Auckland Council website.
This website has changed
This is the former Auckland City Council website, which has some of the information and services you need if you live or do business in the area. Go to the main Auckland Council website to access the complete range of council services.
Skip navigation
Plans, policies and reports
Plans, policies and reports

District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

(Notified version 2006)

Street index | Planning maps | Text | Appendices | Annexures | Section 32 material | Plan modifications | Help | Notified - Home | Decision - Home

Hearing reports index

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

Topic: Part 11 - Assessment matters
Report to: The Hearing Panel
Author: Katherine Dorofaeff
Date: 2 September 2008
Group file: 314/274029

1.0 Introduction

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to part 11 - Assessment matters, 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 11 - Assessment matters. This report discusses the submissions (grouped by subject matter or individually) and includes recommendations from the planner who prepared this report. The recommendations identify whether each submission should be accepted or rejected (in full or in part) and what amendments (if any) should be made to the Plan to address matters raised in submissions. Further submissions are not specifically addressed but are dealt with in conjunction with the submissions to which they relate.

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

2.0 Statutory framework

This section of the report briefly sets out the statutory framework within which the council must consider the submissions. In preparing this report the submissions and, in particular, the decisions requested in the submissions, have been considered in light of the relevant statutory matters. These were summarised by the Environment Court in Eldamos Investments Limited v Gisborne District Council W 047/05 where the court set out the following measures for evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other methods in district plans:

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

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

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

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

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

(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:

(c) ...

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

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

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

  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 briefly outlines the content and purpose of part 11 - Assessment matters.

Part 11 - Assessment matters, identifies the matters to be considered by the council when assessing applications for resource consents. Part 11 contains the following:

  • Matters to be considered for all resource consent applications ie sections 7 and 8 of HGMPA, and the objectives and policies of the Plan.
  • General assessment criteria for discretionary activities - assessment criteria are listed for 18 matters. Table 11.1 Assessment criteria for particular discretionary activities, identifies the matters of particular relevance to the various discretionary activities listed in the activity tables for the individual land units and settlement areas.
  • Specific assessment criteria for particular discretionary activities ie commercial firewood harvesting, and forestry.
  • Matters over which the council has restricted its discretion for new buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings in specific land units and settlement areas. These are considered as restricted discretionary activities.  

It is important to note that the assessment criteria listed in part 11 do not limit the matters that the council may consider when assessing applications for discretionary activities. When considering applications for discretionary activities, the council must consider all relevant matters under the RMA. For applications for restricted discretionary activities, the council is limited to the matters over which it has reserved its discretion when considering whether to decline the proposal or impose conditions. However the council can take into account part 2 of the RMA when deciding to grant an application for a restricted discretionary activity [1] .

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about part 11 - Assessment matters, and recommends how the panel could respond to the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions. The submissions are addressed under subject headings. While the relevant statutory matters (identified in section 2.0 of this report) will not necessarily be referred to directly, the discussion and recommendations have given appropriate consideration to these and any other relevant matters.

A list of the submissions which raise issues about part 11 together with the related further submissions is contained in appendix 1.  Appendix 2 contains the summary of the decisions requested by the submissions considered in this report. Any amendments to the Plan recommended in response to submissions are identified in this section of the report and are further detailed in appendix 3.

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

4.2 Submissions about part 11 in general

Submissions dealt with in this section:

142/1, 618/67,   618/132, 619/87, 678/1, 754/9, 754/99, 859/9, 859/99, 1101/17, 1284/15, 1285/3, 1286/2, 1286/112, 1287/45, 1288/45, 1288/46, 1288/163, 1289/3, 1289/22, 2631/4, 2670/85, 2721/12, 2823/1, 2878/2, 2878/113, 3061/108

4.2.1 Decisions requested

The submissions considered in this section seek decisions which:

  • reject or rewrite all of part 11
  • amend assessment criteria to address ridgeline specific landscape and visual matters
  • amend assessment criteria to provide for comprehensive management plans
  • require non-complying development to be judged solely on the fundamental regulations of the Plan and other planning documents
  • requires resource consents to be assessed for wastewater management
  • provides criteria for buildings as a controlled activity
  • require visitor accommodation in commercial 4 to be assessed against the criteria in part 11.

4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.2.2.1 Oppose in full

Submission 142/1 seeks a rewrite of all of part 11, after consultation and a realistic section 32 analysis.

Submission 2823/1 seeks to reject part 11 and revert to the existing operative plan

Submission 3061/108 opposes part 11.

Submission 142/1

In its supporting reasons, submission 142/1 states that the assessment criteria are unrealistic and will lead to a massive increase in compliance costs. The submission does not identify any specific concerns.

Clause 11.3.1 explains the application of the assessment criteria as follows:

"When considering applications for discretionary activities, the council must consider all relevant matters under the RMA. Clause 11.3.2 below lists assessment criteria for 18 matters which may need to be considered by the council when assessing an application for a discretionary activity. Table 11.1: Assessment criteria for particular discretionary activities identifies the assessment criteria of particular relevance to the various discretionary activities listed in the activity tables for the individual land units and settlement areas. ... It is important to note that these assessment criteria do not limit the matters that the council may consider when assessing applications for discretionary activities.

The council's assessment of an application for a non-complying activity may also include consideration of any of the matters listed in clause 11.3.2, or any assessment matters identified in the particular land unit or settlement area, where the matters relate to an effect that the particular activity being applied for may have on the environment."

Section 104(1) of the RMA requires that when the council is considering an application for resource consent it must have regard to 'any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity'.  The purpose of the assessment criteria is to draw attention to particular effects. The degree to which each of the criteria are relevant for assessing  a particular application will depend on the nature and scale of the activity that has been applied for. The suggestion in submission 142/1 that the criteria are unrealistic is not supported. It is therefore recommended that the submission be rejected.

Submission 2823/1

The supporting reasons given in this submissions for seeking rejection of part 11, are as follows:

  • the provisions do not adequately address the requirements of the RMA, particularly sections 5 to 8
  • the provisions do not adequately reflect the environmental and socio-economic context of the island [ie Waiheke] and the submitters' land in particular, and fail to enable sustainable land use and development
  • the section 32 documentation does not reflect the rationale for the changes
  • any changes should reflect an effects based solution, not a prescriptive approach.

