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

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

Topic:	Part 10c - Development Controls for land units and settlement areas & Appendix 15 - Guidelines for works within the vicinity of trees
Report to:	The Hearing Panel
Author:	Karina Philpott
Date:	2 September 2008
Group file:	314/274028

1.0 Introduction

This report relates to submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to part 10c - Development controls for land units and settlement areas and appendix 15 - Guidelines for works within the vicinity of trees of the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006 ('the Plan'). The Plan was publicly notified on 18 September 2006. The closing date for lodging submissions was 11 December 2006. The submissions and summary of decisions requested were publicly notified for further submission on 29 April 2007. The closing date for lodging further submissions was 28 May 2007.

This report has been prepared under section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 ('the RMA'), to assist the hearings panel to consider the submissions on part 10c – development controls for land units and settlement areas. This report summarises the key issues raised by the decisions requested in the submissions (grouped by subject matter or individually). It includes recommendations from the reporting planner identifying what amendments (if any) should be made to the Plan to address matters raised in submissions. Further submissions are not specifically addressed but are listed in appendix 1 to this report. Further submissions will be 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. The decision reports will identify in more detail whether each submission has been accepted or rejected (in full or in part).

2.0 Statutory framework

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

1. The objectives of the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:
1. a. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s32(3)(a)); and
2. b. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and
3. c. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1).
2. The policies, rules, or other methods in the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:
1. a. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan (s32(3)(b)); and
2. b. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and
3. c. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and
4. d. (If a rule) achieve the objectives and policies of the Plan (s76(1)(b)).

The purpose of the RMA is "to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources", and "sustainable management" is defined in section 5(2) as meaning:

"... managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:

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

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

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

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

3.0 Background

This section of the report sets out background information about the topic under consideration. It identifies how the Plan deals with development controls and guidelines for works within the dripline of trees.

Part 10c of the Plan sets out the development controls for activities for all land units and settlement areas. It also contains controls applying to vegetation on legal roads. The development controls relate to the scale, form and intensity of buildings and the resulting effects on the environment, as well as conservation and amenity issues.

The development controls apply to all activities whether or not those activities are otherwise

permitted, restricted discretionary, discretionary or non-complying. Infringements to the development controls are considered as development control modifications.

Parts 10a and 10b of the Plan contain additional development controls for some land units and settlement areas and these will be addressed in the hearing reports for those sections of the Plan.

Appendix 15 of the Plan sets out non-statutory guidelines for undertaking works within the vicinity of trees. In particular, the guidelines give a brief overview of how a tree functions, how the different parts of a tree above and below ground are interdependent, and how various activities may cause damage to trees. Suitable mitigation measures are described to assist in deciding the best ways to provide protection to trees, and in particular to their root systems.

4.0 Overview analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report summarises the key issues raised by the decisions requested in submissions about part 10c – Development controls for land units and settlement areas and appendix 15 - Guidelines for works within the vicinity of trees. In some instances it recommends how the panel could amend the Plan in response to the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions. Elsewhere it calls for further information to be provided at the hearing so that the matter can be deliberated on.

A list of the submissions which raise issues about part 10c and appendix 15 of the Plan together with the related further submissions is contained in appendix 1. Appendix 2 contains the summary of the decisions requested by the submissions considered in this report.

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

4.2 Submissions about part 10c as a whole

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3/1, 358/15, 617/5, 651/2, 677/2, 723/2, 929/2, 964/2, 1017/2, 1127/20, 1139/3, 1405/22, 1406/22, 1664/2, 1665/2, 1666/2, 1667/2, 2552/15, 2796/1, 2799/1, 2800/1, 2806/1, 2807/1, 2810/1, 2904/1, 3061/106, 3521/106, 3521/156, 3521/157, 3521/158, 3565/1, 3565/2, 3565/3, 3565/4, 3643/2, 3650/2.

4.2.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That part 10c in general is supported.
That the development controls are confusing and inconsistent and that part 10c as a whole should be revised.
That further provisions for the conservation and management of wetlands be included.
That gross site areas rather than net site areas be used.
That permitted standards for minimum roof tank sizes, efficient appliances and solar water heating be included.
That rules be introduced to ensure water conservation and energy efficiency in building design.
Introduction of community mandated controls for Lot1 DP 67008 Wilma Road, Ostend and its surrounding fresh water and saline coastal margins.
Amend part 10c to provide for future development on the Pensioner Housing Trust site within the Claris settlement area.

4.2.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

Submission 617/5 states that the development controls in part 10c are both confusing and inconsistent. It is acknowledged that some text in part 10c needs to be further clarified by way of amendment. These changes, which relate to a number of development controls, will be discussed in the sections below. Other than these clarifications, it is considered that part 10c is generally consistent. I also note that figures are used throughout part 10c to further clarify text and that many of the development controls are similar to those in the Operative Plan.

A number of submissions request the inclusion of further provisions for the conservation and management of wetlands under part 10c. It is considered that the Plan has dealt appropriately with the conservation and wise management of wetlands and that no further amendments are necessary. Clause 10c.5.7 includes a wetland protection yard, which requires consent for any buildings and earthworks located within a specified distance of a wetland. A specific land unit, landform 4 (wetland systems) has also been developed and is applied to wetlands.

Submission 1127 seeks that part 10c be amended so that gross site areas rather than net site areas are referred to. In accordance with part 14 (definitions) of the Plan, the net site area is the area of a site less any entrance strip which is 7.5. metres or less in width. Entrance strips, which are less than 7.5 metres wide, are not capable of accommodating a dwelling and/or wastewater fields (this is largely due to wastewater lines having to be 1.5 metres away from side boundaries - refer to Auckland Regional Council Technical Publication 58). Their primary function is to provide access to and from a site. As such, an entrance strip cannot be built on. If the entrance strip were included (i.e. gross site area), this would give a false impression of capacity to accommodate development.

Submissions 3521 and 3565 seek the introduction of sustainable design measures in buildings. In particular, permitted standards requiring minimum roof tank sizes and the use of efficient appliances and solar water heating. Submission 3565 also seeks that rules be introduced to ensure water conservation and energy efficiency in building design. Including rules in the Plan to require new homes to meet certain standards will generally result in increased up-front costs which will be solely carried by the homeowner. It is also noted that rating assessment tools are undeveloped or relatively new. Therefore, the council took the approach of placing sustainable design guidelines in the Plan with a non-mandatory status (Appendix 11 – Sustainable design guidelines). This provides the opportunity to place enforceable rules in the Plan in the future if there is a change to the RMA or other relevant statutes, which require sustainable design guidelines to be incorporated into district plans, or if the council changes their approach to sustainability. I note that these matters are discussed in the hearing report for Appendix 11 - Sustainable design guidelines.

Submission 1139 seeks the introduction of "community mandated" controls for the site at Lot1 DP 67008 Wilma Road, Ostend and its surrounding fresh water and saline coastal margins. The consultation undertaken by the council during the preparation of the Plan is outlined in clause 1.3.7 of the Plan. Further information is available on the council's website. The panel can be satisfied that the level of consultation meets, and at times exceeds, the requirements of the RMA and of the Local Government Act 2002. In terms of public participation, the submission and hearing process provides a further opportunity for public involvement. As the panel can be satisfied with the level of consultation, it is considered that there is no need for the introduction of new controls for this particular site or the surrounding area.

Various submissions have sought that an area of land east of Ocean View Road be included in the Claris settlement area and that further provisions be included in part 10c to provide for pensioner housing on the site. In regards to the inclusion of the site in the Claris settlement area, this matter has been dealt with in the hearings report for part 10b. However, whether or not the site is included in the settlement area or not, I do not consider that it would be necessary to provide any additional provisions in part 10c specifically for this site.

4.3 Submissions about clause 10c.2 - Objectives

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3521/86.

4.3.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That an objective providing for the protection, enhancement and restoration of wetlands be included.

4.3.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

Submission 3521 requests that an appropriate objective be included to protect, enhance and restore wetland areas and water systems where a yard is breached, and to avoid infill of wetlands and watersystems through earthworks or other activities. As noted in the above section, it is considered that the Plan has dealt appropriately with the conservation and wise management of wetlands and that no further amendments are necessary. In addition, I note that the objectives in 10c.2 include the sustainable management of effects on the natural environment, which includes wetland areas and water systems. As such, it is not considered necessary to include an objective to protect wetland areas and water systems specifically.

4.4 Submissions about clause 10c.3 - Development control modifications

Submissions dealt with in this section: 358/7, 358/11, 358/13, 617/1, 754/108, 1101/33, 1287/39, 1289/40, 1550/11, 2042/10, 2202/10, 2552/5, 2552/7, 2552/11, 2552/13, 2878/70, 3094/9, 3518/10, 3552/10.

4.4.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That clause 10c.3 (development control modifications) is supported.
Residential activities which infringe a development control should be a restricted discretionary activity, with discretion restricted to the explanation for the development control.
That assessment criteria relating to improvements to the landscape and ecology, as a result of a development, be included.
Oppose assessment criterion regarding cumulative effects.
That the matters of discretion in part 13 be included in part 10c.
That the words "infringe" and "infringement" be deleted.
That Council retain discretion to consider restricted discretionary activities with notification.

4.4.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

A number of submissions support Council's approach to development control modifications.

Submission 2552 seeks that an application to infringe one or more of the development controls be a restricted discretionary activity where the use is residential in nature. It is noted that in some instances infringement of a particular development control is a restricted discretionary activity, including colour of buildings in settlement areas, the impervious surface control, earthworks and tree protection. Infringements to the remaining development controls are considered as a discretionary activity. The nature of the proposed activity, whether it be commercial or residential, may have little or no influence on the effects arising from an infringement to these controls. For example, a residential building, which infringes the maximum height control, would have the same effect as a commercial building which infringes the control. As such, it is not considered appropriate to change the status of a development control modification based on the nature of the proposed activity.

In terms of the submission regarding assessment criteria relating to improvements in landscape and ecology, it is agreed that this is a relevant consideration and further work should be undertaken to determine the best wording and location in Part 10c of the Plan.

Submission 617/1 opposes the assessment criterion relating to the extent to which there will be adverse cumulative effects where a development infringes two or more development controls. There is no detail provided in the submission as to the basis for this opposition, as such it is recommended that the submitter provide further details at the hearing.

Submissions 754 and 2878 state that provisions relating to discretion in part 13 would be better located within the general plan modification provisions in clause 10c.3. It is considered preferable that transport related matters, including the matters of discretion, are provided for in one section rather than requiring Plan users to turn to a different section of the Plan to determine the matters of discretion.

Various submissions request that the words "infringe" and "infringement" be deleted from part 10c. due to their negative connotations. Whilst these terms may seem somewhat negative in nature, they are used to describe a situation where an activity does not comply with the development controls. The development controls have been developed in consultation with the community and, other than any amendments which may result from this process, reflect what is considered to be an acceptable form of development. I also note that these terms are widely used to describe non-compliances with rules. There is no suggestion as to what should replace these terms. Perhaps the term "modification" could be used as it would have less negative connotations.

