewording to clause 5.3.2(1) of the plan.

Submission 941/15 seeks that the words "...are avoided, remedied or mitigated where practicable" are substituted in place of "... do not occur." It is considered that the words "...are avoided, remedied or mitigated" is supported as it is consistent with the wording in section 5(2)(c) of the RMA. However, the words "where practicable" is not supported for the reasons as set out in the analysis of submission 941/10.

Submission 1117/1 seeks similar wording but that the policy be amended to read:

That utility services meet appropriate environmental standards in order to reduce any significant adverse effects

This amendment is not supported as the standards developed are appropriate to ensure that the any adverse environmental effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated as per the RMA. The submission only seeks to "reduce any significant adverse effects" which is not consistent with the wording of section 5(2)(c) of the RMA.

For the reasons above, it is considered that submission 941/15 be accepted in part and submission 1117/1 be rejected and that clause 5.3.2(1) be amended to read:

By ensuring that utility services meet appropriate environmental standards so that adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

4.6.2.4 Submission 941/16

Submission 941/16 is accepted.

4.6.2.5 Submission 1117/2

Submission 1117/2 seeks that the explanation be amended to explain the policy. The submission is supported in part with the following wording as the amendment explains and clarifies the policy better than it currently reads:

The standards have been established to ensure that adverse effects on the environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated during the establishment, operation and maintenance of utility services. Should the standards not be met, resource consent will be required to exceed the standards.

Submission 1117/2 is accepted in part.

Planner's recommendations about submissions 663/2, 941/10, 941/15, 941/16, 1117/1 and 1117/2

That submissions 663/2, 941/10, 1117/1 be rejected.

That submissions 941/16 be accepted with no changes to the text.

That submission 941/15 and be accepted in part and that clause 5.3.2(1) be amended to read:

By ensuring that utility services meet appropriate environmental standards so that adverse effects ~~do not occur~~ are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

That submission 1117/2 be accepted in part and that the explanation to clause 5.3.2 be amended to read:

The standards have been established to ensure that ~~there is minimal adverse effect on the environment~~ adverse effects on the environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated during ~~The standards must be met during~~ the establishment, operation and maintenance of utility services. Should the standards not be met, resource consent will be required to exceed the standards.

4.7 Submissions about clause 5.3.3

4.7.1 Decisions requested

Submission 941/11 requests:

Amend Objective 5.3.3 as follows (or words to similar effect):

"To ensure that the establishment of network utility services do not unnecessarily detract from the visual amenity of the environment or any heritage values , where practicable ."

Submission 941/17 requests:

Policy 5.3.3(1) be amended to read (or words to similar effect):

"By encouraging underground services for new subdivision and development, where practicable".

Submission 941/18 requests:

Policy 5.3.3(3) be amended to read (or words to similar effect):

"By encouraging utility operators to underground existing overhead utilities where the opportunity exists for co-ordinated works with council road works, and considering any relevant constraints."

Submission 941/19 requests:

Policy 5.3.3(6) be amended to read (or words to similar effect):

"By controlling large scale above ground and overhead utility services on significant ridgelines and in land units with high landscape value to ensure that they do not detract from the visual amenity of the surrounding environment, where practicable."

Submission 941/20 requests:

Policy 5.3.3(7) be amended as follows (or words to similar effect):

"By assessing the cumulative visual impact of multiple antennae on the environment."

Submission 941/21 requests:

Policy 5.3.3(8) be amended as follows (or words to similar effect):

"By encouraging utility operators to design utility services that are visually sympathetic to the environment, where practicable".

Submission 941/22 requests:

Policy 5.3.3(9) be amended as follows (or words to similar effect):

"By requiring the removal of redundant or obsolete services, particularly within the road, where appropriate and practicable".

Submission 941/23 requests:

Policy 5.3.3(10) be amended as follows (or words to similar effect):

"By encouraging utility operators to provide a long term plan for undergrounding existing overhead utilities in the future, where appropriate and practical".

Submission 941/24 requests:

The 2nd, 7th and 10th paragraphs of the explanation for clause 5.3.3 be amended to read (or words to similar effect):

"Where new subdivision or development occurs undergrounding of services is encouraged.

The council will also require the removal of redundant or obsolete services in the road, where appropriate and practicable.

Generally, there needs to be a balance between providing utility services and ensuring that they do not detract from the environment in which they are located, where practicable. The above policies recognise the unique nature of utility services while ensuring that they can be established, operated and maintained so that minor adverse effects on the environment can be avoided, remedied or mitigated".

Submission 1111/1 requests:

Amend the eighth paragraph of the explanation of clause 5.3.3 as follows (additions underlined, and deletions in strikethrough) :

"The cumulative effect of aboveground and utility services in any one location can have an adverse effect on an area. ~~There is a need.~~ The provisions of the District Plan seeks to ~~avoid a~~ minimise the proliferation of separate structures and this requires a co-operative approach where feasible and practicable so that visual ~~impacts~~ effects are ~~avoided or minimised~~ appropriately managed . This is particularly relevant in the fast changing communications industry where sites for cellular phone towers, antennas and wireless internet services can be difficult to find."

Submission 1243/41 requests:

Amend clause 5.3.3(1) to reflect that not all types of development require the undergrounding of services.

Submission 2928/1 requests:

Delete policy 5.3.3 (10) and add a policy that mandates long term plans for undergrounding, and requires further reticulation to be under grounded.

4.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.7.2.1 Submission 941/11

Furthermore, adding the words "unnecessarily" and "where practicable" creates ambiguity and does not add any value to the objective as objectives need to be measureable. Such words will often add confusion and uncertainty when assessing proposals and consent applications (i.e what is considered appropriate and where practicable?). It is also good planning practice to keep objectives simple, clear and concise. Adding the words do not achieve this.

For the above reasons, it is considered that submission 941/11 be rejected.

4.7.2.2 Submission 941/17, 1243/41

Submission 941/17 seeks the addition of the words "encouraging" for "requiring" and the addition of the words "where practicable." The submission considers that the proposed policies are unduly onerous for utility operators and do not accurately reflect the explanation which follows these policies under clause 5.3.3.

In response to the relief sought, it is considered appropriate to separate the relief into the following headings

1. "Where practicable"

In addressing submission 941/17, it is considered that the words "where practicable" creates ambiguity and does not add any value to the policy. Policies need to be written in such a way to give direction and strength to methods and those making decisions on consents. Such words will often add confusion and uncertainty when assessing proposals and consent applications (i.e what is considered "where practicable"?). It is also good planning practice to keep objectives simple, clear and concise. Adding the words does not achieve this.

2. "encouraging" for "requiring"

The use of the word "encouraging" in substitution for "requiring" is not supported. In general, the council will require undergrounding of all services. The use of the word "encouraging" does not enable the council to achieve the outcome of underground services. There are some exceptions where providing for overhead services are allowed as explained below.

It is considered that the need for utility services often relates to development and/or subdivision. It is considered that development and subdivision could be mutually exclusive or inclusive and that separating both situations into separate policies is appropriate when addressing the effects on landscape and amenity values. The policy should be written in a way that gives direction to remedy and mitigate landscape and visual amenity effects which can potentially occur through the implementation of utility services.

Part 12-subdivision provides for utility services through objectives and policies, rules and assessment criteria at the time of subdivision. While policy 1 of objective 12.3.8 requires utility services to be placed underground, policy 2 of objective 12.3.8 recognises that adverse effects can occur through the undergrounding of such services: This is outlined as follows:

Objective 12.3.8

Policies

1. By requiring at the time of subdivision that electricity and telecommunication services are placed underground.
2. By preventing the installation of utility services which may be sought in conjunction with subdivision where the effect on landscape and amenity values cannot be adequately remedied or mitigated.

It is considered logical that addressing the provision of utilities at subdivision and its effects on the environment is adequately provided for in part 12 of the plan and should be referred to as a policy.

The Plan recognises the relationship between subdivision and the effect on landscape character from associated land use activities. Accordingly, electricity and telecommunication services are invariably required to service any activity on a site. Such services can take the form of tall power/telecommunication poles with overhead cabling, which can adversely affect the landscape character and amenity value of an area. Conversely, undergrounding of utility services can adversely affect significant environmental features such as indigenous bush or heritage features (e.g middens). Applicants will therefore need to consider the provision of utility services as part of any subdivision.

The polices and assessment criteria in clause 12.11.11 (Network utility services) consider the design of subdivision within all land units and settlement areas and how each can be serviced by network utilities without adversely affecting the natural landscape and amenity qualities of the environment. Matters to consider include shared services (easements) and the extent to which services can be placed underground. In addition the HGI Development Code requires that all services be placed underground.

Policy 2 of objective 12.3.8 addresses the situation where undergrounding may not be the most appropriate method of providing utility services especially where it affects landscape and amenity values.

For the above reasons it is considered that submission 941/17 be rejected.

3. Submission 1243/41

Similarly, in addressing submission 1243/41, new development may not require undergrounding of services in all cases. Council will generally require the undergrounding of services for new development where the effects on landscape values can be adequately remedied or mitigated. If however there are situations where undergrounding may cause adverse effects (e.g sites of ecological significance, heritage values) then overhead and aboveground provision of utilities may be appropriate.

For the above reasons, it is considered that submission 1243/41 be accepted in part.

Therefore, policy 5.3.3(1) should be reworded as follows:

1. By requiring underground services for new subdivision and development where the adverse effects on landscape or heritage values can be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

4.7.2.3 Submission 941/18

Submission 941/18 seeks addition of the words "and considering any relevant constraints" to the end of the policy. This is not supported. The policy in its context encourages the utility operators and the council to co-ordinate works within the road reserve and wherever possible underground existing overhead utilities.

The principles of coordination of works is covered in Part 2 of the Code of Practice for Working in the Road, Auckland Region. The purpose is to reduce disruption to all users and occupants, particularly with consideration to (a) traffic sensitive roads and (b) retail and business areas.

There is an obligation for all Road Controlling Authorities (RCA's) and Service Providers to notify each other of their individual forward strategic programmes (at least 1 to 2 years in advance). This is particularly relevant in circumstances where the RCA is carrying out major road or footpath resurfacing and reconstruction as it provides the Service Providers the opportunity to underground existing overhead services and/or upgrade, install or maintain existing underground services with greatly reduced reinstatement costs.

Provided that the RCA has advised the Service Providers of its intentions to carry out such upgrades, the Code provides for an exclusion period of 5 years from the date of completion. The Code also recognises the need for flexibility of timing by all parties.

Therefore, it is considered that adding words to the policy does not add value to the policy. The words "encourage" recognises that council cannot compel utility operators to underground existing overhead services. The detail issues as to what constraints and considerations are taken into account when works are undertaken in the road reserve are worked through at the time of implementation and this is worked out in detail through the Code of Practice for Working in the Road. Generally both parties come to a mutual agreement as timing, costs and any other factors that may have an impact on the project work.

For the above reasons, it is considered that submission 941/18 be rejected.

4.7.2.4 Submission 941/19

Submission 941/19 seeks the addition of the wording "where practicable" to the end of the policy. This submission is not supported. Firstly, as explained elsewhere in this report, the words "where practicable" creates ambiguity and does not add any value to the policy as policies need to be written in such a way to give direction and strength to methods and those making decisions on consents. Such words will often add confusion and uncertainty when assessing proposals and consent applications (i.e what is considered "where practicable"?). It is also good planning practice to keep objectives simple, clear and concise. Adding the words does not achieve this.

In addition, the council will control large scale above ground and overhead utilities in areas of high landscape value to ensure that do not detract from the visual amenity of the surrounding environment. Adding the words "where practicable" in the policy is not seen as necessary as both the activity table and development controls of the plan have a range of rules which manages this. Furthermore, where utility operators wish to apply for resource consent, then the merits of each case can treated on a case by case basis and the practicalities can be assessed at that time.

For the above reasons, it is considered that submission 941/19 be rejected.

4.7.2.5 Submission 941/20

Submission 941/20 seeks the amendment of policy 5.3.3(7) by the following:

By assessing the cumulative impact of ~~overhead utilities~~ multiple antennae on the environment

This submission is supported in part. Clause 5.8.1(m) of the plan states the following:

Whether any cumulative adverse visual effects arising from a number of utility services being located in a particular area or of the same (or similar) services being repeated in areas of significant amenity can be avoided, remedied or mitigated. This is particularly relevant for overhead electricity and telecommunication lines and masts and antennas.

It is considered that the assessment of cumulative effect is not just limited to overhead lines as stated in clause 5.8.1(m). The clause clearly states that both electricity and telecommunication overhead lines, masts and antennas are also of a concern that warrants assessment. The submission seeks the substitution of multiple antennae in lieu of overhead utilities. This is not supported. However, it is considered that both types of utilities should be considered as part of the policy. Therefore it is recommended that policy 5.3.3(7) be amended to read:

By assessing the cumulative impact of overhead utilities and antennas on the environment

For the above reasons, it is considered that submission 941/20 be accepted in part.

4.7.2.6 Submission 941/21

Submission 941/21 seeks the addition of the wording "where practicable" to the end of policy 5.3.3(8). This submission is not supported. Firstly, as explained elsewhere in this report, the words "where practicable" creates ambiguity and does not add any value to the policy as policies need to be written in such a way to give direction and strength to methods and those making decisions on consents. Such words will often add confusion and uncertainty when assessing proposals and consent applications (i.e what is considered "where practicable"?). It is also good planning practice to keep objectives simple, clear and concise. Adding the words does not achieve this.

