Plans, policies and reports

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

District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

(Notified version 2006)

Hearing reports index

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

Topic:	Part 13 - Connectivity and Linkages and miscellaneous submissions about roading and transport, bridle paths and roading notations
Report to:	The Hearing Panel
Author:	Richard Osborne
Date:	28 April 2008
Group file:	314/274031

1.0 Introduction

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to the Connectivity an Linkages section of the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006 ('the Plan'), as well as other miscellaneous submissions about roading and transport, bridle paths and roading notations. The Plan was publicly notified on 18 September 2006. The closing date for lodging submissions was 11 December 2006. The submissions were publicly notified for further submissions 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 13 - connectivity and linkages, as well as other miscellaneous submissions about roading and transport, bridle paths and roading notations. This report discusses the submissions (grouped by subject matter or individually) and includes recommendations from the planner who prepared this report. The recommendations identify whether each submission should be accepted or rejected (in full or in part) and what amendments (if any) should be made to the Plan to address matters raised in submissions. Further submissions are dealt with in conjunction with the submissions to which they relate.

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

2.0 Statutory framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:

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

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

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

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

3.0 Background

This section of the report sets out background information about the topic under consideration. It identifies how the Plan deals with transport related issues, excluding wharves.

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about part 13 as well as other miscellaneous submissions about roading and transport, bridle paths and roading notations and recommends how the panel could respond to the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions. The submissions are addressed under subject headings. While the relevant statutory matters (identified in section 2 of this report) will not necessarily be referred to directly, the discussion and recommendations have given appropriate consideration to these and any other relevant matters.

A list of submissions which raise issues about part 13 as well as other miscellaneous submissions about roading and transport, bridle paths and roading notations, together with the related further submissions is contained in appendix 1. Appendix 2 contains the summary of the decisions requested by submissions considered in this report. Any amendments to the Plan recommended in response to submissions are identified 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 13 as a whole

Submissions dealt with in this section: 367/1, 561/1-3, 561/4, 561/8, 579/1, 579/2, 618/143, 618/146, 619/92, 619/95, 650/1-3, 650/4, 650/8, 693/1-4, 693/8, 754/104, 852/3, 859/104, 862/1-4, 862/8, 966/7, 966/6, 966/5, 966/19, 966/14, 966/13, 966/12, 966/11, 966/10, 1012/1-4, 1012/8, 1022/8, 1026/8, 1055/2, 1122/1, 1122/2, 1122/3, 1122/4, 1122/8, 1130/1, 1130/2, 1130/3, 1130/4, 1130/8, 1163/1, 1163/2, 1163/3, 1163/4, 1163/8, 1250/86, 1285/19, 1285/22, 1286/67, 1286/70, 1286/85, 1287/130, 1288/64, 1289/127, 1289/148, 1314/1, 1350/2, 1355/2, 1360/1, 1370/1, 1393/1, 1420/1, 1453/2, 1465/2, 1470/2, 1488/1, 1489/2, 1514/2, 1569/1, 1912/1, 1919/1, 1947/1, 1982/1, 2002/1, 2240/1, 2243/2, 2273/2, 2363/1, 2371/1, 2373/1, 2488/2, 2492/1, 2670/91, 2670/94, 2721/2, 2721/4, 2736/1, 2798/1, 2824/1, 2861/2, 2878/67, 2878/86, 2922/3, 2938/1, 2939/1, 2939/2, 2939/3, 2941/1, 2941/2, 3061/111, 3061/112, 3061/152, 3061/153, 3104/6, 3223/1, 3223/2, 3223/3, 3223/4, 3223/8, 3270/1, 3614/1, 3614/2, 3614/3, 3614/4, 3614/8, 3636/2, 3637/1, 3671/2, 3784/1, 3849/1, 3849/2, 3849/3, 3849/4, 3849/5, 3849/6, 3849/7, 3849/8, 3849/9 and 3849/10.

4.2.1 Decisions requested

Call part 13 - Connectivity and linkages, "Transport" or some thing similar so everyone understands what this section is actually about.
Make use of comprehensive and simple cross referencing.
Provide reference to detailed standards and assessment criteria for parking buildings and other parking areas.
TP 124 should be adopted as a Plan standard if that is all that the Plan is to specify as to roading and access standards.
There is a general lack of specific information and referencing in Part 13.0 - Transport. For example:
- What legislation, strategies and policy documents and plans are being referred to in clause 13.2?
- How does Council propose to reduce reliance on private vehicle trips and encourage the use of alternative forms of transport? If the intent is to develop park and ride this should be explicit.
- There is a lack of standards and assessment criteria for parking buildings and other parking areas.
- There is a lack of specific information on the measures to be adopted in clause 13.4.1.
- There is a lack of specific information in relation to the achievement of the objectives set out in clause 13.3.5.
The provisions relating to 'discretion' in part 13 would be better located within the general plan modification provisions in clause 10c.3.
Adopt and integrate appropriately with the Plan, and give effect to, relevant transport plans and strategies including any new plans and strategies that may eventuate (clause 13.2). Make appropriate amendments to the Plan to acknowledge the necessity for a Travel and Traffic Strategy and council to undertake to implement this strategy.
In part 13, require bridle paths to be taken into account and provided for in Land Units 1-7, Recreation 1-3 and rural 1-3.
Delete all provisions which have the intention or effect of restricting the ability of commercial tourist ventures to provide direct access by air for visitors. This will include deletions from clauses 13.2.3, 13.3.2, 13.3.3 and 13.4.3.
Introduce a variation to the Plan to appropriately identify issues, objectives relating to air transport, including domestic and tourists demand (via the issues) and address (via the policy framework and the rules) issues relating to transport, particularly air transport, including issues relating to domestic and tourist demand, including its importance as it relates to economic growth and the tourism industry.
Waiheke needs to limit the use of private vehicles using the vehicular ferry unless they own property on the island and this should be incorporated into the district plan.
Sealink and Waiheke Shipping ferries need to keep their noise down.
Specify that secondary and local roads are not to be widened along their full extent. Widening of site specific locations may be appropriate, for example particularly narrow bends.
A new set of provisions need to be included (in part 13) that relate to the quality and use of public open space.
With respect to clauses 13.2.2 & 13.3.1 that Objectives, Policies, Assessment Criteria and Rules be developed providing for public space enhancement leading to facilities to enable a "walking ferry bus" commencing in Oneroa village or Allison Park to Matiatia and back. There will be ancillary facilities required such as public parking and bus pick up and drop off facilities.
Seeks Objectives, Policies, Assessment Criteria and Rules that recognise the need for quality public space and the different activities and perceptions of pedestrians and persons on bicycles as a means of transport.
A section be added to part 13 that addresses the enhancement of public space. This will include addressing the adverse impact of the motor car on foot traffic and cycle traffic.
Include objectives, policies, assessment criteria and rules in part 13 that are directed to improving the quality of public space. This would include separating the pedestrian and cyclist from the motor vehicle and improving the quality of experience at public recreation points about the islands.
Inclusion of a commitment by the Council with the Plan to work with landowners and residents to resolve long-standing problems of access to private properties through the use of unformed roads or other appropriate measures.
Seeks that Objectives, Policies and Rules be added to part 13, that addresses the adverse impact of the motor car on the wellbeing of our communities and the public space conflicts that arise between the motor vehicle, the pedestrian and the bicycle. Protect existing tracks and roads on Great Barrier.
That Council enact objectives, policies, rules and assessments that prohibit the passing onto the foreshore of vehicles at the intersection of First Avenue and Garrett Road, Onetangi. This might be achieved by the erection of a barrier, explanative signs and enforcement action. Provision of parking area on land nearby for parking of trailers and cars.
Close the Blackpool/Surfdale Esplanade to road traffic, except for emergency vehicles (and cyclists). (refers to part 13).
Inclusion of appropriate clauses recognising all existing paths, walkways, bush tracks, tracks, driveways, quad-bike tracks, accessways as existing uses or permitted activities, within part 13.
In Connectivity and Linkages section, require bridle paths to be taken into account and provided for in landforms 1 to 7 inclusive, recreation 1, 2, 3 rural 1, 2, 3.
Seeks that the objectives and policies formulated in part 13 will separate bicycle paths and footpaths to the wharf, divert the through traffic stream from the main shopping areas. Address traffic conflicts in predominantly public open space resolving those conflicts in favour of increased quality of open space by removal of the traffic; provide dedicated cyclepaths on the main transport routes about the Island.
Add a section on Cycling needs to the connectivity and linkages section. Currently cycling concerns are combined with pedestrian concerns. Separate cycling concerns from pedestrian concerns, with improving cycling on island roads as a separate section within the Transport Section (part 13).
Include safe bike lanes (at least 1 m wide) along main Matiatia to Onetangi Route. This includes widening road in places, removing curbing from eastbound Onetangi straight and providing road signage marking bike routes. (refers to part 13).
Revert the free parking along Ocean View Rd to Matiatia to a bike lane, as it used to be, on uphill (left) side. (refers to part 13).
Widen Onetangi Rd straight of way, with bike lane on both sides. (Refers to part 13) 3849/5. Add two-way cycleway along northern side of Causeway Road and Belgium Street and along western side of Wharf Rd. (refers to part 13).
Add cycleways along side the roads to the schools on Donald Bruce Rd and Seaview Road. (Refers to part 13).
Add bicycle parking facilities/racks at key areas shops, beaches, and transport hubs. (Refers to part 13).
Provide cycle carrying facilities on public transport-funding bus bike racks which attach on the front of buses ala Seattle and Eugene, Oregon and maintaining ferry use. (Refers to part 13).
Plan to accommodate cyclists in all new roads proposed for Waiheke. (Refers to part 13).
Provisions in Part 13 should be renamed and amended as it is not clear that they address parking standards for example.
That the Plan (particularly part 13) be approved. Reject the entire part 13 connectivity and linkages and revert to the existing operative plan.

4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.2.2.1 Changing the title to Transport

Submissions 367/1, 561/1, 579/1, 650/1, 693/1, 862/1, 1012/1, 1122/1, 1130/1, 1163/1, 1286/85, 1287/130, 1288/64, 1289/127, 2721/2, 2878/86, 3061/111, 3223/1 and 3614/1 request that the title of Connectivity and Linkages be changed to "Transport" or similar, so that its provides a better indication of the issues contained within the section. The intent of using the term "connectivity and linkages" was to convey the importance of connecting and linking people, places, goods and services. Notwithstanding this, it is recognised that it is important for the Plan to have clarity, and the current title for part 13 may not provide this. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are accepted and the title of the section is changed to Transport.

4.2.2.2 Cross Referencing

Submissions 561/2, 579/2, 650/2, 693/2, 862/2, 1012/2, 1122/2, 1130/2, 1163/2, 3061/112 3223/2 and 3614/2 request that comprehensive and simple cross referencing is used. The Plan does use cross referencing in the land units and settlement areas described as 'relationship with rules in other parts of the Plan'. Parts of the Plan that address specific issues, such as part 7 - heritage and part 13 - connectivity and linkages, do not currently have cross referencing. It is not considered necessary to provide any further cross referencing in the connectivity and linkages section of the Plan. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

4.2.2.3 Standards and Assessment Criteria

Submissions 561/3 & 8, 650/3 & 8, 693/3 & 8, 862/3 & 8, 1012/3 & 8, 1122/3, 1122/8, 1130/3, 1130/8, 1163/3, 1163/8, 3223/3, 3223/8, 3614/3 and 3614/8 seek reference to detailed standards and assessment criteria for parking buildings and other parking areas. It is noted that figures 13.2 and 13.3 of the Plan detail the manoeuvring and parking space requirements and the dimensions and manoeuvring and parking space requirements respectively. Figure 13.3 outlines the preferred design envelope around a parked vehicle and figures 13.4 and 13.5 the car and truck tracking curves.

In relation to carparking buildings and parking areas the Plan defines commercial carparking as follows:

Means land or buildings providing parking available to members of the public for a charge or fee. It does not include parking required under clause 13.7.2.

Commercial parking buildings require discretionary activity resource consent in commercial 1 (Oneroa village) and commercial 2 (Ostend village). In other land units commercial carparking would require a non-complying activity consent as outlined in clause 4.2. Clause 11.7 outlines the assessment matters for parking. Clause 13.7.4(5) requires that screening is provided for four or more outdoor parking spaces when it is adjacent to or visible from island residential and recreation land units or settlement areas. The Plan also requires restricted discretionary resource consent for where an activity is required to provide, or otherwise intends to provide parking for more than 25 vehicles. Council's discretion relates to a variety of matters, such as the opportunity for reducing carparking spaces, the proximity of the carparking to residential uses, screening of the carparking area and its formation. Therefore, it is considered that there are sufficient standards and assessment criteria for parking and parking buildings. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 618/143, 619/92, 754/104, 859/104, 1285/19, 1286/67, 2670/91, 2721/4 and 2878/67 seek that TP 124 [1] be adopted as the standards for roading and access. The Plan does not require a particular standard be met for access on private property. However, if site access is steeper than 1 in 6 restricted discretionary consent is required. The matters of discretion specifically refer to whether a low impact design has been used, as well as other low impact design issues such as, stormwater run-off, earthworks and vegetation removal. Part 13.4.4 of the Plan, the resource management strategy for roading, also notes that for new road construction a low impact design approach as outlined in TP 124 will be considered. Therefore, it is considered that low impact design matters are appropriately referenced in the Plan in relation to roading and access. However, it is not considered necessary to adopt the TP 124 standards for roading and access. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

4.2.2.4 Transport Plans and Strategies

Submissions 561/4, 650/4, 693/4, 862/4, 1012/4, 1122/4, 1130/4, 1163/4, 3061/152, 3223/4 and 3614/4 request adoption and integration of relevant transport plans and strategies and any that may eventuate. As acknowledged in part 1.3.4 of the Plan, the Plan is influenced by documents from other agencies. In relation to transport issues this is reinforced in part 13.2 of the Plan that outlines that transport issues must be addressed so they are consistent with other relevant legislation, strategies, policy documents and plans. It is generally not considered best practise to directly reference these documents as the life of the Plan is ten years from when it is made operative and many strategies and plans may become outdated during that time e.g. the Regional Land Transport Strategy is reviewed every three years. Therefore it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 1055/2 seeks that amendments are made to the Plan to acknowledge the necessity of a travel and transport strategy and for council to undertake and implement this strategy. While there may or may not be a need for a travel and transport strategy this decision is not made as part of the Plan review process. The decision on whether such a strategy is required would be made by council's Transport Committee with input from the Transport Safety, Assets and Operations Group and the Transport Strategy Group. While it is not possible to make this decision through the Plan review process this information will be passed on to these groups. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submissions 618/146, 619/95, 1286/70, 1285/22 and 2670/94 state that provisions relating to discretion in part 13 would be better located within the general plan modification provisions in clause 10c.3. Clause 10c.3 outlines the development control modifications. 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. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

4.2.2.5 Bridle paths

Submission 852/3 requests that bridle paths be taken into account and provided for in part 13 of the Plan. The report author understands that bridle paths are principally used for recreational horse riding, rather than as a form of transport. And, if bridle paths are used as a form of transport then it is on a limited basis. However, it is acknowledged that some reference should be made to bridle paths in part 13.1. Therefore, it is recommended that the submission is accepted in part.

Submission 2922/3 requests that part 13 require bridle paths to be taken into account in landforms 1-7, recreation 1-3 and rural 1-3. As noted above, it is considered appropriate to provide reference to bridle paths in part 13. However, it is not considered necessary for part 13 of the Plan to require that they be referenced in land units landforms 1-7, recreation 1-3 and rural 1-3. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that there is nothing in the Plan to hinder people riding horses along the road reserve, or accessing bridle paths.

4.2.2.6 Air transport

Background

Part 13 of the Plan addresses air transport. As background information it is noted that council owns and operates the Claris and Okiwi airfields on Great Barrier island. Because of Great Barrier's remoteness the Plan has sought to recognise and provide for the importance of air travel by providing for a limited number of inward and outward movements as a permitted activity in the landform land units. Council (as a requiring authority) has also lodged notices of requirement for the Claris and Okiwi airfields.

There are also some smaller private airstrips and helipads in the gulf islands. Many helipads operate on an informal basis and are used as a means of accessing private property or to access commercial/tourist operations such as wineries or visitor facilities. Given the informal nature of many helipads the Plan has defined a helipad as any land used for the taking off and landing of helicopters.