4.5 Submissions about clause 10c.4.2 - Height restrictions within the Claris and Okiwi airfield protection fans

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1082/1, 2902/1, 1082/2.

4.5.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the Claris and Okiwi airfield protection fans are supported.
That the Claris and Okiwi airfield protection fans should not restrict the height of buildings on adjacent sites to less than that permitted in the relevant land unit/settlement area.

4.5.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

Submission 2902 requests that the Claris and Okiwi airfield protection fans not restrict the height of buildings on adjacent sites to less than that permitted in the relevant land unit/settlement area. The purpose of the control is to provide safe and unobstructed access to runways. As such, the height of buildings on sites surrounding the airfields has been restricted, in some cases to less than that otherwise permitted in the relevant land unit or settlement area. For safety reasons it is considered inappropriate to allow buildings of a greater height on these sites.

4.6 Submissions about clause 10c.4.3 - Building in relation to boundary

Submissions dealt with in this section: 518/1, 536/6, 617/2, 618/60, 619/81, 753/1, 754/94, 821/1, 821/35, 836/1, 859/94, 1101/34, 1127/22, 1127/23, 1190/1, 1285/13, 1286/61, 1287/40, 1289/41, 2670/79, 2878/61.

4.6.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

Oppose building in relation to boundary control.
That the rule be amended to ensure neighbouring sites receive adequate solar access in order to heat domestic water supplies, generate electricity and for passive solar heating.
That the rule be amended to take into account sloping sites.
That an exemption be included for an infringement to the recession plane of up to 4m² over a 6 metre length, as per the Auckland City – Isthmus Plan 1999.

4.6.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

Submission 617 opposes the building in relation to boundary control. There is no detail provided in the submission as to the basis for this opposition, as such it is recommended that the submitter provide further details at the hearing.

Submission 536 requests that the building in relation to boundary control be amended to ensure abutting sites receive adequate solar access to heat domestic water supplies, generate electricity and for passive solar heating. It is considered that the Plan has dealt appropriately with solar access to abutting sites. As noted in the Plan, the building in relation to boundary rule is imposed principally to ensure that a reasonable degree of sunlight is admitted to adjacent sites. It also maintains an ability to use sunlight as a renewable energy source through solar receptacles and provides a means for passive solar heating of buildings.

A number of submissions request that the control be amended to take into account the sloping nature of the Hauraki Gulf Islands. It is considered that the control does take into account the topographical nature of a site as it is measured from the ground level at the boundary. I also note that the building in relation control, or variations of, are used widely throughout New Zealand to provide access to sunlight at boundaries.

A number of submissions request that allowance be made for "4m² of area of encroachment over a 6m length as per the Auckland City Council Isthmus Plan" . The District Plan – Isthmus Section includes a number of exemptions from the building in relation to boundary control. However, none of these exemptions allow an encroachment as described by the submitters. As such it is recommended that the submitters provide further details at the hearing.

4.7 Submissions about clause 10c.4.5 - Building coverage

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1250/74.

4.7.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the building coverage control is supported.

4.7.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

Submission 1250/74 supports the building coverage controls.

4.8 Submissions about clause 10c.4.6 - Building footprint

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/59, 619/80, 754/93, 859/93, 1285/12, 1286/60, 2093/1, 2670/78, 2878/60, 3711/2.

4.8.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the building footprint control be deleted.
That the building footprint control be further clarified by adding a cross reference in the text stating "Note: The max building footprints are set out in the same row as building coverage in the tables".
That some sites may be unfairly disadvantaged due to combined building footprint and maximum height controls.

4.8.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

Various submissions request that the building footprint control be deleted. The control has been imposed in some land units and settlement areas to limit the maximum size of any building. The control applies in addition to the building coverage control. The principal reason for this control is keep individual buildings to a suitable scale. It prevents the permitted building coverage from being massed in one location and resulting in one or more large buildings, which do not integrate readily into the landscape. This control has been applied in areas which are predominantly open in nature and where a concentration of bulk in one location could be out of keeping. In particular, the control is applied to Landform 5 (Productive land), Recreation 3 (Rangihoua Park), Rural 1 (Rural amenity), Rural 2 (Western landscape), Rural 3 (Rakino amenity) and the residential amenity, headland protection and reserve, dune, coastal margin and wetland conservation areas within Settlement Areas. The control is considered to be an important tool in maintaining the landscape qualities in these areas and as such should not be deleted. Requests to vary the control in individual land units and settlement areas are discussed in section 4.21 of this report.

Submission 2093 requests that the building footprint control be amended to further clarify the location of the maximum building footprints within the development control tables. As there is some uncertainty to the location of these provisions, it is considered that an amendment is appropriate such that the maximum building footprint control is specifically identified in the left-hand column of the development control tables.

Submission 3711 raises some concerns regarding the combination of the building footprint and maximum height controls. In particular, the submitter is concerned that if a site is subject to both a building footprint control and a maximum height control, then development potential would be limited. As noted above, the building footprint control is only applicable in a limited number of land units (with the maximum building footprint being 250m²) and areas within settlement areas (with the maximum building footprint being 200m²). In each of the applicable areas the maximum height control allows for a maximum height of 8 metres. I consider this provides for adequate development potential.

4.9 Submissions about clause 10c.4.7 - Ridgeline control

Submissions dealt with in this section: 323/3, 516/10, 518/5, 617/3, 618/65, 618/69, 618/70, 618/71, 619/89, 619/90, 753/9, 754/18, 754/101, 754/102, 821/7, 821/8, 836/3, 859/18, 859/101, 859/102, 903/6, 1013/3, 1031/1, 1101/2, 1101/3, 1101/4, 1125/3, 1125/4, 1125/7, 1127/4, 1127/5, 1127/6, 1127/7, 1127/8, 1190/9, 1243/75, 1250/76, 1282/3, 1282/4, 1282/5, 1282/8, 1285/5, 1285/6, 1285/7, 1286/3, 1286/4, 1286/5, 1287/43, 1288/141, 1288/143, 1288/144, 1289/1, 1289/4, 1289/5, 1348/3, 1362/3, 1374/3, 1383/3, 1415/3, 1435/3, 1448/3, 1452/3, 1460/3, 1475/3, 1529/1, 1544/1, 1546/1, 1570/3, 1587/4, 1897/3, 1910/3, 1918/3, 1928/3, 1942/3, 1946/3, 1974/3, 2107/1, 2197/3, 2210/3, 2226/3, 2245/3, 2262/3, 2306/3, 2317/3, 2392/3, 2425/3, 2441/3, 2444/3, 2458/3, 2478/3, 2670/86, 2670/87, 2670/88, 2670/89, 2745/3, 2814/2, 2814/3, 2814/4, 2814/5, 2814/6, 2817/2, 2817/3, 2817/4, 2817/5, 2817/6, 2878/3, 2878/4, 2878/5, 2878/6, 2921/3, 2921/4, 2921/5, 2999/7, 3076/2, 3126/1, 3171/1, 3521/122, 3528/1, 3610/3, 3653/1, 3681/3, 3695/2, 3695/4, 3727/1, 3727/2, 3751/3, 3777/3, 3802/3, 3805/4, 3831/1.

4.9.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the ridgeline control be deleted.
That controls be placed on the colour of buildings located within a significant ridgeline area in Rural 1 and Rural 2.
That no buildings should be permitted within significant ridgeline areas.
That where a building is located within a significant ridgeline area, it is required to be sited as far from the ridgeline as is practicable.
That the matter of ridgeline dominance be addressed through assessment criteria, rather than as a development control.
That screening vegetation should not have to be located on the same site as the proposed building.
That screening vegetation should not be taken into account as this could be removed as of right.
That screening vegetation should be bonded for one planting season.
Significant ridgeline areas need to be reviewed to ensure accuracy.
Significant ridgeline areas should be restricted to areas where buildings would be silhouetted against the skyline.
Reduce significant ridgeline areas to within 25 metres of a ridgeline.
That the word "ridgeline" be replaced with the word "skyline".
Amend 10c.4.7 so that the ridgeline control reads as follows (insertions shown underlined);

"Any building within a significant ridgeline area identified on the planning maps must be constructed and located so that:

1. The building is below the significant ridgeline at that point (measured horizontally from that point on the building to the closest point on the significant ridgeline) ; or;

2. The building is below the top of protected vegetation and/or earthworks that either screens or mitigates the building or forms a backdrop against the ridgeline at that point".

That an exemption for wind generators be provided.
Farm buildings within a significant ridgeline area should be a permitted activity.
An infringement to the significant ridgeline control should be a controlled activity.
An infringement to the significant ridgeline control should be a restricted discretionary activity.

4.9.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

The purpose of the ridgeline rule is to control the height of buildings on or near ridgelines to manage any adverse visual impacts. Buildings that protrude above ridgelines can compromise the visual landscape qualities of the ridge and appear visually obtrusive giving rise to adverse visual effects.

The proposed ridgeline control states that;

"Any building within a significant ridgeline area identified on the planning maps must be constructed and located so that;

1. The building is below the significant ridgeline at that point; or

2. The building is below the top of protected vegetation (located on the same site as the building) that either screens the building or forms a backdrop against the ridgeline at that point."

The rule also specifies what constitutes 'protected vegetation'.

Having regard to the above, I consider that the purpose for the control is justified in that it provides an important mechanism for controlling the location of buildings on or near ridgelines, which, if left uncontrolled, could result in significant adverse visual effects. However, it is noted that a large number of submissions have been made in regards to the significant ridgeline control. The requests in these submissions vary considerably, with many requesting the control be deleted altogether or that at least the application of the control to various ridgelines be reviewed. There are a number of options that could be taken to address these submissions.

Clause 10c.4.7 refers to the control applying to "significant ridgeline areas" , however having reviewed the relevant planning maps, it appears that the control has been applied to most ridgelines, rather than just those considered to be "significant". All ridgelines subject to the control could be reviewed with only those considered to be truly "significant" being retained.

The wording of the control itself could be reviewed. Such considerations may be whether the provisions for "protected vegetation" should be included, whether there should be exemptions for particular activities e.g. wind generators, whether the control should refer to ridgelines not "significant ridgelines" , and whether the discretionary activity status is appropriate.

Another option is to retain the control as it is proposed in the Plan.

It is considered that buildings and activities can have adverse effects in the landscape and that it is necessary to deal with the issue in the District Plan. It is also acknowledged that the current provisions may not be the best way to achieve the outcomes sought. Council will continue to undertake further work on this matter for the decision version of the Plan and beyond.

4.10 Submissions about clause 10c.4.8 - Colour of building materials in settlement areas

Submissions dealt with in this section: 15/1, 518/6, 753/10, 753/11, 821/10, 821/9, 836/4, 836/5, 1101/105, 1101/107, 1101/108, 1190/10, 1190/11, 1199/4, 1199/5, 1199/6, 1289/114, 1289/116, 1289/117, 2093/2, 2920/1, 2920/2, 2920/3, 2920/4, 2920/5, 3077/1, 3077/7, 3136/1, 3583/6, 3583/7.