The submission is from a Waiheke resident but does not identify the location of the submitter's land.

Given the general nature of this submission, it is difficult to respond in a detailed and specific manner. The assessment criteria do not replace the requirement for the council to consider part 2 of the RMA (ie sections 5 to 8) when assessing an application for discretionary or non-complying activity. The assessment criteria reflect an effects based rather than prescriptive approach.  

It is recommended that submission 2823/1 be rejected.

Submission 3061/108

Submission 3061/108 opposes part 11 and suggests that, consequent on the impact of other submissions contained within 3061, this part be reviewed, updated and re-referenced.

No amendments are recommended to part 11 in response to this submission and it should therefore be rejected.

4.2.2.2 Visual matters

Submissions 618/67, 619/87, 754/99, 859/99, 1285/3, 1286/2, 2670/85 and 2878/2 suggest that any assessment criteria for resource consent applications should be amended to include reference to ridgeline specific landscape and visual matters.

Submission 1289/3 suggests that any visual effects related matters about dominance and/or visual intrusion should be encompassed within relevant assessment criteria (where consent is needed for buildings).

Other subparts of these submissions seek that the Plan be amended by deleting the ridgeline controls contained in clause 10c.4.7 and the significant ridgeline notations shown on planning map 1. Those requests will be considered in the hearing report on part 10c - Development controls for land units and settlement areas.

As a replacement for the ridgeline rules, the submissions suggest that the effects that those rules seek to address could be reflected in the assessment criteria for resource consent applications.

It is anticipated that the hearing report on part 10c will recommend that the ridgeline controls in clause 10c.4.7 be retained, with some wording amendments. Some amendments to the location of the ridgelines as identified on map 1 are also likely to be recommended.

No amendments are recommended to part 11 in response to these submissions, and they should therefore be rejected.

4.2.2.3 Comprehensive management plans etc

Submissions 618/132, 1101/17, 1284/15, 1286/112, 1287/45, 1288/163, 1289/22, 2721/12 and 2878/113 seek revision of the proposed land use assessment criteria for discretionary activities to include specific provisions for comprehensive management plans (eg see Far North District provisions Rule 12.9.2, Rodney District Council rural provisions Rule 7.14.2.7).

Submission 1288/46 seeks criteria relating to comprehensive management plans, variations to lot size standards and provisions for bonus density subdivision in part 11.

Other subparts of these submissions seek to amend the Plan to include additional discretionary activities for comprehensive management plans, variations to lot size standards and bonus density subdivision. These subparts are considered in other hearing reports - in particular in the hearing reports related to land units and settlement areas, and in the subdivision hearing report. Those reports recommend that these submissions be rejected. However if the panel decides to provide for these activities, it will be desirable to include appropriate assessment criteria in the Plan. Such assessment criteria may be better located in part 12 - Subdivision than in part 11.

At this stage it is recommended that submissions 618/132, 1101/17, 1284/15, 1286/112, 1287/45, 1288/46, 1288/163, 1289/22, 2721/12 and 2878/113 be rejected. However this is dependent on the decisions made as a result of other submissions.  

4.2.2.4 Non-complying developments

Submission 678/1 asks for proposed non-complying developments to be judged solely on fundamental regulations of the Plan and other planning documents. This is intended to reduce the need for so many submissions and reduce the setting of precedents.

It is not entirely clear what this submission is seeking. However in its supporting reasons, the submission expresses concern about the substantial use of mitigating factors in order to judge whether or not a non-complying development 'will have a minor effect'.

The matters which the council must have regard to when considering a resource consent application are set out in the RMA. Of particular relevance are part 2, section 104, and (for non-complying activities) section 104D. The definition of sustainable management set out in section 5(2) of the RMA includes reference to 'avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of the activity on the environment'.

It is recommended that submission 678/1 be rejected. The council is required to follow the requirements of the RMA when assessing applications for non-complying activities. The extent to which any adverse effects can be mitigated is a relevant factor to consider.

4.2.2.5 Wastewater

Submissions 754/9 and 859/9 suggests that any proposal that requires a council resource consent can be assessed in respect of wastewater management through the use of relevant criteria.

The assessment criteria in clause 11.32(10) Infrastructure constraints, address wastewater management. It is recommended that these submissions be rejected to the extent that they seek amendments to the Plan.

4.2.2.6 Buildings as a controlled activity

Submission 1288/45 seeks a set of criteria for buildings as a controlled activity in part 11.

The Plan does not use the controlled activity status for buildings, or any other activities. Other hearing reports have considered and recommended rejection of submissions which seek to amend the activity status for buildings from restricted discretionary to controlled. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.2.2.7 Visitor accommodation in commercial 4

Submission 2631/4 seeks to amend the Plan so that visitor accommodation in commercial 4 is assessed against the assessment criteria in part 11, including both the general assessment criteria and the assessment criteria for particular discretionary activities.

Table 11.1 identifies that 17 of the 18 assessment matters identified in clause 11.3 are of particular relevance when considering a resource consent application for visitor accommodation. However visitor accommodation is permitted activity in commercial 4 (visitor accommodation) and does not require assessment via a resource consent. Another subpart of submission 2631 ( 2631/2) seeks to amend the status of visitor accommodation in commercial 4 from permitted to discretionary. This submission ( 2631/2) is considered in the hearing report for commercial 4, where it is recommended that it be rejected.

If the panel considers that visitor accommodation should become a discretionary activity in commercial 4, then the assessment matters identified in part 11 would be taken into account in considering any application.

No amendments to the Plan are recommended in response to this submission and it should therefore be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions regarding part 11 in general

That submissions 142/1, 618/67,   618/132, 619/87, 678/1, 754/9, 754/99, 859/9, 859/99, 1101/17, 1284/15, 1285/3, 1286/2, 1286/112, 1287/45, 1288/45, 1288/46, 1288/163, 1289/3, 1289/22, 2631/4, 2670/85, 2721/12, 2823/1, 2878/2, 2878/113, 3061/108 be rejected.