Adding the words "where practicable" in the policy is not seen as necessary as both the activity table and development controls of the plan have a range of rules which manages this. Furthermore, where utility operators wish to apply for resource consent, then the merits of each case can treated on a case by case basis and the practicalities can be assessed at that time.

In addition, the council wishes to encourage utility operators to design utility services that are visually sympathetic to the environment. This is addressed through clause 5.8.1(a-d) of the plan. The council also acknowledges that in recent years, utility companies (telecommunications in particular) have endeavoured to design equipment that is visually sympathetic with the environment. It is also recognised that some utility services such as overhead lines cannot be visually sympathetically designed, but can be located in such a way that mitigates their visual impact or by undergrounding.

For the above reasons, it is considered that submission 941/21 be rejected.

4.7.2.7 Submission 941/22

Submission 941/22 seeks the addition of the wording "where appropriate and practicable" to the end of policy 5.3.3(9). This submission is supported in part. As explained elsewhere in this report, the words "where appropriate and practicable" creates ambiguity and does not add any value to the policy as policies need to be written in such a way to give direction and strength to methods and those making decisions on consents. Such words will often add confusion and uncertainty when assessing proposals and consent applications (i.e what is considered "where appropriate and practicable"?). It is also good planning practice to keep objectives simple, clear and concise. Adding the words does not achieve this.

However, the Code of practice for working in the road is not specific on the matter of requiring utility operators to remove redundant or obsolete services. This issue has been the subject of discussion when the code was developed and it was generally agreed that where an area has been opened and services are identified as obsolete then they should be removed at that time. In addition, some redundant services may be able to be reused by other service providers (Code part 5.3.2).

To this extent, submission 941/22 is accepted in part by amending policy 5.3.3(9) to read:

(strikethroughs indicate deletions and underline indicate additions)

By ~~requiring~~ encouraging the removal of ~~redundant~~ obsolete services or and reuse of obsolete redundant services, particularly in the road.

4.7.2.8 Submission 941/23, 2928/1

Submission 941/23 seeks the addition of the wording "where appropriate and practical" to the end of policy 5.3.3(10). This submission is not supported. Firstly, as explained elsewhere in this report, the words "where appropriate and practical" creates ambiguity and does not add any value to the policy as policies need to be written in such a way to give direction and strength to methods and those making decisions on consents. Such words will often add confusion and uncertainty when assessing proposals and consent applications (i.e what is considered "where appropriate and practical"?). It is also good planning practice to keep objectives simple, clear and concise. Adding the words does not achieve this.

Furthermore as part the process of undergrounding existing overhead lines, the submitter's priority for undergrounding existing overhead lines is given to areas where revitalisation is required (i.e where overhead lines that are reaching the end of their useful life). The council does not compulsorily require existing overhead lines to be undergrounded, rather it "encourages" the relevant utility company to take any opportunity to do so when upgrades of footpaths/roads are undertaken. This is a collaborative process between the utility operators and the council.

For the above reasons, it is considered that submission 941/23 be rejected.

Submission 2928/1 seeks to delete policy 5.3.3(10) and add a policy that mandates long term plans for undergrounding, and requires further reticulation to be undergrounded. This submission is not supported.

As stated above, the council cannot compulsorily require undergrounding of existing overhead lines. Hence the word used in this policy is "encouraging" rather than "require". A policy that mandates long term plans for undergrounding is therefore not supported, rather long term undergrounding should be seen as collaborative process between the council and relevant utility operator.

Further provision of underground services is addressed as means of compliance by the HGI Development code that all services be underground at the time of subdivision and development. Furthermore, the subdivision section of the plan also requires that to minimise visual effects, telecommunication and electricity services be placed underground at the time of subdivision. Only in exceptional circumstances (or where allowed in the district plan) should such services be placed overhead and this should be assessed as part of the subdivision consent application.

For the above reasons, it is considered that submission 2928/1 be rejected.

4.7.2.9 Submission 941/24, 1111/1

1. Submission 941/24

Submission 941/24 seeks amendments to the 2nd, 7th and 10th paragraphs of the explanation for clause 5.3.3:

2nd paragraph-"Where new subdivision or development occurs undergrounding of services is ~~required~~ encouraged ."

7th paragraph-"The council will also require the removal of redundant or obsolete services in the road, where appropriate and practicable ."

10th paragraph- "Generally, there needs to be a balance between providing utility services and ensuring that they do not detract from the environment in which they are located, where practicable . The above policies recognise the unique nature of utility services while ensuring that they can be established, operated and maintained in a manner ~~that has minor adverse effects on the environment~~ so that minor adverse effects on the environment can be avoided, remedied or mitigated".

Amendments to the 2nd paragraph of the explanation seek the deletion of the word "required" and its replacement with the word "encouraged". This amendment is not supported. As discussed in the analysis of submissions 941/17 and 1243/41, objectives and policies within parts 5 and 12 of the plan emphasise the general requirement by council to provide services underground. However, it is recognised by the council that there will be circumstances where undergrounding is not the appropriate method in providing utility services and where it may cause adverse effects (e.g sites of ecological significance, heritage values).

Amendments to the first sentence of the 7th paragraph of the explanation seek the addition of the words "where appropriate and practicable". This is not supported. In keeping with submission 941/22, the council does not compulsorily require utility operators to remove redundant services or obsolete services. As part of the code of practice of working in the road, where an area has been opened and services are identifiable as obsolete, then they should be removed at the time. In addition some redundant services may be able to be reused by other service providers (code part 5.3.2).

The first sentence of the 7th paragraph be accepted in part and recommended that the sentence be amended to read:

"The council will also ~~require~~ encourage the removal of ~~redundant or~~ obsolete services and reuse of redundant services in the road.

Amendments to the 10th paragraph are accepted in part. The explanation is a result of the assessment of the objectives and policies for network utility services. In the assessment, it is considered that the objectives and policies which relate to the provision of network utility services will assist the territorial authority to carry out its functions of control of actual and potential effect of the use, development or protection of land in order to achieve the purpose of the Act.

On one hand the needs of the community on the islands are met by the provision of a level of network utility services which enables them to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety. On the other hand the natural environment which make the islands unique and contributes to amenity values will be protected. Therefore it is considered that the plan's objectives and policies achieve a balance between the above objectives and that the words "where practicable" are superfluous and not required.

The second amendment of the submission seeks the last sentence be amended as stated above. This is accepted in part as section 5(c) of the RMA states "Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment." Therefore, it is recommended that the last sentence be amended to read:

Generally, there needs to be a balance between providing utility services and ensuring that they do not detract from the environment in which they are located. The above policies recognise the unique nature of utility services while ensuring that they can be established, operated and maintained in a ~~manner that has minor adverse effects on the environment~~ so that ~~minor~~ adverse effects on the environment can be avoided, remedied or mitigated".

The amended sentence also deletes the word "minor" as this is not used in section 5(c) of the RMA.

2. Submission 1111/1

Submission 1111/1 seeks the amendments to the 8th paragraph of the explanation:

Submission 1111/1 amendments are accepted in part. It is recommended that the 8th paragraph be amended to read:

(additions underlined, and deletions in strikethrough) :

"The cumulative effect of aboveground and utility services in any one location can have an adverse effect on an area. There is a need to avoid the proliferation of separate structures and this requires a co-operative approach so that visual ~~impacts~~ effects are appropriately managed . This is particularly relevant in the fast changing communications industry where sites for cellular phone towers, antennas and wireless internet services can be difficult to find."

It is considered that the district plan is the appropriate document to manage the visual effects of utility structures. As stated in the first sentence of the explanation, utility service equipment by its very nature is utilitarian and can be visually intrusive, especially in sensitive environments. In some instances, some utility services can be installed to avoid further proliferation in a particular area where the cumulative visual effect can be significant. However, the council also recognises that other utility services cannot be installed that completely avoids visual effects. In these cases the council would like to minimise these effects . Both avoiding and minimising the visual effect of utility structures is considered appropriate.

It is not recommended to use the words "where feasible and practicable" as this implies a wide variety of scenarios where it may not be feasible and practicable to install utility equipment in a manner which can avoid or minimise visual effects. Rather, it is technical limitations that restrict where utility equipment can be installed although such limitations can usually be overcome at increased cost to the utility operator.

Planner's recommendations about submissions 941/17, 941/18, 941/19, 941/20, 941/21, 941/22, 941/23, 941/24, 1111/1, 1243/41, 2928/1

That submissions 941/11, 941/17, 941/18, 941/19, 941/21, 941/23, 941/24 (2nd paragraph), 2928/1 be rejected.

That submission 941/20 be accepted in part and that policy 5.3.3(7) be amended to read:

By assessing the cumulative impact of overhead utilities and antennas on the environment

That submission 941/22 be accepted in part and that policy 5.3.3(9) be amended to read:

By ~~requiring~~ encouraging the removal of ~~redundant~~ obsolete services or and reuse of obsolete redundant services, particularly in the road.

That submission 941/24 be accepted in part and that, 7th and 10th paragraphs of the explanation to objective 5.3.3 be amended to read:

7th paragraph: "The council will also ~~require~~ encourage the removal of ~~redundant or~~ obsolete services and reuse of redundant services in the road.

10th paragraph:

That submission 1111/1 be accepted in part and that the 8th paragraph of the explanation to objective 5.3.3 be amended to read:

"The cumulative effect of aboveground and utility services in any one location can have an adverse effect on an area. There is a need to avoid the proliferation of separate structures and this requires a co-operative approach so that visual ~~impacts~~ effects are ~~avoided or minimised~~ appropriately managed . This is particularly relevant in the fast changing communications industry where sites for cellular phone towers, antennas and wireless internet services can be difficult to find."

That submission 1243/41 be accepted in part and that policy 5.3.3(1) be amended to read:

1. By requiring underground services for new subdivision and development where the adverse effects on landscape or heritage values can be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

4.8 Submissions about clause 5.4

4.8.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 306/4, 372/4, 564/4, 578/4, 581/4, 635/4, 640/4, 645/4, 654/4, 676/4, 704/4, 708/4, 728/4, 743/4, 870/4, 882/4, 907/4, 934/4, 956/4, 1024/4, 1141/4, 1237/4, 1322/4, 1778/4, 1779/4, 1780/4, 1781/4, 1782/4, 1783/4, 1784/4, 1785/4, 1786/4, 1787/4, 1788/4, 1789/4, 1790/4, 1791/4, 1792/4, 2282/4, 2636/4, 2674/4, 2685/4, 2781/4, 2835/4, 2993/4, 3061/158, 3207/4, 3226/4, 3240/4, 3251/4, 3273/4, 3275/4, 3287/4, 3303/4, 3312/4, 3319/4, 3334/4, 3342/4, 3348/4, 3364/4, 3369/4, 3535/4, 3576/4, 3821/4, 3837/4 request:

That in clause 5.4 "wastewater" means only blackwater adequate to pump without the addition of other waters.

Submission 635/4 has been withdrawn.

Submission 941/25 requests:

The second paragraph of the (clause 5.4) be amended to read (or words to similar effect):

"While the Plan acknowledges the need for , and essential nature of, utility services, the Plan also seeks to ensure that any adverse effects on the environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated. In particular, the visual amenity of the islands is unique and the council wishes to ensure that any effects on these qualities are avoided or minimised".

4.8.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.8.2.1 Submissions 306/4, 372/4, 564/4, 578/4, 581/4, 635/4, 640/4, 645/4, 654/4, 676/4, 704/4, 708/4, 728/4, 743/4, 870/4, 882/4, 907/4, 934/4, 956/4, 1024/4, 1141/4, 1237/4, 1322/4, 1778/4, 1779/4, 1780/4, 1781/4, 1782/4, 1783/4, 1784/4, 1785/4, 1786/4, 1787/4, 1788/4, 1789/4, 1790/4, 1791/4, 1792/4, 2282/4, 2636/4, 2674/4, 2685/4, 2781/4, 2835/4, 2993/4, 3061/158, 3207/4, 3226/4, 3240/4, 3251/4, 3273/4, 3275/4, 3287/4, 3303/4, 3312/4, 3319/4, 3334/4, 3342/4, 3348/4, 3364/4, 3369/4, 3535/4, 3576/4, 3821/4, 3837/4

The submissions seek that in clause 5.4, "wastewater" means only blackwater adequate to pump without the addition of other waters. This is not supported.

It would be impractical to refer to "wastewater" meaning only "blackwater" in the context of clause 5.4. The context of "wastewater" in clause 5.4 is to recognise the existing wastewater system at Owhanake currently serves the commercial properties in Oneroa. Blackwater is water from the toilet and greywater is water from sinks, baths and washing machines. Owhanake takes all wastewater (both blackwater and greywater) from commercial properties in Oneroa Village.

As there is only one pipe, both blackwater and greywater are mixed before entering the Owhanake wastewater treatment plant and being treated. If the definition of wastewater referred to "blackwater," the effect would be that two reticulation systems would be required to transport the respective "waters" to Owhanake. Therefore to say that wastewater only refers to blackwater in the Oneroa context would be incorrect.