4.10.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the colour control is supported.
That the colour control be deleted.
That additional colours be included.
That the colour control be applied to all land units and settlement areas.
That the colour of building trims be subject to the colour control.
That stained timbers be subject to the colour control.
That stained timbers not being subject to the colour control is supported.
That the approved colour be applied within two months of the completion of the building.

4.10.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

Several submissions request that the colour controls be deleted. For clarity, it should be noted that the colour controls, as proposed in the plan, only apply to settlement areas (being the nine settlement areas on Great Barrier) and are not applicable to land units. The purpose of the control is to avoid dominance of individual or collective buildings on the surrounding landscape. Colour can have a significant impact on the integration or otherwise of a building in the landscape and the aim is to maintain the dominance of the natural environment over the built environment. The control allows for as much colour choice as possible whilst ensuring the range is appropriate in the landscape. As such, I consider the control to be appropriate.

A number of submissions request that additional colours be permitted. The proposed colour range has been developed to ensure, as noted above, as much colour choice as possible whilst ensuring the range is appropriate in the landscape. The colour choices were tested on-site and refined. The appropriate colours are those which have low reflectivity values and high greyness content, as these are the attributes of colour which have the greatest impact on the visibility of buildings in the landscape. There are no restrictions on the hue of colour e.g. purple or red, but rather the greyness content and reflectivity factor. Further information on the colour selection process can be found in the document titled "City of Auckland District Plan, Hauraki Gulf Islands Section Review, Colour for Buildings", dated September 2006. I also note that, as a restricted discretionary activity there is the opportunity to use other colours outside of these ranges, where they meet certain criteria. Considering the above, I consider that the range of colours proposed in the plan is appropriate.

Several submissions request that the colour controls be applied to all land units and settlement areas. I consider that the proposed application of the control to the settlement areas on Great Barrier to be appropriate. The control has been applied to the settlement areas as it is these areas where development is more focussed on occurring. In addition, these areas are currently subject to limited development. As such, a colour control would have greater impact in these areas as opposed to areas subject to existing development. I also note that the exterior colour of buildings is of relevance in some land units but rather than being controlled by a permitted standard, it is assessed in particular land units as part of a restricted discretionary application for the construction (or relocation) of building, including alterations and additions.

Some submissions request that building trims, such as windows, window frames, bargeboards, stormwater guttering, down-pipes or doors, be subject to the control. These elements are currently exempt from the colour control and I consider this to be appropriate. This provides some flexibility and recognises that building trims are incidental and do not cover large areas of the building.

A number of submissions request that stained timbers be subject to the colour control. The use of natural or stained timber as exterior building materials are currently exempt from the colour control. I consider that this amendment would be appropriate. Stained timbers can be presented in bright colours, which when used as an exterior cladding material, could result in a building's dominance over the landscape. As such, the control could be amended so that stained timbers, used as exterior building materials, be subject to the colour control.

Submission 3077 requests that a provision be included in the control requiring the approved colour be applied within two months of the completion of the building. In particular, the submitter requests that buildings not be left in an unpainted or undercoated state for an extended period. Whilst I consider this to be a valid point, the occurrence of such a situation is likely to be rare.

4.11 Submissions about clause 10c.4.9 - Impervious surface control

Submissions dealt with in this section: 518/8, 667/1, 821/11, 821/13, 1101/37, 1287/44, 1289/44, 2227/4, 2723/3, 2723/4, 2723/5, 3521/123, 3521/124.

4.11.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the impervious surface control is supported.
That the impervious surface control be deleted.
That the control be calculated on the slope of the entire site rather than the slope of the impervious surface only.
That the control be re-written as it should be based on site-by-site analysis.
That guidance be provided in regards to the treatment of existing impervious surfaces on a site.
That an engineers report be provided for an infringement to the control.
To include as a matter of discretion, the extent to which a site can store and reuse treated wastewater in preference to potable water supply.

4.11.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

Several submissions request that the impervious surface control be deleted. I consider this request to be inappropriate. Stormwater is not reticulated in the islands and with the exception of parts of Oneroa village and the Matiatia land unit, wastewater must be disposed of on site. Sufficient permeable surfaces must be available for every site to dispose of both the stormwater generated from impervious surfaces on the site, as well as the wastewater. The degree of vegetation cover and the slope of the land as well as soil type moderate absorption of stormwater. Soils on some of the islands such as Waiheke are typically derived from Waitemata sandstones and clay and in the absence of natural vegetation are easily waterlogged. Therefore it is necessary to control the amount of impervious surfaces on small sites to minimise the adverse effects stormwater may have when concentrated by impervious surfaces, including flooding, siltation, erosion and pollution of adjacent properties and streams. It is recognised that the impervious surface control was not included in the Operative Plan and is a new concept for the islands. The inclusion of impervious surfaces more accurately represents the runoff potential and therefore the on-site absorption that may be required.

A number of submissions request that the control be calculated on the slope of the entire site rather than the slope of the impervious surface only. However, I note that the control is calculated on the slope of the land beneath and around the impervious surfaces. The slope, for the purpose of the control, is measured beneath a horizontal straight line from the highest point at ground level at which an impervious surface occurs on the site, to the lowest point on the site on which impervious surfaces occur, as illustrated in figure 10c.4 Determination of slope for impervious surface rule in the Plan. I consider this approach to be appropriate as it is the slope of the impervious surface and the land immediately surrounding it, which is the critical factor in determining the flow of run-off, rather the slope of the entire site.

Submission 667 requests that the impervious control be amended as it should be based on a multifaceted site-by-site analysis. It is recognised that there are a number of factors which determine the flow of run-off and absorption capabilities on a site, these include vegetation cover, soil type and slope. The challenge therefore, is to create a control that can be applied on a broad scale whilst taking into account site specific factors. The approach, which has been taken in the proposed plan, is to control the slope and amount of impervious surfaces on a site and to consider other factors, such as soil type, stormwater treatment, potential for erosion, siltation and flooding as assessment criteria. I consider this approach to be the most effective means of achieving the purpose of the impervious surfaces control.

Submission 2723 seeks that guidance be provided in regards to the treatment of existing impervious surfaces on a site. In particular, whether existing impervious surfaces are to be taken into account when additions and alterations or the construction of a new building are undertaken on a site. The control refers to the "Total amount of impervious surfaces on a site" and hence both existing and proposed surfaces are to be taken into account.

Submission 821 requests that an engineers report be provided for an infringement to the control. As infringements to the impervious control will vary greatly, I consider that Council should retain discretion to request an engineers report if it is deemed necessary. It is acknowledged that requiring an engineer's report for all infringements would add greater cost for applicants where it may not be necessary. However, such a report will also be useful in determining the extent of the adverse effects of impervious surfaces on the environment.

Submission 3521 seeks to include as a matter of discretion, the extent to which a site can store and reuse treated wastewater in preference to potable water supply. There is a risk to human health and the environment from the reuse of treated effluent from onsite systems (individual households). In addition, approval for such systems must be gained from the Auckland Regional Public Health Services and the Auckland Regional Council. Due to the above, it is not considered appropriate to include the use of these systems as a matter of discretion.

4.12 Submissions about clauses 10c.5.1- 5.3 Indigenous vegetation protection & Exotic tree protection

Submissions dealt with in this section: 23/1, 24/1, 25/1, 26/1, 42/1, 63/1, 72/1, 117/1, 129/1, 130/1, 132/1, 172/1, 237/1, 241/1, 242/1, 243/1, 244/1, 255/1, 270/1, 271/1, 272/1, 274/1, 275/1, 334/1, 337/12, 338/12, 352/1, 364/1, 464/1, 465/1, 518/9, 518/10, 518/11, 526/7, 527/7, 528/7, 529/7, 539/7, 548/1, 548/2, 560/10, 562/1, 562/2, 562/3, 562/4, 618/61, 619/82, 657/1, 657/2, 657/3, 657/4, 745/1, 745/2, 745/3, 745/4, 753/14, 753/15, 753/16, 754/95, 821/15, 821/14, 821/17, 859/95, 863/1, 863/2, 863/3, 863/4, 866/1, 866/2, 866/3, 866/4, 914/1, 914/2, 916/1, 930/1, 930/2, 930/3, 930/4, 941/45, 942/3, 942/4, 943/4, 1025/1, 1025/2, 1025/3, 1025/4, 1091/4, 1100/6, 1128/1, 1164/1, 1164/2, 1164/3, 1164/4, 1170/3, 1174/1, 1174/2, 1183/1, 1184/1, 1184/2, 1190/14, 1190/15, 1190/16, 1196/1, 1199/7, 1199/8, 1199/9, 1225/1, 1226/1, 1243/76, 1243/77, 1243/78, 1259/4, 1277/1, 1277/2, 1280/1, 1285/14, 1286/62, 1405/14, 1405/15, 1405/16, 1405/17, 1406/14, 1406/15, 1406/16, 1406/17, 1409/1, 1409/2, 1409/3, 1467/1, 1530/1, 1777/4, 1981/1, 2298/1, 2526/1, 2527/1, 2530/1, 2647/1, 2647/2, 2650/1, 2650/2, 2670/80, 2725/1, 2725/2, 2725/4, 2725/5, 2729/3, 2730/3, 2759/1, 2759/2, 2759/3, 2759/4, 2828/1, 2867/2, 2869/1, 2869/2, 2878/62, 3050/1, 3092/1, 3092/2, 3104/4, 3115/1, 3127/1, 3132/1, 3133/1, 3137/1, 3138/1, 3179/1, 3263/1, 3422/4, 3422/6, 3422/7, 3425/1, 3426/1, 3427/1, 3428/1, 3429/1, 3430/1, 3431/1, 3432/1, 3433/1, 3434/1, 3435/1, 3436/1, 3437/1, 3438/1, 3439/1, 3440/1, 3441/1, 3442/1, 3443/1, 3444/1, 3445/1, 3446/1, 3447/1, 3448/1, 3449/1, 3450/1, 3451/1, 3452/1, 3453/1, 3454/1, 3455/1, 3456/1, 3457/1, 3458/1, 3459/1, 3460/1, 3461/1, 3462/1, 3463/1, 3464/1, 3465/1, 3466/1, 3467/1, 3468/1, 3469/1, 3470/1, 3471/1, 3472/1, 3473/1, 3474/1, 3475/1, 3476/1, 3477/1, 3478/1, 3480/1, 3481/1, 3482/1, 3483/1, 3484/1, 3485/1, 3486/1, 3487/1, 3488/1, 3489/1, 3490/1, 3491/1, 3492/1, 3493/1, 3494/1, 3495/1, 3496/1, 3497/1, 3498/1, 3499/1, 3500/1, 3501/1, 3502/1, 3503/1, 3504/1, 3505/1, 3506/1, 3507/1, 3507/2, 3511/1, 3521/125, 3521/126, 3523/1, 3523/2, 3523/3, 3581/1, 3596/1, 3596/2, 3613/1, 3613/2, 3616/1, 3616/2, 3616/3, 3616/4, 3620/1, 3620/2, 3620/3, 3649/1, 3649/2, 3649/3, 3649/4, 3721/1, 3721/2, 3728/1, 3728/2, 3728/3, 3728/4, 3728/5, 3728/6, 3728/7, 3728/8, 3728/9, 3728/10, 3829/1, 3851/1, 3852/1, 3857/1.