4.3 Submissions about HGMPA

Submissions dealt with in this section:

2297/1, 3061/109, 3079/5, 3521/128

4.3.1 Decisions requested

The submissions considered in this section seek decisions which:

  • include a specific assessment criteria relating to HGMPA
  • includes additional parts of the HGMPA in the Plan (refers to clause 11.2(1))
  • retain the provisions in clause 11.2 about HGMPA

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Submission 2297/1 seeks to include the preamble from the HGMPA in the Plan, as well as the purpose and interpretation sections, section 13, the first schedule and other relevant criteria (refers to clause 11.2(1)).

Submission 3061/109 seeks to include a specific assessment criteria relating to the HGMPA in part 11.

Submission 3079/5 and 3521/128 seeks to retain the provisions in clause 11.2 relating to HGMPA.

Clause 11.2 states as follows:

" 11.2 Matters to be considered for all resource consent applications

The following matters need to be considered by the council when assessing any resource consent application:

1. Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000

The purpose of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 is outlined in part 2 - Resource management overview. Its introduction requires the council, when assessing an application for resource consent for the Hauraki Gulf, its islands and catchments, to have regard to the matters set out in sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA 2000. Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the HGMPA 2000 are contained in appendix 10.

2. ...

Clauses (1) and (2) above are in addition to any assessment criteria identified in clause 11.3 and table 11.1 Assessment criteria for particular discretionary activities for the particular activity."

It is not clear why submission 2297/1 is directed at clause 11.2(1). No amendments are recommended to clause 11.2(1) in response to this submission. However it appears that this submission would be met by amending appendix 10 to include the full text of HGMPA, including the preamble, rather than just sections 7, 8 and 9 to that Act. Other submissions in other hearings have sought this and the panel has indicated support for this. It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted to the extent that it is met by extending appendix 10 in this manner.

Clause 11.2(1) clearly identifies the requirement for council to have regard to the matters set out in sections 7 and 8 when assessing an application for resource consent. It is not necessary to amend part 11 to have any other specific assessment criteria relating to the HGPMA. It is therefore recommended that 3061/109 be rejected as it considered that the Plan and the requirements of HGMPA already meet the intent of this submission.

It is recommended that submission 3079/5 and 3521/128 be accepted as they support the content of clause 11.2.

Planner's recommendations about submissions regarding HGMPA
  1. That submission 3061/109 be rejected.
  2. That submission 2297/1 be accepted in part to the extent that it is met by amending appendix 12 to the Plan to include the full text of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.
  3. That submissions 3079/5, 3521/128 be accepted.

4.4 Submissions about specific assessment criteria in clause 11.3 - General assessment criteria

Submissions dealt with in this section:

Group 1: 1310/1, 1317/1, 1334/1, 1418/1, 1457/1, 1463/1, 1484/1, 1575/1, 1559/1, 1903/1, 1916/1, 1936/1, 1962/1, 1976/1, 2223/1, 2242/1, 2330/1, 2332/1, 2338/1, 2375/1, 2402/1, 2404/1, 2468/1, 2472/1, 2474/1, 2854/1, 3109/1, 3585/1, 3635/1, 3668/1, 3691/1, 3778/1

Other: 560/15, 941/46, 1075/1, 1093/68, 1093/69, 1093/70, 1330/10, 2641/67, 3521/129, 3521/130, 3521/131, 3521/132

4.4.1 Decisions requested

The submissions considered in this section seek decisions which amend the following assessment criteria:

  • 2. Access
  • 8. Intensity and scale
  • 9. Cumulative effects
  • 10. Infrastructure constraints
  • 13. Site facilities and offensive or hazardous activities
  • 18. Reverse sensitivity.

One submission seeks to delete the assessment criterion relating to intensity and scale.

There are submissions supporting the following assessment criteria:

  • 9. Cumulative effects
  • 11. Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED).

A new assessment criterion is sought to deal with heritage values.

4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.4.2.1 Access

The submissions identified as group 1 states that additional criteria should be added to clause 11.3.2(2) to protect the rights of landowners to gain access to their properties while maintaining the principle of sustainable land use.

Clause 11.3.2(2) sets out seven assessment criteria about access. These criteria are matters which may need to be considered by the council when assessing an application for a discretionary activity. The criteria address location and design of the access, safety and traffic issues, and noise. Table 11.1 Assessment criteria for particular discretionary activities, identifies the assessment criteria of particular relevance to the various discretionary activities listed in the activity tables for the individual land units and settlement areas. Table 11.1 identifies 'access' as a particular matter to be addressed for almost all of the discretionary activities listed in the table.

The submissions are concerned about the rights of landowners to gain access to their properties. Where individual landowners may need to construct access for residential or farming purposes the type of resource consents required are likely relate to earthworks and vegetation clearance rather than to the discretionary activities listed in table 11.1.

It is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

4.4.2.2 Intensity and scale

Submission 1330/10 seeks to delete clause 11.3.2(8) Intensity and scale.

Clause 11.3.2(8) states as follows:

"8. Intensity and scale

Whether the intensity and scale of the proposal, in particular, the number of people involved in the activity, traffic generation and size and location of buildings and associated parking will be compatible with the character and amenity values of the surrounding area having regard to the objectives and policies of the relevant land unit or settlement area."

Submission 1330 as a whole relates primarily to commercial 2 (Ostend village) and seeks amendments to the Plan to support the development of a supermarket and a park and ride facility on a large site in Ostend. The submission gives no specific reason for seeking deletion of the assessment criterion relating to intensity and scale. Presumably the submitter is concerned that these considerations may unduly constrain the development of the supermarket and park and ride.

It is considered that clause 11.3.2(8) should be retained as it identifies matters which are of particular relevance to the council's assessment of the activities identified in table 11.1. Submission 1330/10 should therefore be rejected.

4.4.2.3 Cumulative effects

Submissions 1093/68 and 3521/129 seek to retain clause 11.3.2(9) Cumulative effects.

Submissions 3521/130 and 3521/131 seek to amend clause 11.3.2(9)(b) as follows:

"b The extent to which the establishment of the activity will contribute to result in an accumulation of activities in the area and corresponding that may generate an adverse effect s in respect of the following:

...

iii. Infrastructure - whether the wastewater and stormwater systems can adequately deal with the servicing needs of the activity , without contributing to off-site effects ."