It is also noted that clause 6B.1.1.6 of the operative Plan states that aircraft landing areas shall not be used for more than 4 inward and 4 outward movements in a 7 day period and no more than 10 movements in any 30 day period. However, this exclusion does not apply to land units 11, 12 and 20. This has led to a proliferation of helicopter movements, particularly in the western end of Waiheke island. Given the ease of accessing Waiheke via existing ferry services and because of its more built up nature, particularly the western parts of the island, the Plan as notified requires resource consent for all new helipads and air strips on Waiheke. It is noted that the "Reeves" airfield, which is located off Carson's Road on Waiheke island, operates under an existing resource consent.

Submissions

Submission 966/5 requests that all provisions are deleted which restrict the ability of commercial tourist ventures to provide direct access by air to visitors. This will include deletions from clauses 13.2.3, 13.3.2, 13.3.3 and 13.4.3 of the Plan. Submission 966/6 requests that a variation is introduced to address issues relating to air transport. Alternatively, submissions 966/7 & 10-14 suggest that the Plan is amended to incorporate a policy framework that appropriately identifies and includes objectives and policies relating to air transport activities, including as it relates to domestic and tourist demand. The submissions request that the policy framework include the following:

Recognise the general importance of air travel for servicing the islands, its importance for economic growth, including the tourism industry.
Identify the current and anticipated level of helicopter activity in the Hauraki Gulf and recognise the need for air transport to service local and tourism related activities.
Specifically identify the potential adverse effects of air travel and the way these can be managed.

Part 13.2.3 outlines the issues with helipads and airstrips. These inform the objectives, policies and rules. The issues identified with airstrips and helipads recognise the importance of air travel to Great Barrier, and also note that there are smaller airstrips and helipads on the other islands, which provide access to remote locations, or are used for farming or commercial operations. Although commercial operations are referred to in part 13.2.3, it is considered that this issue requires specific acknowledgement. It is therefore recommended that additional text and an additional issue is added to clause 13.2.3, and that an additional policy is added to clause 13.3.2. Given the suggested amendments it is not considered necessary to introduce a variation to the Plan as any modifications can be undertaken through the submission process. Nor is it considered necessary to identify the current and anticipated level of helicopter activity in the Hauraki Gulf. The anticipated level of helicopter activity in the gulf will depend on a wide range of influences such as population growth, tourist numbers, fuel costs etc and as such would be difficult to predict.

Submission 966/13 requests that a policy framework be included that recognises air travel as a convenient means of travel and the increased demand for air travel services, coupled with the demand to meet increasing domestic and tourist demands may generate more demand for helipads or the need for more intensive use of helipads. It is recommended that additional text is added to clause 13.2.3 which outlines the issues associated with increasing air travel versus amenity values.

Submission 966/19 requests that the Plan addresses reverse sensitivity in relation to airstrips and helipads. Policies 13.3.2(1) and (2) state the following:

By recognising and providing for the use and development of airstrips used for passenger and goods transport purposes and their associated infrastructure at appropriate locations.

By avoiding the location of activities sensitive to aircraft noise within the Claris and Okiwi airfield noise contours, unless the adverse effects can be adequately mitigated.

The "Reeves" airfield on Waiheke island, which is located off Carson's Road, operates under an existing resource consent. The majority of helipads (as defined in the Plan) are often reasonably flat areas of land where helicopters land and take-off. They are used for private purposes, often have little or no associated infrastructure and have been "established" under clause 6B1.1.6 of the operative Plan which provides for a specific number of inward and outward movements in particular land units as a permitted activity. Other airstrips, such as that on Kaikoura island, have a very limited number of inward and outward movements. Therefore, it is considered that there is appropriate policy framework to address reverse sensitivity issues for the Okiwi and Claris airfields. Given the informal nature of most helipads it's not considered appropriate to control the intensification of sensitive activities around such sites. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

While it is considered important to denote the issues in relation to commercial and private air travel, as well as introduce an additional policy, the Plan does not seek to provide for direct access by air for visitors throughout the gulf islands as a permitted activity. For the reasons outlined in this section of the report and section 4.8.1 it is therefore recommended that submissions 966/5, 966/6, 966/12, 966/13, 966/14 and 966/19 are rejected and that submissions 966/7, 966/10 and 966/11 are accepted in part

4.2.2.7 Private Vehicles

Submission 1022/8 requests that Waiheke limits the use of private vehicles using the vehicular ferry unless they own property on the island and this should be incorporated into the District Plan. While Part 13.4.8 does refer to Travel Demand Management as a means for modifying travel decisions the Plan is not a mechanism for limiting the number of vehicles permitted on Waiheke. Notwithstanding this, while the number of vehicles on Waiheke roads may be increasing it is noted that the numbers are within the carrying capacity of those roads. Therefore it is recommended that the submission is rejected.

4.2.2.8 Noise

Submission 1026/8 requests Sealink and Waiheke Shipping ferries keep their noise down. The Plan controls land use and subdivision. The ARC controls noise in the coastal marine area. Therefore, noise in the coastal marine area is not a matter for the District Plan. As such, it is recommended that this submission is rejected.

4.2.2.9 Transport/Roads

Submission 1250/86 requests that secondary and local roads should not to be widened along their full extent unless for site specific locations, where appropriate. Decisions on whether to widen local roads are usually undertaken independently of the Plan process by council's Transport Safety, Assets and Operations Group. The decision is based on a variety of matters, such as the number of vehicles per day, safety issues, funding etc. It is therefore not considered appropriate to include a particular policy in the Plan regarding this issue. Therefore it is recommended that this submission is rejected.

4.2.2.10 Public Open Space

Submissions 1289/148 and 2941/1 & 2 request new provisions around the quality, use and enhancement of public space, and the adverse impact of the motor vehicle. It is considered that the issues around public open space are addressed in land units recreation 1 - 3. In relation to other "public space" such as roads it is considered that objective 13.3.5 of the Plan adequately recognises that the road network must provide for pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore, it is not necessary to introduce new objectives, policies and rules regarding this issue. As such, it is recommended that these submissions are rejected. The issue of adverse impacts of motor vehicles is addressed in section 4.2.2.11 of this report.

In relation to submission 2938/1 recommending a walking bus ferry commencing at Oneroa village and going to Matiatia and back it is noted that decisions regarding such services are not made through a Plan review process. In this circumstance they are made by a combination of groups, such as council, Fullers and ARTA. Therefore it is recommended that this submission is rejected, however, the recommendation has been passed onto council's Transport Safety, Assets and Operations Group.

4.2.2.11 Access/paths

Submissions 1314/1, 1360/1, 1370/1, 1393/1, 1420/1, 1488/1, 1569/1, 1912/1, 1919/1, 1947/1, 1982/1, 2002/1, 2240/1, 2363/1, 2371/1, 2373/1, 2492/1, 3104/6, 3637/1 and 3784/1 request that council work with land owners and residents to resolve long standing problems of access to private properties and unformed roads or other appropriate measures. It is acknowledged that there are many historical access issues in the gulf islands. It is recommended that an additional wording is inserted in part 13.4.5 of the Plan to encourage the resolution of historical access issues, and that these submissions are accepted.

Submissions 1350/2, 1355/2, 1453/2, 1465/2, 1470/2, 1489/2, 1514/2, 2243/2, 2273/2, 2488/2, 2861/2, 2922/3, 2939/3, 3636/2 and 3671/2 request a number of provisions recognising or taking into account existing paths, walkways, bush tracks, tracks, driveways, quad-bike tracks, accessways, cycleways and bridle paths as existing uses or permitted activities. Many existing paths would be protected by existing use rights or provided for through resource consents. However, many may not have been legally established. Therefore, the Plan may be legalising activities that were undertaken without the necessary consents or approval. Also, accurately identifying all the existing paths would require significant time and resources with little corresponding benefits. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 2939/1&2 seeks changes to the objectives, policies and rules so they address the adverse impact of motor vehicles; that recognise the need for quality public space, and the perception of pedestrians and cyclists; that address traffic conflicts; that separate bicycle paths and footpaths to the wharf etc. In relation to the adverse impact of motor vehicles it is noted that there is limited passenger transport around the islands (Waiheke's bus service connects with the ferry and other islands have limited, if any, passenger transport). Also, the terrain is hilly and the weather inclement, therefore the private motor vehicle is likely to remain the primary mode of transport around the islands in the foreseeable future. Notwithstanding this, parts 13.2.6 & 7 of the Plan recognise the important contribution that cycling and walking can make to travel demand, as well as the importance of passenger transport. Therefore, it is considered that the Plan seeks to promote a multi-modal approach to transport, where possible, which has the corresponding effect of reducing reliance on the private motor vehicle.

The objectives and policies also recognise that there are conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists and that in particular access to key community focal points should be improved. Therefore, some of the issues raised in the submissions are already addressed. However, it is noted that formed roads do not have a land unit classification applied to them. As such, decisions regarding issues such as separate bicycle and footpaths and the removal of traffic from particular areas are made outside the Plan process. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 3270/1 and 3849/2 - 10 seek amendments to Part 13 which restrict passing onto the foreshore of an areas, widening roads, requests bike lanes, road closures etc. These issues are not addressed in the Plan review process and are determined on a range of issues, such as traffic safety, funding etc. Therefore, it is recommended that these submissions are rejected, however, the concerns raised will be passed onto council's Transport Safety, Assets and Operations Group.

4.2.2.12 Cycling

Submission 3849/1 requests that part 13 needs a separate cycling section. It is considered that clause 13.2.6 adequately addresses the issues associated with cycling and it is not necessary to have a separate section. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

4.2.2.13 General

Submissions 2798/1, 2824/1 and 3061/153 request that Part 13 is rejected, or that council revert to the provisions of the operative Plan, or that it is finalised involving full community input. The operative Plan does not have a section that addresses transport issues. The community have had an opportunity for input via the consultation, submission and hearing process. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 2736/1 requests that the Plan (particularly part 13) be approved. For the reasons outlined in this report it is recommended that part 13 be approved, subject to amendments. Decisions on the remainder of the Plan are not the subject of this report. It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted in part.

Planner's recommendations for submissions to part 13 as a whole

That submissions 367/1, 561/1, 579/1, 650/1, 693/1, 862/1, 966/5, 966/6, 966/12-14, 966/19, 1012/1, 1122/1, 1130/1, 1163/1, 1286/85, 1287/130, 1288/64, 1289/127, 1314/1, 1360/1, 1370/1, 1393/1, 1420/1, 1488/1, 1569/1, 1912/1, 1919/1, 1947/1, 1982/1, 2002/1, 2240/1, 2363/1, 2371/1, 2373/1, 2492/1, 2721/2, 2878/86, 3061/111, 3104/6, 3223/1, 3614/1, 3637/1 and 3784/1 are accepted.

That submissions 852/3, 966/7, 966/10, 966/11 and 2736/1 are accepted in part.

That submissions 561/2-4, 561/8, 579/2, 618/143, 618/146, 619/92, 619/95, 650/2-4, 650/8, 693/2-4, 693/8, 754/104, 754/104, 859/104, 859/104, 862/2-4, 862/8, 1012/2-4, 1012/8, 1022/8, 1026/8, 1055/2, 1122/2, 1122/3, 1122/4, 1122/8, 1130/2, 1130/3, 1130/4, 1130/8, 1163/2, 1163/3, 1163/4, 1163/8, 1250/86, 1285/19, 1285/22, 1285/22, 1286/67, 1286/70, 1289/148, 1350/2, 1355/2, 1453/2, 1465/2, 1470/2, 1489/2, 1514/2, 2243/2, 2273/2, 2488/2, 2670/91, 2670/94, 2721/4 , 2798/1, 2824/1, 2861/2, 2878/67, 2878/67, 2922/3, 2922/3, 2938/1, 2939/1-3, 2941/1 & 2, 3061/112, 3061/152, 3061/153, 3223/2, 3223/3, 3223/4, 3223/8, 3270/1, 3614/2, 3614/3, 3614/4, 3614/8, 3636/2, 3671/2 and 3849/1-10 are rejected.

4.3 Submissions about Resource Management Issues

Submissions dealt with in this section: 505/1, 561/5&6, 579/3, 579/4, 579/5, 579/6, 579/7, 579/8, 650/6, 693/5&6, 862/5&6, 1012/5&6, 1122/5&6, 1130/5, 1130/6, 1163/5&6, 1250/84, 1250/85, 1286/87, 1286/88, 1286/89, 1286/90, 1287/131, 1287/132, 1287/133, 1287/134, 1288/65, 1288/66, 1288/67, 1288/68, 1289/129, 1289/130, 1289/131, 1289/132, 2878/91, 2878/90, 2878/89, 2878/88, 2935/2, 2936/1, 3061/171, 3061/170, 3061/169, 3061/168, 3061/121, 3061/120, 3061/119, 3061/116-117, 3061/115, 3061/114, 3061/113, 3223/5&6 and 3614/5&6.

4.3.1 Decisions requested

Clause 13.2 should include horses as a means of transport and they should be covered by their own section to distinguish them from cycling and walking.
Horses should be included (in its own section) as a means of transport under clause 13.2.
Amend clause 13.2.4 to specify that any unformed legal roads on Waiheke are opened up to walking, cycling and horse riding only.
Clause 13.2.6 should be amended to include reference to bridle paths.
The intent to ensure an integrated and sustainable approach is undertaken to water transport and the intent to have council working closely with all water transport stakeholders, including ARC (13.2.1) is supported.
Provide the specific information which is lacking about the intention to have the council working together with land transport stakeholders (clause 13.2.1).
The stated desirability of finding ways of encouraging the use of public transport and reducing the need for parking (see also 13.4.5) is supported.
Clause 13.2.7 needs to be detailed as to the actual transport situation such as Great Barrier and is incorrect in referencing existing bus services on Islands other than Waiheke.
Clause 13.2.7 Passenger transport is opposed as it addresses ferry, bus and taxi but does not contain any clear direction, particularly as far as Waiheke is concerned.
"Close community involvement at all levels" should be added to clause 13.2.1(1).
Connections with other forms of land based transport should be stressed further in clause 13.2.2, particularly, with regard to public transport that is buses.
Clause 13.2.2 should be amended to better reflect the differences between wharves on the individual islands such as at Whangaparapara, Pakatoa, Rakino and Rotoroa.
The importance of the connection between wharves and other forms of land based transport is not stressed enough in clause 13.2.2, particularly in regard to public transport, buses in particular.
The stated commitment to providing an effective and efficient land transport system in clause 13.2.2 is supported.
For the Church Bay Estate area and the area bounded by Onetangi and Seaview Roads, personal helipads should not be allowed but a single designated helipad provided for each of those areas for general use.
There needs to be some control over the proliferation of helipads, particularly helipads purely for personal use.
A single designated helipad area should be provided for each village for general use.
Clause 13.2.3 should be amended to reflect the existence of the Onetangi airfield.
The broad intent of clause 13.2.5 is supported subject to later comments in regard to the construction of access ways in general and access to corner commercial sites (particularly service stations) in particular.
That the following be added to clause 13.2.6: "How to ensure that adequate provision is made for wheelchair, mobility scooters, blind pedestrians and prams so that movement of vulnerable at risk mobility impaired persons on the roads is appropriately recognised and provided for".
Each of these modes (cycling and walking) have different needs and those needs should be identified separately rather than combined under one heading (ie clause 13.2).
Remove from clause 13.2.6: "However, in the islands the sealed carriageway of many roads is not sufficiently wide for safe cycling, and cycling facilities are only provided for in limited locations. For pedestrians, only parts of the islands have footpaths".
Provide Objectives, Policies, Rules and Assessment Criteria in clause 13.2.6 that recognise and provide for dedicated cycleways along the main roads between the villages and to the wharf at Matiatia and Kennedy Point.
With respect to clause 13.2.6 seeks an addition of Objectives, Policies, Assessment Criteria and Rules that provide for storage and shelter of bicycles and secure car parking facilities at one or two bus stops in each village throughout the Island.
Clause 13.2.6 is opposed as both cycling and walking should be identified and dealt with separately.
Expresses concern that clause 13.2.7 does not contain any clear direction particularly as far a Waiheke is concerned.
Asks whether there is a Waiheke Passenger Transport Strategy document, and if not why not.
Submitter questions where the Waiheke Passenger Transport Strategy is and requests that if there is not one there should be.
Provide specific information which is lacking about relevant legislation, strategies, policy documents and plans.