4.12.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the felling of Manuka and Kanuka for domestic firewood and commercial firewood be a permitted activity.
That Manuka and Kanuka should not be protected.
That, on Great Barrier only, Manuka of less than 6 metres in height shall not be protected.
Increase the height of protected Kanuka on Great Barrier from 6 metres to 12 metres.
The clearance of vegetation for fire safety purposes, particularly around dwellings, should be a permitted activity.
The removal of trees or part of a tree, which are hazardous to persons or property, should be a permitted activity.
That the removal of vegetation for the formation of farm tracks and drains be a permitted activity.
That the removal of indigenous species used as shelter belts be a permitted activity.
That the removal of trees or part of a tree for the purposes of providing solar access be a permitted activity.
Clearing of regenerating scrub on previously productive pasture should be a permitted activity.
That the felling of Cupressus Macrocarpa be a permitted activity.
That the felling of Eucalyptus be a permitted activity.
Harvesting of plantation Totara for cultural purposes should be a permitted activity.
Exotic trees should not be protected or only in residential land units.
That there should be no area control for the removal of indigenous vegetation less than 3 metres in height.
That there be no controls on vegetation on Great Barrier.
Increase the height of protected indigenous vegetation on Great Barrier from 3 metres to 10 metres.
That additional controls be included for the protection of vegetation in riparian areas of the Okiwi Settlement Area.
Matters to which discretion is restricted should include solar access, fire safety, views and sufficient space for rural activities.
That controls be placed on vegetation which may result in adverse affects on neighbouring sites.
That "pruning saw" be permitted as a tool for undertaking "maintenance or trimming".
In regards to vegetation protection on legal roads, include an assessment criteria regarding the need to locate a network utility in the road reserve.

4.12.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

A significant number of submissions have been submitted in regards to the vegetation controls in part 10c and this is a strong indication of the significance of this issue. The requests in these submissions vary considerably, however the primary issues appear to be the protection of Kanuka and Manuka, domestic firewood requirements, fire safety and the control of indigenous vegetation clearance.

In regards to Kanuka and Manuka, it is apparent that there is a difference in opinion between the Council and residents of the Gulf Islands, Great Barrier in particular, as to the ecological and environmental significance of these species. Council considers that Manuka and Kanuka form a range of vegetation and habitat types, some of which are rare, and many of which contain threatened species while others see it as scrub that invades cleared land. As proposed, Kanuka of less than 6 metres in height is not protected on Great Barrier, however there is currently no such exemption for Manuka. In conjunction with changes to the controls for domestic firewood harvesting, clearing around houses; fence lines etc, and activities within Landforms 3, 5 and 6, it is expected that some changes will need to be made to the controls around Kanuka and Manuka.

It is recognised that the Plan does not currently make specific allowance for domestic firewood harvesting and it is considered that this activity could be more appropriately provided for. It is considered that both Waiheke and Great Barrier have needs for domestic firewood harvesting, although the residents on Great Barrier are more reliant on firewood as a source of home heating, water heating and cooking. As such, it is recommended that provisions be included in the plan allowing for the felling of vegetation for domestic fuel. The most appropriate location for these provisions is in the land units section of the Plan, and as such these provisions are discussed in detail in the hearings report for Land units – General, including a definition of the activity to outline what is intended by domestic firewood harvesting.

A large number of submissions have requested that provision be made in the plan for the clearance of vegetation for fire safety purposes. In particular, that on Great Barrier, property owners be permitted to clear vegetation around buildings to provide fire breaks. It is important that such clearance be allowed to be undertaken. I acknowledge that the vegetation controls, as currently proposed, do not make specific allowance for this. It may be appropriate for an exemption to be included in part 10c to address this. The exemption could specify the extent of vegetation permitted to be cleared, e.g. the clearance of a ten metre wide strip around all buildings and the maintenance of this strip thereafter. Details of such a control are yet to be finalised.

A further key issue which has been raised in a number of submissions is the area controls placed on the clearance of indigenous vegetation less than 3 metres in height. It is agreed that the area control needs to be reconsidered in light of all the other issues with vegetation. If an area control is deemed to be appropriate, the rule needs to be clarified so that area clearance relates to a specified period of time e.g. every calendar year.

In light of the above issues and the large number of submissions received in regards to the vegetation controls in part 10c, it is recommended that the rules be reviewed for the decision version.

4.13 Submissions about clause 10c.5.4 – Noise

Submissions dealt with in this section: 166/1, 166/2, 166/3, 166/4, 305/1, 305/2, 305/3, 305/4, 362/1, 362/2, 362/3, 362/4, 373/1, 373/2, 373/3, 373/4, 385/1, 385/2, 385/3, 385/4, 504/2, 504/3, 537/11, 549/1, 549/2, 549/3, 549/4, 572/1, 572/2, 572/3, 572/4, 611/1, 611/2, 611/3, 611/4, 617/4, 626/1, 626/3, 626/4, [1] 653/1, 653/2, 653/3, 653/4, 675/1, 675/2, 675/3, 675/4, 681/4, 687/1, 687/2, 687/3, 687/4, 688/1, 688/2, 688/3, 688/4, 688/5, 698/1, 698/2, 698/3, 698/4, 698/5, 714/1, 714/2, 714/3, 714/4, 734/1, 734/2, 734/3, 734/4, 750/1, 750/2, 750/3, 750/4, 751/1, 751/2, 751/3, 753/17, 810/1, 821/16, 830/1, 836/8, 872/1, 872/2, 872/3, 872/4, 890/1, 890/2, 890/3, 890/4, 912/1, 912/2, 912/3, 912/4, 913/1, 913/4, 918/1, 918/2, 918/3, 918/4, 937/1, 937/2, 937/3, 937/4, 940/1, 940/2, 940/3, 940/4, 958/1, 958/2, 958/3, 958/4, 1022/2, 1026/1, 1026/2, 1026/3, 1026/4, 1039/1, 1039/2, 1054/1, 1054/2, 1054/3, 1054/4, 1055/8, 1055/9, 1055/10, 1055/11, 1104/1, 1104/2, 1104/3, 1104/4, 1105/1, 1105/2, 1105/3, 1105/4, 1143/3, 1143/4, 1143/5, 1143/6, 1219/1, 1224/1, 1224/2, 1224/3, 1224/4, 1239/1, 1239/2, 1239/3, 1239/4, 1243/79, 1250/75, 1275/1, 1837/1, 1837/2, 1837/3, 1837/4, 1838/1, 1838/2, 1838/3, 1838/4, 1839/1, 1839/2, 1839/3, 1839/4, 1840/1, 1840/2, 1840/3, 1840/4, 1841/1, 1841/2, 1841/3, 1841/4, 1842/1, 1842/2, 1842/3, 1842/4, 1842/5, 1843/1, 1843/2, 1843/3, 1843/4, 1844/1, 1844/2, 1844/3, 1844/4, 1845/1, 1845/2, 1845/3, 1845/4, 1846/1, 1846/2, 1846/3, 1846/4, 1847/1, 1847/2, 1847/3, 1847/4, 1848/1, 1848/2, 1848/3, 1848/4, 1849/1, 1849/2, 1849/3, 1849/4, 1850/1, 1850/2, 1850/3, 1850/4, 1851/1, 1851/2, 1851/3, 1851/4, 1852/1, 1852/2, 1852/3, 1852/4, 1853/1, 1853/2, 1853/3, 1853/4, 1854/1, 1854/2, 1854/3, 1854/4, 2117/1, 2117/2, 2117/3, 2117/4, 2284/1, 2284/2, 2284/3, 2284/4, 2562/1, 2562/2, 2562/3, 2562/4, 2578/1, 2578/2, 2578/3, 2578/4, 2583/1, 2583/2, 2583/3, 2583/4, 2594/1, 2594/2, 2594/3, 2594/4, 2631/6, 2668/1, 2668/2, 2668/3, 2668/4, 2669/1, 2669/2, 2669/3, 2669/4, 2676/1, 2676/2, 2676/3, 2676/4, 2836/1, 2836/2, 2836/3, 2836/4, 2996/1, 2996/2, 2996/3, 2996/4, 2996/5, 3061/30, 3061/31, 3061/32, 3061/33, 3061/34, 3206/1, 3206/2, 3206/3, 3206/4, 3227/1, 3227/2, 3227/3, 3227/4, 3241/1, 3241/2, 3241/3, 3241/4, 3257/1, 3257/2, 3257/3, 3257/4, 3281/1, 3281/2, 3281/3, 3281/4, 3286/1, 3286/2, 3286/3, 3286/4, 3300/1, 3300/5, 3307/1, 3307/2, 3307/3, 3307/4, 3311/1, 3311/2, 3311/3, 3311/4, 3322/1, 3322/2, 3322/3, 3322/4, 3327/1, 3327/2, 3327/3, 3327/4, 3333/1, 3333/2, 3333/3, 3333/4, 3343/1, 3343/2, 3343/3, 3343/4, 3349/1, 3349/2, 3349/3, 3349/4, 3360/1, 3360/2, 3360/3, 3360/4, 3370/1, 3370/2, 3370/3, 3370/4, 3384/1, 3384/2, 3384/3, 3384/4, 3393/1, 3393/2, 3393/3, 3393/4, 3399/1, 3399/6, 3399/7, 3399/8, 3560/1, 3560/2, 3560/3, 3560/4, 3698/1, 3698/2, 3706/3, 3706/4, 3712/4, 3712/5, 3810/2, 3855/1, 3855/2, 3855/3, 3824/1, 3824/2, 3824/3, 3824/4, 3855/3.

4.13.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the noise control is supported.
That the general increase in noise levels from the operative plan is opposed.
That an exemption be included for noise generated from emergency services sirens.
That permitted night time noise levels in commercial land units be consistent with those on abutting residential land units.
That an exemption be included for agricultural and horticultural machinery.
That a control be included for vehicular noise.
That noise levels be better enforced and monitored.

4.13.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

A number of submissions support the proposed noise levels.