The amendments sought by 3521/130 and 3521/131 do improve the clarity and precision of this criteria. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be accepted.

It is further recommended that submissions 1093/68 and 3521/129 be accepted in part, to the extent that they support the amendments made in response to other submissions.

4.4.2.4 Infrastructure constraints
Servicing vs infrastructure

Submission 3521/132 seeks to amend the title of clause 11.3.2(10) by replacing 'Infrastructure constraints' with 'Servicing constraints'.

It is agreed that 'Servicing constraints' is a more appropriate title for clause 11.3.2(10) as most wastewater servicing on the islands is onsite rather than via a network of infrastructure. It is therefore recommended that submission 3521/132 be accepted that the clause amended accordingly.

As a consequential amendment, clause 11.3.2(10)(b) should also be amended as follows:

b. If the site does have infrastructure servicing constraints, whether the applicant is able to demonstrate how these can be avoided, remedied or mitigated to the extent that the proposed activity can be adequately provided for.

Network utilities

Submission 941/46 seeks to amend clause 11.3.2(10)(a) as follows:

"a. Whether the site has constraints relating to problems of disposing of wastewater or stormwater , or other network utilities, such as the provision of electricity, telecommunications or gas ."

In its supporting reasons, submission 941 (Vector Ltd) states that this part of the Plan does not currently appropriately recognise the importance of network utilities and the operational constraints they can face.

The purpose of the assessment criteria in clause 11.3.2 is to draw attention to particular effects on the environment that should be considered. Wastewater and stormwater constraints warrant specific identification as there can be significant offsite effects if the proposed activity cannot be adequately serviced in this regard. However it is not considered necessary to specifically identify network utilities such as electricity, telecommunications or gas in the same manner. It is therefore recommended that submission 941/46 be rejected.

4.4.2.5 Crime prevention through environmental design

Submission 1075/1 seeks to retain clause 11.3.2(11) Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED).

It is recommended that this submission be accepted.

4.4.2.6 Site facilities and offensive or hazardous facilities

Submission 1093/69 seeks to amend clause 11.3.2(13)(a) as follows:

"a. Whether the activity generates any smells, odours, fumes, smoke, steam, dust or other particulate which will be offensive or hazardous , or cause nuisance to surrounding occupants."

In its supporting reasons, submission 1093 (from NZ Winegrowers) express concern that point 13(a) fails to acknowledge the reality that rural operations generate some unavoidable effects as a result of a productive working rural environment. The submission further states that consideration of whether an activity causes nuisance is inappropriate, and not a relevant effect under the RMA, and will unnecessarily impede the necessary aspects of rural activities.

It is considered relevant to assess whether the activity has any adverse effects on surrounding occupants as the result of any smells, odours, fumes, smoke, steam, dust or other particulate. However rather than using the wording 'or cause nuisance', it is recommended that the wording 'or cause other adverse effects' be used. It is therefore recommended that submission 1093/69 be accepted in part and that this clause be amended accordingly.

4.4.2.7 Reverse sensitivity

Submissions 560/15 and 1093/70 seek to amend clause 11.3.2(18) as follows:

"Whether it is appropriate to locate the activity in an area, given the proximity of other activities , the nature of established activities and the potential for reverse sensitivity issues effects to arise."

In their supporting reasons, the submissions state that it is appropriate for the Plan to recognise the significance of reverse sensitivity issues and, in particular, the unreasonable expectations which those undertaking residential activities in rural area may have in respect of established rural activities in a productive working rural environment.

It is considered that the suggested amendments improve the assessment criteria by adding specific reference to established activities. In addition, 'reverse sensitivity issues' is a more appropriate term to use than 'reverse sensitivity effects'. It is recommended that submissions 560/15 and 1093/70 be accepted and that the criteria be amended accordingly.

4.4.2.8 Heritage

Submission 2641/67 (NZ Historic Places Trust) seeks to add an additional assessment criterion as follows:

19. Heritage values

The extent to which the activity gives rise to adverse effects on any heritage values.

The submission also seeks to include this criterion in table 11.1.

The assessment criteria do not limit the matters that the council may consider. The council's consideration of an application for resource consent is subject to part 2 of the RMA. Included in part 2, are the matters of national importance set out in section 6. In accordance with section 6(f), the council is required to recognise and provide for the following matter of national importance:

"(f) The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development."

It is considered that the additional assessment criterion proposed by the submission is unnecessary and adds no value given the requirements set out in section 6(f). Submission 2641/67 should therefore be rejected.

It is noted that where a proposal requires a resource consent under part 7 - Heritage, of the Plan, then there are specific assessment criteria set out in that part of the Plan

Planner's recommendations about submissions regarding specific criteria in clause 11.3
  1. That submissions 1310/1, 1317/1, 1334/1, 1418/1, 1457/1, 1463/1, 1484/1, 1575/1, 1559/1, 1903/1, 1916/1, 1936/1, 1962/1, 1976/1, 2223/1, 2242/1, 2330/1, 2332/1, 2338/1, 2375/1, 2402/1, 2404/1, 2468/1, 2472/1, 2474/1, 2854/1, 3109/1, 3585/1, 3635/1, 3668/1, 3691/1, 3778/1 be rejected.
  2. That submissions 941/46, 1330/10, 2641/67 be rejected.
  3. That submissions 560/15, 1093/70, 3521/130, 3521/131, 3521/132 be accepted and that the Plan be amended accordingly as set out in appendix 3.
  4. That submissions 1093/68 and 3521/129 be accepted in part to the extent that they support the Plan as amended in response to other submissions and set out in appendix 3.
  5. That submission 1075/1 be accepted.
  6. That submission 1093/69 be accepted in part to the extent that it supports the amendments to the Plan set out in appendix 3.