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.3.2.1 Submissions about clause 13.2.1 - water

Submitter 3061/168 supports the intent of undertaking an integrated and sustainable approach to water transport and working with stakeholders, particularly the ARC. It is therefore recommended that this submission is accepted and that no amendments are made to clause 13.2.

Submissions 561/6, 650/6, 693/6, 862/6, 1012/6, 1122/6, 1130/6, 1163/6, 3223/6 and 3614/6 request that specific information is provided about how council will work with land transport stakeholders. In relation to clause 13.2.1 it is acknowledged that no objectives and policies stem from the issues identified. This is because decisions made on matters below the mean high water tide mark are outside the council's jurisdiction and any objectives and policies would have limited impact. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submitter 3061/113 requests closer community involvement should be added to clause 13.2.1(1). It is not considered necessary to add additional wording in relation to community involvement as the intent of this issue is to identify the need to work closely with other relevant statutory bodies and stakeholders. Therefore it is recommended that this submission is rejected.

4.3.2.2 Submissions about clause 13.2.2 - wharves

Submissions 579/4, 1286/87, 1287/131, 1288/65, 1289/129, 2878/88 and 3061/115 request a better reflection of the different types of wharves present in the Hauraki Gulf islands and importance of public transport connections to wharves. It is noted that while wharves are one of the key transport issues in the Hauraki Gulf islands their provisions are set out in commercial 7 (wharf) and the Matiatia (mixed use) land units. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to further explain the differences between wharves in this section. In relation to the importance of public transport connections to wharves it is considered appropriate that an additional policy, numbered 13.3.1.3, outlining the importance of passenger transport to wharves (which have a passenger transport focus) is appropriate. Therefore it is recommended that the submissions 1286/87, 1287/131, 1288/65, 1289/129 and 2878/88 are rejected and that submissions 579/4 and 3061/115 are accepted in part.

Submitter 3061/169 supports the stated commitment to provide an effective and efficient land transport system in clause 13.2.2. It is recommended that the submission is accepted and no changes are made to clause 13.2.2.

4.3.2.3 Submissions about clause 13.2.3 - airstrips & helipads

Submissions 579/5 and 3061/116 request control over proliferation of helipads and restriction on personal ones, particular reference is made to Church Bay and around Onetangi and Seaview Roads. It is noted that clause 13.2.3 addresses the issues in relation to airstrips and helipads. Clause 13.3.2 outlines the objectives and policies for addressing these issues, and clause 13.8 the rules and assessment criteria for helipads and airstrips. It is noted that the rules require a resource consent for the areas outlined in the submissions. It is therefore considered that the Plan does control the proliferation of helipads, however, no changes are required as a result of submissions.

Submissions 1286/88, 1287/132, 1288/66, 1289/130 and 2878/89 request an amendment to the Plan so that the existence of the Onetangi airfield is acknowledged. The Plan specifically acknowledges the two airstrips that council owns on Great Barrier and the importance of air travel to that island. The Plan also goes onto note that there are a number of smaller airstrips and helipads in the islands. It is not considered necessary to name these. Therefore it is recommended that the submissions are rejected.

Submissions 579/5 and 3061/117 suggest that a single designated helipad should be provided for each village for general use. It is noted that no notices of requirement have been lodged by council as part of the Plan review process to designate helipad sites. Notwithstanding this, notices of requirement can be lodged at any time and it is not necessary to lodge them as part of the Plan review process. However, decisions on whether to designate sites are not made by the hearing panel as part of a Plan review process. It is also noted that should council decide to designate sites for this purpose it would have to take financial responsibility for them. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected, but that the suggestion is passed onto council's Transport Strategy group.

4.3.2.4 Submissions about clause 13.2.4 - roading

Submission 1250/84 requests that unformed legal roads are opened up to walking, cycling and horse riding. Members of the public have right of passage without hindrance along unformed and formed roads. Council has not applied a land unit classification to formed roads, but for unformed roads an appropriate land unit has been assigned to them. Therefore, to construct unformed legal roads council would need to apply for resource consent where necessary, or designate them. Therefore, unformed legal roads can be accessed by members of the public, but the terrain or location may hinder that access. Decisions on whether to construct unformed roads are made outside the Plan review process. However, the matter will be passed onto the Transport Strategy and Property Groups of council. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

4.3.2.5 Submissions about clause 13.2.5 - parking & access

Submitter 3061/170 & 171 support the broad intent of clause 13.2.5. It is recommended that these submissions are accepted and that no changes are made to the Plan.

4.3.2.6 Submissions about clause 13.2.6 - walking & cycling

Submission 505/1 requests greater provision and recognition for wheelchair, motor-scooters, blind pedestrians and prams. Council is sympathetic to the need to provide for those that are mobility impaired. It is noted that clause 13.7.4(2)(b) of the Plan requires that larger dimension parking spaces be provided for use by disabled persons. These larger spaces need to meet the dimensions of the relevant New Zealand Standard which outlines the number and size of carparks for disabled persons. Feedback from council's Transport Safety, Assets and Operations Group is that this requirement is sufficient in terms of addressing parking for the mobility impaired. It is therefore recommended that the submission is rejected.

Submission 579/6 requests that clause 13.2.6 be divided into separate sections rather than subsections. Submission 3061/119 is opposed to clause 13.2.6 as it requests that cycling and walking should be dealt with separately. It is considered that clause 13.2.6 adequately addresses the issues associated with cycling and walking and it is not necessary to have a separate section for each. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 1250/85 requests that part of clause 13.2.6 is removed as it relates to the acknowledgement that the sealed carriageway of many roads is not sufficiently wide for safe cycling etc. It also requests that a statement be included indicating that secondary and local roads are not to be widened along their full extent. It is recommended that the portion of clause 13.2.6 be retained because it appropriately defines an issue for the islands in terms of cycling and walking. In relation to the widening of secondary roads such a decision is made independently of the Plan review process. As such, it is not appropriate to include a statement regarding this issue. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submissions 579/3 and 3061/114 request that horses be identified as a means of transport and they should be covered by their own section. It is recommended that a broad reference is made to bridle paths in the introduction to part 13, as well as the use of road for recreational pursuits such as horse riding in part 13.2.4. However, given the limited role they play as a means of transport it is not considered necessary that they have their own section. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are accepted in part.

Submissions 1286/89, 1287/133, 1288/67, 1289/131 and 2878/90 request that reference is made to bridle paths. As noted in section 4.2.2.5 of this report, it is considered appropriate that reference is made to bridle paths in the introductory section. However, while the location of bridle paths is indicated in the recreation 3 land unit - Rangihoua Park it is not considered necessary to attempt to locate them throughout the Plan given the limited role they play as a transport mode. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are accepted in part.

Submission 2935/2 requests that dedicated cycleways are provided along the main roads between the villages and to the wharf at Matiatia and Kennedy Point. Council recognises that walking and cycling can be improved in the gulf islands. However, the decision regarding where new cycleways will be located is dependent on a range of issues outside the Plan review process. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 2936/1 seeks additional objectives, policies and rules that provide storage and shelter for bikes and secure parking facilities at one or two bus stops in each village. As with submission 2935/2 decisions on these issues are made outside the Plan review process. The Plan cannot require or direct that something be constructed. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

4.3.2.7 Submissions regarding clause 13.2.7 - passenger transport

Submissions 579/8 and 3061/121 request that a Waiheke Passenger Transport Strategy be prepared. Council's Transport Strategy group have advised that Essentially Waiheke contains the broad transport strategy for Waiheke. Council officers will report back to the Waiheke community board with an action list on transport issues for Waiheke. However, this will not be a new Passenger Transport Strategy for Waiheke. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that decisions regarding the preparation of strategy documents are made outside the Plan review process. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 579/7 and 3061/120 express concern that clause 13.2.7 provides no clear direction in relation to Waiheke and passenger transport. It is noted that the purpose of identifying issues is not to provide direction. The direction (in the form of objectives and policies) stems from the identification of issues and in relation to passenger transport is outlined in clause 13.3.6. It should be noted however that the Plan can only address a particular range of issues, and that council has other policy that addresses transport. It is considered that the Plan provides sufficient policy direction in terms of transport and it therefore recommended that the submissions are rejected.

Submissions 1286/90, 1287/134, 1288/68, 1289/132 and 2878/91 request that clause 13.2.7 is clarified in relation to the actual transport situation on Great Barrier island and is incorrect in referencing the existing bus service apart from Waiheke. It is considered that the section lacks clarity about the passenger transport situation and that it should be amended accordingly. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are accepted.

4.3.2.8 Submissions about part 13.2 as a whole

Submissions 561/5, 693/5, 862/5, 1012/5, 1122/5, 1130/5, 1163/5, 3223/5 and 3614/5 request that specific information be provided about relevant legislation, strategies, policy documents and plans. As outlined in section 4.2.2.4 of this report and as acknowledged in part 1.3.4 of the Plan, the Plan is influenced by documents from other agencies. In relation to transport issues this is reinforced in part 13.2 of the Plan that outlines that transport issues must be addressed so they are consistent with other relevant legislation, strategies, policy documents and plans. It is generally not considered best practise to directly reference these documents as the life of the Plan is ten years from when it is made operative and many strategies and plans may become outdated during that time e.g. the Regional Land Transport Strategy is reviewed every three years. Therefore it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions on section 13.2 - resource management issues

That submissions 1286/90, 1287/134, 1288/68, 1289/132, 2878/91, 3061/168, 3061/169 and 3061/170 & 171 are accepted.

That submissions 579/3, 579/4, 1286/89, 1287/133, 1288/67, 1289/131, 2878/90, 3061/114 and 3061/115 are accepted in part.

That submissions 505/1, 561/5&6, 579/5, 579/6, 579/7, 579/8, 650/6, 693/5&6, 862/5&6, 1012/5&6, 1122/5&6, 1130/5&6, 1163/5&6, 1250/84, 1250/85, 1286/87, 1286/88, 1287/131, 1287/132, 1288/65, 1288/66, 1289/129, 1289/130, 2878/88, 2878/89, 2935/2, 2936/1, 3061/113, 3061/116, 3061/117, 3061/119, 3061/120, 3061/121, 3223/5&6 and 3614/5&6 are rejected.

4.4 Submissions about Resource Management Objectives and Policies

Submissions dealt with in this section: 330/2, 561/10, 579/9, 579/10, 579/11, 579/12, 579/13, 579/14, 579/15, 579/16, 579/17, 579/18, 579/19, 579/20, 579/21, 579/22, 650/10, 693/10, 862/10, 1012/10, 1122/10, 1129/1, 1130/10, 1163/10, 1229/1, 1250/87, 1250/88, 1250/89, 1250/90, 1250/91, 1250/92, 1250/93, 1250/94, 1286/91, 1286/92, 1286/93, 1286/94, 1286/95, 1286/96, 1286/97, 1287/135, 1287/136, 1287/137, 1287/138, 1287/139, 1287/140, 1287/141, 1288/69, 1288/70, 1288/71, 1288/72, 1288/73, 1288/74, 1288/75, 1289/133, 1289/134, 1289/135, 1289/136, 1289/137, 1289/138, 1289/139, 2080/2, 2625/2, 2878/92, 2878/93, 2878/94, 2878/95, 2878/96, 2878/97, 2878/98, 2937/1, 2940/1, 2940/2, 3061/122, 3061/123, 3061/124, 3061/125, 3061/126, 3061/127, 3061/128, 3061/129, 3061/130, 3061/131, 3061/132, 3061/133, 3061/134, 3061/162, 3223/10 and 3614/10.

4.4.1 Decisions requested

Add to policy 1 of clause 13.3.1 as follows: "By recognising and providing for wharves and associated infrastructure at appropriate locations but, at Western Waiheke no further locations should be introduced without a thorough investigation into the need and the adverse affects on the viability of both the water and land transport needed to service them".
Add policy 3 to clause 13.3.1 Objective - wharves, as follows: "3. By ensuring that the wharf terminal and any land based public transport terminal are linked as closely as practical"
Clause 13.3.1 should be reworded to acknowledge that all wharfs exist and to separate out policy for potential new wharfs.
Add "but, at Western Waiheke no further locations should be introduced without a thorough investigation into the need and the adverse affects on the viability of both the water and land transport needed to service them" to clause 13.3.1(1).
Add the following policy to clause 13.3.1 'By ensuring that the wharf terminal and any land based public transport terminal are linked as closely as practical'.
With respect to clause 13.3.1 seeks that Objectives, Policies, Assessment Criteria and Rules be put in place that provide for the setting aside of further land at Kennedy Point to handle bus traffic, traffic management, mixed use residential development and public open recreation space.
Expresses concern that clause 13.3.6 fails to acknowledge buses, taxis and shuttles. This section needs to recognise that the land transport system on Waiheke is primarily designed around and integrated with the ferry system.
Amend clause 13.3.6 Objective to read: "To recognise and provide for transport to, on and around the islands".
Amend policy 3 of clause 13.3.6, as follows: "By giving priority to public passenger transport where appropriate".
Add an additional policy to clause 13.3.6 as follows: "4. By ensuring that ferry and bus terminals or stations are as close to each other as practical".
Requests an amendment to clause 13.3.2(4) as follows "By recognizing that airstrips or helipads may be required for farming activities, visitor accommodation and tourist complexes".
Add to policy 5 of clause 13.3.2 as follows:
"By not providing for helipads in locations that can adversely affect the amenity of surrounding residents, with particular reference to Western Waiheke".
Clause 13.3.2 is inconsistent with clause 13.2.3 which only refers to airstrips at Great Barrier. Also in remote locations helicopters need to be able to land but don't need formal helipads.
Amendment to policy 13.3.2(4) as follows: "By recognising that airstrips or helipads may be required for farming activities, visitor accommodation and tourist complexes".
Clause 13.3.2 is inconsistent with clause 13.2.3 which only refers to airstrips at Great Barrier. Also in remote locations helicopters need to be able to land but don't need formal helipads.
Add the following to clause 13.3.2(5) 'with particular reference to Western Waiheke'.
Add to policy 1 of clause 13.3.3 as follows: "By providing for and enhancing the roading network to ensure it is safe, effective and efficient for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, and horses".
Replace policy 4 in clause 13.3.3 with the following: "By opening unformed legal roads for walking, cycling and horse riding".
Add 'and horses' to clause 13.3.3(1).
Clause 13.3.5 needs amendment to include provision for bridle paths.
Include objectives, policies, assessment criteria and rules in part 13 that ensure the footpath to the Matiatia wharf promotes walking access by ensuring that it is wide enough for easy and safe walking to the wharf and with shelter points along the way.
Include objectives, policies and rules, are put in place in part 13 to provide for a separate bicycle lane from Alison Park to the Wharf at Matiatia and that provision is made for a secure covered bicycle shelter at the Matiatia Wharf.
Add to policy 3 of clause 13.3.3 as follows: "By requiring a low impact design approach for new roads, without compromising the practicality of the road".
That clause 13.3.3(3) be amended to read: "By requiring a low impact design approach for new and existing roads especially the use of smooth seal at time of maintenance and construction".
That clause 13.3.3(3) be amended to read : By requiring a low impact design for new and existing roads especially the use of smooth seal at time of maintenance and construction.
Add a policy to clause 13.3.3 which reads: "By providing informal tracks of a natural and permeable surface along the road reserves of secondary and local roads instead of formed footpaths".
Add a policy to clause 13.3.3 which reads: "By reducing the extent of impermeable surfaces associated with the roading network such as stormwater drains, curbing and paths and replacing them with permeable options".
Add a policy to clause 13.3.3 which reads: "By ensuring that slopes on road reserves immediately adjoining the road are maintained at a stable gradient to reduce erosion and sedimentation of waterways and the coastal environment".
Clause 13.3.4.2(2) needs rewording and amendment as gradients do not inherently generate adverse effects rather it is the management of sediment and stormwater runoff, safety, vegetation removal, stability and visual and amenity through other rules that address the issues.
Clause 13.3.3 should include reference to new roads not just existing roads.
Add 'without compromising the practicality of the road' to clause 13.3.3.(3).
Add to policy 4 of clause 13.3.3 as follows: "By continuing the council's programme for legalising roads, where there is a proven need and no other practical alternative".
Add a policy to clause 13.3.3 which reads: "By encouraging shared driveways and drive crossways wherever possible".
Clause 13.3.4 has been divided into two subsections. Parking and access should be separate sections, rather than subsections.
Clause 13.3.4 should be divided into two separate sections rather than two subsections.
Clause 13.3.4.1 needs rewording as it implies that large car parks can somehow generate traffic beyond the numbers of vehicles that actually exist.
Submitter is concerned that 13.3.4.1(2) and 13.3.4.1(4) may be used to attempt to control the use of private vehicles as a means of private transport.
Add an additional policy to clause 13.3.4.2 as follows: "5. By requiring that a minimum distance between the edge of the carriageway and the start of the accessway gradient, be it either up or down, is provided at the roadway grade level".
Clause 13.3.6 should include reference to aligning Isthmus connection so for example the Waiheke ferry doesn't arrive after connecting trains leave Britomart as it does now often.
The wording of the objective in clause 13.3.6 fails to acknowledge and recognise that on Waiheke there is a major land transport system, in the form of buses, taxis and shuttles. The land transport system needs to be recognised.
Clause 13.3.6 should be amended by adding the word 'on' after the word 'from'.
Amend clause 13.3.6(3) as follows: 'By giving priority to public passenger transport where appropriate'.
Add the following policy to 13.3.6 "By ensuring that ferry and bus terminals or stations are as close to each other as practical".