For the above reasons, it is considered that submissions 306/4, 372/4, 564/4, 578/4, 581/4, 635/4, 640/4, 645/4, 654/4, 676/4, 704/4, 708/4, 728/4, 743/4, 870/4, 882/4, 907/4, 934/4, 956/4, 1024/4, 1141/4, 1237/4, 1322/4, 1778/4, 1779/4, 1780/4, 1781/4, 1782/4, 1783/4, 1784/4, 1785/4, 1786/4, 1787/4, 1788/4, 1789/4, 1790/4, 1791/4, 1792/4, 2282/4, 2636/4, 2674/4, 2685/4, 2781/4, 2835/4, 2993/4, 3061/158, 3207/4, 3226/4, 3240/4, 3251/4, 3273/4, 3275/4, 3287/4, 3303/4, 3312/4, 3319/4, 3334/4, 3342/4, 3348/4, 3364/4, 3369/4, 3535/4, 3576/4, 3821/4, 3837/4 be rejected.

4.8.2.2 Submission 941/25

Submission 941/25 seeks the inclusion of the words " and essential nature of", in the second paragraph of clause 5.4 to read:

This submission is supported. In essence, this is a continuation of the first paragraph where the plan acknowledges the essential nature of utilities and its role in sustaining the economic and social wellbeing of the community.

Planner's recommendations about submissions 306/4, 372/4, 564/4, 578/4, 581/4, 635/4, 640/4, 645/4, 654/4, 676/4, 704/4, 708/4, 728/4, 743/4, 870/4, 882/4, 907/4, 934/4, 941/25, 956/4, 1024/4, 1141/4, 1237/4, 1322/4, 1778/4, 1779/4, 1780/4, 1781/4, 1782/4, 1783/4, 1784/4, 1785/4, 1786/4, 1787/4, 1788/4, 1789/4, 1790/4, 1791/4, 1792/4, 2282/4, 2636/4, 2674/4, 2685/4, 2781/4, 2835/4, 2993/4, 3061/158, 3207/4, 3226/4, 3240/4, 3251/4, 3273/4, 3275/4, 3287/4, 3303/4, 3312/4, 3319/4, 3334/4, 3342/4, 3348/4, 3364/4, 3369/4, 3535/4, 3576/4, 3821/4, 3837/4

That submissions 306/4, 372/4, 564/4, 578/4, 581/4, 635/4, 640/4, 645/4, 654/4, 676/4, 704/4, 708/4, 728/4, 743/4, 870/4, 882/4, 907/4, 934/4, 956/4, 1024/4, 1141/4, 1237/4, 1322/4, 1778/4, 1779/4, 1780/4, 1781/4, 1782/4, 1783/4, 1784/4, 1785/4, 1786/4, 1787/4, 1788/4, 1789/4, 1790/4, 1791/4, 1792/4, 2282/4, 2636/4, 2674/4, 2685/4, 2781/4, 2835/4, 2993/4, 3061/158, 3207/4, 3226/4, 3240/4, 3251/4, 3273/4, 3275/4, 3287/4, 3303/4, 3312/4, 3319/4, 3334/4, 3342/4, 3348/4, 3364/4, 3369/4, 3535/4, 3576/4, 3821/4, 3837/4 be rejected.

That submission 941/25 be accepted and that the 2nd paragraph of clause 5.4 be amended to read:

4.9 Submissions about clause 5.5 (including 5.5.2)

4.9.1 Decisions requested

Submission 941/27 seeks that clause 5.5.2 be adopted.

Submission 1147/2 seeks the removal of clauses 5.5.2 to 5.5.4 from part 5-utilities.

4.9.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.9.2.1 Submissions 941/27, 1147/2

The plan does not contain clauses 5.5.3-5.5.4 as expressed in the submission's relief.

The RMA expressly provides for the council to consider an application without the need for public notification or the need to obtain written approvals of or serve notice on affected persons. Section 94D of the RMA states that a plan must expressly provide for such matters as a rule in the plan (i.e clause 5.5.2). The council considers that such a rule is appropriate for the three activities identified in clause 5.5.1 of the plan.

For the above reasons it is recommended that submission 941/27 be accepted.

For the above reasons it is recommended that submission 1147/2 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submission 941/27, 1147/2

That submission 941/27 be accepted with no changes to the text.

That submission 1147/2 be rejected.

4.10 Submissions about clause 5.5 1

4.10.1 Decisions requested

Submission 33/1 requests:

That the following be provided for as permitted activities throughout the islands:

Aboveground network utilities (not otherwise specifically provided for) outside of legal road that can meet the relevant development controls contained within clause 5.6

Submission 33/2 requests:

Amend the 11th, 12th and 20th rows of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 to replace "cell site" and/or "cell phone" antennas and masts with the more generic description of "radio-communication and telecommunication antennas" (or relief of similar effect).

Submission 33/5 requests:

Amend row 17 of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 to include overhead lines adjacent to formed legal roads in rural 1 as a permitted activity.

Submission 33/6 requests:

Amend row 10 and 19 of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 as necessary such that antennas attached to buildings are permitted activities, and there is no limit on the number of antennas attached to a building.

Submission 33/7 requests:

Amend row 21 of the activity table (clause 5.5.1) to make activities not meeting one or more of the development standards a restricted discretionary activity, with the council's discretion restricted to matters relevant to the standard infringed.

Submission 33/8 requests:

Amend the activity status for row 23 of the activity table (clause 5.5.1) to make above ground network utilities outside of legal roads discretionary activities.

Submission 519/5 requests:

Amend the wording of clause 5.5, to read (additions shown in underline) "Any aboveground telecommunication, electricity or wastewater network utility that has an area not exceeding of 2m2 in plan view and does not exceed 1.6m in height (excluding plinth) provided that this rule excludes masts, vents and antennas" or words of like effect.

Submission 519/6 requests:

Amend the wording of clause 5.5 to read (additions shown in underline) "Maintenance and operation of existing network utility services and upgrading of underground infrastructure ".

Submission 537/1 requests:

Amend clause 5.5.1, third row to read as follows:

"Underground telecommunication, electricity, water and wastewater and network utilities".

Submissions 306/5, 372/5, 564/5, 578/5, 581/5, 635/5, 640/5, 645/5, 654/5, 676/5, 704/5, 708/5, 728/5, 743/5, 870/5, 882/5, 907/5, 934/5, 956/5, 1024/5, 1141/5, 1237/5, 1322/5, 1778/5, 1779/5, 1780/5, 1781/5, 1782/5, 1783/5, 1784/5, 1785/5, 1786/5, 1787/5, 1788/5, 1789/5, 1790/5, 1791/5, 1792/5, 2282/5, 2636/5, 2674/5, 2685/5, 2781/5, 2835/5, 2993/5, 3061/159, 3207/5, 3226/5, 3240/5, 3251/5, 3273/5, 3275/5, 3287/5, 3303/5, 3312/5, 3319/5, 3334/5, 3342/5, 3348/5, 3364/5, 3369/5, 3535/5, 3576/5, 3821/5, 3837/5 request:

That in clause 5.5.1 "wastewater" means only blackwater adequate to pump without the addition of other waters

Submission 635/5 has been withdrawn.

Submission 941/26 requests:

(a) The activity table in clause 5.5.1 be adopted as notified, subject to the relief sought in paragraphs (b) - (g) below.

(b) The fourth activity be amended to read (or words to similar effect):

"Bundling of existing overhead telecommunication and electricity lines provided that the new line does not exceed 50mm in diameter".

(c) The ninth activity be amended to read (or words to similar effect):

"Any aboveground telecommunication, electricity or wastewater network utility that has an area not exceeding of 6m² in plan view and does not exceed 1.75m in height (excluding plinth) provided that this rule excludes masts and antennas".

(d) The fourteenth activity be adopted as notified.

(e) The seventeenth activity be a permitted activity in respect of landform 1 - 7 and also in respect of all rural land units (rural 1, 2 and 3).

(f) The twenty-first activity be amended so that it is a restricted discretionary activity.

(g) The twenty-third activity be amended so that it is a discretionary activity.

Submission 1110/1 requests:

Supports row 13 of table 5.5.1.

Submission 1112/1 requests:

Amend row 9 in activity table 5.5.1 as follows (additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough):

"Any aboveground telecommunication, electricity or wastewater network utility located within the legal road reserve that has an area not exceeding of 2m2 in plan view and does not exceed 1.6 1.8m in height (exe inc luding plinth) provided that this rule excludes masts and antennas."

Submission 1112/2 requests:

Insert a new row in activity table 5.5.1 which makes the following a permitted activity:

"Any aboveground telecommunication, electricity or wastewater network utility which complies with the relevant development controls for the zone it is located."

Submission 1112/3 requests:

Amend row 18 in activity table 5.5.1 as follows (additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough):

"Any aboveground telecommunication, electricity or wastewater network utility located within the legal road reserve that has an area exceeding 2m2 in plan view and exceeds 1.6 1.8m in height ( exe inc luding plinth) provided that this rule excludes masts and antennas.

Submission 1113/1 requests:

Amend row 10 of activity table 5.5.1 as follows (additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough):

"Up to five antennas attached to building. "

Submission 1113/2 requests:

Amend row 19 of activity table 5.5.1 as follows (additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough):

"Three Six or more antennas attached to a building."

Submission 1114/1 requests:

Amend row 12 in activity table 5.5.1 as follows (additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough):

"Cell phone masts and attached antennas in commercial 5 and landform 3, 5 and 6; and rural 1."

Submission 1114/2 requests:

Delete row 20 in activity table 5.5.1.

Submission 1179/1 requests:

Opposes wastewater reticulation apparently provided for as a 'permitted activity' in clause 5.5.1.

Submission 1596/8 requests:

Include "Bus stops/shelters" as a Permitted or Restricted Discretionary Activity in clause 5.5.1 Activity Table Network Utility Services. Council's discretion could be restricted to ensuring traffic safety and constructed form.

Submission 2106/5 requests:

Amend clause 5.5.1 Activity table, by amending row 10 to read as follows (insertions marked with underlining):

'Up to two antennas attached to a building (excluding existing pole structures)'

Submission 2106/6 requests:

Amend clause 5.5.1 Activity table, by amending row 19 to read as follows (insertions marked with underlining):

'Three or more antennas attached to a building (excluding existing pole structures)'

Or alternative wording to like effect.

Submission 2928/2 requests:

Upgrading of network utility services to be a discretionary activity, with manifest reluctance to underground a notified application.

Submission 2929/2 requests:

Seeks that the upgrading of overhead lines be a discretionary activity with a presumption of undergrounding.

Submission 2935/1 requests:

Provide Objectives, Policies, Rules and Assessment Criteria in clause 5.5.1 that recognise and provide for dedicated cycleways along the main roads between the villages and to the wharf at Matiatia and Kennedy Point.

Submission 3406/1 requests:

The community must have the right to dialogue and decide over an issue as important as reticulation. It must not be a permitted activity which officers or planners on the Isthmus can decide for us. They can guide us, present us with well researched alternatives, but not decide for us (with specific reference to clause 5.5.1).

Submission 3621/1 requests:

Remove unformed legal road (as shown on maps 34 to 61) from land unit restrictions.

Submission 3701/2 requests:

The formulation of Objectives, Rules and Policies that prevent any roading on peninsulars and promontories around Waiheke Island.

4.10.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.10.2.1 Submission 33/1, 1112/1,

Submission 33/1

The relevant provisions in activity table 5.5.1 are:

Row 9 - "Any aboveground telecommunication, electricity or wastewater network utility that has an area not exceeding 2m2 in plan view and does not exceed 1.6m in height (excluding plinth) provided that this rule excludes masts and antennas" - Permitted activity.

Row 18 - "Any aboveground telecommunication, electricity or wastewater network utility that has an area exceeding 2m2 in plan view and exceeds 1.6m in height (excluding plinth) provided that this rule excludes masts and antennas" - Restricted Discretionary activity.

This submission supports in principle the use of rules with specific dimensions for utility structures in road reserve, but opposes the proposed activity rules with respect to utilities outside legal road.

Submission 33/1 is accepted in part. The dimensions stated in rows 9 and 18 in the activity table are of a reasonable limit to allow the majority of telecommunication cabinets as a permitted activity. The submitter is concerned that the rules would essentially make all other structures and buildings associated with the telecommunication network outside of the legal road require restricted discretionary activities in many land units.

The submission does not specifically state what other structures and buildings the submitter currently installs which may not meet the permitted activity control.

Land units which allow buildings as a permitted activities are:

Landform 3 (alluvial flats)
Landform 5 (productive land)
Island residential 1 (traditional residential -except coastal amenity area)
Commercial 3 (local shops)
Commercial 6 (Quarry)
Commercial 7 (Wharf)

Great Barrier Island Settlement areas are divided into sub areas. The following sub areas allow buildings as permitted activities:

Residential amenity area
Visitor accommodation area
Claris light industry area
Mulberry Grove School, and Okiwi School and Domain areas

All other land units and sub areas within settlement areas require a restricted discretionary or non-complying resource consent application for buildings/structures. These land units exhibit high landscape or visual amenity value thereby requiring a greater degree of control.