4.5 Other submissions about clause 11.3 - General assessment criteria

Submissions dealt with in this section:

1086/1, 1086/2, 1072/1, 2293/2, 2295/2, 3845/3

4.5.1 Decisions requested

The submissions considered in this section seek decisions which:

  • provide specific assessment criteria for educational facilities
  • provide for emergency services
  • provide assessment criteria for the enhancement of public open space
  • include the restricted discretionary criteria (in clause 11.5) in clause 11.3 also
  • ensure sound environmental outcomes relating to the construction, operation and maintenance of roads.

4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.5.2.1 Educational facilities

Submission 1086/1 seeks to amend clause 11.3.2 to provide specific assessment criteria for educational facilities. Similarly, submission 1086/2 seeks to amend table 11.1 to provide specific assessment criteria for educational facilities.

Submission 1086 (Minister of Education) gives no further information about the nature of the criteria sought or the reason for them.

Table 11.1 identifies all of the assessment criteria in clause 11.3.2 as being relevant when the council is considering a resource consent application for an educational facility. It is considered that the Plan has dealt adequately with this matter and therefore submissions 1086/1 and 1086/2 should be rejected.

4.5.2.2 Emergency services

Submission 1072/1 (NZ Police) seeks to delete the assessment criteria listed at clause 11.3.2, as they do not recognise the provision for emergency services.

In response to another submission from the NZ Police ( 1074/2) another hearing report [2] has recommended that emergency services facilities be specifically provided for in the Plan and that table 11.1 be amended accordingly. The recommendation in that hearing report is that table 11.1 be amended by adding an additional row for the activity 'Emergency services facilities'. All items (1 to 18) should be selected with an asterisk (*).

It is recommended that submission 1072/1 be rejected.

4.5.2.3 Construction, operation and maintenance of roads

Submission 2293/2 seeks amendment by modifying at the appropriate places including at clause 11.3 to ensure sound environmental outcomes relating to the construction, operation and maintenance of roads. These outcomes will affect culvert pipes and public open space. Most places where roadworks intersect with streams and wetlands there is no effective fish bypass.

It is not clear what amendments the submission seeks to clause 11.3. The construction, operation and maintenance of the road network is provided for in part 5 - Network utility services. In circumstances where a resource consent is required, the council would have regard to the matters listed in clause 5.8.1 rather than to part 11.

It is recommended that submission 2293/2 be rejected.

4.5.2.4 Public open space

Submission 2295/2 seeks to develop assessment criteria in clause 11.3 for the enhancement of public open space.

The submission has provided no further detail about the nature of the assessment criteria sought. The criteria in clause 11.3.2(11) Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), seek to enhance public open space by addressing public safety issues. Items (b) and (c) under clause 11.3.2(12) Landscaping, are also relevant as they address the relationship between the proposed development and the streetscape or surrounding recreation land units.

No amendments are recommended in response to submission 2295/2 and it is therefore recommended that it be rejected.

4.5.2.5 Restricted discretionary criteria

Submission 3845/3 seeks to include the restricted discretionary criteria (in clause 11.5) in clause 11.3 also.

This is not considered necessary. Many applications for discretionary or non-complying activities will also involve building construction and will occur in land units or settlement areas where building construction is listed as a restricted discretionary activity in the Plan. The restricted discretionary criteria in clause 11.5 will be relevant in considering such applications even though the status of the activity as a whole may default to discretionary or non-complying.

It is recommended that submission 3845/3 be rejected to the extent that it seeks amendments to the Plan.

Planner's recommendations about other submissions regarding clause 11.3

That submissions 1086/1, 1086/2, 1072/1, 2293/2, 2295/2, 3845/3 be rejected

4.6 Submissions about clause 11.5 - Buildings as a restricted discretionary activity

Submissions dealt with in this section:

358/12, 358/14, 449/1, 1242/2, 1550/8, 2042/7, 2075/2, 2191/15, 2192/14, 2202/7, 2552/12, 2552/14, 2733/12, 3077/2, 3077/3, 3077/4, 3077/5, 3077/6, 3093/1, 3147/1, 3400/2, 3518/7, 3552/7, 3845/1, 3845/2

4.6.1 Decisions requested

The submissions considered in this section seek decisions which:

  • acknowledge the positive and creative role of buildings in shaping the cultural landscape which is no longer in its natural state
  • include the requirement for pre-application assessment by the council's gulf islands environmental design panel
  • adopt clause 11.5.1 in relation to residential activities that qualify as controlled (if the submission is adopted on activity status) or restricted discretionary activities
  • amend clause 11.5.1 as it relates to commercial or recreational or other non residential activity located immediately adjacent to residential activity
  • includes verandahs in the list of matters of discretion in clause 11.5.2
  • retain the provisions relating to the colour of buildings in island residential 1 (coastal amenity area only), island residential 2 and in the settlement areas
  • delete or amend the criteria for island residential 1 - coastal amenity area
  • delete one of the criteria for island residential 2
  • recognise the key design objectives of supermarkets
  • delete or amend various of the criteria for rural 1-3

4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.6.2.1 Positive role of buildings

Submission 3845/1 seeks to rewrite the criteria in clause 11.5 to acknowledge the positive and creative role of buildings in shaping the cultural landscape which is no longer in its natural state.  Buildings should be complementary to landscape.  State where buildings should not be prominent, eg on skylines only. Colour should be complementary to landscape, not necessarily integrated.  Good buildings may well dominate the landscape, or break expanses of indigenous vegetation.  Include criteria in clause 11.5 relating to building forms reinforcing landscape forms, large building forms being broken up into complexity of forms with references to vernacular Gulf Island architecture.

Complementary vs integrated

Submission 3845/1 suggests that buildings and colour should be complementary to landscape, not necessarily integrated. The criteria in clause 11.5.3 refer to the buildings and external colour being integrated with the surrounding natural landscape. In using the term 'integrated' or 'integrate', the intention is that the new development be compatible with the existing context. The criteria relating to colour advise that the council will refer to clause 10c.4.8 for guidance in assessing this matter. Clause 10c.4.8 sets out the rules for the colour of buildings in the settlement areas on Great Barrier. It contains a permitted activity standard which uses the British Standard BS5252:1976 to identify permitted activities in terms of external building colour. The British standard classifies colour by three criteria - hue, reflectivity and greyness. To achieve visual integration, colours that are less bright and less contrasting have been selected as permitted activity colours. Clause 10c.4.8.3 explains that "One of the main methods of achieving colours that integrated with the landscape is by a combination of higher levels of greyness and low reflectivity".