4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.4.2.1 Submissions in relation to objective 13.3.1 - wharves

Submissions 579/9, 579/10, 3061/122 and 3061/123 request additional policies in relation to wharves. It is noted that the specific details of policy direction in relation to wharves is outlined in commercial 7 (wharf) and the Matiatia (mixed use) land units. However, as noted in section 4.3.2.2 of this report it is considered appropriate that a new policy be inserted in relation to the need to integrate wharves that have a passenger transport focus (eg Matiatia) and the land based passenger transport system. It is therefore recommended that 579/9 and 3061/122 are rejected and 579/10 and 3061/123 are accepted in part.

Submissions 1286/91, 1287/135, 1288/69, 1289/133 and 2878/92 suggest that the policy be reworded to acknowledge existing wharves and set out the policy for new wharves. It is the report authors understanding that there are no specific plans for new wharves in new locations in the gulf islands. As such, it is considered appropriate that the policy seek to recognise and provide for existing wharves and associated infrastructure at appropriate locations. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 2937/1 seeks new provisions for setting aside land at Kennedy Point to handle bus traffic, traffic management, mixed use residential and public open space. The report writer understands that council has not considered, or made any decision on whether additional land needs to be set aside at Kennedy Point. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

4.4.2.2 Submissions in relation to 13.3.2 - airstrips & helipads

Submissions 330/2, 2080/2 and 2625/2 requests an amendment to clause 13.3.2(4) by recognising that airstrips or helipads may be required for farming activities, visitor accommodation and tourist complexes. Policy 13.3.2(4) recognises that airstrips and helipads may be required in particular landform and rural land units. It is recommended that a proposed new policy 13.3.2(5) is included which acknowledges that the gulf islands are a popular tourist destination and that air travel is an important component of the tourist industry. However, it is not recommended that helipads and airstrips are "provided for" per se for visitor accommodation and tourist complexes. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 579/11 and 3061/124 seek an amendment to clause 13.3.2(5) by adding the words "with particular reference to western Waiheke". The intent of policy is to ensure that helipads are not provided for so that they do not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding residents throughout the gulf islands. While it is acknowledged that there may be higher numbers of helicopter movements in and around the western end of Waiheke it is not considered necessary to specifically reference this. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 1286/92, 1287/136, 1288/70, 1289/134 and 2878/93 state that clause 13.3.2 is inconsistent with clause 13.2.3 which only refers to airstrips on Great Barrier. While the introduction to clause 13.2.3 refers to the council owned airstrips on Great Barrier the remainder of the text refers to the other smaller airstrips and helipads on the islands that have a variety of uses. Notwithstanding this, as outlined in section 4.3.2.3 of this report changes have been suggested to clause 13.2.3. The submissions also note that in remote locations helicopters need to be able to land but don't need formal helipads. The Plan defines a helipad as any land or buildings used for the take off and landing of helicopters. Therefore, if a helicopter lands somewhere then for the intent of part 13 of the Plan it is defined as a helipad. It does not necessarily mean that the helipad is a formal helipad per se. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

4.4.2.3 Submissions in relation to clause 13.3.3 - roading

Submissions 579/12-14 and 3061/125-127 request additions to the policies as underlined below. By providing for and enhancing the road network to ensure its safe, effective and efficient for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians and horses ; by requiring a low impact design for new roads, without compromising the practicality of the road ; by continuing the councils programme for legalising roads, where there is a proven need and no other practical alternative .

While this report recommends that reference is made to travel by horse in part 13, it is not recommended that the road network needs to be designed so that it safe, effective and efficient for horses. Such an approach could result in greater land modification, vegetation removal and increased costs because of the need to upgrade the road network so that horse travel is provided for. It is considered that the costs of such an approach would outweigh any corresponding benefits. In relation to the suggested alternatives it is not considered necessary to add these to the existing policies. It is therefore recommended that submissions 579/12-14 and 3061/125-127 are rejected.

Submissions 1129/1 and 1229/1 suggest additions to existing policies in relation to the use of smooth seal at the time of maintenance and construction. Decisions regarding the type of seal used on roads would be made by the Transport Safety, Assets and Operations Group of council and would be made based on a range of issues, including funding. It is therefore considered that decisions regarding these issues are made outside the Plan review process and that the submissions are rejected accordingly.

Submissions 1250/87-91 request a range of new policies outlined as follows:

By providing informal tracks of a natural and permeable surface along the road reserves of secondary and local roads instead of formed footpaths.

By reducing the extent of impermeable surfaces associated with the roading network, such as stormwater drains, curbing and paths and replacing them with permeable options.

By ensuring the slopes on the road reserves immediately adjoining the road are maintained at a stable gradient to reduce erosion and sedimentation of waterways and the coastal environment

By opening unformed legal roads for walking, cycling and horse riding. (This would replace policy 4)

By encouraging shared driveways and drive crossways wherever possible.

Policy 13.3.3(3) requires a low impact design approach for new roads. However, it does not detail the specifics of how this would be achieved. The suggested first two policies of the submitter require the use of permeable surfaces in specific instances. While these suggestions appear to have merit, decisions on the types of surface would be made based on a range of factor, including costs, and would generally be undertaken outside the Plan process. The third suggested policy addresses the area between the sealed carriageway and the property boundary. The Plan does not apply a land unit denotation to roads that have been formed and access over this area is usually controlled through a vehicle crossing permit issued by council. However, it is considered appropriate that some policy direction be provided regarding this issue and it is recommended that a new policy is added to clause 13.3.4(2) of the Plan which addresses access. In relation to suggested policy 4 this has been addressed in section 4.3.2.4 of this report and an additional policy in this regard is not recommended. In relation to suggested policy 5 it is noted that shared driveways can reduce land modification and therefore an additional policy would be beneficial. It is therefore recommended that submissions 1250/87, 88 & 90 are rejected and that submissions 1250/89 & 91 are accepted in part.

Submissions 1286/93, 1287/137, 1288/71, 1289/135 and 2878/94 suggest that clause 13.3.3 should include reference to new roads not existing roads. It is considered that the objective 13.3.3 should be modified so that the word " existing" is removed from it. Then it would apply to all roads. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are accepted in part.

4.4.2.4 Submissions in relation to clause 13.3.4 - parking & access

Submissions 579/15 and 3061/128 seek that a separate section is provided for each issue. That is, one for parking and one for access. It is considered that the approach outlined in the Plan adequately addresses the issues and it is not necessary to split this into two sections. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 579/16 and 3061/162 expresses concern regarding clauses 13.3.4.1(2) and (4) that these may be used to control private vehicles as a means of transport and that developers will be happy to have the parking they need to provide limited. Clause 13.4.5 outlines the rational of why it may not always be necessary to provide for the number of on-site carparks required in the Plan. Clause 13.4.5 outlines that where activities can practically be accessed using alternative transport modes the need for onsite carparking reduces. In these circumstances an oversupply of carparking can waste land resources, can adversely affect amenity values and may encourage continued reliance on private vehicle trips. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 1286/94, 1287/138, 1288/72, 1289/136 and 2878/95 state that clause 13.3.4.1 needs rewording as it implies that large carparks can somehow generate traffic beyond the number of vehicles that actually exist. Clause 13.3.4.1(2) states the following:

"By ensuring that there is not an oversupply of on-site parking, which can encourage traffic generation and result in unnecessary on-site modification."

It is considered that the wording of the policy does not indicate that on-site carparking encourages traffic generation beyond what actually exists. What it appropriately indicates is that an oversupply of on-site parking may encourage people to take a private motor vehicle because parking is available rather than passenger transport. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 579/17 and 3061/129 seek an additional policy requiring a minimum distance between the edge of the carriageway and the start of the access gradient at road grade level. As noted in section 4.4.2.3 of this report an additional policy in this regard is suggested. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are accepted in part.

Submissions 1286/95, 1287/139, 1288/73, 1289/137 and 2878/96 state that clause 13.3.4.2(2) needs rewording because it is not the gradient that generates adverse effects but it is the run-off, vegetation removal etc. There are a number of factors that contribute to the effects associated with accessways. Gradient is one of these. The slope of the land moderates the absorption of stormwater and is a factor in determining sediment run-off. It can also impact on safety. It is therefore considered appropriate that the access gradient is controlled and that these submissions are rejected accordingly.

4.4.2.5 Submissions in relation to clause 13.3.5 - cycling & walking

Submissions 579/18 and 3061/130 state that clause 13.3.5 should be divided into two sections. It is considered that clause 13.3.5 adequately addresses the objectives and policies and as such it is not necessary to have two sections. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 561/10, 650/10, 693/10, 862/10, 1012/10, 1122/10, 1130/10, 1163/10, 3223/10 and 3614/10 request that specific information is added about how the objectives and policies for walking and cycling will be achieved. Specific decisions about how the objectives and policies will be achieved do not form part of the Plan review process. For example, decisions on new cycle-lanes, footpaths, bike stands etc are made after considering the benefits and costs, are subject to budgetary constraints and are generally made by council's transport committee. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 1250/92 suggest a new policy regarding the provision of an extensive network of interconnected walkways, tracks etc that are separate from the road network. Submission 1250/93 suggests a new policy regarding informal tracks of a natural and permeable nature along road reserves. While these appear to be reasonable suggestions again these decisions would be made outside the Plan review process. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 1250/94 recommends that clause 13.5.5(2) is amended to refer to primary roads only. The policy is outlined as follows:

"By encouraging the establishment of cycle facilities and cycleways, especially around key community focal points and public facilities."

It is recommended that this policy remains as is without reference to primary roads only because it may be appropriate for cycle facilities and cycleways on secondary roads. It is therefore recommended that the submission is rejected.

Submissions 1286/96, 1287/140, 1288/74, 1289/138 and 2878/97 request an amendment to include provision of bridle paths. While it is considered appropriate to refer to horse riding in broad terms it is not considered appropriate to include policies requiring the establishment of bridle paths. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 2940/1 & 2 requests new objectives, policies, assessment criteria and rules ensuring that the footpath to Matiatia wharf promotes walking access by ensuring it is wide enough for easy and safe walking and a separate bicycle lane from Alison Park to Matiatia. Decisions on such issues are usually made independently of the Plan process by council's Transport Safety, Assets and Operations Group, in conjunction with councils Transport committee and the community board. These decisions are based on a variety of matters, such as the benefits and costs of the works, safety issues, funding etc. It is not considered appropriate to include specific policies in the Plan regarding this issue. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

4.4.2.6 Submissions about clause 13.3.6 - passenger transport

Submissions 579/19-21 and 3061/131-133 request a range of amendments to clause 13.3.6 so that more emphasis is given to the land based transport system. As outlined in the introductory paragraph to clause 13.2.7 (which addresses the issues for passenger transport) it indicates how the existing bus services link with the ferry service on Waiheke island, refers to car travel and how it is important to integrate land use planning and transport. It is therefore considered that it is clear that the clause relates to passenger transport per se, rather than just ferries.

Submissions 579/22 and 3061/134 request that a new policy is developed ensuring that ferry and bus terminals are as close to each other as practical. While it is not considered necessary to have something in the Plan as explicit as suggested in the submission, it is recommended that an additional policy is included requiring that wharves that are used for passenger transport purposes (eg Matiatia) are integrated with the land based passenger transport system. However, such a policy would be included in clause 13.3.1. It is therefore recommended that submissions 579/19 & 20 and 3061/131-133 are rejected and that submissions 579/21 & 22 and 3061/134 are accepted in part.

Submissions 1286/97, 1287/141, 1288/75, 1289/139 and 2878/98 suggest reference is made to aligning the isthmus connection so for example the Waiheke ferry doesn't arrive after connecting trains leave Britomart. It is considered that an additional policy encouraging greater connectivity between public passenger transport would be advantageous and it is therefore recommended that these submissions are accepted.

Planner's recommendations for submissions to Part 13.3 - resource management objectives and policies

That submissions 1286/97, 1287/141, 1288/75, 1289/139 and 2878/98 are accepted.

That submissions 579/10, 579/17, 579/21, 579/22, 1250/89 &91 1286/93, 1287/137, 1288/71, 1289/135, 2878/94, 3061/123, 3061/129 and 3061/134 are accepted in part.

That submissions 330/2, 561/10, 579/9, 579/10, 579/11, 579/12-14, 579/15, 579/16, 579/18, 579/19&20, 650/10, 693/10, 862/10, 1012/10, 1122/10, 1129/1, 1130/10, 1163/10, 1229/1, 1250/87, 1250/88, 1250/90, 1250/92, 1250/93, 1250/94, 1286/91, 1286/92, 1286/94, 1286/95, 1286/96, 1287/135, 1287/136, 1287/138, 1287/139, 1287/140, 1288/69, 1288/70, 1288/72, 1288/73, 1288/74, 1289/133, 1289/134, 1289/136, 1289/137, 1289/138, 2080/2, 2625/2, 2878/92, 2878/93, 2878/95, 2878/96, 2878/97, 2937/1, 2940/1 & 2, 3061/122, 3061/124, 3061/125-128, 3061/130, 3061/131-133, 3061/162, 3223/10 and 3614/10 are rejected.

4.5 Resource Management Strategy

Submissions dealt with in this section: 561/7, 561/9, 579/23, 579/24, 579/25 , 579/26, 579/27, 579/28, 650/7, 650/9, 693/7, 693/9, 862/7, 862/9, 1012/7, 1012/9, 1055/3, 1122/7, 1122/9, 1130/7, 1130/9, 1163/7, 1163/9, 1250/95, 1250/96, 1286/100, 1286/101, 1286/103, 1286/98, 1286/99, 1286/102, 1287/142, 1287/143, 1287/144, 1287/145, 1287/146, 1287/147, 1288/76, 1288/77, 1288/78, 1288/79, 1288/80, 1288/81, 1289/140, 1289/141, 1289/142, 1289/143, 1289/144, 1289/145, 2878/99, 2878/104, 2878/103, 2878/102, 2878/101, 2878/100, 3061/135, 3061/136, 3061/137, 3061/138, 3061/139, 3061/140, 3061/172, 3223/7, 3223/9, 3614/7, 3614/9, 3658/1, 3659/1, 3660/1, 3661/1 and 3661/2.