The government has recently confirmed National Environment Standards (NES) for telecommunication cabinets in the road reserve:

Telecommunication cabinets in road reserves shall be permitted activities subject to the following restrictions:

Limitations on cabinet size and location
(Above ground level)

Adjacent area type

Maximum height: 1.8m

Maximum footprint of any single cabinet: 1.4m2

Maximum footprint occupied by all cabinets:1.8m2

Maximum number of network utility cabinets exceeding 900mm in height in any location: one [1]

Minimum separation distance from any existing utility cabinet exceeding 900mm in height: 30m

(except where specific provision by way of dedicated areas has been made for utilities infrastructure within the road reserve)

Residential

Maximum height: 2m

Maximum footprint: 2.0m2

Minimum separation distance from any existing utility cabinet exceeding 900mm in height: 30m

(except where specific provision by way of dedicated areas has been made for utilities infrastructure within the road reserve)

Non-residential

[1] Cabinets in new subdivisions are often located in areas allocated for utilities, for example dedicated areas of road reserve are provided. In these cases it would be considered a reasonable condition of a Road Opening Notice that the cabinets be located within those areas.

[1] Areas identified as historic, historic heritage, cultural sites or open space

While the standards are limited to telecommunication cabinets it is considered that these size thresholds would be appropriate for managing aboveground cabinets of all types within private property. If the above thresholds can be met in the appropriate land unit identified above then permitted activity status can be afforded these activities.

If the above standards located on the identified land units cannot be met then a resource consent application to exceed the threshold or a designation should be sought. These methods will allow a greater degree of assessment and control of the visual effects of utility structures given the utilitarian nature of utility equipment and the visual effects of such services.

Masts and antennas are exempted because of the generally slim line nature of equipment and also the activity table expressly provides for them by specific rules.

As currently worded, the relief sought in the submission would contradict Row 22 of the activity table. Therefore any relief recommended would be specifically related to aboveground structures exceeding area of 2m2 and height of 1.6m excluding masts and antennas.

It is considered

For the above reasons, it is recommended that submission 33/1 be accepted in part and that the following rules be provided for as permitted activities throughout the islands:

Aboveground telecommunication, electricity or wastewater network utility in Island Residential 1 (traditional residential-except coastal amenity area) and Settlement Area sub area-(Residential amenity area) that meets the following:

Maximum height: 1.8m
Maximum footprint of any single cabinet or structure: 1.4m2
Maximum footprint occupied by all cabinet or structure: 1.8m2

Provided that this rule excludes masts and antennas

and

Aboveground telecommunication, electricity or wastewater network utility in Landform 3 (alluvial flats), Landform 5 (productive land), Commercial 3 (local shops), Commercial 6 (Quarry), Commercial 7 (Wharf), Settlement Area sub area-(Visitor accommodation area, Claris light industry area, Mulberry Grove School and Okiwi School and Domain areas) that meets the following:

Maximum height: 2m
Maximum footprint of any single cabinet or structure: 2.0m2

Provided that this rule excludes masts and antennas

Submission 1112/1

The submission seeks that aboveground utilities be located within the legal road reserve, have an area not exceeding 2m2 in plan view and 1.8m in height (including plinth) as a permitted activity - Row 9 of activity table . A minor grammatical change is also sought and supported.

The government has recently introduced National Environmental Standards (NES) for telecommunication facilities in the road reserve.

While these standards apply to telecommunications, they do not apply to electricity and wastewater facilities.

It is recommended that the reference to telecommunication be deleted in Row 9 of the activity table to reflect the standards introduced.

In effect, the NES permits telecommunication facilities to be located in the road reserve as of right (subject to restrictions). These restrictions are generally based on size limits and location.

The aspect of the submission for utility services to be located within the legal road reserve is also supported as the new National Environmental Standards (NES) for telecommunication facilities provides size thresholds. These size thresholds should also apply to electricity and wastewater network services. The council would still need to control visual amenity effects from these utility services within the road reserve if the size thresholds were to be exceeded.

There are some instances where legal road reserve traverses sensitive land units and significant heritage areas in an unformed state. All matters of development in this respect require a resource consent for assessment. The activity table has also been drafted so that various utilities are permitted in 'formed legal road' where the environment has been modified and that any environmental effect of various additional utility services can be considered minor. However, any proposal or modification of 'unformed legal road' requires resource consent assessment due the unmodified nature of the legal road and that any modification can be assessed to consider whether there are any significant environmental effects. The planning maps identify 'unformed legal road'. In preparing the proposed rule, it was considered that the modifications that occur through road formation are such that the additional effect of utilities that would be permitted by this rule would be no more than minor. However, this does not apply to areas of unformed road, which may be through sensitive environments and landscapes. For this reason, maintaining the permitted status only in relation to formed legal road is recommended.

The submission seeks the height of aboveground utility services be increased from 1.6m (excluding plinth) to 1.8m (including plinth). The standard as it is currently worded could be interpreted as having a greater overall height of 1.6m due to the unspecified height of the plinth. The proposed amendment to the rule specifies a maximum height of 1.8m including plinth so the combination of cabinet and plinth could vary. This amendment is supported given the minor difference in height. In addition, the size thresholds would also be consistent with the NES for telecommunications. This amendment only applies to formed legal road adjacent to residential land. A new activity is required to be added to the activity table in clause 5.5.1 of the plan and be provided as a permitted activity:

Any aboveground electricity or wastewater network utility within formed legal road reserve that has an area not exceeding 1.8m2 in plan view, does not exceed 1.8m in height (including plinth) and is located adjacent to residential land units provided that this rule excludes masts and antennas.

The size thresholds for telecommunication facilities in the road reserve adjacent to non-residential land are more permissive. This also needs to be reflected in the activity table so that row 9 of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 of the plan and any consequential amendments in the plan be amended to read:

Any aboveground ~~telecommunication~~, electricity or wastewater network utility within formed legal road reserve that has an area not exceeding of 2m2 in plan view, does not exceed ~~1.6m~~ 2.0m in height (~~exe~~ inc luding plinth) and is located adjacent to non-residential land units provided that this rule excludes masts and antennas."

4.10.2.2 Submission 33/2

The submission seeks amendments to row 11,12 and 20 of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 to replace 'cell site: and/or "cell phone antennas and masts" with a more generic description of "radio-communication and telecommunication antennas". This submission is supported. The rules as it currently reads would exclude other forms of radio-telecommunication masts and antennas. A generic description is more appropriate as telecommunication encompasses more than cell phone masts and antennas and could include services such as antennas for digital microwave radio links, customer multi access radio, broadcasting etc.

Consequential amendments to Part 14-definitions will be addressed as part of the submissions to this section of the plan.

For the above reasons it is recommended that submission 33/2 be accepted and that row 11, 12 and 20 of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 be amended to read:

(underline indicates additions, strikethroughs indicate deletions)

Row 11- ~~Cell site~~ Radio-communication and telecommunication antennas located on existing pole structures

Row 12- ~~Cell phone~~ Radio-communication and telecommunication masts and attached antennas in commercial 5 and landform 3, 5 and 6

Row 20- ~~Cell phone~~ Radio-communication and telecommunication masts and attached antennas in rural 1

4.10.2.3 Submission 33/5, 941/26(e)

Submission 33/5

The submission seeks that Row 17 of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 be amended to include overhead lines adjacent to formed legal roads in the Rural 1 (rural amenity) land unit as a permitted activity. This is supported in part.

The Rural 1 (rural amenity) is applied to pockets of small scale, rural land located between the village areas of western Waiheke. Part 10a.19 states that Rural amenity is characterised by:

Small scale farming and horticulture activities
Flat to rolling land
A rural landscape with built elements but also the openness, features and patterns created by productive activities.
The contrast of its rural landscape with the intensity and nature of the surrounding village development.

The plan also recognises the land unit adjoining Onetangi Road differs from the other areas of rural amenity land in that it contains activities that may be considered 'non-rural' in character such as wineries and tourist complexes.

Overall, the land unit has a high visual amenity value, largely due to the contrast of its landscape with the village style development that occurs throughout western Waiheke.

The plan recognises that formed legal road is not classified with a land unit. However, the key question is whether the roads adjacent to rural 1 is considered 'rural'. Currently, overhead lines exists along the legal road reserve adjacent to the Rural 1 land unit. It is acknowledged that telephone lines are typically deployed overhead in rural areas throughout New Zealand due to the high costs of serving small numbers of customers over large distances.

However, it is considered that the current landholdings classified as Rural 1(rural amenity) are not the typical 'rural' landscape given their close proximity to built up urban areas and are more akin to a 'rural-amenity' landscape. The rural character of this land unit is enjoyed by the neighbouring residential communities, and the productive capacity of this rural land is of lesser importance than its amenity function. The 'rural' landscape more typical of New Zealand is located at the eastern end of Waiheke, and is classed as Landform 5 (Productive Land). The proposed rule already allows for overhead lines as permitted activities in landform 1-7.

It is acknowledged however that rural 1 does exhibit a degree of rural amenity character and given there are existing overhead lines for both telecommunications and electricity, it is considered that overhead lines can be permitted to the extent that it applies to existing formed legal road existing at the date of notification of the plan.

Any provision for further overhead lines in formed legal road as a permitted activity should be limited to the existing roads at the time of notification of the proposed plan. Any services provided as a result of further subdivision and development within rural 1 should be underground. This is consistent with the policy of requiring underground services for subdivision (Part 12 of the plan) and new development.

Submission 941/26(e)

The submission seeks that Row 17 of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 be amended to include overhead lines adjacent to formed legal roads in the Rural 1 (rural amenity), Rural 2 (Western Landscape) and Rural 3 (Rakino Amenity) land units as a permitted activity. This is supported in part relating to Rural 1 but not supported in Rural 2 and 3.

The Rural 1 aspect of this submission is the same as per comment on submission 33/5 above.

The rural 2 land unit occupies land that is described as 'rural-residential' landscape. It is interspersed with houses in Western Waiheke and Te Whau, which have been formed as comprehensive developments amongst the rural farmland. To allow the introduction of overhead lines into these areas, which have been developed with such services being underground, would detract from the high visual amenity that has been achieved through these developments to date.

The rural 3 land relates to Rakino, which does not have overhead lines at present. To allow new overhead lines to be introduced as permitted activities across an island that currently does not have overhead lines would detract from the amenity values of the existing landscape.

For the above reasons it is recommended that Row 17 of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 be amended to read:

( underline indicates additions)

New overhead telecommunication and/or electricity distribution lines in formed legal road adjoining landform 1-7 and rural 1 provided that for rural 1 this rule shall apply to formed legal roads existing at 18 September 2006.

It is also recommended that for the reasons above, submission 941/26(e) relating to rural 2 and 3 be rejected.

4.10.2.4 Submissions 33/6, 1113/1, 1113/2

These submissions oppose the restriction of the number of antennas that are attached to buildings. Submission 33/6 states that between six and nine antennas are typically mounted on buildings especially in high density urban areas and therefore seeks that no limit be imposed on the number of antennas attached to buildings.

Submission 1113/1 and 1113/2 states that telecommunication facilities require at least three panel antennas to enable 3600 coverage (1200 per sector) plus two dish antennas. The gulf islands have relatively large separation distances and therefore most cellular facilities require both receiving and sending microwave dish antenna to link the facility with other sites within the network. A total of five antennas is therefore a minimum technical requirement.

The number of antennas located on existing buildings is limited to two antennas as a greater number has the potential to be visually intrusive. It is acknowledged that a greater number of antennas would provide greater coverage over the islands for cellular telecommunication facilities. However, given the village nature of the islands and the relatively small scale of the built up areas and villages (as opposed to the isthmus or CBD), five or more antennas on a building has the potential to be visually intrusive in areas such as Oneroa village, Ostend village and other land units through out the islands. Additionally, due to the relatively low height of most buildings, antennas can be more easily seen than they may be on tall buildings such as are located in the CBD. Two antennas as a permitted activity in all land units would allow a greater dispersion of antennas throughout the islands and lessen the visual impact as opposed to a greater concentration of antennas in one area which has a greater visual impact on that specific area.

The assessment criteria for a restricted discretionary activity for three or more antennas attached to a building is limited to:

Design, external appearance and visual effects
Site layout and placement
Height and proportion
Other environmental effects including noise, vibration, odour, dust, discharges to air and water, lighting and spill lighting, hazardous substances and vehicle movements
Removal of redundant services
Co-location
Cumulative visual effects
Heritage
Radio frequency fields

The above matters may be treated on a non-notified basis or without the need to obtain written approval of or serve notice on affected persons.

With a greater number of telecommunication companies being established in New Zealand it is important that the council exercises a degree of control on the visual effect of antennas located on buildings. Given that new technology is constantly evolving in the telecommunications industry (e.g 3G etc), there is likely to be an increase in the demand for cellular sites throughout the island.

It is important that such sites be assessed for appropriateness in terms of the visual effects of antennas and other criteria as stated above. Given the unique village nature and relatively low density of population on the islands it is considered that there is the potential for adverse visual effects and that two antennas per building as a permitted activity is considered appropriate. Any number greater than two should be assessed to determine the appropriateness of the site/building.

In addition, the government has recently confirmed the National Environmental Standards (NES) for telecommunications. One of the regulations will allow the installation of masts and antennas on existing structures in the road reserve as a permitted activity, subject to specified limitations to height and size. The combination of two antennas on buildings (or three or more as a Restricted Discretionary activity) and the permitted activity status afforded to mast and antennas in the road reserve by the NES should be sufficient to provide coverage of the islands to meet the cellular telecommunication needs.