The submission prefers the term 'complementary' rather than 'integrate(d)'. Dictionary definitions of the terms 'complementary' and 'integrate' are contained in appendix 4.  The words are similar in their meaning and both are used to refer to combining, or blending to form a whole. However the term 'complementary colour' has a more specific meaning as follows:

"a colour that combined with a given colour makes white or black."

(Compact Oxford English Dictionary)

"relating to or constituting one of a pair of contrasting colors that produce a neutral color when combined in suitable proportions"

(Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Complementary colours are actually opposing colours in a colour model. The traditional pairs of complementary colours are: red and green; blue and orange; and yellow and purple.

Due to the specific meaning of 'complementary colour', it is considered that the term 'complementary to the landscape' is not be the best term to use in the Plan in relation to colour. It potentially creates some confusion as to whether the aim is to achieve a visual contrast, or to blend the building into the landscape. It is also noted that people sometimes confuse the terms 'complementary' and 'complimentary'.

In 2005, towards the end of the consultation stage in development of the Plan, the council set up several focus groups including one that concentrated on landscape issues. The landscape focus group included a architect and two landscape architects, all from Waiheke. The focus group expressed concern about the use of the term 'complementary' in the operative Plan where it referred to the need for the scale, form, finish and location of buildings to be complementary to the landscape. It was suggested that complementary was not the right word and that more precise wording was needed. The complication added by the term 'complementary colours' was also raised. This feedback was taken into account in the development of the criteria in part 11.

It is recommended that the term 'integrate' or 'integrated' be retained in clause 11.5.3.

Prominence of buildings

The submission suggests that the criteria in clause 11.5 should state where buildings should not be prominent, eg on skylines only.

A number of the criteria in clause 11.5.3 refer to the building "being of a scale, form and location that is not visually prominent". However, as this submission has highlighted, these criteria do not provide a context, or describe where the visual prominence is to be determined from. In response to this submission, it is recommended that these criteria be amended to read:

"Being of a scale, form and location that is not visually prominent when viewed from any public place, such as roads, public reserves and beaches ."

There are also criteria that refer to the building "being located so that it does not dominate or detract from public or private views". In response to this submission, it is recommended that the words 'or private' be deleted. This is consistent with the reference to visual prominence being viewed from public places. In addition, the Plan does not seek to protect private views.

Dominance of buildings

In seeking amendments to clause 11.5, the submission suggests that good buildings may well dominate the landscape, or break expanses of indigenous vegetation.

Breaking expanses of vegetation

This aspect of the submission appears to be a response to the criteria which refer to buildings "being of a scale, form and location that maintains the visual coherence of the landscape character by not breaking the expanses of indigenous vegetation ..." (underlining added).  This statement occurs in the criteria for the following land units and parts of settlement areas:

  • landform 2, 6 and 7
  • rural 1-3
  • recreation 1-3
  • Pakatoa
  • conservation
  • settlement areas - reserve, dune, coastal margin and wetland conservation area; headland protection area; Claris airport area.

The reference to "not breaking expanses of indigenous vegetation" is intended to ensure that the extensive nature of the vegetation remains visually dominant and undisturbed and not interrupted by buildings which do not blend in due to their incompatible scale, form or location.  It is considered that this is an appropriate outcome for these land units and parts of settlement areas. However, in response to this submission, the intent of this criteria could be better described by the following amendment:

"Being of a scale, form and location so that it maintains the visual coherence of the landscape character by not breaking the expanses of indigenous vegetation, or the pattern of any natural features such as coastal escarpments, ridges , or prominent slopes , or indigenous vegetation ."

Dominating the landscape

The submission states that good buildings may well dominate the landscape. This aspect of the submission appears to be a response to the criteria in clause 11.5.3 which refer to the building 'being located so that it does dominate or detract from public or private views which are characterised by natural landscapes'. This statement occurs in the criteria for the following land units and parts of settlement areas:

  • landform 2, 6 and 7
  • rural 1-3
  • Pakatoa.

As has been noted earlier, it is recommended that the words 'or private' be deleted from this criteria as the focus of the Plan should be on public views. Subject to this amendment, the wording is otherwise considered appropriate for landform 2 [3] , 6 and 7; rural 2 and 3, and Pakatoa. The emphasis on natural landscape character and avoidance of building dominance is consistent with the objectives and policies for these land units. In the case of rural 1 (rural amenity), it would be more consistent with the objectives and policies to refer to 'rural character' rather than natural character. However such an amendment would appear to be beyond the scope of the submission.

Building form

The submission seeks to "include criteria in clause 11.5 relating to building forms reinforcing landscape forms, large building forms being broken up into complexity of forms with references to vernacular Gulf Island architecture."

Having building forms that reinforce landscape forms is one design method of integrating buildings within the landscape and of maintaining the visual coherence of the landscape character. However other methods related to scale, materials, colour and location can also achieve the same outcome. It is not considered necessary or desirable to be overly prescriptive in the criteria in clause 11.5.3 by specifying design methods.

Similarly, breaking large building forms into a complexity of forms is one design method of achieving the outcomes sought by the criteria. In most of the land units it is not considered necessary or desirable to be overly prescriptive in the criteria by specifying design methods. With respect to commercial 1 and 2, where the built environment is more dominant, the suggestion that large building forms be broken up is however echoed in the following criterion:

"5. Ensuring that the building is of a 'human scale', and that its apparent bulk is moderated by articulating the building form and through surface treatment. Methods to achieve this include, but are not limited to:

  • roof forms
  • inclusion of verandas and balconies
  • window placement."
Conclusion

It is recommended that submission 3845/1 be accepted in part, to the extent that it is met by making the following amendments to the criteria in clause 11.5.3:

"Being of a scale, form and location that is not visually prominent when viewed from any public place, such as roads, public reserves and beaches. "

"Being located so that it does not dominate or detract from public or private views which are characterised by natural landscapes."