Various submissions oppose the general increase in noise levels from the operative Plan. The plan provisions seek to avoid unreasonable or excessive noise from land use activities on the Hauraki Gulf Islands. The proposed general noise provisions will control the amount of noise that can be produced by an activity in a land unit or settlement area when that noise affects a residential use in the same or an adjacent land unit or settlement. These levels will depend on the characteristics of the land unit or settlement area. Many of the proposed noise rules are similar to those in the operative Plan. However, the general noise provisions that apply to all land units and settlement areas have, in many cases, been increased somewhat to reflect the growth in population and activities in the gulf islands. This approach has been taken to successfully achieve a balance between managing noise arising from activities so that adverse effects are avoided and mitigated and enabling the sustainable growth of the economy. Council recognises that the noise levels imposed, including those at night time, whilst taking into account the low background noise levels found in many parts of the islands must enable reasonable residential and commercial activities to occur, especially in areas of higher population. Having regarding to the above, I consider that the increase in general noise provisions that apply to all land units and settlement areas to be acceptable. Requests to vary the control in individual land units and settlement areas are discussed in section 4.23 of this report.

Submission 537 requests that an exemption be included for noise generated from emergency services sirens. It considered that such an exemption is not necessary as the noise is intermittent at best and is recognised throughout New Zealand as relating to a genuine emergency.

Various submissions request that the permitted night time noise levels in commercial land units be consistent with those on abutting residential land units. The rule outlines the permitted day and night time noise levels for each land unit/settlement area in the various development control tables and states that: " Note: these noise levels apply on adjacent sites where residential activities occur" . The purpose of this provision is to ensure that, where a residential activity abuts a commercial activity, the noise level at the boundary must comply with the lower residential noise limits. I consider that the Plan does address the submitters requests, however this provision is somewhat ambiguous and therefore it may be appropriate to clarify this further in the Plan.

Submission 1243 requests that an exemption from the noise control be included for agricultural and horticultural machinery. I consider that it is the effects of an activity which are important, not the purpose for them, therefore it is not appropriate or equitable that an exemption be provided for a particular activity type.

A number of submissions request that a control be included for vehicular noise. I note that vehicular noise is controlled under legislation administered by Land Transport Safety Authority, including the Traffic Regulations 1976, and as such is not within scope of the District Plan review.

Various submissions request that noise levels be better enforced and monitored. As set out in section 35 of the RMA, the council is required to gather such information, and undertake or commission such research as is necessary to carry out effectively its functions under the RMA. This includes monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of policies, rules or other methods in its plan. In addition, Council employs compliance staff to monitor resource consents, enforce conditions, and respond to complaints. The concerns expressed by a number of submitters in previous hearings relating to noise enforcement are understood, as are the practical difficulties experienced by staff in responding to noise complaints and the nature of noise in the environment.

4.14 Submissions about clause 10c.5.5 – Noise management at Claris and Okiwi airfields

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1066/5, 1397/1, 1398/1, 1398/2, 2901/1, 2901/2, 2901/3, 1066/4, 1066/2.

4.14.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the noise management at Claris and Okiwi airfields control is supported.
That activities permitted within the airfields should not be subject to this noise control.
That the noise contours be revised to ensure accuracy.
That the specified activities be permitted activity where an acoustic report is submitted with any application for a building consent. Where an acoustic report is not submitted, the specified activities be a controlled activity.
That the number of daily airport movements shown on the figures supporting the control are too low and should be reviewed.

4.14.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

A number of submissions support the noise management at Claris and Okiwi airfields control.

Submission 2901 requests that the specified activities be permitted activity where an acoustic report is submitted with any application for a building consent. Where an acoustic report is not submitted, the specified activities be a controlled activity. The purpose of this control is to manage the location of sensitive activities in areas of high cumulative noise around Claris and Okiwi airfields. As such, where noise sensitive activities are proposed to be located near the airfields, it is considered appropriate that consent is required to assess how the building can be designed and modified so that adverse effects from aircraft noise can be remedied or mitigated. In regards to changing the status of an infringement to the control from discretionary to controlled, as has been the approach taken throughout the Plan, a controlled activity status does not provide an appropriate level of control, particularly in this case involving such noise sensitive activities.

Submission 1398 requests that airfield activities not be subject to this noise control. Both the Claris and Okiwi airfields are designated sites and are therefore, not subject to the standards and rules contained in the District Plan. These sites are subject to the conditions of the relevant designations in Appendix 7 of the Plan.

Submission 1398 requests that the proposed noise contours be reviewed for accuracy. Council considers that the contours, as proposed, are accurate and no revision is necessary.

Submission 1397 contends that the number of daily airport movements shown on the figures supporting the control are too low and should be reviewed. This review has been undertaken as part of the hearings on the airfield designations in Appendix 7 of the Plan.

4.15 Submissions about clause 10c.5.6 – Earthworks

Submissions dealt with in this section: 563/1, 563/2, 563/3, 563/4, 618/62, 618/63, 619/83, 619/84, 658/1, 658/2, 658/3, 658/4, 864/1, 864/2, 864/3, 864/4, 865/1, 865/2, 865/3, 865/4, 927/1, 927/2, 927/3, 927/4, 1048/1, 1048/2, 1018/1, 1018/2, 1018/3, 1018/4, 1048/3, 1093/48, 1156/2, 1167/1, 1167/2, 1167/3, 1167/4, 1199/10, 1199/11, 1243/80, 1243/81, 1243/82, 1259/3, 1285/15, 1285/16, 1286/63, 1286/64, 2641/65, 2641/66, 2670/81, 2670/82, 2724/1, 2724/2, 2724/3, 2878/63, 2878/64, 3220/1, 3220/2, 3220/3, 3220/4, 3403/1, 3403/2, 3403/3, 3403/4, 3521/127, 3651/1, 3651/2, 3651/3, 3651/4, 3694/1, 3723/1.

4.15.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the earthworks control is supported.
That the volume of material permitted to be carried by road be reduced.
That the area of earthworks permitted to be carried-out on a site be increased.
That the area of earthworks permitted to be carried-out on a site be reduced.
That an exemption be included for earthworks related to agricultural and horticultural activities.
That an exemption be included for earthworks related to normal regional park operations.
That applications for large areas of earthworks be notified.
That a reminder be included of the provisions and obligations under the Historic Places Trust Act in relation to archaeological sites.
That a list of what may constitute an archaeological site be included in the standards for permitted activities.
That earthworks controls be better monitored and enforced.

4.15.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

A number of submissions support the earthworks control.

A number of submissions request that the area of earthworks permitted to be carried-out on a site be increased. The purpose of the earthworks control is to minimise the potential for erosion and sedimentation which can have adverse effects on the natural environment, and in particular on water bodies, wetlands and coastal systems. The steepness of the land and the extent of the earthwork are the main factors which determine how much sediment leaves an area of earthworks. The earthworks control therefore, include limits based on slope and exposed surface area. I consider that the proposed slope and area thresholds are appropriate. The thresholds are based on the potential for adverse erosion and sedimentation effects and have been developed in consultation with an erosion specialist and landscape architect. The proposed thresholds also recognise that a certain level of earthworks will occur on the island in conjunction with activities such as the formation of dwelling sites and associated areas and as such allow for a certain amount of earthworks as a permitted activity.

Various submissions request that the area of earthworks permitted to be carried-out on a site and to be carried by road be reduced. This is considered to be unnecessary. As noted above the slope and area thresholds have been developed in consultation with erosion and landscape specialists. In addition, lower thresholds would mean that there is less opportunity for earthworks to be undertaken as a permitted activity and a greater number of people would need to go through the resource consent process. I also note that the Plan includes standards for permitted activities which will ensure that any earthworks undertaken as of right will minimise the potential for erosion and sedimentation.

A number of submissions request that an exemption be included for earthworks associated with agricultural and horticultural activities. The proposed control provides for the construction of farm tracks and farm drains in Landforms 3 and 5 on Great Barrier, the cleaning and maintenance of existing farm drains and cultivation associated with agricultural and horticultural activities as permitted activities. No further exemptions are considered necessary.

Submission 3521 requests that an exemption be included for earthworks related to normal regional park operations. The only regional park currently located in the Hauraki Gulf Islands is Whakanewha Regional Park. It is considered appropriate to exempt the Auckland Regional Council from the earthworks controls for activities that are consistent with the management plan for Whakanewha Regional Park. The ARC has functions under the Resource Management Act to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources including the maintenance and enhancement of water quality and therefore it is considered an unnecessary constraint for the ARC to obtain a consent for these activities. This matter is also discussed in the hearings report for Land Unit - Conservation.

Various submissions request that applications for large areas of earthworks be notified. The control provides for earthworks where more than 5000m ³ of clean-fill is transported by public road to or from the area subject to earthworks as a discretionary activity, and hence notification may be required. However, earthworks of a lesser extent, which are not a permitted activity, are provided for as restricted discretionary activity. As noted within this part of the Plan, except as provided for by section 94C(2) of the RMA, applications for a resource consent for restricted discretionary activities will be considered without public notification or the need to obtain written approval of or serve notice on affected persons. Restricted discretionary activities are generally those where the effects can be easily identified and/or where any effects are limited to the subject site. As such, it is considered appropriate that notification for these activities are not required. However, I do note that in accordance with section 94C(2) of the RMA, public notification may be required in certain circumstances e.g. where special circumstances exist.

Submission 2641 requests that a reminder be included of the provisions and obligations under the Historic Places Trust Act in relation to archaeological sites. Obligations under the Historic Places Trust Act is provided is part 7 and clause 10c.5.6.2 and as such no further mention is necessary.

The standards for permitted earthworks includes the following; "Where evidence of a burial site or any other archaeological site is found or exposed on an area where earthworks is occurring, all work must cease immediately and the council and the Historic Places Trust must be advised immediately." Submission 2641 requests that the standard be amended as follows (insertions shown underlined); ' Where evidence of a burial site or any other archaeological site is found or exposed ( including oven stones, charcoal, shell middens, ditches, banks, pits, old building foundations, wells, rubbish pits, artefacts of Maori or European origin or human burials ) on an area where earthworks is occurring, all work must cease immediately and the council and the Historic Places Trust must be advised immediately.' I consider that such an amendment would be acceptable as it would clarify what constitutes an archaeological site, which for those unfamiliar with such matters may be unclear.

A number of submissions request that the earthworks control be better monitored and enforced. As previously noted in this report, Council employs compliance staff to monitor resource consents, enforce conditions, and respond to complaints.

4.16 Submissions about clause 10c.5.7 – Coastal, wetland & water body protection yards

Submissions dealt with in this section: 358/6, 1055/30, 1243/83, 1250/71, 1250/72, 1282/10, 2517/6, 2552/6, 3725/2.

4.16.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

Infringement of a protection yard should be a restricted discretionary activity, with discretion restricted to matters of water quality and amenity.
That an exemption be included for earthworks within a protection yard related to agricultural and horticultural activities.
That an exemption be included for the construction of low impact coastal walking tracks within a protection yard.
The explanation for the rule should be amended to delete the words "enhance water quality" as it is considered too onerous. "Maintain water quality" is more appropriate.