Pending further information at the hearing from the telecommunication companies explaining the technical requirements for cellular sites, it is recommended that submissions 33/6, 1113/1 and 1113/2 be rejected for the above reasons.

4.10.2.5 Submissions 33/7, 941/26(f)

The submissions oppose the discretionary activity status for permitted activities that do not meet the one or more of the development controls. The submissions argue that it is more appropriate to make such activities restricted discretionary, with only the particular aspect that is infringed being assessed.

The submissions are not supported. This would not be consistent with the other development control modifications in all land units and settlement areas where the plan requires discretionary activity assessment. Any infringement would include assessment of the following as stated in clause 10c.3.1-Development control modification assessment of the plan:

Whether allowing the infringement is consistent with the objectives in clause 10c.2.
Whether the infringement(s) will result in any adverse effects on amenity values of neighbouring properties, the character of the surrounding environment or the natural environment which cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
Whether the development remains consistent with the intention of the development control(s) it infringes having regard to explanation given in the plan for the particular control(s).
The extent to which there will be adverse cumulative effects where a development infringes two or more development controls.

Furthermore, any infringement(s) to the identified development controls may be difficult to internalise within a site and the council would need to assess the overall effects of proposals with respect to the particular circumstances of a site.

Development control modifications may also be assessed on a non-notified basis, but this needs to be assessed on a case by case basis.

For the above reasons it is recommended that submissions 33/7 and 941/26(f) be rejected.

4.10.2.6 Submissions 33/8, 941/26(g)

These submissions oppose the non-complying activity status being applied to aboveground and overhead utilities within the coastal and water protection yards and landforms 1,2,4 and 7. The submissions state that there maybe some technical reasons requiring installation of these services in these areas and that such services should be assessed on their merits on a case by case basis as a discretionary activity and that a non-complying activity status is considered unreasonable.

This is not supported. The classification of aboveground and overhead services as non-complying activities is to ensure that these services are assessed against the tests as outlined in section104 of the RMA. It is considered that these land units and protection yards are the most sensitive areas of the gulf islands and should be afforded a higher level of protection. This is reinforced by section 6 of the RMA:

Section 6 - Matters of national importance of the RMA states:

(a) The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use and development:

(b) The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use and development:

(c) The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna...

Furthermore, the classification does not mean that utility services cannot establish in the stated areas provided that it can be shown that:

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

(Section 104D RMA).

Therefore the construction of utility services within the coastal and water body protection yards or in landform 1,2,4 and 7 classified as a non-complying activity is considered appropriate.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that submission 33/8 and 941/26(g) be rejected.

4.10.2.7 Submissions 519/5

The submission seeks the addition of vents in Row 9 of the activity table. The submission states that vents are required for wastewater infrastructure and are similar in nature to a mast or antenna and that a vent would generate similar visual effects to these. This submission is supported to the effect that the submitter provide evidence at the hearing depicting the types of vents currently used. In this respect, it is considered that vents should be of a slim nature with as narrow a profile as possible.

For the above reason, it is recommended that submission 519/5 be accepted and that row 9 of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 be amended to read:

( underline indicates additions)

Any aboveground telecommunication, electricity or wastewater network utility that has an area not exceeding 2m2 in plan view and does not exceed 1.6m in height (excluding plinth) provided that this rule excludes masts, vents and antennas.

4.10.2.8 Submissions 519/6

The submission seeks the addition of "upgrading of underground infrastructure" in row two of the activity table to allow for efficient and necessary increased service demand for the community. This submission is not supported.

Row three makes provision for underground services as a permitted activity and it is considered that any upgrading of underground infrastructure could be considered under this rule.

For the above reason, it is recommended that submission 519/6 be rejected.

4.10.2.9 Submissions 537/1

The submission seeks the inclusion of underground water utility services to ensure the future ability to provide for reticulated water supplies in communities to assist in operation requirements for the New Zealand Fire Service.

This submission is supported. The environmental effects are minor with respect to visual effects and there is no difference between underground telecommunication, electricity and wastewater utilities. The most likely visual effects will come from the earthworks associated with trenching and tunnelling. Earthworks associated with utility services are required to comply with the earthwork controls in clause 10c.5.6.1.

For the above reason, it is recommended that 537/1 be accepted and that row 3 of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 be amended to read:

( underline indicates additions)

Underground telecommunication, electricity, water and wastewater network utilities

4.10.2.10 Submissions 306/5, 372/5, 564/5, 578/5, 581/5, 635/5, 640/5, 645/5, 654/5, 676/5, 704/5, 708/5, 728/5, 743/5, 870/5, 882/5, 907/5, 934/5, 956/5, 1024/5, 1141/5, 1237/5, 1322/5, 1778/5, 1779/5, 1780/5, 1781/5, 1782/5, 1783/5, 1784/5, 1785/5, 1786/5, 1787/5, 1788/5, 1789/5, 1790/5, 1791/5, 1792/5, 2282/5, 2636/5, 2674/5, 2685/5, 2781/5, 2835/5, 2993/5, 3061/159, 3207/55, 3226/5, 3240/5, 3251/5, 3273/5, 3275/5, 3287/5, 3303/5, 3312/5, 3319/5, 3334/5, 3342/5, 3348/5, 3364/5, 3369/5, 3535/5, 3576/5, 3821/5, 3837/5

Refer to clause 4.8.2.1 of this report for the analyses of these submissions.

For the reasons outlined in clause 4.8.2.1 of this report, it is recommended that the above submissions be rejected.

4.10.2.11 Submissions 941/26 (b)(c)(d)(e)

This submission seeks several changes to the activity table in clause 5.5.1. These will be dealt with in turn:

(b) Row 4 of the activity table relates to the bundling of existing overhead telecommunication and electricity lines, provided that the new line does not exceed 40mm in diameter.

The submission states that for practical and operational reasons the permitted diameter be increased to 50mm, and that bundled lines to be comprised of 40mm is not always possible and some flexibility should be provided for.

This submission is not supported. The rationale for bundling of existing lines is supported to the extent that less overhead lines will be visible. However, a result of the bundling will be a "fatter" cable. It is considered that 40mm will be sufficient diameter to minimise any adverse visual effects and is of a sufficient width to accommodate most operational and practical needs. Any additional increase in diameter should be assessed for any visual effects. Furthermore, the diameter is also consistent with the diameter proposed for the activity in Row 14 of the activity table.

The submitter may wish to expand on the rationale for the requested 50mm diameter cable at the hearing.

(c) Row 9 of the activity table relates to aboveground telecommunication, electricity and wastewater network utilities not exceeding 2m2 (plan view) in area and a maximum height of 1.6m.

The submission opposes the standards as the dimensions are too restrictive and unreasonable because the submitter's aboveground equipment would not be able to comply with the dimensions. The submission proposes a maximum area of 6m2 in area (plan view) and a maximum height of 1.75m.

The dimensions as notified in the plan reflect the council's desire to standardise all above ground equipment in relation to size. This is to minimise adverse visual amenity effects due to the utilitarian nature of utility equipment. It is acknowledged that the function of equipment often dictates the size and appearance and as a result, the standard is seen as too restrictive. The submission does not specifically mention the number and exact types of equipment that maybe required and there maybe a case whereby some equipment could be permitted.

Any thresholds for permitted activity status should be investigated as there needs to be a balance between providing for equipment that have little effect on visual amenity and the need to provide a functional standard that meets the majority of equipment needs of the utility providers. Any threshold standard should not always mean that all equipment should have permitted activity status. Rather, the 2m2 proposed standard for permitted activities is considered an appropriate maximum size for all specified situations, beyond which size the activity would be assessed on its effects. To raise the permitted standard to 6m2 may better meet the functional requirements of the utility operator, but would add to their visual dominance and provide the ability for their construction irrespective of the sensitivity of the receiving environment.

It is noted that as per analysis in clause 4.10.2.1 (submission 1112/1) of this report height of equipment could be permitted to 1.8m (including plinth) but that the area size of 2m2 remain.

The submitter may also designate sites if the equipment is of a sufficient size and importance to the network. This could help mitigate any visual effects by conditions such as landscaping being imposed on the designation.

The proposed standard as submitted is also of a substantial size that can adversely affect the road reserve with respect to visual amenity and traffic and roading considerations. In addition, the proposed increase in standard size as a permitted activity, would also apply to telecommunications and wastewater aboveground services.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that submission 941/26(c) be accepted in part.

(d) Row 14 of the activity table relates to the provision of an additional overhead broadband internet distribution line on existing support poles provided that the additional line does not exceed 40mm in diameter as a permitted activity.

The submission supports this activity. This submission is supported as the addition of one line would have minimal visual amenity effects where existing lines overhead lines exist. It is also considered that the provision of broadband internet is consistent with the New Zealand Government's strategic direction for providing ease of access to broadband. In addition, the low density (population and built form) nature of the islands would make undergrounding of a new line cost prohibitive.

It should also be acknowledged that this activity applies to existing lines and support poles. Where there are underground lines and no existing overhead lines and support poles, undergrounding of the additional broadband internet line is required. Alternatively a resource consent will be required for the overhead line.

In this case, it is considered that the provision of an additional overhead line would have minimal visual effect and, on balance, would provide for the communities' economic, social and cultural well being.

(e) Row 17 of the activity table provides for new overhead telecommunication and electric distribution lines in formed legal road adjoining landform 1-7 as a permitted activity. The submission seeks that it would also be appropriate to extend this to Rural 1,2 and 3 as it is considered the cost of undergrounding these rural areas is cost prohibitive and that rural roads usually do not have formed sidewalks in which to install cables.

This submission has been addressed under clause 4.10.2.3 of this report. For the reasons set out in clause 4.10.2.3 of this report, it is recommended that submission 941/26(e) be accepted in part.

4.10.2.12 Submissions 1110/1

The submission supports the provision of metrolight poles as a permitted activity within land units and settlement areas. This submission is supported.

4.10.2.13 Submission 1112/2

This submission is similar to submission 33/1 in that utility services which comply with the relevant development controls for the land unit in which it is located is a permitted activity. Submission 33/1 differs in that it related to compliance with the relevant controls in clause 5.6 of the plan rather than the development controls of the relevant land unit.

This submission is not supported. A separate network utility chapter has been specifically developed to take into account the unique nature of utility services where compliance with the land unit's relevant development controls is not always appropriate. The activity table in clause 5.5.1 establishes thresholds for the sizes of cabinets and equipment proposing to establish within the relevant land unit. It is considered that these thresholds as notified in the plan are appropriate for managing the visual effects as a permitted activity.

Specific development controls (clause 5.6) have also been customised for utility services to mitigate the effects of these services. Furthermore, some equipment (streetlight poles, metrolight poles, telecommunication/electricity distribution poles) are exempt from some development controls which would be relevant to all land units (e.g height, building in relation to boundary, yards) thereby recognising the unique nature of these utility services.

In addition, the use of a site specifically for utility purposes can have adverse effects that are not normally associated with the relevant land units use. As stated earlier in this report, utility services by their very nature are utilitarian and have the potential to detract from the visual amenity of the area in which they are located and generate effects beyond the immediate site (e.g residential areas). It is considered that beyond these thresholds, matters can be assessed as a discretionary activity.

Alternatively, there is the option of designation. This process would allow for the assessment of the site and purpose and nature of the work. Appropriate conditions could also be imposed on the designation to address effects of the work to ensure that any adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that 1112/2 be rejected.

4.10.2.14 Submission 1112/3

This submission also relates to submission 1112/1 and 1112/2. The submission states that activities in rows 9 and 18 of the activity table provide no distinction between the location of aboveground network facilities, that is either in the road reserve or on private land. The submitter considers the provisions of rows 9 and 18 should only relate to structures in the legal road reserve. In other areas (i.e not legal road reserve), it is considered that aboveground facilities should be subject to the relevant bulk and location standards of the underlying zone.

The submission states that the size of equipment cabinets are primarily dictated by function, and the need to contain certain components and that it is not a case of making equipment cabinets smaller to meet smaller dimension controls. It is for these reasons that there are supply and operational problems with meeting the permitted sizes for aboveground structures in the plan.

This submission is not supported. This has been discussed in clause 1112/1 (clause 4.10.2.1). The thresholds of aboveground utility services have been developed to take into account the sizes of aboveground equipment. It is considered that the thresholds would cater for the majority of the cabinets/equipment used by the utility companies. There will be some instances where the cabinets/equipment are of such a size that a resource consent should be required for assessment regardless of whether it is located within the road reserve or private land. One of the primary reasons being that the use of the site specifically for utility purpose may detract from the amenities of the area and can have adverse effects (particularly visual amenity) that are not normally associated with the relevant land units use.

Furthermore, the recently confirmed National Environmental Standards (NES) should provide for telecommunication facilities within the road reserve.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that 1112/3 be rejected.

4.10.2.15 Submission 1114/1, 1114/2

Rural 1(rural amenity) is not the typical 'rural' landscape given its close proximity to built up urban areas and is more akin to a 'rural-amenity landscape. The rural character of this land unit is enjoyed by the neighbouring residential communities, and the productive capacity of this rural land is of lesser importance than its amenity function. The 'rural' landscape more typical of New Zealand is located at the eastern end of Waiheke, and is classed as Landform 5 (Productive Land).

To allow cell phone masts and antennas in Rural 1 as permitted activities would not be in keeping with the amenity values of this land unit.