4.5.1 Decisions requested

The Plan needs to allow for a Waiheke Island Transport Strategy. Amend clause 13.4.1 by adding after the words 'Gulf Transport Strategy', the words 'and the Waiheke Island Transport Strategy (yet to be formulated)'.
Provide the specific information which is lacking about measures to be adopted (clause 13.4.1).
After the words "Gulf Transport Strategy" in clause 13.4.1 add the words "and the Waiheke Island Transport Strategy (yet to be formulated).
Adoption of measures that integrate planning, transport and the environment, improve energy efficiency and accessibility and that encourage a multi modal approach to transport - are supported.
Clause 13.4.5 needs amending to actually reflect on Island context and the realities of the limitations of achieving economic sustainability of regular public transport systems,.
Rewrite clause 13.4.5 to reflect intelligent planning rather than using the English model of planning and in particular to promote clustering and innovative means of local transport.
With regard to clause 13.4.8 accepts that this needs to be done. It can be included in a Waiheke Passenger Transport Strategy document.
Travel demand management, with an emphasis on energy cost options, should be included in the Waiheke Passenger Transport Strategy.
There should be some reference to a Waiheke Passenger Transport Strategy in clause 13.4.9.
Clause 13.4.3 needs amendment as designations are not the appropriate technique to manage existing airfields and appropriate zones should be formulated. Helicopter use in many locations should simply be provided for as permitted activities up to specified frequency of movements.
Add to the end of clause 13.4.3 "including careful analysis of potential flight paths, to avoid straight line flights from common mainland aerodromes and helipads that would fly over populated areas.
That the roading hierarchy as set out in 13.4.4 is maintained.
The hierarchy of roads in clause 13.4.4 should also accommodate the differing character of the roads from primary to local and not just the traffic volumes.
The character of Seaview Rd should be mentioned specifically in clause 13.4.4 as being of a low key, rural nature.
Clause 13.4.4 needs to give more direction as to how the TP 124 approach will be implemented in the face of competing engineering driven requirements for higher levels of road formation.
Provide the specific information which is lacking about how the council will seek to reduce reliance on private vehicle trips and encourage the use of alternative forms of transport (clause 13.4.5).
Expresses concern with the last two sentences of the first paragraph of clause 13.4.5 as we should not be reducing parking requirements as a means of trying to limit the use of private transport.
Comments that clause 13.4.7 is more to do with parking than it is with passenger transport. Concern is also expressed at the last sentence which looks at controlling private transport by limiting parking.
Clause 13.4.7 needs to set out the regulatory means through which reduction in parking can be promoted.
Submitter expresses concern that the last sentence of 13.4.7 (which relates to controlling private transport by limiting parking) is a dangerous strategy.
Notes that the last sentence of clause 13.4.5 is very important, and that the suggested addition to the policies in clause 13.3.4.2 could be included in the requirement for a permit for a vehicle crossing. Suggested minimum distance is 1m.
Supports requirement for vehicle crossing permits so that a minimum distance between the edge of the carriageway and the start of the accessway gradient is provided at roadway grade level.
Clause 13.4.10 needs amending as it seems inappropriate to define rules for road formation in Part 5 when Part 13 includes rules for site access etc-all connectivity and linkage rules should be in a single location.
Add "quadracycles" to clause 13.4.5 in describing alternative transport.
Clause 13.4.6 needs amending to address bridle paths.
Add equestrian into clause 13.4.6.
Add a note in clause 13.4.6 which identifies that cycles, pedestrians and horses need to be separated from one another and that all three need to be separated form cars.

4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.5.2.1 Submissions on clause 13.4.1 - resource management strategy

Submission 579/23 and 3061/135 seek reference to the Waiheke Island Transport Strategy. As outlined in section 4.3.2.7 of this report Essentially Waiheke provides the strategic direction for transport issues for Waiheke. Notwithstanding this, the decision to prepare a strategy would not be made through the Plan review process. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 561/9, 650/9, 693/9, 862/9, 1012/9, 1122/9, 1130/9, 1163/9, 3223/9 and 3614/9 seek that information which is lacking (i.e. about relevant legislation, strategies, policy documents and plans; about council working with land transport stakeholders; about standards and assessment criteria and about how the objectives and policies will be given effect to in relation to cycling and walking) is included in this section. The need to address these issues has been outlined in sections 4.2.2.4 of this report. Therefore, it is not considered that any changes are needed to clause 13.4.1 and it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 3061/172 supports the adoption of measures that integrate planning, transport and the environment. It is recommended that this submission is accepted.

4.5.2.2 Submissions about clause 13.4.3 - airstrips & helipads

Submissions 1286/98, 1287/142, 1288/76, 1289/140, 2878/99 and 3658/1 request that clause 13.4.3 needs amendment as designations are not the most appropriate technique to manage airfields and appropriate zones should be formulated. These submissions also suggest that helicopter use should be provided for as a permitted activity with limited frequency of movements.

The decisions on whether to accept the notices of requirement for the barrier airfields have not been made. Notwithstanding this decision, it is considered that designations are a legitimate planning mechanism that is available to territorial authorities and provided for by the RMA. In relation to helicopter flights some changes are recommended to the notified provisions. These are outlined in sections 4.2.2.6 and 4.8 of the report. However, it is not recommended that helicopter movements be provided for as a permitted activity in the majority of land units. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 3658/1 requests additional words to clause 13.4.3 regarding the need to include careful analysis of flight paths so that flights over populated areas are avoided. It is noted that the Civil Aviation Authority has responsibility for flights paths and council is only responsible for the process of taking off and landing. Therefore it is recommended that this submission is rejected.

4.5.2.3 Submissions about clause 13.4.4 - roading

Submission 1055/3 request that the roading hierarchy is maintained. It is recommended that this submission is accepted with no changes to the Plan.

Submission 1250/95 requests that the roading hierarchy should include the different character of roads. It is considered that the explanation provided in clause 13.4.4 is sufficient. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 1250/96 requests that the character of Seaview Road should be specifically mentioned. The intention of clause 13.4.4 is not to specifically detail the character of specific roads. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submissions 1286/99, 1287/143, 1288/77, 1289/141 and 2878/100 request that greater direction is given to how TP 124 will be implemented. TP 124 provides considerable detail on Low Impact Design. The details of how a low impact design approach will be utilised will depend on the particular roading issues. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to provide further information on this. It is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

4.5.2.4 Submissions about clause 13.4.5 - parking & access

Submissions 561/7, 650/7, 693/7, 862/7, 1012/7, 1122/7, 1130/7, 1163/7, 3223/7 and 3614/7 seek specific information about how the council will reduce reliance on private vehicle trips is provided. The ability to reduce reliance on private vehicle trips is achieved through a range of policy direction, some of which occurs outside the Plan process. For example, a well functioning passenger transport system will help reduce reliance on private vehicles. However, the effectiveness of a passenger transport system is determined by private operators, with input from ARTA and council. That input is generally provided outside the Plan process. Notwithstanding this, adequate provision for cycling and walking for new development, the integration of land use and transport and limits on on-site carparking can help support alternative transport modes, and reduce reliance on private vehicle trips. It is considered that where possible the Plan does indicate where this can occur and it is not necessary to indicate it in this particular part of the Plan. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 579/24 and 3061/136 express concern about reducing parking requirements as a means for limiting the use of private vehicles. The rationale for this is outlined in section 4.4.2.4 of the report. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected accordingly.

Submissions 579/25 and 3660/1 refer to the last sentence in clause 13.3.4(2) being important as it relates to the suggested policies in submission 579/17. As outlined in section 4.4.2.3 of this report it is recommended that an additional policy is added regarding this issue. It is therefore recommended that further information is also added to clause 13.4.5 in relation to access between the sealed carriageway and the property boundary. Therefore, it is recommended that these submissions are accepted in part.

Submissions 1286/100, 1287/144, 1288/78, 1289/142 and 2878/101 request that clause 13.4.5 needs amending to reflect the on-island context of achieving economic sustainability of regular public transport systems. It is uncertain exactly what the submitters are seeking in relation to clause 13.4.5 as it deals with parking and access rather than public transport. As such, they are invited to provide further information at the hearing. However, it is considered that the approach outlined in this clause helps promote sustainable management and does not need amending. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 3659/1 suggests that 'quadracycles' are added to clause 13.4.5 to describe alternative transport. The reference to alternative forms of transport are not meant to be exhaustive, as such it is recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 3660/1 requests that clause 13.4.5 is reworded insofar as it states that "an oversupply of on site parking may encourage continued reliance on private vehicles trips when viable alternatives are available". The submission states that viable alternatives are lacking on Waiheke so the council should not cut parking and that clustering makes more sense. It also states that there should be a 50km maximum and passenger cars should be banned and replaced with smaller electric or fuel cell quadracycles.

Clause 13.7.5 of the Plan outlines the circumstances when an application to reduce on-site from that required in the Plan can be considered. These include, demonstration that the activity can be accessed by public transport, carpooling, cycling, walking etc; when it can be shown that less than the normal demand will be generated by the activity etc. Therefore, if viable alternatives do not exist a dispensation from the carparking requirements may not be granted. In relation to the 50km speed requirement this issue is not a District Plan issue, but the suggestion will be passed onto councils Transport Strategy department. In relation to banning passenger cars again this is outside the scope of a District Plan. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

4.5.2.5 Submissions about clause 13.4.6 - cycling & walking

Submissions 1286/101, 1287/145, 1288/79, 1289/143, 2878/102 and 3661/1 request that clause 13.4.6 needs to be amended to address bridle paths, or that word equestrian is added to this section. As noted above, it is recommended that some recognition is given to bridle paths and horse travel. However, it is not considered necessary to add any more text in this section of the Plan. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 3661/2 recommends that cycles, pedestrians and horses need to be separated from one another and all three need to be separated from cars. Roads on Waiheke Island have developed from tracks to sealed carriageways over many years. Given the introduction of vehicular ferries and the level of development that has occurred in recent years, larger vehicles and increased traffic numbers have accelerated deterioration of roads that were originally constructed to a lesser standard than is appropriate today. In essence, the Waiheke roading network was not designed to meet the type and number of vehicles that currently use it. Giving effect to the submission would involve significant upgrades to the Waiheke road network, and in many cases considerable physical works such as land modification and vegetation removal. It is considered that the costs and environment effects would outweigh the benefits and as such it is recommended that the submission is rejected.

4.5.2.6 Submissions about clause 13.4.7 - passenger transport

Submission 579/26 states that clause 13.4.7 is more to do with parking than passenger transport. As noted in clause 13.4.7 of the Plan council has limited control over passenger transport. As indicated elsewhere in the Plan where efficient and effective passenger transport is available the council will consider reducing the requirement for on-site parking. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submissions 579/26 and 3061/137 express concern that the last sentence of clause 13.4.7 is a dangerous strategy. The reasons for this 'strategy' are outlined in section 4.4.2.4 of this report. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 1286/102, 1287/146, 1288/80, 1289/144 and 2878/103 state that clause 13.4.7 needs to set out the regulatory means through which a reduction in carparking can be promoted. These circumstances are outlined in clause 13.7 and do not need to be repeated in clause 13.4.7. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

4.5.2.7 Submissions about clause 13.4.8 - travel demand management

Submissions 579/27 & 28 and 3061/138 & 139 request that clause 13.4.8 relating to travel demand management should be included in the Waiheke passenger transport strategy. For the reasons outlined in section 4.3.2.7 of this report it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

4.5.2.8 Submissions about clause 13.4.10 - construction and upgrade of the existing road network

Submissions 1286/103, 1287/147, 1288/81, 1289/145, 2878/104 and 3061/140 requests that clause 13.4.10 needs amending because it refers to rules relating to the construction, maintenance and upgrading of roads being in part 5 - network utilities. The rules relating to the construction of a road inter-relate with the numerous other activities outlined in part 5 of the Plan. It is therefore recommended that this section remain in part 5 of the Plan and that these submissions are rejected.

Planner's recommendations for submissions to part 13.4 - resource management strategy

That submissions 1055/3 and 3061/172 and are accepted.

That submissions 579/25 and 3660/1 are accepted in part.

That submissions 561/7, 561/9, 579/23, 579/24, 579/26, 579/26, 579/27& 28, 650/7, 650/9, 693/7, 693/9, 862/7, 862/9, 1012/7, 1012/9, 1122/7, 1122/9, 1130/7, 1130/9, 1163/7, 1163/9, 1250/95, 1250/96, 1286/99, 1286/100, 1286/101, 1286/102, 1286/103, 1286/98, 1286/99, 1287/142, 1287/143, 1287/144, 1287/145, 1287/146, 1287/147, 1288/76, 1288/77, 1288/78, 1288/79, 1288/80, 1288/81, 1289/140, 1289/141, 1289/142, 1289/143, 1289/144, 1289/145, 2878/99, 2878/100, 2878/101, 2878/102, 2878/103, 2878/104, 3061/135, 3061/136, 3061/137, 3061/138, 139 & 140, 3223/7, 3223/9, 3614/7, 3614/9, 3658/1, 3659/1, 3660/1, 3661/1 and 3661/2 are rejected.

4.6 Rules Site Access

Submissions dealt with in this section: 531/1, 579/29, 579/30, 618/142, 619/91, 754/103, 859/103, 1285/18, 1286/104, 1286/105, 1286/66, 1287/148, 1287/149, 1288/82, 1288/83, 1289/146, 1289/147, 1467/3, 2095/1, 2095/2, 2095/3, 2670/90, 2721/3, 2878/105, 2878/106, 2878/66, 3061/141 and 3061/142.

4.6.1 Decisions requested

Site access standards should be located in Part 10c.
Include an additional rule in clause 13.6.1as follows: "All accessways must be constructed at the same grade as the road carriageway for the first metre of the accessway".
The provisions in clause 13.6.1 should be contained in part 10c.
Clause 13.6.1(1) needs clarification as to the legal methods as to how this will be achieved-Bylaw? As a permitted activity conditions cannot be imposed.
Include a policy and a rule in clause 13.6.1 which has the effect of requiring all accessways to be constructed at the same grade as the road carriageway for the first metre of that access way.
A reduction in the defined road boundary.
Supports the need to control access in these areas (defined road boundaries). Suggests service stations should be a prohibited activity within fifty metres of an intersection.
Supports 13.6.2 and seeks inclusion of a requirement that service stations are a prohibited activity within fifty metres of an intersection.
Amend clause 13.6.2 Vehicle access near intersections - defined road boundary, by inserting after subclause (2) a new subclause (3) as follows: '3. Any access from a secondary road which is within 50m of an intersection with any primary road boundary. Refer to figure 13.1.' Consequential renumbering of the existing subclause (3) ('Any access from a road boundary ...) as (4).
Amend clause 13.6.2 Vehicle access near intersections - defined road boundary, by adding a fifth bullet point under the heading 'Matters of discretion' as follows:
- 'Whether there will be reverse manoeuvring onto the road'.
Clause 13.6.1(2) needs clarification as to whether it refer to pedestrians access only. That also raises the issue of how the rules requiring on site access are able to deal with this exception-reference to 12.6.1 is required to ensure that any proposal not meeting the access rules using the exception provision is not deemed non complying.
The Plan should mitigate the threat from wildfire by incorporating a mix of the strategies including: ensuring access to the site and to the water supply. Ideally, the site access should enable a 4WD fire appliance to get close to the dwelling and the water supply, and be able to turn around. The water tanks should also utilise fittings compatible with the Rural Fire Authorities fire fighting equipment.
Figure 13.1 Amend figure 13.1 Defined road boundary, as follows:
- Where it currently says 'Primary road' on the figure, add the words 'or secondary road' after this. (This applies to the road running from north-east to south-west down the page.)
- Where it currently says 'Primary or secondary road' on the figure, delete the words 'or secondary road'. (This applies to the road running from west to east across the page.)
- The proposed amendments are marked on the figure attached to the submission.

4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.6.2.1 Submissions about clause 13.6 - site access

Submissions 618/142, 619/91, 754/103, 859/103, 1285/18, 1286/66, 2670/90, 2721/3 and 2878/66 request that the site access standards are located in part 10c. It is considered that site access is primarily related to transport and is therefore appropriately located in part 13. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 579/29 and 3061/141 request that all accessways are constructed at the same grade as the road carriageway for the first metre of the accessway. As outlined in section 4.4.2.3 of this report that that additional policy direction is provided in relation to the gradient of access between the carriageway and the property boundary. However, it is noted that vehicle access from the carriageway to the property boundary is addressed through a vehicle crossing permit. It is not considered necessary to include additional rules in the Plan in relation to this issue. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 1286/104, 1287/148, 1288/82, 1289/146 and 2878/105 state that clause 13.6.1(1) needs clarification of how this will be achieved because as a permitted activity conditions cannot be imposed. Clause 13.6.1(1) is outlined as follows:

Exception

An accessway may be steeper than 1 in 6 as a permitted activity when:

It is an accessway for all terrain vehicles such as quad bikes or similar; and
It is provided from a parking platform on the roadside to the dwelling.