4.16.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

Submission 3725 requests that an infringement of a protection yard be a restricted discretionary activity, with discretion restricted to matters of water quality and amenity. The coastal, wetland and water body protection yards control are imposed to help preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and the margins of wetlands and water bodies in order to maintain and enhance water quality, and to preserve amenity values. The control prohibits the location of buildings and earthworks within certain distances of these environments. The effects of locating buildings and undertaking earthworks within close proximity to the coast, wetlands and water bodies could be significant. As noted previously in this report, restricted discretionary activities are generally those where the effects can be easily identified and/or where any effects are limited to the subject site. If the effects resulting from an infringement of this control could be adequately identified and limited to the subject site, then consideration could be given to making it a restricted discretionary activity. At this stage I consider that an infringement to this control should remain a discretionary activity due to the wide ranging potential effects of an activity within a coastal protection yard.

Submission 1243 requests that an exemption be included to enable earthworks related to agricultural and horticultural activities to be undertaken within the specified protection yards. The yards are imposed to help preserve sensitive coastal, wetland and water body environments regardless of the activity and as such, it is not appropriate to allow earthworks for farming purposes to be undertaken within these areas.

Submission 2517 requests that an exemption be included for the construction of low impact coastal walking tracks within a protection yard. It is considered appropriate to allow DOC to carry out activities that are required to achieve conservation outcomes, including the construction of walkways within the protection yards. The council wants to encourage the conservation of Auckland's natural and historic heritage and to allow DOC to undertake conservation activities to achieve their functions under the Conservation Act.

Submission 358 contends that the explanation for the protection yards control is too onerous in that it requires the preservation and enhancement of natural character and water quality. The submitter considers that the maintenance of natural character and water quality would be more appropriate. This is a useful comment and it is considered that the concept of enhancement is not appropriate in this case.

NOTE: Where principal issues have been addressed previously in this report they will not be revisited in the following sections.

4.17 Submissions about tables 10c.1- 6 – General

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1340/2, 1584/2, 1588/2, 2146/2, 2152/2, 2177/2, 2214/2, 2216/2, 2846/4, 3049/1.

4.17.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the development control tables in general are supported.
That an additional land unit (farming and agriculture on Great Barrier) be included in the development control tables.
That an additional settlement area (Orama settlement area) be included in the development control tables.

4.17.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

A number of submissions seek to include a new 'farming' land unit in the Plan specifically for small lots (up to 4ha) on Great Barrier. The submitters are concerned that the controls on land use activities within the Plan are too restrictive for small blocks of land. The matter of including an additional land unit is discussed in the hearing report for Landforms 1-7 general. I consider that farming is adequately provided for within the Plan, including part 10c, as such a new land unit need not be included in the development control tables in part 10c.

Submission 2846 seeks that a new settlement area be applied to the Orama Christian Fellowship Trust (the Trust) land at Karaka Bay Road, or alternatively that the complex be a scheduled activity, or that a provision with a similar outcome be provided. The submitters are concerned that the proposed land units that apply to the site do not reflect the land uses that have been established over a number of years and may inhibit sustainable land uses in the future. The matter of how to deal with this site is discussed in the hearings report for part 10b. It is likely that, rather than the creation of a new settlement area, a concept plan will be produced for Orama that recognises and provides for a range of existing and future land uses. I consider it would be prudent to make a decision on any required changes to part 10c once a decision has been made on the above.

4.18 Submissions about tables 10c.1- 6 – Height

Submissions dealt with in this section: 560/8, 1250/70, 1265/1, 1265/2, 1329/2, 1330/6, 2001/32, 2733/5, 2903/1.

4.18.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the height limit control is supported.
That the height limit in Commercial 2, 4 and 5 be increased.
That the height limit on the site at 21 The Strand be increased.
That the height limit in the Claris light industry area be increased.
That the height limit in Tourist complex areas be increased.

4.18.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

A number of submissions request that the height limit be increased in Commercial 2 (Ostend village), Commercial 4 (visitor facilities) and Commercial 5 (Industrial). The proposed height in each of these land units is a maximum of 8 metres, which is consistent with existing building form on the Gulf Islands and with the maximum proposed height in the Plan (with 8 metres being the greatest height permitted for any land unit or settlement area). 8 metres allows for a two to three storey building and will ensure the landscape remains dominant whilst at the same time providing for economic growth. In addition, it is noted that Commercial 4 and 5 are generally located in close proximity to residential areas and in some instances, coastal wetland and recreational areas, and as such taller buildings would not be appropriate. Much of the community feedback on height on Waiheke strongly resisted any increase in the building height on the island. Taller buildings may be appropriate in particular locations - such proposals should be assessed on a case-by-case basis through a discretionary activity consent.

Submission 1265 requests that the height limit on the site at 21 The Strand, Onetangi be increased. I note that the site is zoned Commercial 4, and as such for the reasons discussed above, it is not considered appropriate to increase the maximum height permitted in this zone, or on this site. Further, this site is located adjacent to a residential area and the coast. If any change in height was considered, it would need to apply throughout the Commercial 4 land unit or similar sites.

Various submissions request that the height limit in the Claris Light Industry area be increased. The maximum height permitted is 8 metres and as such is consistent with existing building form on the Gulf Islands and Great Barrier in particular.

Submission 2001 requests that the height limit in the Tourist complex area in the Pakatoa land unit be increased. The maximum proposed height is 8 metres. The Pakatoa land unit, and the Tourist complex area in particular, is characterised by small-scale visitor accommodation and sensitive natural environments. Therefore, it is important that the scale of buildings in this land unit is controlled in order to maintain visual amenity and character.

4.19 Submissions about tables 10c.1-6 – Yards

Submissions dealt with in this section: 518/17, 618/57, 619/78, 753/22, 754/91, 821/24, 836/13, 859/91, 1093/50, 1093/51, 1093/54, 1093/55, 1093/58, 1093/59, 1093/64, 1093/65, 1190/21, 1250/73, 1285/10, 1286/58, 2001/34, 2670/76, 2878/58.

4.19.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That all yards be 4 metres on each side.
That yards in Landforms 3 and 5 be increased.
That the yards in Rural 1 and 2 be increased.
That a front yard setback be required in Commercial 1, 2 and 3.
That one side yard in Commercial 1 be increased to ensure ocean views.
That yards in Tourist complex areas be deleted.

4.19.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

This control imposes minimum yard requirements for various land units and settlement areas. Side and rear yards are controlled principally to ensure that built development will not adversely impact upon the privacy and amenity values of adjacent sites, and the character of an area. Front yards principally ensure that streetscape amenity is maintained. Yards also provide space for landscaping and underground services.

A number of submissions request that all proposed yards be 4 metres. The yards, as proposed, vary between land units and settlement areas to reflect the existing and desired built form in each area. Requirements for side/rear yards and front yards also differ, as the purpose for each of these yards is distinctive. Imposing a generic yard would not reflect the character of individual areas.

Submission 1093 requests that the front and rear/side yard requirements in Landform 3 (alluvial flats) and Landform 5 (productive land) and Rural 1 (rural amenity) and Rural 2 (western landscape), be increased. The proposed yard requirements applicable to each of these land units is; a 6 metre front yard and 1.5 metre side/rear yards. The submitter contends that the yards should be increased to assist in creating a buffer between residential dwellings and pastoral/horticultural activities likely to be located in these land units. It is considered that a yards control may not even be appropriate in some of these land units, such as Landform 3 (alluvial flats) and Landform 5 (productive land), as buildings are unlikely to be located directly on the boundary, and in any case, would have little effect if they were. I also note that the requirements under the coastal, wetland and water body protection yards are additional to this control.

A number of submissions request that a front yard setback be required in Commercial 1 (Oneroa village), Commercial 2 (Ostend Village) and Commercial 3 (local shops). As proposed, the front yard setback requirements for these land units is contained in part 10a – Land units of the Plan. As such, the individual hearing reports for Commercial 1, 2 and 3 should be referred to for a detailed discussion on this matter.

A number of submissions request that one side yard in Commercial 1 (Oneroa village) be increased to ensure ocean views. In particular, submitters request that, for those sites on the northern side of Ocean View Road, one side yard be 2.4 metres in width. As proposed, the side yard requirements for Commercial 1 is nil or 1.5 metres where an abutting site is another land unit. It is recognised that development on the northern side of Ocean View road must make a conscious effort to provide and maintain the unique and important visual connection with the coast. This connection could be achieved in a number of ways, for example through the site via windows, or through an area of open space created by a balcony on the coastal side of the building. Therefore, as there are alternatives to providing this connection through gaps between sites, it is not considered necessary to impose minimum side yard requirements. In order to indicate the importance of this matter, a number of amendments to the Oneroa design requirements are recommended to Part 10a, these are detailed in the hearings report for Commercial 1.

Submission 2001 requests that yards in Tourist complex areas be deleted. There is no front yard requirement in this land unit. The side yard requirement is 1.5 metres. The side yard requirements are considered necessary to ensure that built development will not adversely impact upon the privacy and amenity values of adjacent sites.

4.20 Submissions about tables 10c.1-6 – Building coverage

Submissions dealt with in this section: 47/2, 81/2, 85/1, 85/2, 95/1, 95/2, 176/1, 263/1, 299/2, 358/8, 439/1, 446/3, 450/1, 518/3, 518/4, 560/9, 582/4, 753/3, 753/4, 753/7, 821/2, 821/3, 821/4, 821/5, 835/1, 1035/1, 1037/1, 1091/11, 1093/52, 1093/56, 1093/60, 1093/66, 1100/4, 1118/1, 1190/4, 1190/7, 1199/1, 1250/80, 1267/1, 1267/2, 1325/2, 1329/3, 1330/7, 1528/3, 1543/3, 1550/4, 2001/35, 2042/4, 2101/1, 2202/4, 2552/8, 2553/1, 2553/2, 2093/3, 2677/2, 2682/2, 2683/2, 2686/2, 2689/2, 2694/2, 2709/2, 2733/6, 3094/4, 3094/11, 3148/1, 3264/1, 3518/4, 3521/90, 3552/4, 3566/2, 3570/2, 3583/3, 3711/1.

4.20.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the building coverage limit in Landform 3, 5, 6 and 7 be increased.
That the building coverage limit in Commercial 2, 4 and 5 be increased.
That the building coverage limit in Rural 1, 2 and 3 be increased.
That the building coverage limit in Recreation 1, 2 and 3 be increased.
That the building coverage limit in Tourist complex areas be increased.
That the building coverage limit in Landform 5 be decreased.
That the building coverage limit on the site at 21 The Strand be increased.
That the building coverage limit on the site at 171 Carsons Road, known as Waiheke airfield, be increased.
Amend Table 10C.2 so that the building coverage control for Commercial 1 reads as follows (insertions shown underlined); "40% of net site area or 75% of net site area ##'
Amend the existing footnote ## under Table 10C.2, so that it reads as follows; 'The 75% limit applies only if the site is connected to the Owhanake wastewater treatment plant. Note: Where this 75% limit applies, the impervious surface area rule in clause 10c.4.9.1(2)(b) must also be complied with.'