For the above reason, it is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

4.10.2.16 Submission 1179/1

This submission opposes wastewater reticulation provided for as a permitted activity. The submission states that wastewater should be dealt with 'on-site'. Reticulation of wastewater will concentrate the problem in one area and necessitate the need for water to reticulate the wastewater. This may require the need for aquifer water which should be used for productive land uses. Possible rate increases would also result from a wastewater reticulation.

The submission is not supported. The provision of wastewater in the activity table in clause 5.5.1 (Row 3) recognises the existing Oneroa wastewater system. There maybe instances where upgrading of existing infrastructure is required. The wastewater provision in the activity table facilitates this process. Notwithstanding this, it is recognised that any future policy direction in terms of wastewater reticulation on Waiheke will need appropriate council committee approval and funding. The provision of wastewater network utilities in the activity table does not imply further reticulation on Waiheke.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that submission 1179/1 be rejected.

4.10.2.17 Submission 1596/8

This submission seeks the inclusion of bus stops/shelters as a permitted or restricted discretionary activity. The submission is accepted in part to the extent that provision exists in the plan for bus stops/shelters as a permitted activity. This is included in row 8 of the activity table under the definition of 'road network' and in Part 14 of the plan.

The "Road network' definition as defined: 'means a system of roads to allow the movement of pedestrian, cycles and vehicles. It includes any of the following:

1. Underground infrastructure located at or below the existing ground surface. This includes any of the following...

f. Transport shelters...

2. Aboveground infrastructure located above the existing ground surface. This includes any of the following...

h. Transport shelters...'

The road opening notice (RON) procedures under the Local Government Act addresses the issue of traffic safety, location and placement of structures and reinstatement of the road.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that submission 1596/8 be accepted in part to the extent that provision for bus stops/shelters already exist in the activity table in clause 5.5.1 of the plan and Part 14-definitions.

4.10.2.18 Submission 2106/5, 2106/6

These submissions seek amendments to distinguish the activity of 'antennas attached to a building' (rows 10 and 19) from the separate listed activity of cell site antennas located on 'existing pole structure' (row 11) as this could create ambiguity between the two activities.

The submission is supported for the reasons outline above and that Rows 10 and 19 be amended respectively:

( underline indicates additions)

Up to two antennas attached to a building (excluding existing pole structures)

Three or more antennas attached to a building (excluding existing pole structures)

4.10.2.19 Submission 2928/2, 2929/2

These submissions seek the upgrading of overhead lines to be a discretionary activity with undergrounding the priority and that any new overhead lines should be classified as a notified application. These submissions are not supported.

The submissions do not differentiate between 'existing overhead lines' and 'new overhead lines'. The council's policy is to require new lines to be underground with respect to subdivision and development. This is stated in the objectives and policies (clause 5.3.3) and the activity table which permits undergrounding of utilities and the reference to the Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Code.

Upgrading of overhead lines is provided for as a permitted activity in Row 4 of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 where 'Bundling of existing overhead telecommunication and electricity lines provided that the new line does not exceed 40mm in diameter' . In addition, the construction of an additional broadband internet overhead distribution line is a permitted activity (row 14 of the activity table).

It is considered that the effect on visual amenity of these activities will be minor and that the activities be retained as a permitted activity. The rationalisation of existing lines is considered a logical progression of utilising an existing resource which would enable the community to further provide for their social and economic wellbeing.

New overhead lines in some rural land units and adjoining formed legal roads (rows 5, 16, 17) are also permitted activities. Given the large distances that lines have to cover in a rural context, undergrounding may not be practical on economic grounds.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that submissions 2928/2 and 2929/2 be rejected.

4.10.2.20 Submission 2935/1

This submission seeks to provide objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria that recognise and provide for dedicated cycleways along the main roads between the villages and to the wharf at Matiatia and Kennedy Point. The submission supports the existing provision for cycling and walking but would like the provision of a network of interlinked separated cycleway along the main routes of the island. This would separate the motor vehicle from the cycle.

This submission is supported in part. The network utility services section of the plan provides the framework in which to provide the road network (row 8 of activity table in clause 5.5.1) on the islands. It is not the role of the district plan to provide the detail of delivering cycleways in the islands. This is done through the Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP) and annual plan process. Part 13-Connectivity and Linkages provides more detailed objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria with respect to cycleways as highlighted in clauses 13.2.6, 13.3.5, 13.4.6, 13.6.2 and 13.7.5 of the plan.

It is considered that the provisions of Part 5 and Part 13 allow for the provision of cycleways and that other documents will be used to deliver that in the islands.

One minor amendment to part 14-definitions of the plan would be to add 'cycleways' within the definition of 'road network' to make the definition more explicit.

4.10.2.21 Submission 3406/1

This submission raises the issue of reticulation. The submission considers that reticulation will change the character of the island and it must not be a permitted activity.

The activity table in clause 5.5.1 provides for a range of activities. Underground wastewater utilites is provided as a permitted activity in Row 3 of the activity table. This is to recognise the existing wastewater system which serves the Oneroa commercial area . In terms of visual and amenity effects, there is no differentiation between electricity, telecommunication and wastewater facilities. However the decision to reticulate would be a decision which would need to made by the community and with appropriate council committee funding and approval. This district plan does not represent a change to reticulation for the islands as it recognises the existing Owhanake plant.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that submissions 3406/1 be rejected.

4.10.2.22 Submission 3621/1

The submission seeks the removal of the unformed legal road notation from the planning maps because if the council wishes to form the road, it would be caught by the land unit restrictions. This is not supported.

The activity table in clause 5.5.1 differentiates between formed and unformed legal road. The rationale is to provide for the construction, operation and maintenance of the road network where the road is existing as the environment in which it is situated has been modified to an extent that further upgrading of the road will have minimal environmental effect.

The gulf islands also have many unformed legal roads and the landscape is such that new roads may have to be constructed through bush, forest areas or on land with a topography which would require substantial earthworks. It is therefore appropriate that formation of any unformed road would require consent to manage the environmental effect associated with constructing a new road. Therefore it is considered that the need to differentiate between unformed road and formed road is justified.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that submissions 3621/1 be rejected.

4.10.2.23 Submission 3701/2

This submission seeks the formulation of objectives, rules and policies that prevent roading on peninsulas and promontories around Waiheke island as these are very significant natural and landscape features that must be protected and retained in their 'natural' state.

The construction of roads can occur three ways:

Widening or upgrading an existing formed road
Constructing unformed legal road
Vesting and construction of road through subdivision

The widening or upgrading of existing formed roads occurs when the capacity of the road is in need of upgrading due to increased traffic. Roads already exist on the peninsulas and promontories of the islands and the council maintains these roads as part of its assets. It is not considered appropriate to develop objectives, policies and rules to prevent the construction, maintenance and operation of existing roads already located on peninsulas and promontories.

The construction of unformed legal roads on the islands is a complex issue. It is often determined by the need or demand for such roads and also the cost/benefit of constructing such a road. The council also has to consider the topographical constraints (especially on Great Barrier Island) and route of the road which may involve road legalisation. The council would generally not construct new roads unless there is a demonstrable need. Part 13 of the plan addresses the issue of unformed roads on the islands (clauses 13.2.4, 13.3.3, 13.4.4). Part 5 of the plan also addresses the formation of unformed road which requires discretionary activity consent and the need to consider all effects.

The vesting and construction of roads can also be associated with subdivision. All new allotments must have legal access to a road. The route of a new road is often determined by the need to provide access to new allotments which may be located on peninsulas and promontories. This is assessed as part of the subdivision consent. Part 12 has objectives and policies relating to access (clause 12.3.4) and assessment criteria (clause 12.11.6). Whilst not specifically addressing roads located on peninsulas and promontories, the objective is to ensure that access provided as part of subdivision is designed and located to avoid adverse effects on natural character, landscape values and amenity values:

12.3.4 Objective - access roads and tracks

To ensure that access provided as part of subdivision is designed and located to avoid adverse effects on natural character, landscape values and amenity values.

Policies

1. By requiring access arrangements to integrate with the natural landform wherever possible and minimise adverse ecological and visual effects.
2. By requiring the design and location of access to be defined at the time of subdivision to preserve natural character and landscape values.
3. By restricting vehicle access to buildings to address potential adverse effects of vehicle access on natural character and landscape values.

It is considered that together the objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria in these various parts of the plan can avoid adverse effects on the natural character, landscape and amenity values in relation to peninsulas and promontories.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that submissions 3701/2 be rejected as it relates to changes to Part 5.

Planner's recommendations about submissions 33/1, 33/2, 33/5, 33/6, 33/7, 33/8, 519/5, 519/6, 537/1, 306/5, 372/5, 564/5, 578/5, 581/5, 635/5, 640/5, 645/5, 654/5, 676/5, 704/5, 708/5, 728/5, 743/5, 870/5, 882/5, 907/5, 934/5, 941/26, 956/5, 1024/5, 1110/1, 1112/1, 1112/2, 1112/3, 1113/1, 1113/2, 1114/1, 1114/2, 1141/5, 1179/1, 1237/5, 1322/5, 1596/8, 1778/5, 1779/5, 1780/5, 1781/5, 1782/5, 1783/5, 1784/5, 1785/5, 1786/5, 1787/5, 1788/5, 1789/5, 1790/5, 1791/5, 1792/5, 2106/5, 2106/6, 2282/5, 2294/2, 2636/5, 2674/5, 2685/5, 2781/5, 2835/5, 2928/2, 2929/2, 2935/1, 2993/5, 3061/159, 3207/5, 3226/5, 3240/5, 3251/5, 3273/5, 3275/5, 3287/5, 3303/5, 3312/5, 3319/5, 3334/5, 3342/5, 3348/5, 3364/5, 3369/5, 3406/1, 3535/5, 3576/5, 3621/1, 3701/2, 3821/5,

That submissions 33/6, 33/7, 33/8, , 306/5, 372/5, 519/6, 564/5, 578/5, 581/5, 635/5, 640/5, 645/5, 654/5, 676/5, 704/5, 708/5, 728/5, 743/5, 870/5, 882/5, 907/5, 934/5, 941/26(b), 941/26(c), 941/26(e) relating to rural 2 and 3, 941/26(f), 941/26(g), 956/5, 1024/5, 1112/2, 1112/3, 1113/1, 1113/2, 1114/1, 1114/2, 1141/5, 1179/1, 1237/5, 1322/5, 1778/5, 1779/5, 1780/5, 1781/5, 1782/5, 1783/5, 1784/5, 1785/5, 1786/5, 1787/5, 1788/5, 1789/5, 1790/5, 1791/5, 1792/5, 2282/5, 2636/5, 2674/5, 2685/5, 2781/5, 2835/5, 2928/2, 2929/2, 2993/5, 3061/159, 3207/5, 3226/5, 3240/5, 3251/5, 3273/5, 3275/5, 3287/5, 3303/5, 3312/5, 3319/5, 3334/5, 3342/5, 3348/5, 3364/5, 3369/5, 3406/1, 3535/5, 3576/5, 3621/1, 3701/2, 3821/5, 3837/5 be rejected.

That submission 33/2 be accepted and that rows 11, 12 and 20 of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 be amended to read:

(underline indicates additions, strikethroughs indicate deletions)

Row 11- ~~Cell site~~ Radio-communication and telecommunication antennas located on existing pole structures

Row 12- ~~Cell phone~~ Radio-communication and telecommunication (and broadcasting?) masts and attached antennas in commercial 5 and landform 3, 5 and 6

Row 20- ~~Cell phone~~ Radio-communication and telecommunication (and broadcasting?) masts and attached antennas in rural 1

That submission 519/5 be accepted and that row 9 of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 be amended to read:

( underline indicates additions)

Any aboveground ~~telecommunication~~, electricity or wastewater network utility that has an area not exceeding 2m2 in plan view and does not exceed 1.8m ~~1.6m~~ in height (exincluding plinth) provided that this rule excludes masts, vents and antennas.

That submission 537/1 be accepted and that row 3 of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 be amended to read:

( underline indicates additions)

Underground telecommunication, electricity, water and wastewater network utilities

That submission 941/26(d) be accepted with no changes to the text

That submission 1110/1 be accepted with no changes to the text

That submissions 2106/5, 2106/6 be accepted and that rows 10 and 19 of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 be amended to read:

( underline indicates additions)

Up to two antennas attached to a building (excluding existing pole structures)

Three or more antennas attached to a building (excluding existing pole structures)

That submission 33/1 be accepted in part and that the following rules be provided for as a permitted activity in the activity table in clause 5.5.1:

Maximum height: 1.8m

Maximum footprint of any single cabinet or structure: 1.4m2

Maximum footprint occupied by all cabinet or structure: 1.8m2

and

Maximum height: 2m

Maximum footprint of any single cabinet or structure: 2.0m2

That submissions 33/5 and 941/26(e) relating to rural 1 be accepted in part and that row 17 of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 be amended to read:

( underline indicates additions)

That submission 1112/1 be accepted and 941/26(c) be accepted in part and that Row 9 of the activity table in clause 5.5.1 and any consequential amendments of the plan be amended to read:

Any aboveground telecommunication, electricity or wastewater network utility within formed legal road reserve that has an area not exceeding of 2m2 in plan view, and does not exceed 1.6m 2.0m in height (exe inc luding plinth) and is located adjacent to non-residential land units provided that this rule excludes masts, vents and antennas."