The intent of the exception is to provide for quad bike access as a permitted activity so that alternative access can be obtained potentially without a resource consent. The clause does not refer to the imposition of conditions on a permitted activity. It is therefore recommended that the submissions are rejected.

Submissions 1286/105, 1287/149, 1288/83, 1289/147 and 2878/106 states that clause 13.6.1(2) needs clarification as to whether it refers to pedestrian access only. These submissions also raise issues regarding whether any proposal not meeting the access rules using the exception provision is not deemed non-complying. As outlined above, the exception for accessways that are steeper than 1 in 6 applies to all terrain vehicles. This forms part of clause 13.6.1 which is denoted vehicle access gradient (emphasis added). It is therefore considered clear that it doesn't apply to pedestrian access. In relation to the activity status it is considered that additional wording could be added to clarify that if the exception does not apply then the activity status would remain restricted discretionary for accessways that do not meet the gradient control. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are accepted in part.

Submissions 1467/3 requests that the Plan mitigates the threat from wildfire by ensuring access to the site and water supply, noting that ideally site access should enable a 4 wheel drive appliance to get close to the dwelling and turn around. Given the relatively steep topography of much of the gulf islands a requirement in the Plan for such access would often result in substantial land modification, vegetation removal and associated effects. While the council is sympathetic to the threat posed by wildfires it is considered that the costs of such a rule would outweigh the benefits. It is therefore recommended that the submission is rejected.

4.6.2.2 Submissions about clause 13.6.2 - vehicle access near intersections

Submission 531/1 requests a reduction in the defined road boundary. Submissions 579/30 and 3061/142 support the need to control access in these areas and suggest that service stations should be a prohibited activity within 50m of an intersection. Submissions 2095/1-3 request amendments to clause 13.6.2. The intention of the rule is to control access in close proximity to intersections. The rationale for this is because of the undulating topography in the gulf islands sight distances from accessways is often minimal. Therefore council will require consent for new accessways in close proximity to intersections and consider as part of any consent application the extent to which there are existing traffic problems, sight distances and the potential for conflict.

Submission 531/1 states that the defined road boundary should be reduced as it is too restrictive and inappropriate for vehicle use in the Hauraki Gulf, and is impractical given many residential sites have less road frontage than the prescribed limits. It is considered that the 50m distance is appropriate and anything less would be ineffective in terms of what the rule is seeking to achieve. That is, if it was reduced to 30m it would be insufficient to adequately assess the issues that can arise from accessways in close proximity to intersections. It is also noted that the 50m distance can be made up of a number of sites, not just one therefore the size of a sites road frontage is not a relevant issue when considering the defined road boundary issue. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

In relation to service stations, it is acknowledged that they can give rise to traffic effects if they are located in close proximity to intersections. However, other activities are also high traffic generators and it would be inappropriate to single out service stations as prohibited activities. Notwithstanding this, it is acknowledged that the defined road boundary rule would require careful assessment of a new accessway for a service station in close proximity to intersections between particular roads. Furthermore, it is noted that service stations are discretionary or non complying activities therefore these issues can be addressed regardless. It is therefore recommended that submissions 579/30 and 3061/142 are accepted in part as they support the defined road boundary rule, but rejected as they seek to make service stations prohibited.

Submissions 2095/1-3 seek amendments and clarification to rule 13.6.2. The intent of the rule is that it applies to intersections of primary and secondary roads. The rule as it was notified does not achieve this. It is therefore recommended that the rule is changed as outlined in submissions 2095/1-3, and they are accepted accordingly.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about clause 13.6, rules - site access

That submissions 2095/1-3 are accepted.

That submissions 579/30, 1286/105, 1287/149, 1288/83, 1289/147, 2878/106 and 3061/142 are accepted in part.

That submissions 531/1, 579/29, 618/142, 619/91, 754/103, 859/103, 1285/18, 1286/104, 1286/66, 1287/148, 1288/82, 1289/146, 1467/3, 2670/90, 2721/3, 2878/105, 2878/106 and 3061/141 are rejected.

4.7 Rules - Parking and Loading

Submissions dealt with in this section: 509/1-8, 517/2, 531/2, 531/3, 537/15, 537/16, 579/31, 618/144, 618/145, 619/93, 619/94, 754/105, 754/106, 754/107, 754/115, 859/105, 859/106, 859/107, 1064/1, 1065/1, 1285/20, 1285/21, 1286/68, 1286/69, 1286/86, 1289/128, 1552/13, 1552/7, 2095/4, 2641/71, 2641/72, 2670/92, 2670/93, 2878/68, 2878/69, 2878/87, 2095/5, 2095/6, 3061/143, 3061/144, 3061/145, 3061/146, 3662/1 and 3663/1.

4.7.1 Decisions requested

The provisions relating to 'discretion' in part 13 would be better located within the general plan modification provisions in clause 10c.3.
The provisions relating to car parks should be removed.
Make provision in clause 13.7 for alternative small scale vehicles - most notably quadracycles (golf cart sized electric and fuel cell 4 wheeled/3 wheeled vehicles). This includes alternative rules if and when the island makes the shift to a local transport area.
Delete clause 13.7.1 (2) parking for more than 25 vehicles as a restricted discretionary activity.
Reduction in parking spaces required must be looked at with caution (as identified in clause 13.7.5). Needs fully community support and buy in.
Rethink clause 13.7.5(1) to take account of the spreadout rural and village nature of Waiheke or delete entirely.
Reduction in parking spaces required must be looked at with caution (as identified in clause 13.7.6). Needs fully community support and buy in.
Reduction in parking spaces required must be looked at with caution (as identified in clause 13.7.7). Needs fully community support and buy in.
In table 13.1 - amend the description of the fourth category of retail space under "Retail activity" (retail premises) as follows: "1 space for every 80m2 of office and storage space, preparation areas and plant rooms ancillary to the primary retail activity of the building".
Table 13.1 Include an additional activity in table 13.1 for emergency service facilities as follows: "Activity - emergency service facility Parking spaces required: 1 park per 2 on duty staff, or 1 park per 100m2".
Table 13.1 Table 13.1 would be better located in part 10c.
Table 13.1 Amend Table 13.1 (for educational facilities) to reflect the Ministry of Education's preferred car parking spaces (ie fixed car parking rates).
Table 13.1 Table 13.1 should be amended to provide parking standards as follows; Restaurants, cafes and other eating places 1 space for every 10 customers the premises are designed to have capacity for. 1 space for every two staff employed on site or operating from the site at any one time.
Table 13.1 Table 13.1 should be amended to provide parking standards as follows; Educational facilities For primary and intermediate schools; 2 spaces per classroom plus 1 space for every two employees on the site. For secondary schools; 3 spaces per classroom plus 1space for every two employees on the site For tertiary facilities; 4 spaces per classroom plus 1 space for every two employees on the site Restaurant, cafes and other eating places 1 space for every 10 customers the premises are designed to have capacity for 1 space for every two staff employed on site or operating from the site at any one time.
Table 13.1 - That the car parking requirements for the accommodation for care activity, is reduced.
Table 13.1 - That the car parking requirements for accommodation for retired, elderly and disabled people, is reduced.
Table 13.2 Table 13.2 would be better located in part 10c.
Amend the first line of text under clause 13.7.3 to the following: "With the exception of service stations, truck stops and emergency services facilities, every owner ...".
That where two or more parks are required then one be the width a disabled person can use, ie extra wide and with room at the rear for a hoist carrying a wheelchair to operate.
If 10 or more parks are required then the disabled width park be designated disabled only, or two disabled width parks be required and the threshold for designation of a park disabled only be slightly higher, say 15 parks.
That mothers with young children in pushchairs also be permitted to use disabled spaces where they cannot otherwise transfer a child to a pushchair from the vehicle safely avoiding moving traffic. To incorporate this amendment the Plan be altered as appropriate by changing the method of calculating spaces required to include the above or a reasonable modification of the above.
That clause 13.7.4 be altered to accommodate the width needed for a disabled park including turning space, envelope dimensions.
That added to clause 13.7.5, be the principle that at all times the council should strive to make environments used by the public accessible to all members of the community and in particular those challenged by mobility impairments by reason of disability, illness or age.
That included in the assessment criteria for the council's assessment of an application for a reduction in parking and loading spaces, the council will consider the following also; that those in wheelchairs and/or with mobility restrictions cannot use many of Waiheke's roads as there are no formed footpaths and traffic moves too fast to accommodate the safety of wheelchair and movement impaired persons on the road, therefore those members of the community are dependent on adequate parking provision close to and accessible to businesses, over ramps or non-stepped entrances, so parking should not be reduced according to the other criteria if it means disabled and movement impaired will be denied entrance to the facility or business.
Add to clause 13.7.6: the need of disabled and movement impaired for parking to access the facility or business.
Add to clause 13.7.7: the need of disabled and movement impaired for parking to access the facility or business.
Include a rule in 13.7.4 that requires turning areas and parking for buses at wineries and restaurant facilities (such a rule needs to take account of the fact that the turning circle of a bus is different to a truck).
Figure 13.4 A reduction in the 90 percentile curve dimensions.
Figure 13.4 Replace the existing figure 13.4 90 percentile car tracking curve, with the figure attached to this submission (The attached figure is the same as the 90% motorcar contained in figure 12.3a of the Isthmus District Plan) (Amended figure attached to submission).
Figure13.5 A reduction in the 90 percentile curve dimensions.
Figure 13.5 Replace the existing figure 13.5 90 percentile truck tracking curve, with the figure attached to this submission (The attached figure is the same as the 90% truck contained in figure 12.3c of the Isthmus District Plan) (Amended figure attached to submission).
Amend clause 13.7.5 to state the following or similar: Matters of discretion � The impact on heritage Assessment criteria Whether provision of (for example - the required number of spaces) would compromise any heritage values.
Amend clause 13.7.6 to state the following or similar: Matters of discretion � The impact on heritage Assessment criteria Whether provision of (for example - the required number of spaces) would compromise any heritage values.

4.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.7.2.1 Submissions about clause 13.7 Rules - parking and loading

Submissions 754/107 and 859/107 seeks that the matters of discretion should be located in clause 10c.3. As outlined in section 4.6.2.1 of this report it is recommended that these issues are best addressed in the connectivity and linkages section. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 3662/1 seeks that provision is made for alternative small scale vehicles (golf cart sized) in clause 13.7, and alternative rules if and when the island shifts to a local transport area. It is the report writer's understanding that there aren't any of these types of vehicles used on the island (presumably the submitter is referring to Waiheke), or if there are the number is certainly minimal. Obviously quad bikes are used, but more as an all terrain vehicle rather than a primary mode of transport. Should someone seek to undertake a development that somehow anticipates high usage of these types of vehicles than dispensation from the parking requirements can be sought in accordance with clause 13.7.5. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submissions 1064/1 seeks that clause 13.7.1(2) is deleted. The submission gives no reasons for seeking that this clause be deleted. However, it is considered that clause 13.7.1(2) should be retained because carparking areas can give rise to particular effects and it is considered appropriate to require consent for those over a nominated size. It is therefore recommended that the submission is rejected.

Submission 537/15 requests that additional parking requirements are added for emergency service facilities. As the Plan does not currently have parking standards for these activities it is considered appropriate that a standard is added to the Plan at the parking ratio suggested by the submitter. It is therefore recommended that this submission is accepted.

Submission 517/2 seeks an amendment to the carparking requirements for retail activities that clarifies the parking requirements for plant rooms and preparation areas. It is considered that the proposed amendments provide clarity and that the submission is accepted accordingly.

Submissions 618/144, 619/93, 754/105, 859/105, 1285/20, 1286/68, 2670/92 and 2878/68 request that site access standards and provisions in table 13.1 should be located in 10.c. As this table addresses parking standards it is considered that they are appropriately located in part 13. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 1065/1 requests that table 13.1 be amended to reflect the Ministry of Education's preferred parking standards. The submission does not provide any detail regarding what these standards should be, other than they should be fixed parking rates, and why they are preferable to what currently exists in the Plan. The submitter is invited to provide further evidence at the hearing, but based the lack of information provided in the submission it is recommended that it is rejected.

Submissions 1286/86 and 2878/87 request that the parking requirements for cafes and restaurants be relaxed as outlined in the standards. It is considered that 1 parking space for every 8 customers would be preferable to 1 parking space for every ten as suggested in the submissions. It is therefore recommended that the submissions are accepted in part.

Submission 1289/128 suggests amended parking requirements for educational facilities, where carparking is required per classroom rather than per student. It is considered appropriate that parking is based on student numbers rather than the number of classrooms. It is therefore recommended that the submission is rejected.

Submissions 1552/7 & 13 request different parking ratios for accommodation for care and accommodation for retired, elderly or disabled people. These submissions are tied in with suggested amendments to the definitions section as what constitutes accommodation for care and accommodation for retired, elderly or disabled people. As the parking requirements are reliant on what is or is not considered to be a particular type of accommodation it is recommended that decisions on these submissions are deferred until the definitions section is heard.

Submissions 618/145, 619/94, 754/106, 859/106, 1285/21, 1286/69, 2670/93 and 2878/69 request that table 13.2 is located in part 10c. It is considered that these controls are appropriately located in part 13 and that these submissions are rejected accordingly.

Submissions 537/16 suggests additions to clause 13.7.3 so that emergency service facilities are excluded from the requirements for loading spaces. It is not considered necessary to exclude emergency service facilities from loading spaces, as these may be required on-site. It is therefore recommended that the submission is rejected.

4.7.2.2 Submissions about clause 13.7.4 - Assessment and formation of parking and loading spaces

Submissions 509/1 & 2 request that where there are two or more carparks required then one be the width a disabled person can use; if 10 or more carparks are required then the disabled width carpark is designated disabled only; or two disabled width carparks be required and the threshold be 15 carparks. Submissions 509/3 & 4 request that mother with pushchairs be permitted to use disabled spaces where they cannot otherwise transfer a child to a pushchair from a vehicle without safely avoiding moving traffic; that clause 13.7.4, assessment and formation of parking and loading areas, be altered to accommodate the width needed for a disabled carpark; that clause 13.7.5, matters of discretion, be modified so that council strives to make environments used by the public accessible to all members of the community.

Clause 13.7.4(2)(b) of the Plan requires that parking spaces of larger dimensions be provided for use by disabled persons, and that these meet the requirements of NZS 4121:1985 Code of Practice for Design Access and use of Buildings and facilities by Disabled Persons. Submission 2095/4 requests that clause 13.7.4(2)(b) is replaced by reference to the appropriate standard NZS 4121:2001. As the standard referenced in the submission is the correct standard it is recommended that the submission is accepted.

In relation to submissions 509/1-4 it is considered that the requirements of the NZS 4121:2001 adequately address the issues for accessible carparks. The standard requires that where carparking is provided spaces for people with a disability also needs to be provided. For example, where between 1-20 carparks are required then at least 1 accessible carpark is required. Where between 21-50 carparks are provided then not less than 2 accessible spaces are required. Councils Transport Safety, Assets and Operations Group have stated they consider that it is sufficient to rely on the standard rather than include new requirements over and above what the standard requires. It is therefore recommended that submissions 509/1-4 are rejected.

Submissions 579/31 and 3061/143 request an addition to clause 13.7.4 to require turning areas and parking for buses at wineries and restaurant facilities. It is acknowledged that buses do service some developments in Waiheke. However, it is not considered necessary that wineries and restaurant facilities be required to provide turning areas and parking for buses. Such a rule could lead to greater land modification, more impervious surfaces and vegetation removal. Notwithstanding this, it is recommended that additional wording be included in clause 13.7.2 outlining that some activities are serviced by buses and that consideration should be given through the consent process to whether turning and parking is required for buses. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are accepted in part.

4.7.2.3 Submissions about figures 13.4 and 13.5

Submissions 531/2 & 3 request a reduction in the 90 percentile curve dimensions. Submissions 2095/5 & 6 request that the tracking curves are replaced with the figure attached to the submission. The figure attached to submissions 2095/5 & 6 reduces the outside radius and correctly reflects the tracking curves for the standard car. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are accepted.