4.20.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

A number of submissions request that the building coverage limit be increased in Landform 3 (alluvial flats), Landform 5 (productive land), Landform 6 (regenerating slopes) and Landform 7 (forest and bush). The proposed building coverage limits differ between the land units as follows;

Landform 3 - 20% of net site area or 250m² (which ever is the lesser)

Landform 5 - 1000m²

Landform 6 - 500m²

Landform 7 - 10% of net site area or 250m² (which ever is the lesser)

The proposed building coverage limits take into account the unique characteristics of each land unit. Landforms 6 and 7 are located in less modified areas, which contribute to the natural character, ecological and visual amenity value of the islands. The building coverage control allows for some built form, whilst ensuring the landscape is dominant. Landforms 3 and 5 are located in more modified areas of rural pasture and generally consist of agricultural/horticultural activities. Therefore, the building coverage control in Landforms 3 and 5 must allow for an amount of building bulk which is consistent with these activities. 1000m² in Landform 5 is considered appropriate, however a higher building coverage, may be necessary in Landform 3, perhaps 500m².

Various submissions request that the building coverage limit be increased in Commercial 2 (Ostend village), Commercial 4 (visitor facilities) and Commercial 5 (Industrial). The proposed building coverage limit is 40% of net site area in Commercial 2 and Commercial 5 and 15% of net site area in Commercial 4. Commercial 4 is applied to specific sites, rather than across broad areas, and is generally located within residential areas and in some instances, close to coastal wetland and recreational areas. The building coverage control for Commercial 4 is the same as that for Island Residential 1 and 2, and as such will result in similar building bulk and scale as surrounding residential sites. Commercial 2 is applied to the existing Ostend village, which is a highly modified environment consisting of various built structures accommodating commercial, community and residential activities. Commercial 5 is applied to areas of existing industrial activity in western Waiheke, characterised by built structures on small to medium sized sites. The controls allow for a high percentage of buildings covering the site and leave space for on-site wastewater disposal and parking.

In terms of the building coverage limit be increased in Rural 1 (rural amenity), Rural 2 (western landscape) and Rural 3 (Rakino amenity). The proposed building coverage limit in each of these land units is 500m². Whilst these land units are applied to different areas across the islands, the landscape values of these areas is similar in that they are characterised by the openness and productivity of a rural landscape, the amenity of a low density residential landscape and in some cases, the visual prominence of a coastal and regenerating landscape. Therefore, based on the landscape analysis undertaken and the high visual amenity value of these areas, it is important to limit building bulk to an appropriate level.

A number of submissions request that the building coverage limit be increased in Recreation 1 (local parks and esplanades), Recreation 2 (community facilities) and Recreation 3 (Rangihoua Park). The proposed building limit is 10% of net site area or 250m² (which ever is the lesser) in Recreation 1, 300m² in Recreation 2 and 2500m² in Recreation 3. Recreation 1 is applied to the extensive network of esplanade reserves, local parks and conservation reserves on Waiheke and Great Barrier. These areas are characterised by a high visual amenity value, due to the open space character and in some cases, the prominent coastal location, and a high ecological value where native bush, wetlands and other natural features exist. Due to the above characteristics, and as Recreation 1 is intended for passive recreation (e.g. walking, cycling and picnic areas), it is considered that a greater building bulk would be inappropriate and unnecessary. Recreation 2 is applied to sports parks and community facilities such as halls, Marae and clubrooms across the Islands and is characterised by a range of active recreation (eg sports fields, skateboard parks) and community activities (eg community meetings) and a variety of buildings such as halls, changing rooms, clubrooms and sports equipment. In order to provide for the range of recreation activities located in these areas, a greater building bulk is permitted than in Recreation 1, however it is important that this building bulk is controlled in order to protect the amenity and ecological values of these sites. Rangihoua Park is a 110ha reserve currently containing a variety of activities, including a golf course, playing fields and associated buildings, tennis courts, picnic and BBQ areas, a historic village and museum, lawn cemetery, equestrian area and parking and vehicle access areas. The park includes a number of natural features, including Rangihoua Creek and Putiki Bay estuary, and archaeological sites, which contribute to the parks ecological and historical significance. As such, it is recognised that a certain level of building bulk is required within the park to provide for a variety of activities however, the proposed building coverage is considered appropriate.

Submission 2001 requests that the building coverage limit in the Tourist complex area in the Pakatoa land unit be increased. The maximum building coverage limit is 30%. The Tourist complex area is characterised by small-scale visitor accommodation and sensitive natural environments. Therefore, it is important that the scale of buildings in this land unit is controlled in order to maintain visual amenity and character.

Submission 3521 requests that the building coverage limit in Landform 5 (productive land) be decreased. In particular, the submitter contends that some Landform 5 sites are identified as Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Change 6 to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement and as such, buildings on these sites should be better controlled to ensure minimal visual impacts. Change 6 is currently on-hold pending a review of the provisions. It is acknowledged that once the plan change becomes operative there may be alterations required to the Proposed Plan in order to give effect to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement and the amount of building coverage may be one of them.

Submission 1265 requests that the building coverage limit on the site at 21 The Strand, Onetangi be increased. I note that the site is zoned Commercial 4, and as such for the reasons discussed above, it is not considered appropriate to increase the building coverage limit in this zone, or on this site. Further, this site is located adjacent to a residential area and the coast.

Submission 1100 requests that the building coverage limit on the site at 171 Carsons Road, known as the Waiheke airfield be increased. The majority of this site is zoned Landform 5 (productive land) with the remainder being Landform 7 (forest and bush areas) and Landform 6 (regenerating slopes). The property contains a site of ecological significance (SES) containing complex regenerating Kanuka with mature forest remnants. For the reasons discussed previously in this section, it is not considered appropriate to increase the building coverage limit in these zones or hence, on this particular site. I note that submission 1100 also seeks that a separate special purpose zone or landform be applied to the site to provide for visitor accommodation, dwellings, offices workshops, and hangars. This matter is discussed in the hearings report for Landforms – General, where it is recommended that the submission be rejected.

Submission 2093 requests that amendments be made to Table 10C.2 to clarify the building coverage control for Commercial 1 in relation to the Owhanake wastewater treatment plant. I consider that this amendment is acceptable and in fact necessary to ensure clarity.

4.21 Submissions about tables 10c.1-6 – Building footprint

Submissions dealt with in this section: 339/3, 439/1, 450/2, 518/3, 518/4, 618/58, 619/79, 753/5, 753/6, 753/8, 754/92, 821/4, 821/5, 821/6, 859/92, 1050/3, 1093/52, 1093/56, 1093/60, 1093/66, 1118/1, 1190/3, 1190/5, 1190/6, 1190/8, 1285/11, 1286/59, 1325/2, 1550/12, 2042/11, 2202/11, 2670/77, 2878/59, 3094/10, 3148/2, 3264/1, 3518/11, 3521/90, 3525/1, 3552/11, 3711/1.

4.21.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the building footprint control be deleted.
That the building footprint limit for Landform 5 be increased.
That the building footprint limit for Rural 1, 2 and 3 be increased.
That the building footprint limit for Landform 5 be reduced.

4.21.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

A number of submissions request that the building footprint limits in Landform 5 (productive land), Rural 1 (rural amenity), Rural 2 (western landscape) and Rural 3 (Rakino amenity), be increased. The proposed maximum footprint of any building in Landform 5 is 300m² and 250m² in Rural 1 to 3. The submitters consider that the control is too restrictive on landowners and that it does not provide for the social and economic wellbeing of landowners. The submitters state that the productive uses associated with these land units often require large buildings including residential, storage and ancillary uses. Whilst it is recognised that the productive nature of the land unit means that large buildings are likely to be required by landowners for a variety of purposes, it is considered that the building footprints are sufficient to provide for the needs of landowners. Larger buildings may be appropriate in particular locations, but these should be assessed on a case-by-case basis through a discretionary activity consent.

Submission 3521 requests that the building footprint limit in Landform 5 (productive land) be decreased. In particular, the submitter contends that some Landform 5 sites are identified as Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Change 6 to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement and as such buildings on these sites should be better controlled to ensure minimal visual impacts. See section 4.20 above for a discussion of this matter.

4.22 Submissions about tables 10c.1-6 – Indigenous vegetation clearance

Submissions dealt with in this section: 254/2, 256/2, 257/2, 560/11, 1035/2, 1037/2, 1250/69, 1339/1, 1364/1, 1384/1, 1394/1, 1459/1, 1490/1, 1493/1, 1498/1, 1528/1, 1528/2, 1543/1, 1543/2, 1900/1, 1975/1, 2137/1, 2251/1, 2268/1, 2308/1, 2341/1, 2394/1, 2407/1, 2418/1, 2477/1, 2485/1, 2495/1, 3104/5, 3638/1, 3669/1, 3689/1, 3750/1, 3776/1, 3801/1.

4.22.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the indigenous vegetation removal (below 3 metres in height) control be amended for Landforms 3, 6 and 7 on Great Barrier and Rural 2, to allow for increased or unlimited clearance.
That the indigenous vegetation removal (below 3 metres in height) control be amended for Landforms 1, 2 and 4 from NC (non-complying), to allow 250m² of clearance.
That the indigenous vegetation removal (below 3 metres in height) control be amended for Landform 5 from unlimited, to limit clearance.
That the table include an area control for the annual clearance of Kanuka and Manuka.
That a 20 metre strip be permitted to be cleared around all buildings for fire safety purposes.

4.22.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

It is noted that a significant number of submissions have been submitted in regards to the vegetation controls in part 10c. The requests in these submissions vary considerably. The primary issues appear to be the protection of Kanuka and Manuka, domestic firewood requirements and fire safety on Great Barrier. Refer to section 4.12 of this report and the Landform 1-7 hearing reports for a more detailed discussion of these key issues.

4.23 Submissions about tables 10c.1-6 – Noise

Submissions dealt with in this section: 118/1, 358/9, 358/10, 384/1, 504/1, 518/12, 681/1, 681/2, 681/3, 913/2, 913/3, 1093/53, 1093/57, 1093/61, 1093/62, 1093/67, 1329/5, 1330/9, 1876/5, 2093/4, 2552/9, 2552/10, 2733/8, 3399/2, 3706/1.

4.23.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the general increase in noise levels from the operative plan is opposed.
That in the Onetangi Road area and on sites where entertainment facilities or public gatherings are proposed, the noise level should not be greater than 45dBA as measured at the boundary of the site.
That permitted noise levels for commercial activities be reduced, particularly where located close to residential activities.
That the permitted noise level for Rural 1, Monday to Saturday 7am to 10pm and Sunday 9am to 6pm, be amended from 0dBA to 50dBA.

4.23.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

Submission 3706 requests that on sites in the Onetangi road area (shown in figure 10a.2 of the Proposed Plan), and on sites where entertainment facilities or public gatherings are proposed, the noise level should not be greater than 45dBA as measured at the boundary of the site. Where such activities are located adjacent to residential activities, the residential noise limits apply, and therefore the noise limits are appropriate for the residential commercial interface.