And

a new activity be added to the activity table in clause 5.5.1 of the plan and be provided as a permitted activity:

That submission 1596/8 be accepted in a part with no changes to the text.

That submission 2935/1 be accepted in part and that the definition of 'road network' be amended to include 'cycleways' as follows:

(underline indicates additions)

"1. Underground infrastructure located at or below the existing ground surface. This includes any of the following:

a. The construction (including earthworks), operation and maintenance of roads including associated footways, cycleways , foot bridges..."

"2. aboveground infrastructure located above the existing ground surface. This includes any of the following:

a. The construction (including earthworks), operation and maintenance of roads including associated footways, cycleways , foot bridges..."

4.11 Submissions about clause 5.6

4.11.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1156/1 requests:

The removal of clauses 5.6.2 to 5.6.4 and their replacement with community mandated policies and rules.

Submission 2295/1 requests:

That objectives, policies and rules be developed in clause 5.6 for the enhancement of public open space.

4.11.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.11.2.1 Submission 1156/1

Clauses 5.6.2-5.6.4 are part of the development controls for network utility services and relate to height, building in relation to boundary and yards.

The submission states that the sections do not promote sustainable management.

It is not clear what alternative methods the submitter would suggest to deal with the provision of network utility services. It is considered that the controls allow for a reasonable level of provision while recognising the amenity and characteristics of the land unit in which they are located.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that submissions 1156/1 be rejected.

4.11.2.2 Submission 2295/1

This submission supports the intent of public open space and that objectives, policies and rules in clause 5.6 be developed and included in the plan.

This submission is not supported. Public open space is not classified as a 'network utility service' as defined in Part 14 of the plan. Part 5-Network utility services is not the appropriate section of the plan to develop objective, policies and rules for public open space. It is considered that the objectives and policies for Recreation 1 and 2 are a more appropriate place for managing public open space. Furthermore submission 2295/3 addresses the issue of public open space.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that submission 2295/1 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions 1156/1, 2295/1

That submissions 1156/1, 2295/1 be rejected.

4.12 Submissions about clauses 5.6.2, 5.6.3 and 5.6.4

4.12.1 Decisions requested

Submission 33/9 requests:

Amend clause 5.6.2(2)(a) to allow for a zone height exceedence of 5m in rural and business land units.

Submission 33/10 requests:

Amend clause 5.6.2.(2)(b) by removing reference to the "lowest point of the roof line of the building".

Submission 33/11 requests:

Amend clause 5.6.2.(2) (height) to replace "cell site" and "cell phone" masts and antennas with the more generic description of "radio-communication and telecommunication" masts and antennas (or relief of similar effect).

Submission 941/28 requests:

Above ground telecommunication network infrastructure and aboveground electricity network infrastructure be added to the list of exempt activities in clause 5.6.2(1).

Submission 941/29 requests:

Above ground telecommunication network infrastructure and aboveground electricity network infrastructure be added to the list of exempt activities in clause 5.6.3(1).

Submission 941/30 requests:

Aboveground telecommunication network infrastructure and aboveground electricity network infrastructure be added to the list of exempt activities in clause 5.6.4(1).

Submission 1110/2 requests:

Supports clause 5.6.2 (1) (b).

Submission 1110/3 requests:

Supports clause 5.6.3 (1) (b).

Submission 1110/4 requests:

Supports clause 5.6.4 (1) (b)

Submission 1115/1 requests:

Amend clause 5.6.2(2)(a) as follows (additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough):

"A cell phone mast and attached antennas may exceed the height limit in commercial 5, landform3, 5 and 6; and rural 1 by a maximum of 3 5m."

Submission 1115/2 requests:

Amend clause 5.6.2(2)(b) as follows (additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough):

"A cell site antenna attached to an existing building may exceed either the maximum height for the land unit or settlement area or the lowest point of the roofline of the building by a maximum of 2m, whichever is the lesser may be attached to an existing building, provided it does not exceed the existing building height by more than 3m at its point of attachment."

4.12.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.12.2.1 Submission 33/9, 1115/1

Submission 33/9 seeks amendment as the proposed rules would allow a height limit for masts and antennas to be 11m (8m+3m). The submitter considers this too restrictive. The submitter accepts that this height limit would be acceptable in high amenity areas, but considers a minimum height of 15m be allowed in rural and business land units. The additional height is required to achieve technical objectives. The line of sight principle is important so that sufficient height is allowed for to avoid blocking by buildings, trees and topography.

In addition, submission 1115/1 also seeks the requirement of exceeding the land unit height limit by 5m for the above mentioned reasons.

Furthermore submission 1115/1 also seeks the addition of the rural 1 land unit in clause 5.6.2(2)(a). This is linked with submission 1114/1 which has been addressed in clause 4.10.2.15 of this report.

Considering the scale of the landscape and buildings, a mast of 11m is likely to not be dominant feature, with building height limits of typically 8m. However, to raise the permitted height limit to 15m has the potential to allow for masts that are of a scale that could be dominant features in any of the land units. Similarly, to allow the height limit to be exceeded by 5m may need to a similar result. Finally, the Rural 1 landscape is also known as 'rural amenity'. This name conveys the visual sensitivity of this landscape, and any change that makes masts permitted in this area will potentially result in adverse effects on the visual amenity values of this land unit. For these reasons, these submissions are not supported.

4.12.2.2 Submission 33/10, 1115/2

Both submissions relate to clause 5.6.2(2)(b) of the plan. The district plan controls relates to cell site antennas attached to existing buildings (excluding masts). The rule allows that where a cell antenna is to be attached to an existing building, it may exceed the maximum height for the land unit or settlement area, or the lowest point of the roof line of the building by a maximum of 2m, whichever is the lesser.

Submission 33/10 states that if the rule was in force then antennas would be limited to below 8m as most buildings on the islands would be below 8m in height. This would mean that a potential maximum height of 10m for all building mounted antennas (8m+2m). Most of the maximum land unit heights in the plan are limited to 8m. The submitter also states that the antennas should be mounted a sufficient height to meet the radio frequency emission standards in Part 28 of the consolidated bylaw.

Submission 1115/2 also states that the antennas and support structures need to be higher than the permissible height of buildings of the land unit in which they are located. This is needed to ensure an effective transmission signal (due to building obstacles, vegetation, topography) and health and safety issues associated with radio frequency standards.

The submission is supported, due to the practical need for antennas to be higher than the buildings to ensure an effective transmission signal. The dominance of antennas on buildings would be controlled by the rule (see submission 33/6 above) limiting the number of antenna that can be attached to a building.

It is recommended that submissions 33/10 and 1115/2 be accepted in part and the rule be amended to allow the antenna to exceed the highest point of the roof line by a maximum of 2m, rather than the lowest point as originally proposed. The new rule would read:

A cell site antenna attached to an existing building may exceed either the maximum height for the land unit or settlement area or the ~~lowest~~ highest point of the roof line of the building by a maximum of 2m, whichever is the lesser.

4.12.2.3 Submission 33/11

The submission seeks the more generic description of 'radio-communication and telecommunication' in lieu of 'cell site' and 'cell phone'. The submitter states that other type of radiocommunication and telecommunication antennas are used and are similar in scale and size e.g digital microwave radio links, customer multi access radio. The submitter also states that a more generic reference to radio-communication facilities is more appropriate.

This submission is supported. A generic term would cover more radio and telecommunication antennas than simply 'cell site' and 'cell phone antennas'. The visual effects would be similar for the antennas stated above. Radio frequency emissions would be controlled by Part 28 of the bylaw.

That submission 33/11 be accepted and that clause 5.6.2(2) be amended to read

(underline indicates additions, strikethroughs indicate deletions)

a. A ~~cell phone~~ radio-communication and telecommunication mast and attached antennas may exceed the height limit in commercial 5 and landforms 3, 5 and 6, by a maximum of 3m.

b. A ~~cell site~~ radio-communication and telecommunication antenna attached to an existing building may exceed either the maximum height for the land unit or settlement area or the lowest point of the roof line of the building by a maximum of 2m, whichever is the lesser.

4.12.2.4 Submission 941/28, 941/29, 941/30

The comment below also addresses submissions 941/29 and 941/30 which addresses clause 5.6.3(1) and 5.6.4(1).

These submissions seeks that aboveground telecommunication and electricity infrastructure be exempt from maximum height (clause 5.6.2(1)), building in relation to boundary (clause 5.6.3(1)) and yards (clause 5.6.4(1)). The submitter supports the intent of the development controls, particularly those which recognise the operational requirements. However, the submitter also wishes that other aboveground telecommunication and electricity infrastructure such as cabinets, transformers and substations should also be exempt from the development control of the relevant land unit or settlement area in which they are located.

These submissions are not supported. Clauses 5.6.2(1), 5.6.3(1) and 5.6.4(1) lists streetlight poles, metrolight poles, telecommunication and electricity distribution lines and poles as the infrastructure which is exempt from maximum height, building in relation to boundary and yard controls. This is in recognition of the slimline and linear nature of these types of infrastructure and the inappropriateness of height, building in relation to boundary and yards applying to these types of infrastructure.

Conversely, cabinets, transformers, substations and the like infrastructure have more 'bulk' and are more akin to a building. Therefore, the abovementioned development controls would be appropriate in controlling the location and associated effects of physical dominance, shadowing, admission of light to adjoining properties.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that submissions 941/28, 941/29, 941/30 be rejected.

4.12.2.5 Submission 1110/2, 1110/3, 1110/4

The comment below also addresses submissions 1110/3 and 1110/4 which addresses clause 5.6.3(1)(b) and 5.6.4(1)(b).

These submissions support the provisions relating to metrolight poles in clauses 5.6.2(1)(b), 5.6.3(1)(b) and 5.6.4(1)(b).

Metrolight poles are seen as a means of installing the masts associated with a cellular network in a manner that has acceptable effects on amenity values. The metrolight poles have a similar appearance to street lights and for this reason, they fit in well in the built environment. The height of the metrolight pole should be in keeping with the height of the street lights in the immediate area. The recently passed National Environmental Standards (NES) requires that the antennas do not extend more than 30% or 3 metres, which ever is the lesser, above the highest point of the existing structure prior to the addition of any equipment for telecommunications.

As streetlights and metrolight poles are often located near boundaries, they will have difficulty complying with yard and recession plane requirements, which are designed for structures that are of a greater bulk than a tall thin pole.

For these reasons, these submissions are supported.

Planner's recommendations about submissions 33/9, 33/10, 33/11, 941/28, 941/29, 941/30, 1110/2, 1110/3, 1110/4, 1115/1, 1115/2

That submission 33/11 be accepted and that clause 5.6.2(2) be amended to read

(underline indicates additions, strikethroughs indicate deletions)

c. A ~~cell phone~~ radio-communication and telecommunication mast and attached antennas may exceed the height limit in commercial 5 and landforms 3, 5 and 6, by a maximum of 3m.

d. A ~~cell site~~ radio-communication and telecommunication antenna attached to an existing building may exceed either the maximum height for the land unit or settlement area or the lowest point of the roof line of the building by a maximum of 2m, whichever is the lesser.

That submissions 33/10, 1115/2 be accepted in part and that clause 5.6.2(2)(b) of the plan be amended to read:

(underline indicates additions, strikethroughs indicate deletions)

A ~~cell site~~ radio-communication and telecommunication antenna attached to an existing building may exceed either the maximum height for the land unit or settlement area or the ~~lowest~~ highest point of the roof line of the building by a maximum of 2m, whichever is the lesser.

That submissions 1110/2, 1110/3 and 1110/4 be accepted with no changes to the text.

That submissions 33/9, 1115/1, 941/28, 941/29, 941/30 be rejected.

4.13 Submissions about clauses 5.6.6

4.13.1 Decisions requested

Submission 941/31 requests:

Clause 5.6.6 be amended to read (or words to similar effect):

"Any building associated with network utility services must comply with the ridgeline control applying in the land unit or settlement area in which it is located".

4.13.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.13.2.1 Submission 941/31

This submission does not identify any changes to clause 5.6.6. At paragraph 2.44 of the submission, the submitter states that "Vector considers that Rule 5.6.6 does not adequately recognise the operational requirements of network utility operators, and geographical constraints, which may, at times, require ridgelines to be traversed ."

It is expected that the submitter wanted some changes made to this rule but it was not included in the relief requested. No doubt the submitter will rectify this at the hearing. At this point, it is recommended that that the submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submission 941/31

That submission 941/31 be rejected.

4.14 Submissions about clauses 5.6.7

4.14.1 Decisions requested

Submission 941/32 requests:

Clause 5.6.7 be amended to read (or words to similar effect):

"Tree and vegetation removal

Any network utility service must comply with the indigenous vegetation controls and any exotic tree protection controls applying in the land unit or settlement area in which they are located , except that the actions of any person in carrying out work which is authorised by statute or regulations (including the Electricity Act 1992 and the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003) are exempt from this rule and such activities are permitted. In such circumstances, the person concerned shall notify the Council in writing no later than 7 days prior to the work commencing as to the reasons for the work. Refer to clause 10c.5.3 for rules about exotic tree and indigenous vegetation protection on legal roads.

Notes:

1. Trimming of vegetation for network utility services is also controlled by the Telecommunication Act 2001 and Electricity Regulations 2004".