4.7.2.4 Submissions about clause 13.7.5 matters of discretion for a reduction in parking and loading spaces

Submissions 509/5 & 6 request that clause 13.7.5 be amended so that council strives to make environments used by the public accessible to all members of the community, in particular those challenged by mobility impairments. It is considered that reference to New Zealand Standard 4121 described in section 4.7.2.2 of this report is sufficient to ensure that environments are accessible to all members of the community. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 2641/71 requests that additional assessment criteria be included requiring consideration of the impact of parking and loading spaces etc on heritage values. With the exception of Maori heritage the Plan has identified and scheduled all heritage sites that have sufficient heritage value to warrant protection under the Plan. Works and activities within these scheduled areas require resource consent. It is therefore considered that the Plan places appropriate controls on heritage matters and that it is not necessary to add additional assessment criteria in relation to parking matters. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 3061/144 & 145 requests that a reduction in parking spaces is looked at with caution. It is considered that clause 13.7.5 does require careful consideration for applications to reduce the carparking requirements in the Plan. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 3663/1 requests that clause 13.7.5(1) be rethought to take account of the spread-out village nature of Waiheke or delete entirely. It is noted that the Plan, and the particular clause referenced applies to the Hauraki Gulf islands, not just Waiheke. Notwithstanding this, the intent of clause 13.7.5(1) is to ensure that where it can be demonstrated that a substantial number of users can access a site using other means then the applicant can apply for a reduction in the Plans parking requirements (emphasis added). If the applicant cannot demonstrate that this can occur then dispensation for a reduction in the parking requirements can be declined. It is noted that the intent of providing for applicants to apply for dispensation from the parking requirements is so that the Plan does not require an oversupply of on-site caparking. Such an approach could result in areas of un-used carparks, which are often unsightly and can have deleterious effects on the environment in terms of land modification, vegetation removal etc. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

4.7.2.5 Submissions about clause 13.7.6 - matters of discretion for parking areas for more than 25 vehicles

Submission 509/7 requests additional criteria addressing the need of disabled and movement impaired for parking to access the facility or business. The purpose of clause 13.7.6 is to control parking for more than 25 vehicles because large carparks have inherent effects. Again, it is recommended that the New Zealand Standard is relaied upon rather than including additional criteria in relation to this issue. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 2641/72 requests that the impact on heritage be included in clause 13.7.6. For the reasons outlined in section 4.7.2.5 of this report it is recommended that this submission is rejected.

4.7.2.6 Submissions in relation to clause 13.7.7 additional matters of discretion for parking areas in landform and rural land units

Submissions 509/8 requests that the need to consider disabled and movement impaired access be included in this clause. For the reasons outlined in section 4.7.2.2 of this report it is recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 3061/146 requests that the reduction in parking spaces is looked at with caution. For the reasons outlined in section 4.7.2.4 of this report it is recommended that this submission is rejected.

Planner's recommendations for submissions to clause 13.7 - parking and loading

That submissions 517/2, 531/2 & 3, 537/15, 2095/4, 2095/5 & 6 and 2641/72 are accepted.

That submissions 579/31, 1286/86, 2878/87 and 3061/143 are accepted in part.

That submissions 509/1-8, 537/16, 618/144, 618/145, 619/93, 619/94, 754/105, 754/106, 754/107, 859/105, 859/106, 859/107, 1064/1, 1065/1, 1285/20, 1285/21, 1286/68, 1286/69, 1289/128, 2641/71, 2670/92, 2670/93, 2878/68, 2878/69, 3061/144 & 145, 3061/145, 3061/146, 3662/1 and 3663/1 are rejected.

That the decisions on submissions 1552/7 & 13 are deferred until the hearings on the definitions for these terms.

4.8 Rules - helipads and airstrips

Submissions dealt with in this section: 49/1-3, 49/4, 330/1, 526/11, 527/11, 528/11, 529/11, 539/11, 540/1, 619/9, 754/21, 859/21, 966/15, 966/15 & 16 & 18, 966/16, 966/17, 966/17, 966/18, 1022/6, 1022/7, 1026/6, 1026/7, 1039/3, 1046/1, 1241/1-4, 1842/6, 2080/1, 2625/1, 3061/118, 3175/1, 3227/5, 3241/5, 3402/1 and 3720/1.

4.8.1 Decisions requested

Helipads

Questions the inclusion of landforms 1-7 in clause 13.8, as this seems to suggest discretion to permit helipads in wetlands, coastal dunes and other fragile areas.
Identify a sole landing point for public and private helicopter traffic (other than emergency services) on Waiheke and include in the Plan.
Seeks amendments to achieve appropriate controls on helicopter movements near beach areas.
Redraft the rules as appropriate having regard to the submitter's proposed changes to part 13 but at a minimum to ensure that at least one inward and one outward trip per helipad per day is permitted.
At a minimum, ensure that activities not meeting the permitted or restricted discretionary activity standard are classed as discretionary activities, and include appropriate criteria to ensure an appropriate balance is struck between the need to provide for economic development, including the domestic and tourist markets, and the need to minimise detrimental effects of the activity.
At a minimum ensure that there are no non-complying or prohibited helipad and airstrip activities.
All future helipads should need a resource consent which must be notified, 1022/6.

Noise

At a minimum ensure that helipads and airstrips are restricted discretionary activities in:
- � landform 1-7, except where the activity is a permitted activity;
- � rural 1-3, except where the activity is a permitted activity;
- � Pakatoa and Rotoroa - provided that this limited to one helipad or airstrip per island; and where discretion is retained over the following matters:
- � noise attenuation methods (including types of aircraft);
- � operating hours and number of flight movements;
- � flight paths; and
- � nature of the activities undertaken.

4.8.1.1 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.8.1.2 Helipads

Submission 49/3 questions the inclusion of permitted activity status for particular landform land units such as wetlands and coastal dunes. It is acknowledged that it may not be appropriate to provide for, as a permitted activity, helipads and airstrips in sensitive landform land units. It is therefore recommended that this submission is accepted and that helipads and airstrips are no longer provided for as permitted activities within landform land units 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes), 2 (dune systems and sand flats), 4 (wetland systems) and 7 (forest and bush areas).

Submission 49/4 requests that a sole landing point for public and private landing be identified. In relation to new locations council would have to designate or spot zone a particular site, and if it did not already own it, take financial responsibility for it. This decision would need to be made by the relevant council committee after careful consideration of the costs, benefits and alternatives. However, such a decision is not made through the Plan review process. Alternatively, private or commercial parties could apply for resource consent for a helipad that serviced an island, or a particular part of an island. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected, however, the relief sought will be passed onto council's Transport Strategy group.

Submission 540/1 seeks appropriate controls on helicopter movements near beach areas. It is noted that the Plan does not control helicopter flight paths. These are controlled by the Civil Aviation Authority. The Plan only controls the process of where helicopters take-off and land and it currently requires resource consent for all helipads outside of landforms 1-7 on Great Barrier island only. As acknowledged above, it is recommended that some of the sensitive landform land units be excluded from this permitted activity status. This includes landform land unit 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes). It is noted that the provisions already require consent for helipads in the residential, recreation and rural land units, and in settlement areas, which in some instances are in close proximity to "beach areas". Therefore, while the Plan does not have a specific rule requiring consent for helipads within a particular distance of "beach areas" it is considered that the existing and proposed provisions already effectively control this. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 966/15 seeks the controls relating to helipads are redrafted so that they provide at least 1 inward and 1 outward trip per helipad per day. Submission 966/16 seeks that helipads and airstrips are restricted discretionary activities in land units landforms 1-7 and rural 1-3, except where they are permitted activities, and in Pakatoa and Rotoroa, provided this is limited to one helipads or airstrip per island.

The Plan defines a helipad as follows:

"Means land or buildings used for the take off and landing of helicopters. It does not include facilities for servicing, freight handling or storage hangars."

Therefore, wherever a helicopter lands in the gulf islands the area on which it lands is considered a helipad. Submission 966/15 seeks that rules are redrafted so that at least 1 inward and 1 outward trip per helipad per day is permitted. It would appear from the wording suggested in the submission that this would mean that anywhere in the gulf islands, such as recreation, residential and rural land units, could be used as a helipad as a permitted activity, as long as there was no more than 1 flight in and 1 flight out per day. Over the lifetime of the Plan helicopter travel may become far more accessible to some parts of the gulf islands population and become increasingly used by commercial operators. The cumulative impact of such an approach could result in significant additional helicopter movements. It is considered that such a permissive approach could significantly impact on the amenity values that people associate with the gulf islands. Notwithstanding this, it is acknowledged that there are some areas that are more difficult to reach by more traditional modes of transport, and that these may be located outside Great Barrier island. It is therefore recommended that there is some relaxation of the controls in relation to the landform land units outside of Great Barrier island and for the Pakatoa and Rotoroa land units.

In relation to the suggestion that helipads and airstrips are restricted discretionary activities it is acknowledged that the matters of discretion could be adequately restricted and, as such, there may be a case for restricted discretionary activities. However, it is also noted that the intent of the RMA is that resource consents are decided in a public and participatory way. The noise associated with helicopters landing and taking off can potentially impact on adjacent property owners' and occupiers' amenity values. Therefore, if restricted discretionary activity status for helipads were used it is recommended that the standard clause which excludes the need to notify such applications is not applied. (Therefore if helipads were restricted discretionary activities in some land units they would be subject to the normal notification requirements). On balance it is recommended that full discretionary activity status remain for helipads in particular land units. It is therefore recommended that the submissions are rejected, but as outlined above that there is some relaxation of the controls in relation to landform land units outside of Great Barrier and for Pakatoa and Rotoroa.

Submissions 966/17 & 18 request that activities not meeting permitted or restricted discretionary activity standards are classified as discretionary, and that there is no non-complying or prohibited activities. The submissions also request appropriate criteria are included requiring the need to provide for economic development, including domestic and tourist markets. It is recommended that additional criteria be included addressing the issue of tourism, as it is acknowledged that this is an important consideration for the gulf islands. It is therefore recommended that submission 966/17 is accepted in part.

In relation to non complying activities it is considered appropriate that helipads in, for example, residential land units are non complying activities because they are not anticipated within these land units. In relation to prohibited activities, it is noted that the Plan does not make helipads a prohibited activity. It is not recommended that this change be made. It is therefore recommended that submission 966/18 is rejected.

Submissions 1022/6 & 7 and 1026/6 request that all future helipads are notified and that take-off and landing be restricted to 12 inward and 12 outward in a calendar month. While there is potential to notify discretionary and non-complying activities, decisions in relation to notification will be made in accordance with sections 93/94 of the RMA. Therefore, it is not considered appropriate for the Plan to indicate whether an application should be notified. It is considered that 12 inward and 12 outward movements per month is too permissive and that the (amended) provisions and restrictions are appropriate given the potential effects associated with helicopter's taking off and landing. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 1026/7 requests that helicopter flights should not be over residential areas. It is noted that the Civil Aviation Authority controls flight paths, not council. Council can control the process of taking off and landing. As council does not control flight paths it is recommended that the submission is rejected.

Submission 1039/3 requires that helicopter movements in or near to residential areas are limited. As noted immediately above, the Civil Aviation Authority controls flight paths, not council. However, while it is not possible to control where helicopters fly, it is possible to control the process of taking off and landing. The existing provisions make helipads in residential land units a non complying activity. It is therefore recommended that the submission is accepted without changes made to the Plan.

Submission 1046/1 requests recognition that Stoneyridge Vineyard has existing use rights to allow unrestricted helicopter landings. If Stoneyridge Vineyard has existing use rights in relation to helicopter landings then this should be addressed with Auckland City Environments. It is not an issue for the Plan review process. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 1241/1 requests that the number of helicopter flights in landform land units 1-7 is limited. As noted above, it is recommended that in the more sensitive landform land units helipads are limited. However, it is not recommended that this apply to all landform land units. It is also acknowledged that the definition of helipad and the manner in which the provisions are structured may enable a number of helipads to locate on one site. This may lead to a proliferation of helipads and helicopter movements as permitted activities in landform land units. It is therefore recommended that this submission is accepted in part and that the provisions are altered so that the permitted activity provisions apply per site in landforms 3, 5 and 6.

Submission 1241/4 requests that an application be revoked if it is found that the assessment criteria have not been met. An application for resource consent for a helipad would be assessed against the assessment criteria, and then a decision would be made on whether to grant or decline consent. If consent is granted then it would likely be subject to conditions. If the consent holder did not comply with the conditions of consent then they may be subject to enforcement action. However, council could not reassess the consent against the assessment criteria [2] . It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 3061/118 requests that all helipads are at least restricted discretionary specifying automatic public notification. For the reasons outlined above it is recommended that while consent for helipads is required in some of the more sensitive landform land units it is also recommended that where a helipad or airstrip is permitted in a particular landform land unit that this apply throughout the gulf islands, not just in Great Barrier. As also noted above, notification is determined in accordance with s 93/94 of the RMA. It is therefore recommended that the submission is rejected.

Submission 3175/1 requests the strengthening of noise levels, the number of flights is limited further and the number of helipads restricted. The permitted activity provisions that currently provide for specific numbers of inward and outward movements in particular landform land units are also required to comply with an 85dBA Lmax noise measured at any adjacent notional boundary with a residential use on an adjacent site. It is considered that this noise level is appropriate for helipads and should not be restricted further. It is also considered that 3 inward and 3 outward movements in a seven day period is an appropriate number as a permitted activity. In relation to further restricting helipads it is noted that in the majority of land units throughout the gulf islands consent is already required. It is therefore recommended that the submission is rejected.

Submissions 3227/5 and 3241/5 request the restriction of aircraft (particularly helicopters) over the island. As noted above, the CAA controls flights paths and council only controls aircraft when they are in the process of taking off and landing. Therefore it is not possible for the Plan to restrict aircraft over the island. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 330/1, 2080/1 and 2625/1 request an amendment to clause 13.8.2(1) providing for 8 inward and 8 outward movements in a 7 day period. It is considered that 3 inward and 3 outward movements (as a permitted activity) is an appropriate number to allow access to more remote locations, or for some farming activities to occur. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submissions 526/11, 527/11, 528/11, 529/11 and 539/11 request that the take off and landing of helicopters on private land should be allowed as a permitted activity in landforms 1-7. As noted above, it is recommended that helipads and airstrips are restricted in the more sensitive landform land units, but for those landform land units where helipads are permitted it is recommended that this applies across the gulf islands, rather than just for Great Barrier. It is also recommended that the exceptions apply to Rotoroa and Pakatoa. It is therefore recommended that the submissions are accepted in part.

Submission 49/1 requests that clause 13.8.3(1) be amended so that it applies to rural 1 and 3 only. Currently clause 13.8.3(1) requires discretionary activity consent for helipads and airstrips in the rural 1-3 land units, provided they are used for no more than 3 inward and 3 outward movements in a seven day period. This would mean that helipads and airstrips within the rural 2 land unit would be a non-complying activity. Alternatively, submission 49/2 suggests that the clause could be amended so that it applies to rural 1-3 land units, but with additional controls in relation to the following:

They are sited no further than 80m from the mean high water mark, or in the case of a headland no more than 50m from the edge of the headland.
They are sited so that they do not disturb native birds.
The site is not at the inner part of a harbour or water enclosed on three sides.
That no more than two such helipads may be located within any rural subdivision.

The rural 2 - western landscape land units applies to the western end of Waiheke island, Te Whau peninsula and Thompsons point. There are a number of commercial operators and residents within the rural 2 land unit that use helicopters as a means of transporting customers to a venue, or as a means of accessing the island. While some of these operations or residents may have existing use rights or operate under consent conditions, making all new helipads a non complying activity would signal that such a use is not anticipated with that land unit. This is not the intent of the provision. The intent is to ensure that any new application for a helipad or airstrip, with up to three inward and three outward movements in a seven day period, is appropriately and thoroughly considered as a discretionary activity. Such an application would be subject to the normal requirements for notification and council could either grant or decline consent. As such, it is considered that new helipads or airstrips in the rural 2 land unit should remain a discretionary activity (where there is no more than three inward and three outward movements in a seven day period) and that the submission is rejected accordingly.