A number of submissions request that the permitted noise levels for commercial activities be reduced, particularly where located close to residential activities. As discussed in section 4.13 of this report, where a residential activity abuts a commercial activity, the noise level at the boundary must comply with the lower residential noise limits. As such, the Plan does address the submitters requests, however this provision may require clarification.

Submission 2093 requests that amendments be made to Table 10C.2 to clarify the permitted noise level for Rural 1. I consider that this amendment is acceptable and in fact necessary to ensure clarity.

4.24 Submissions about tables 10c.1-6 – Earthworks

Submissions dealt with in this section: 176/3, 176/4, 754/96, 859/96, 1093/44, 1093/45, 1093/46, 1093/47, 1093/49, 1093/63, 1101/35, 1101/36, 1125/8, 1282/11, 1287/41, 1287/42, 1289/42, 1289/43, 1311/1, 1329/4, 1330/8, 1368/1, 1387/1, 1403/1, 1426/1, 1454/1, 1491/1, 1517/1, 1528/5, 1528/6, 1543/5, 1543/6, 1561/1, 1935/1, 1941/1, 1951/1, 1973/1, 2142/1, 2165/1, 2209/1, 2231/1, 2256/1, 2263/1, 2319/1, 2335/1, 2343/1, 2347/1, 2391/1, 2399/1, 2415/1, 2457/1, 2497/1, 2733/7, 3403/5, 3639/1, 3723/2, 3749/1, 3775/1, 3803/1.

4.24.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the area of earthworks permitted to be carried-out on a site be reduced.
That the area of earthworks permitted to be carried-out in Landforms 3, 5, 6 and 7 be increased.
That the area of earthworks permitted to be carried-out in Island Residential 1 and 2 be increased.
That the area of earthworks permitted to be carried-out in Commercial 5 be increased.
That the area of earthworks permitted to be carried-out in Rural 2 be increased.
That the permitted amount of earthworks be measured in cubic metres.
That the permitted amount of earthworks be consistent with the Auckland Regional Council Plan.
That the earthworks control be reviewed in consultation with the relevant Community Board, specialists and consultants to produce a control, which allows for sustainable development whilst avoiding adverse affects on the environment.

4.24.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

A number of submissions request that the area of earthworks permitted to be carried-out in specific land units and settlement areas be increased. In particular, submitters request that the earthwork limitations be increased in Landforms 3, 5, 6 and 7, Residential 1 and 2, Commercial 5, and Rural 2. The earthworks control is applied identically across most land units and settlement areas with 50m² of earthworks permitted where the slope is less than 1 in 6, and 400m² of earthworks permitted where the slope is steeper than 1 in 6. The steepness of the land and the extent of earthworks are the main factors which determine how much sediment leaves an area of earthworks, rather than the activity type, hence why the earthworks control is applied in this broad brush manner. The thresholds are based on the potential for adverse erosion and sedimentation effects and also recognise that a certain level of earthworks will occur on the island in conjunction with various activities. The exceptions to this is Landform 7 (forest and bush), where the control allows 50m² of earthworks where the slope is less than 1 in 6, and 200m² of earthworks permitted where the slope is steeper than 1 in 6, and Landform 2 (sand flats), where the control allows 50m² of earthworks regardless of the slope. The earthwork limits are more restrictive in Landform 7 and Landform 2 due to the more sensitive natural environments in these land units

Submission 1093 requests that the permitted amount of earthworks be measured in cubic metres. The proposed earthworks control is based on exposed area (square metres) and slope to be better linked to the adverse sedimentation effects of earthworks. This allows the excavation to be as deep as necessary and concentrates on the effects of the exposed area. It is considered that this is a more practical way of dealing with the adverse effects of sedimentation.

Submission 1093 requests that the permitted amount of earthworks be consistent with the Auckland Regional Council's earthwork provisions. These provisions are contained in the Auckland Regional Plan: Sediment Control, and are aimed at controlling the discharge of sediment into waterbodies and coastal waters and sustaining the mauri of water. These issues are different than those addressed by the earthworks control in the Proposed Plan, which is aimed at avoiding sediment run-off and erosion and adverse visual amenity effects, and therefore it is appropriate that the amount of earthworks permitted is different.

A number of submissions request that the earthworks control be reviewed in consultation with the relevant Community Board, specialists and consultants to produce a control, which allows for sustainable development whilst avoiding adverse affects on the environment. The consultation undertaken by the council during the preparation of the Plan is outlined in clause 1.3.7 of the Plan and on Council's website. The panel can be satisfied that the level of consultation meets, and at times exceeds, the requirements of the RMA and of the Local Government Act 2002. In terms of public participation, the submission and hearing process provides a further opportunity for public involvement. In addition, the slope and area thresholds have been developed in consultation with erosion and landscape specialists.

4.25 Submissions about tables 10c.1-6 – Coastal, wetland & water body protection yards

Submissions dealt with in this section: 67/1, 176/5, 560/14, 1528/7, 1528/8, 1543/7, 1543/8, 2001/33, 3725/1.

4.25.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the coastal, wetland and water body protections yards in Landforms 3, 5, 6 and 7 and Rural 2 be reduced.
That the coastal, wetland and water body protection yards be deleted on the sites known as Mulberry Grove School and Okiwi School.
That the coastal, wetland and water body protection yards in Tourist complex areas be deleted.

4.25.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

Some submissions request that the coastal, wetland and water body protection yards in Landform 3 (alluvial flats), Landform 5 (productive land), Landform 6 (regenerating slopes), Landform 7 (forest and bush) and Rural 2 (western landscape), be reduced. A coastal protection yard of 40 metres and a wetlands and water bodies protection yard of 20 metres is proposed in these land units. These land units are often located in areas of high natural value which require protection. The proposed yards afford this protection whilst providing for a variety of generally horticultural/agricultural activities to operate.

Submission 67 requests that the coastal, wetland and water body protection yards be deleted on the sites known as Mulberry Grove School and Okiwi School. Both of these sites are designated sites and are therefore, not subject to the standards and rules contained in the District Plan. These sites are subject to the conditions of the relevant designations only.

Submission 2001 requests that the coastal, wetland and water body protection yards in Tourist complex areas be deleted. A coastal protection yard of 40 metres and a wetlands and water bodies protection yard of 20 metres is proposed. The Pakatoa land unit, and the Tourist complex area in particular, is characterised by sensitive coastal environments. Therefore, it is important that the location of buildings and earthworks in this land unit is controlled in order to maintain the natural character and amenity of the coast and margins.

4.26 Submissions about Appendix 15 – Guidelines for working within the vicinity of trees

Submissions dealt with in this section: 366/1, 1208/9, 2102/6, 2102/7.

4.26.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That reference be made to the contribution vegetation makes to CO² reduction.
Amend the text "App15.4" to "A15.4" to ensure consistency.
Amend references in paragraph 3.1 from "figures 5 and 6" to "figures A15.5 and A15.6" to ensure consistency.

4.26.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

Submission 1208 requests that reference be made in Appendix 15 to the contribution vegetation makes to CO² reduction within the atmosphere. The document, 'Keeping Auckland's Future Bright' states that it is widely accepted by scientists throughout the world that the earth is warming, due in part to the very high concentration of CO2 gas in the atmosphere resulting from human activity. The council is undertaking various initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions including these guidelines. It is therefore considered appropriate to indicate the climate change issue in appendix 15 and in particular the role vegetation plays in this.

Submission 2102 requests the above amendments be made to ensure consistency when referencing the figures in Appendix 15. I consider these amendments to be reasonable.

4.27 Submissions about building yard restrictions shown on Map no. 2

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2103/5, 2103/9, 2631/1

4.27.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That sheets 9 and 20 be amended to correct errors.

4.27.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

Submission 2103 requests that the building restriction yards shown on Map 2. Sheets 9 and 20 be amended to correct errors in their location. Having reviewed these documents I consider these amendments to be reasonable and necessary.

4.28 Submissions about Okiwi and Claris airfield noise contour levels and protection fans shown on Map no. 2

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1066/1, 1066/3, 1082/3, 1082/4, 2902/2, 2902/3.

4.28.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

Support for the airfield noise contour levels and protection fans.
That the relevant maps be amended to show noise contours at 5 metre intervals.

4.28.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

It is considered that the airfield noise contour levels are clearly shown on the maps and within diagram 10c.5 of the Plan. The two different levels, 65dBA and 55dBA are also clearly identified.

4.29 Submissions about significant ridgeline areas shown on Map no. 1

Submissions dealt with in this section: 10/1, 61/1, 109/4, 177/2, 276/2, 477/1, 494/1, 618/66, 619/86, 754/98, 859/98, 1055/18, 1100/7, 1101/1, 1125/2, 1126/6, 1127/3, 1138/1, 1250/77, 1281/4, 1282/2, 1282/7, 1285/2, 1286/1, 1288/142, 1289/2, 1325/1, 1331/1, 1331/3, 1348/1, 1362/1, 1374/1, 1383/1, 1411/1, 1415/1, 1435/1, 1437/1, 1440/1, 1448/1, 1452/1, 1460/1, 1475/1, 1544/2, 1570/1, 1587/1, 1593/1, 1897/1, 1910/1, 1918/1, 1928/1, 1942/1, 1946/1, 1974/1, 2103/6, 2197/1, 2210/1, 2226/1, 2245/1, 2262/1, 2306/1, 2317/1, 2370/1, 2392/1, 2396/2, 2397/2, 2398/2, 2425/1, 2441/1, 2444/1, 2458/1, 2478/1, 2564/2, 2670/84, 2745/1, 2750/1, 2751/1, 2814/1, 2817/1, 2872/1, 2872/2, 2872/3, 2875/1, 2878/1, 2921/1, 2921/2, 3034/1, 3108/1, 3221/1, 3221/3, 3380/2, 3501/15, 3610/1, 3619/1, 3681/1, 3751/1, 3777/1, 3802/1, 3826/2.

4.29.1.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested

That the ridgeline control be deleted.
Significant ridgeline areas need to be reviewed to ensure accuracy.

4.29.1.2 Consideration of principal issues

It is noted that a significant number of submissions have been made in regards to the significant ridgeline control. This matter is discussed in detail in section 10c.4.7 of this report.

5.0 Conclusion

This report has summarised for the hearing panel the key issues raised by the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding part 10c – development controls for land units and settlement areas of the Proposed Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section 2006.

The report provides an outline of the key issues raised in submissions and in some cases recommends how the Plan should be modified in response to submissions. 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 this report), for the reasons outlined in this report.

	Name and title of signatories	Signature
Author	Karina Philpott, Reporting Planner
Reviewer	Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands
Approver	Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning

Appendix 1

List of submissions and further submissions
Part A
Part B

Appendix 2

Summary of decisions requested

Home |
Terms of use