4.14.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.14.2.1 Submission 941/32

This submission is not supported. The submitter considers that it is unnecessarily onerous and unreasonable to require network utility services to comply at all times with the general tree protection controls and that operational requirements should be taken into account.

The Council under the "Greening of the City Policy" seeks to protect the trees that are currently growing throughout the city and encourage the planting of more trees. Evidence of this is seen particularly in the streetscape where trees are being planted in areas when footpaths are being upgraded and in streetscape of new subdivisions.

The District Plan provides for general tree protection for indigenous trees above 3 metres in height or on Great Barrier greater than 6m in height for Kanuka. Protection is also provided for exotic trees greater than 8m in height or with a girth greater than 800mm. Prior to any work to be carried out on general protected trees a restricted discretionary activity resource consent is required.

The above controls also apply to trees in legal road. However, some exclusion is provided for the pruning of trees and vegetation located within the legal road so that the management of these assets can be adequately provided for. The controls are outlined in clause 10c.5.1-10c.5.3 of the plan.

The Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003 came into existence as a response to a number of accidents occurring from people climbing trees and coming in contact with live electricity lines.

The purpose of these regulations is to protect the security of the supply of electricity, and the safety of the public, by

prescribing distances from electrical conductors within which trees must not encroach; and
setting rules about who has responsibility for cutting or trimming trees that encroach on electrical conductors; and
assigning liability if those rules are breached; and
providing an arbitration system to resolve disputes between works owners and tree owners about the operation of these regulations.

Council has been advised that District Plan rules take legal precedence over the Electricity(Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003, and as a result resource consents will be required before any trimming is undertaken of "scheduled" or "protected"trees

Section 330 RMA provides for emergency powers to be used given specific conditions and the regulations provide for arbitration between the tree owner and the electricity distribution utility where conflict is likely to emerge. However similar emergency powers are accorded to the electricity utility company under the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003 section 14, and telecommunications utility under Section 132 Telecommunications Act 2001.

On balance it is considered that a resource consent should be required to trim general protected trees in the gulf islands and that the general tree protection rules should take precedence over the electricity and hazard regulations. This to ensure that general protected trees contribute to the natural character and landscape, ecological and amenity values of the islands and that a degree of control is maintained by the council to ensure a good environmental outcome.

As previously stated, in the event of an emergency and within strict parameters, emergency powers are afforded to utility companies under Section 330 of the RMA, Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003 section 14,and section 132 of the Telecommunications Act.

Planner's recommendations about submission 941/32

That submission 941/32 be rejected.

4.15 Submissions about clauses 5.7.2, 5.7.5, and 5.8.1(p) with respect to radio frequency emissions

4.15.1 Decisions requested

Submission 1108/1 requests:

Amend clause 5.7.2 to remove the reference to radio frequency fields from the heading and to delete the third bullet point.

Submission 1108/2 requests:

Insert a new subsection 5.7.5 as follows

" Radio frequency emissions

All network utility services shall comply with NZS 2772.1:1999".

Submission 1108/3 requests:

Amend clause 5.8.1 to replace the reference to council's bylaw in criterion P with reference to NZS2772.1:1999.

4.15.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.15.2.1 Submission 1108/1, 1108/2, 1108/3

These submissions relate to the council's reference to Part 28 of the consolidated bylaw on radio frequency fields. The submitter contends that New Zealand Standard 2772.1:1999 is the appropriate standard when referring to standards for radio frequency emissions and that the Ministry of Health and Ministry for the Environment have prepared national guidelines.

The submitter further contends that the standard in the bylaw is arbitary and not subject to scientific scrutiny or the public process under the RMA.

The standard is a conservative approach taken by the council and acknowledges that it is more restrictive than the New Zealand standard proposed by the submitter. However, the bylaw has provided no significant practical barriers to the industry within Auckland City, suggesting that there is no reason the telecommunication industry could not meet this requirement in all urban areas in New Zealand. The bylaw also allows exemptions and exemptions have been sought and been granted in the past.

The standard is based upon scientific evidence and the above mentioned New Zealand Standard and as previously stated above, the council adopted a conservative approach as part of the bylaw review in 2002 thereby allowing a greater margin of safety.

In terms of public process, the radio frequency bylaw was reviewed in 2002 which allowed participation by the public and their views to be considered. Section 684 of the Local Government Act 1974 and section 145 of the subsequent 2003 Local Government Act permits the council to establish bylaws with respect to public health and safety.

The bylaws are currently being reviewed. It is intended to 'roll over' the existing radio frequency bylaws and when the NES comes into force, the radio frequency bylaw will be withdrawn.

As a result of the National Environmental Standards (NES) for radio frequency fields it is recommended that submissions 941/28, 941/29, 941/30 be accepted.

Planner's recommendations about submissions 1108/1, 1108/2, 1108/3

That submissions 1108/1, 1108/2, 1108/3 be accepted and that clause 5.7.2 be amended to read (underline indicates additions, strikethroughs indicate deletions):

5.7.2 Signs, spill lighting and radio frequency fields

The Council's bylaws control the following:

Signs located on network utility structures
Spill lighting associated with network utility services on private property
~~Radio frequency fields emitted from commercial and amateur radios, television transmitters and microwave links and cell phone repeaters sites.~~

And that a new subsection 5.7.5 be inserted as follows:

5.7.5 Radio Frequency Fields

An activity that generates radio frequency fields shall comply with the National Environmental Standards (NES): New Zealand Standard (NZS2772.1:1999 Radio-frequency Fields Part 1: Maximum Exposure Levels 3kHz-300GHz).

That clause 5.8.1 be amended to read:

P. Radio frequency fields

The extent to which the proposal complies with the National Environmental Standard (NES): New Zealand Standard (NZS2772.1:1999 Radio-frequency fields Part 1: Maximum Exposure Levels 3kHz-300GHz) ~~council's bylaw~~ which controls radio frequency emissions.

4.16 Submissions about clauses 5.8.1

4.16.1 Decisions requested

Submission 941/33 requests:

The first restricted discretionary activity in the table at clause 5.8.1 be amended to read:

"Any aboveground telecommunication, electricity or wastewater network utility that has an area not exceeding of 2m2 6m² in plan view and does not exceed ~~1.6m~~ 1.75m in height (excluding plinth) provided that this rule excludes masts and antennas".

Submission 941/34 requests:

Matter for discretion c. (clause 5.8.1) be amended as follows (or words to similar effect):

"Whether landscaping and/or screening is practicable, and would effectively mitigate visual and amenity effects so that the effects of the work are internalised on the site and do not adversely affect adjacent properties, particularly residential and open space uses".

Submission 941/35 requests:

Matter for discretion g.(clause 5.8.1) be amended to read (or words to similar effect):

"Whether trees and other vegetation need to be removed for the construction of the utility service. In particular, tree and vegetation removal should be kept to a minimum and, where appropriate and practicable , screening and landscaping should be undertaken to mitigate the effects of such removal".

Submission 941/36 requests:

Matter for discretion j. (clause 5.8.1) be amended to read (or words to similar effect):

"Whether conditions are required to address the removal of redundant above ground utility equipment or structures in the event that it is on the same alignment or locality as the proposal. With respect to utility services in legal road, reference should be made to the Code of Practice for Working in the Road".

Submission 941/37 requests:

Matter for discretion r. (clause 5.8.1) be amended as follows (or words to similar effect):

"Whether it is necessary to locate services overhead, having regard to any technical , practical, operational or financial constraints or ground conditions that make placement underground unfeasible.

Whether the placement of overhead services would have any additional adverse effects on the visual environment, amenity values or health and safety, having regard to the level of adverse effects caused by existing network utility services in the vicinity".

Submission 1109/1 requests:

Amend clause 5.8.1 by adding "where possible" at the start of assessment criterion b.

Submission 1112/4 requests:

Amend row 1 in table 5.8.1 as follows (additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough):

"Aboveground telecommunication, electricity or wastewater network utility located within the legal road reserve that has an area exceeding 2m2 in plan view and exceeds ~~1.6~~ 1.8m in height (~~exe~~ inc luding plinth) provided that this rule excludes masts and antennas."

Submission 1113/3 requests:

Amend row 2 of table 5.8.1 as follows (additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough):

" ~~Three~~ Six or more antennas attached to a building."

Submission 1114/3 requests:

Delete row 3 in table 5.8.1.

Submission 2294/1 requests:

Add the requirement at clause 5.8.1 That when works are carried out on a road in the area of waterways or streams or culvert pipes that pass under the road, a functional and ecologically suitable fish bypass is constructed and maintained at the same time.

4.16.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.16.2.1 Submission 941/33

This submission is a consequential amendment from submission 941/26(c) as discussed in clause 4.10.2.11 of this report. For the reasons outlined in the aforementioned submission, this submission is not supported.

4.16.2.2 Submission 941/34, 941/35

These submissions oppose assessment criteria c and g. Both assessment criteria refer to the use of landscaping and/or screening. The submitter states that if trees are used for screening and landscaping, there is a risk that the roots will grow into underground cables and cause damage. This may cause health and safety issues and be inconsistent with the requirements of the Electricity Regulations 2003. The submitter also questions whether it is practicable for landscaping to be provided.

These submissions are not supported. Landscaping and screening are an effective means of mitigation for large utility equipment, and can mitigate visual and amenity effects. Trees do not necessarily have to be used for mitigation. Small shrubs and fencing can be an alternative so there would be little risk of roots growing into power cables. Furthermore, there are examples on the islands where landscaping has been utilised effectively to screen large utility structures and equipment. It is also considered that the assessment criteria would only apply to structures and activities above the determined threshold (restricted discretionary/discretionary) in the activity table in clause 5.5.1 and these structures/equipment will be assessed on its merits. The use of the words "practicable," "where appropriate and practicable" does not create certainty in what the council is trying to achieve.

In addition the islands' nature and character where there are substantial existing trees, bush and shrubs can also help "screen" utility structures/equipment.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that submissions 941/34 and 941/35 be rejected.

4.16.2.3 Submission 941/36

The submission states that there are often considerable practical issues when removing belowground structures and associated disturbance to the community. The submitter further states that underground cables are only removed if a utility operator requires space and that cables are removed at the same time as new equipment is installed. Therefore the submitter does not consider that assessment criteria j-removal of redundant services should apply to minor utility structures which are located below ground.

This submission is not supported. The assessment criteria as currently worded refers to all redundant services whether aboveground or underground and does not just specifically refer to underground cables.

The assessment criteria is based on the occupation of road reserve space, where space can be at a premium. It is acknowledged that such matters may not be so relevant on the islands where there may be more road space available to convey utility services. It has generally been agreed that whenever an area has been opened and services have been identified as obsolete then they should be removed at that time. It should also be acknowledged that some redundant services may be able to be reused by other service providers.

4.16.2.4 Submission 941/37

The submission states that assessment criteria does not recognise that network utilities can face practical, operational and financial (as well as technical) constraints.

This submission is not supported. It is acknowledged that network utilities can face the constraints as outlined in the submission. However, many other projects outside of network utility infrastructure also face these constraints. "Practical" constraints can encompass any situation and it is recognised that operational and financial constraints are not matters considered within the RMA context in terms of addressing the need to place underground cables and its effect on the visual environment, amenity values, and health and safety.

4.16.2.5 Submission 1109/1

This submission states that the plan should recognise that it is not always possible to locate antennas away from the primary building façade and located in such a way so as to visually integrate with the building. This is due to the variable design of buildings and the need to comply with radio frequency standards.

The submission is supported in part. The assessment criteria is to ensure that utility equipment do not dominate the building or site in which they are located or are placed in a manner that is subservient to other built elements on the site. With particular reference to antennas it is recognised that it is important for antennas to receive and transmit signals. However, they should be placed in a manner which does not dominate and is subservient to the building façade where they can be highly visible from the street. Therefore, if antennas are placed above the roofline they should be located away from the primary building façade thereby minimising visual effects.

4.16.2.6 Submission 1112/4

This submission is a consequential amendment from submission 1112/3 as discussed in clause 4.10.2.14 of this report. For the reasons outlined in the aforementioned submission, this submission is not supported.

4.16.2.7 Submission 1113/3

This submission is a consequential amendment from submission 1113/2 as discussed in clause 4.10.2.4 of this report. For the reasons outlined in the aforementioned submission, this submission is not supported.

4.16.2.8 Submission 1114/3

This submission is a consequential amendment from submission 1114/2 as discussed in clause 4.10.2.15 of this report. For the reasons outlined in the aforementioned submission, this submission is not supported.

4.16.2.9 Submission 2294/1

This submission is a consequential amendment from submission 2294/2 as discussed in clause 4.2.2.5 of this report. For the reasons outlined in the aforementioned submission, this submission is not supported.

Planner's recommendations about submissions 941/33, 941/34, 941/35, 941/36, 941/37, 1109/1, 1112/4, 1113/3, 1114/3, 2294/1

That submissions 1109/1 be accepted in part and that clause 5.8.1 b. Site layout and placement, be amended to read:

(underline indicates additions, strikethroughs indicate deletions)

" Where antennas are located above the roofline they ~~Antennas on buildings~~ should be located away from the primary building façade..."

That submissions 941/33, 941/34, 941/35, 941/36, 941/37, 1112/4, 1113/3, 1114/3, 2294/1 be rejected.

5.0 Conclusion

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

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

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