"Being of a scale, form and location so that it maintains the visual coherence of the landscape character by not breaking the expanses of indigenous vegetation, or the pattern of any natural features such as coastal escarpments, ridges , or prominent slopes , or indigenous vegetation ."

These amendments are further detailed in appendix 3. It is noted that slightly different wording is proposed for clauses 11.5.3.8(1) and (4) (applying to Pakatoa) and for clause 11.5.3.13(3) (applying to the Claris airport area).

4.6.2.2 Environmental design panel

Clause 3845/2 seeks to include the requirement for pre-application assessment by the council's gulf islands environmental design panel.

The use of the environmental design panel is a procedural matter which does not need to be referred to in the Plan. In addition, the council can encourage but not require applicants to seek a pre-application assessment. For these reasons it is recommended that this submission be rejected to the extent that it seeks amendments to the Plan.

4.6.2.3 Clause 11.5.1 Notification requirements

Submissions 358/12 and 2552/12 seek that clause 11.5.1 Notification requirements, be adopted in relation to residential activities, that qualify as controlled (if the submission is adopted on activity status) or restricted discretionary activities. In their supporting reasons, the submissions endorse the notification requirements in clause 11.5.1 and state that the residential activities which are provided for as controlled or restricted discretionary activities, can be considered without being notified. 

It is recommended that submissions 358/12 and 2552/12, which support clause 11.5.1 in part, be accepted.

Submissions 358/14 and 2552/14 seek that clause 11.5.1 be amended such that commercial or recreational or other non-residential activity located immediately adjacent to residential activity, may not be automatically processed without notification. In their supporting reasons, the submissions suggest that automatic non-notification may not be appropriate for commercial or recreational activities or non-residential activity that may involve intensive use of the site (including bulk and use) in a residential context.

Clause 11.5.1 Notification requirements, states as follows:

Except as provided for by section 94C(2) of the RMA, applications for a resource consent for the construction and relocation of buildings, and alterations and additions to existing buildings as a restricted discretionary activity will be considered without public notification or the need to obtain written approval of or serve notice on affected persons (in accordance with section 94D(2) and (3) of the RMA).

It is considered that it is appropriate to provide for automatic non-notification for buildings in all cases where this is identified as a restricted discretionary activity in the Plan. This clause does not apply to activities which are discretionary or non-complying, or to proposals which do not comply with the standard development controls. Submissions 358/14 and 2552/14 express concern about commercial, recreational or non-residential activities that may involve intensive use of the site (including bulk and use) in a residential context. Such proposals are likely to trigger a requirement for a discretionary or non-complying activity consent and will be subject to the standard notification tests under the RMA. It is therefore recommended that submissions 358/14 and 2552/14 be rejected to the extent that they seek amendments to the Plan.

4.6.2.4 Clause 11.5.2 Matters of discretion

Submission 2075/2 seeks to include the requirements covering provision and location of a verandah (clause 10a.11.7.1) in the list of matters that council has discretion to consider under clause 11.5.2.

Another subpart of this submission ( 2075/1) seeks to ensure that the verandah requirement in clause 10a.11.7.1 is not compulsory, at least for defined areas of commercial 1 - eg Ocean View Road west of the roundabout. The submitter's particular concern is 127 to 133 Oneroa Road. Submission 2075/1 has been considered in the hearing report for commercial 1. That hearing report has recommended amendments to the commercial 1 rules so that verandahs are required only on the northern side of Oneroa Road.  However this will not fully meet this submitter's concerns as 127 to 133 Oneroa Road are on the northern side of Oneroa Road.

A relaxation of the verandah controls can be applied for as a development control modification which is a discretionary activity under clause 10c.3.1. This is considered a more appropriate approach than providing for it to be assessed under clause 11.5.2. It is therefore recommended that submission 2075/1 be rejected.

4.6.2.5 Clause 11.5.3 Applying the matters of discretion.
Landform 2, 6 and 7

Submission 3077/2 seeks to retain the provisions relating to the colour of building materials in clause 11.5.3.1(2).

It is recommended that this submission be accepted.

Island residential 1 - coastal amenity area only

Submission 1242/2 seeks to alter the criteria in clause 11.5.3.2 for determining scale, colour and visual amenity from their proposed subjective bases to more prescribed, objective and specific determining criteria.

Similarly submission 3400/2 refers to clause 11.5.3.2 and asks for the 'meaningless subjective criteria' to be scrapped.

Clause 11.5.3.2 states as follows:

"In island residential 1, discretion over the matters identified in clause 11.5.2 will be applied so that the proposed building is integrated with the character and amenity value of the immediate coastal environment by:

  1. Being of a scale, form, appearance and location that are not visually prominent and which do not detract from the character and amenity of the coastal environment at Blackpool, Oneroa, Palm Beach and Onetangi.
  2. Having an external colour that is integrated with the surrounding natural landscape. The council will refer to clause 10c.4.8 for guidance in assessing this matter.
  3. Being sympathetic to the high visual amenity value of the surrounding coastal landscape."

It is noted that some amendments to the above clause are recommended in section 4.6.2.1 of this report.

Neither of the submissions ( 1242/2 or 3400/2) suggest any alternative wording or specific amendments to make these criteria less subjective. Providing for buildings, including alterations and additions, as a restricted discretionary activity allows the council (as consent authority) to have some control over the scale, form, colour and location of buildings. The assessment of such a restricted discretionary activity will involve a subjective decision.

It is recommended that submissions 1242/2 and 3400/2 be rejected.

Island residential 2

Submission 3077/3 seeks to retain the provisions relating to the colour of building materials in clause 11.5.3.3(2).

It is recommended that this submission be accepted.

Submissions 2191/15 and 2192/14 seek to delete clause 11.5.3.3(3) which reads 'Being sympathetic to the high visual amenity value of the surrounding landscape'. These submissions state that the phrase 'being sympathetic' is non-specific and leaves the assessment of the proposal wide open. In addition the submissions considered that clauses 11.5.3.3(1) and 11.5.3.3(2) adequately cover the high visual amenity values of the surrounding landscape.

There is some overlap between items (1), (2) and (3) and it is accepted that (3) could be more precise. In response to the submitters' concerns about the phrase 'being sympathetic', it is recommended that item (3) be replaced by the following wording:

"3. Being sympathetic to of a scale, form and location that maintains the high visual amenity value coherence of the surrounding landscape character ."

It is recommended that submissions 2191/15 and 2192/14 be accepted in part to the extent that they are met by amending clause 11.5.3.3(3) as proposed.

It is noted that some amendments to clause 11.5.3.3(1) and (2) are recommended in section 4.6.2.1 of this report.

Commercial 1 and 2

Submission 2733/12 seeks that, whatever the status of the commercial activity, appropriate recognition be made in the assessment criteria (eg clause 11.5.3.4) to recognise the key design objectives of supermarkets. Key design objectives include visibility of the store and of related parking; relationship of the site, parking and site entry; store size, correct proportion and the requirement for a single level; serviceability; and limits on exterior glazing to the store.

This submitter (Progressive Enterprises Ltd) has an interest in a site at 13-19 Belgium Street for a supermarket. The sites is classified as commercial 2 (Ostend village)

The criteria at clause 11.5.3.4 are aimed at ensuring that the scale, form and location of buildings in commercial 1 and 2 achieves a positive streetscape environment and high level of amenity. The criteria address the relationship between the building and public areas, particularly the street, and seek to ensure that buildings are of a human scale rather than being large, dominant and impersonal. The criteria are not intended to address the design requirements of particular activities. It is recommended that submission 2733/12 be rejected.

Rural 1-3

Submissions 449/1 and 3147/1 seek to delete (1) and (3)-(5) of clause 11.5.3.6. These submitters are particular concerned about the application of this clause to rural 3 (Rakino amenity).

Submissions 1550/8, 2042/7, 2202/7, 3518/7 and 3552/7 seek to remove 'private views' from clause 11.5.3.6(3) (as it applies to rural 3).

Submission 3093/1 opposes clause 11.5.3.6 as it applies to rural 3 - matters of discretion are arbitrary, subjective and restricted.

Clause 11.5.3.6 states as follows:

"In rural 1-3, discretion over the matters identified in clause 11.5.2 will be applied so that the proposed building is integrated with the natural landscape by:

  • Being of a scale, form and location that are not visually prominent.
  • Having an external colour that is integrated with the surrounding natural landscape. The council will refer to clause 10c.4.8 for guidance in assessing this matter.
  • Being located so that it that does not dominate or detract from public or private views which are characterised by natural landscapes.
  • Being of a scale, form and location so that it maintains the visual coherence of the landscape character by not breaking the expanses of indigenous vegetation, or the pattern of any natural features such as coastal escarpments, ridges or prominent slopes.
  • Being of a scale, form, colour and location that does not give rise to cumulative effects within the natural landscape."

It is agreed that the reference to 'private views' in clause 11.5.3.6(3) should be deleted as the Plan does not seek to protect private views. This has already been recommended in section 4.6.2.1 of this report in response to another submission. Submissions 1550/8, 2042/7, 2202/7, 3518/7 and 3552/7 should therefore be accepted in this regard.

Subject to the deletion of the reference to 'private views', and the other amendments to clause 11.5.3.6 recommended in 4.6.2.1 of this report, the criteria are otherwise considered appropriate for Rakino. It is therefore recommended that submissions 449/1, 3093/1 and 3147/1 be rejected.

Settlement areas

Submission 3077/4-6 seeks to retain the provisions relating to the colour of building materials in clauses 11.5.3.10(5), 11.5.3.11(4) and 11.5.3.12(3).

It is recommended that these submissions be accepted.

Planner's recommendations about submissions regarding clause 11.5

5.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding part 11 - Assessment matters, of the Proposed Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section 2006.

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

  Name and title of signatories Signature
Author Katherine Dorofaeff, senior planner  
Reviewer

Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands

 
Approver Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning  

Appendix 1

List of submissions and further submissions (90Kb PDF)

Appendix 2

Summary of decisions requested

Appendix 3

Recommended amendments to the Plan

Appendix 4

Dictionary definitions of integrate and complementary

The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines integrate and integration as follows:

"integrate

verb 1 combine or be combined to form a whole. 2 bring or come into equal participation in an institution or body. 3 Mathematics find the integral of.

DERIVATIVES integrable adjective integrative adjective integrator noun.

integration

noun 1 the action or process of integrating. 2 the intermixing of peoples or groups previously segregated.

DERIVATIVES integrationist noun."

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines integrate and integration as follows:

"integrate

1:  to form, coordinate, or blend into a functioning or unified whole :   unite 2:  to find the integral of (as a function or equation) 3 a:  to unite with something else b:  to incorporate into a larger unit 4 a:  to end the segregation of and bring into equal membership in society or an organization b:   desegregate < integrate school districts> intransitive verb :  to become integrated

integration

1:  the act or process or an instance of integrating: as a:  incorporation as equals into society or an organization of individuals of different groups (as races) b:  coordination of mental processes into a normal effective personality or with the individual's environment 2 a:  the operation of finding a function whose differential is known b:  the operation of solving a differential equation"

The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines complementary and complementary colour as follows:

"complementary

  • adjective 1 combining so as to form a complete whole or to enhance each other. 2 relating to complementary medicine.

complementary colour

  • noun a colour that combined with a given colour makes white or black."

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines complementary as follows:

"com·ple·men·ta·ry

1 :  relating to or constituting one of a pair of contrasting colors that produce a neutral color when combined in suitable proportions

2 :  serving to fill out or complete

3 :  mutually supplying each other's lack

4 :  being complements of each other < complementary acute angles>

5 :  characterized by the capacity for precise pairing of purine and pyrimidine bases between strands of DNA and sometimes RNA such that the structure of one strand determines the other

— com·ple·men·ta·ri·ly adverb

— com·ple·men·ta·ri·ness noun

— complementary noun "

[1] Auckland City Council v The John Woolley Trust and SJ Christmas [2008] CIV-2004-404-3787

[2] In the hearing report for Land units and settlement areas - general ( 314/274013)

[3] This applies to the sand flats area of landform 2 only. Buildings are a non-complying activity in the dune systems area of landform 2.