Submission 49/2 suggests the discretionary activity status could remain, subject to the additional controls bullet pointed above. It is not considered necessary to introduce additional controls for discretionary activities. For example, the first additional control would encourage operators to land in close proximity to the mean high water spring tide mark. While this may be away from dwellings it could impact on people using walkways and beaches. In relation to disturbance of native birds, while well intentioned, such a control would not provide sufficient certainty as to whether an application was discretionary or non complying (i.e. it could be debatable whether a helipad did or did not disturb native birds). Full discretionary activity status means that any effects associated with the proposed helipad or airstrip can be considered as part of the consent process. In relation to the suggestion that the number of helipads is limited in rural land units this is discussed as part of submission 1241/2 below. It is therefore considered that the submission is rejected.

Submissions 619/9, 754/21 and 859/21 request that helipads are discretionary activities. For the reasons outlined above it is considered appropriate to retain a range of activity statuses for helipads, because different land units have different attributes. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 1241/2 requests that the number of helipads in rural amenity areas is limited. The Plan requires discretionary activity consent for helipads in the rural 1-3 land units, but does not place a limit on the total number of helipads in a particular area. It is considered that limiting the number of helipads in a particular location would largely be an arbitrary exercise and would not necessarily address the effects in terms of the number of inward and outward movements for taking off and landing. Notwithstanding this, it is acknowledged that the cumulative effects of a large number of helipads in a particular area could have a significant effect. It is also acknowledged that the definition of helipad and the manner in which the provisions are structured does not "tie in" helipads to a site. This could lead to a number of discretionary activity applications for helipads or airstrips on one site. As such, it is recommended that in accordance with submission 3720/1 the cumulative effect of helipads is included as assessment criteria and that the rules are modified so that the discretionary activity requirements are tied into the definition of a site. It is therefore recommended that submission 1241/2 is accepted in part, but submission 3720/1 is accepted.

Submission 3402/1 requests that helicopter and airplane use is very limited, perhaps just for emergency use. It is noted that clause 13.8.1 explains that the provisions relating to helipads and airstrips do not apply to helicopters and aircraft involved in emergency, police or rescue operations. However, for the reasons outlined above, it is not recommended that the provisions further limit helicopter or aircraft use, beyond the changes already recommended. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 1241/3 suggests making the assessment criteria non-negotiable when considering a helipad or airstrip. As the name suggests assessment criteria are used to assess an application. Because they apply to full discretionary activities council is not limited when assessing an application to the criteria outlined in clause 13.8.5. However, it is not possible to make these non-negotiable because an application is assessed in accordance with the requirements of the RMA. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

4.8.1.3 Noise

Submitter 1842/6 and 3175/1 request that helicopter noise be controlled. It is noted that clause 13.8.2 of the Plan requires that even where there are a particular number of inward and outward movements per 7 day period in landform land units they still need to comply with 85dBA Lmax noise standards. Also, clause 13.8.5(1) & (2) require consideration of the noise issue for consent applications for discretionary activities. It is therefore considered that noise is adequately addressed in the Plan and that no further noise requirements are required.

Planner's recommendations for submissions in relation to clause 13.8 - helipads and airstrips

That submissions 49/3, 1039/3 and 3720/1 are accepted.

That submissions 526/11, 527/11, 528/11, 529/11, 539/11, 966/17 and 1241/1 & 2 are accepted in part.

That submissions 49/1, 49/2, 49/4, 330/1, 540/1 619/9, 754/21, 859/21, 966/15, 16 & 18, 1022/6, 1022/7, 1026/6, 1026/7, 1046/1, 1241/3-4, 1842/6, 2080/1, 2625/1, 3061/118, 3175/1, 3227/5, 3241/5 and 3402/1 are rejected.

4.9 Miscellaneous submissions about roading and transport

Submissions dealt with in this section: 21/1, 44/1, 46/1, 66/4, 104/3, 250/2, 281/1, 284/5, 341/1, 468/1, 469/1, 508/1, 542/5, 579/32, 33 & 35-38, 662/1, 1166/17, 1283/1, 1283/2, 1284/6, 2043/1&3, 2073/3, 2545/4, 2571/4, 2597/1, 2597/2, 2598/6, 2598/7, 2999/8, 3020/1-4, 3021/1-4, 3022/1-3, 3023/1-4, 3061/147, 3061/151 and 3501/12 & 16.

4.9.1 Decisions requested

That the Plan supports the building of a motor vehicle bridge alongside the proposed pedestrian bridge across the Oruawhero stream in the future.
Support the opening of the DOC road Fitzroy to Whangapara Hilltop for use by 4x4 vehicles, motor and quad bikes.
That in the Plan all paper roads be designated road reserves.
The council to widen and resurface the lower section of Beatty Parade with provision for angle parking on at least one side of the road.
The population (of Great Barrier) has dwindled from 1500+ people to 500 people over about 4 years due to lack of support from the council and government - a better transport (boat) service is required.
Section 1 SO346608 810m2 remain as legal road and that Mulberry Grove School retains the use of this land without changing its present designation.
The existing road that is formed over and encroaches on the submitter's land (i.e. the Blackwell property at the corner of Shoal Bay Road and Medland Road, Tryphena) should be either designated for that purpose and the submitter compensated accordingly or relocated off the submitter's land. The road should be upgraded wherever its ultimate location may be so that any bridge over the stream does not (continue to) adversely affect the water systems and stormwater management systems within the submitter's land and thus adversely affect appropriated land use and development.
Construction of Station Rock Road and Link Track between Rosalie Bay Road and the Claris Road, Tryphena, Great Barrier, as a low impact design approach for new roads and to provide a practical example of the council's programme for legalising roads.
All roading, tracks and accessways on Great Barrier at the date of notification of the Plan should be permitted.
That the council remove the existing bridge between Rangitoto and Motutapu and replace it with a longer structure. Also, remove the landfill which has been built around the existing bridge. Dredging of sand may be required to encourage the return of a decent flow of water between the two islands.
That the Plan recognises the importance of sustainable car parking solutions, which will see no or only highly restricted parking on the seaward side of The Strand.
Expresses concern that the seaward boundaries of Beach Parade (sheet 2), The Strand (sheet 11) and Miro Road (sheet 3) could compromise the adjacent beaches.
There should be a maximum width for The Strand, Onetangi and Beach parade, Oneroa delineated on the maps and that set backs should be allowed on all properties fronting these roads so that any need to widen or modify these roads will not be at the expense of the foreshore.
A Waiheke Island Transport Strategy should identify Moa, Mako and Manuka Roads as a future by-pass route between little Oneroa and Matiatia and allowance made in the Plan for modifications to these roads for that purpose.
Make allowance for roundabouts at the corner of Ocean View and Moa Roads, the intersection of Tui, Mako and Manuka Roads and the intersection of Mako and Ocean View Road.
Upgrade Seaview Road, Ostend and Onetangi as an alternative route in the event of a major road closure of Onetangi Road. These changes should be part of a Waiheke transport strategy which in turn should be part of the Plan.
Upgrade The Esplanade Road between Moa and Hamilton Roads as an alternative route in the event of a major closure of Ocean View Road at little Oneroa. These changes should be part of a Waiheke transport strategy which in turn should be part of the Plan.
Implement cycle, walking and bridle tracks, preferably separate from traffic at least between the villages and from the villages to Matiatia.
Recognise that rising oil prices may adversely effect Waiheke residents' financial access to transport and goods in the future. This will require containment of urban form, increased public transport, an island-wide network of walkways and cycleway (i.e. not just around main centres).
The 2008 construction of Station Rock Road reserve, car, cycleway and walkway around Tryphena.
The council is to establish a task force under (1) Part 2 Resource management overview; (2) Part 3 Strategic management area; (3) Part 5 Network utility service; and (4) Part 13 - Connectivity and linkages, to deal with matters relating to the construction of Station Rock Road; and the proposed Tryphena Tao Laughing Dolphin Guesthouse Tourist Complex.
The confirmation by way of implementing the appropriate process under the RMA and LGA to confirm the existing formed road (Sandhills Road, Medlands) (at a low impact design standard) as legal road located outside of the proposed sensitive area 55-6 and the revocation/stopping of the balance of the legal road/proposed sensitive area so that it can be vested and classified as reserve - obviating any need for the sensitive area method of management. The planning maps should be amended to notate the relevant part of the road as being 'proposed road stopping'.
Construction of the "Station Rock Road Network, car, cycleway and walkway" around Tryphena based on the model of a low impact, hybrid design approach for new roads and to provide a practical example of the council's continuing programme for legalising roads.
The existing road that is formed over and encroaches on the Balckwell's land (corner Shoal Bay Road and Medland Road, Tryphena) should be either designated for that purpose and the submitter compensated accordingly or alternatively relocated off the submitter's land.
The road should be upgraded wherever its ultimate location may be so that any bridge over the stream does not (continue to ) adversely affect the water systems and stormwater management systems within the Blackwell's land (corner Shoal Bay Road and Medlands Road, Tryphena) and thus adversely affect appropriate land use and development.
Foot paths are needed desperately (on Waiheke).
To make safe walking and cycling on the Esplanade a priority. For the council to live up to its objective: 'to encourage an efficient pedestrian and cycle network on Waiheke.
To immediately close The Esplanade for heavy trucks and 4WDs.
To install a number of speed bumps in key spots on The Esplanade to force vehicles to slow down, to reduce the danger and airborne dust.
To seriously canvas the idea to close The Esplanade to all major traffic and make it a recreational walkway, only to be opened to traffic in an emergency.
Submitter requests that a Waiheke Island Transport Strategy is prepared urgently.
The following should be included in a Waiheke Island Transport Strategy:

Moa, Mako and Manuka Roads should be identified as a future by-pass route between Little Oneroa and Matiatia.

A roundabout at the corner of Ocean View and Moa Roads, the intersection of Tui, Mako and Manuka Roads and the intersection of Moa and Ocean View Roads.

Upgrading of Seaview Road, Ostend and Onetangi.

Upgrading of The Esplanade between Moa and Hamilton Roads

Each of the above should also be part of the District Plan.

Requests that Schooner Bay Road (above the bridge) is sealed.
Requests that watering of Schooner Bay Road during the peak of summer and tourist season to help prevent health effect of too much dust.

4.9.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Submissions 21/1, 66/4, 104/3, 341/1, 508/1, 579/36-38, 2043/1 & 3, 2545/4, 2571/4, 2999/8, 3020/1-4, 3021/1-4, 3022/1-3, 3023/1-4 and 3501/12 & 16 all request that various works be undertaken to existing council 'transport' infrastructure, such as upgrades to existing roads and bridges. Decisions on new infrastructure or upgrades to existing are not made through the Plan review process. These decisions are made after carefully analysing the costs and benefits by the relevant council department and committee. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are passed onto the council's Transport Strategy and Transport Safety, Assets and Operations Groups, but that the submissions are rejected as part of the Plan review process.

Submission 44/1 supports the opening of the DoC road from Fitzroy to Whangapara Hilltop for use by four wheel drive vehicles, quad bikes etc. Again decisions on whether to open roads for a particular purpose are made independently of the Plan review process. The relief sought will be passed onto the DoC but it is recommended that this submission is rejected as part of the Plan review process.

Submission 46/1 requests that all paper roads are designated road reserves. The Plan contains a roading hierarchy of primary, secondary and local roads. It also indicates proposed roads, unformed roads and unformed roads to be closed. Formed roads do not have a land unit classification that applies to them and have not been designated by council. Unformed roads have been assigned an appropriate land unit. In some circumstances council may consider converting legal roads to an appropriate reserve status, such as local purpose reserve. However, this would not be undertaken through the Plan review. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 250/2 refers to a particular site and requests that it remain as legal road and that Mulberry Grove School retains use of it. It is understood that part of the unformed road is has been used by the school for a significant period of time. Council has not initiated any process to close the road therefore it will remain as legal road and presumably continue to be used informally by the school. It is noted that there is a difference between the Mulberry Grove School Area indicated on figure 10b.1 and the designated area on sheet 57, map 2 of the planning maps. It is recommended that the maps are made consistent and are changed accordingly. It is therefore recommended that this submission is accepted.

Submissions 281/1, 284/5, 1283/1 & 2, 1284/6, 2597/1 & 2 and 2598/6 & 7 refers to existing road that encroaches on private land. This issue is being addressed through the settlement area report for Tryphena. It is therefore recommended that decisions on this issue are deferred until the hearing report for Tryphena is undertaken.

Submissions 468/1 and 469/1 request that all roading, tracks and accessways on Great Barrier at the date of notification should be permitted. This issue is addressed in section 4.2.2.11 of this report. For the reasons outlined in that section it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 542/5 refers to the need for sustainable parking solutions for the Strand, which will result in no or highly restricted parking on seaward side of the Strand. While it is acknowledged that there is erosion issues along Onetangi beach, decisions regarding the appropriateness of carparking on the unformed road are not made as part of the Plan review process. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected. However, the relief sought will be passed onto council's Transport Safety, Assets and Operations Group.

Submission 579/32 expresses concern that the seaward boundaries of Beach Parade, the Strand and Miro Road could compromise the adjacent beaches. Submission 579/33 states there should be a maximum width for the Strand and Beach Parade and also refers to the need for setbacks along Beach Parade and the Strand. The planning maps denote the width of the legal road. However, the sealed carriageway is significantly narrower than the width of the legal road itself. Defining the road boundary does not mean that council is will widen the sealed carriageway. It is noted that the planning maps already denote 7.5m building restriction yards along these roads. It is not considered necessary to add further building line restrictions. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 579/35 and 3061/147 & 151 make reference to the Waiheke Island Transport strategy should identify future bypass routes. The issue of the Waiheke Island Transport strategy is addressed in section 4.3.2.7 of this report. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 662/1 requests that cycle, walking and bridle tracks separate from traffic are implemented between villages and from the villages to Matiatia. The decision on whether to implement a cycle, walking and bridle tracks is addressed outside the Plan review process. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected, but that the relief sought is passed onto council's Transport Safety, Assets and Operations Group.

Submission 1166/7 refers to the impact of rising oil prices which may affect financial access to transport and require containment of urban form, increased public transport and an island wide network of walkways. While peak oil may impact on these issues it is not recommended that council contain the urban form through increased densities. Part of the amenity values that people associate with the islands are the comparatively low density. It is considered that the objectives and policies adequately address the issues associated with cycling and walking. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 2073/3 refers to the need to confirm the existing formed road as legal road located outside the sensitive areas classification. It is acknowledged that part of Sandhills Road is a formed and it should be shown as such on the planning maps. However, where Sandhills Road is not formed then the sensitive area classification will remain. It is therefore recommended that submission 2073/3 is accepted in part.

Planner's recommendations for miscellaneous submissions about roading and transport

That submission 250/2 is accepted.

That submission 2073/3 is accepted in part.

That submissions 21/1, 44/1, 46/1, 66/4, 104/3, 341/1, 468/1, 469/1, 508/1, 542/5, 579/32, 33 & 35-38, 662/1, 1166/17, 2043/1 & 3, 2545/4, 2571/4, 2999/8, 3020/1-4, 3021/1-4, 3022/1-3, 3023/1-4, 3061/147 & 151, and 3501/12 & 16 are rejected.

That submissions 281/1, 284/5, 1283/1 & 2, 1284/6, 2597/1 & 2 and 2598/6 & 7 are deferred until the hearing report for the Tryphena settlement area is undertaken.

4.10 Miscellaneous submissions about bridle trails

Submissions dealt with in this section: 832/7, 852/1 and 2922/1.

4.10.1 Decisions requested

Provide for bridle paths and equestrian activities throughout the plan
In all relevant parts of the Plan include the requirement that bridle trails are included

4.10.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The issues relating to bridle paths have been addressed in various sections of this report. In summary, it recommends that reference is made to bridle paths in part 13, but that it is not necessary to introduce new objectives, policies and rules in relation to bridle paths. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Planner's recommendations for submissions in relation to miscellaneous submissions about bridle trails

That submissions 832/7, 852/1 and 2922/1 are rejected.

4.11 Miscellaneous submissions about roading notations (identified on map 2)

Submissions dealt with in this section: 14/1, 579/34, 1168/1, 1055/4, 1258/1, 2719/4, 2732/2, 2907/1, 3051/1 & 2, 3061/148-150, 3621/2 and 3712/6.

4.11.1 Decisions requested

Retain the "unformed road to be closed" notation to the accessway at the northern end of Oneroa beach.
Maximum width for Beach Parade
Miro Road should be reclassified as an unformed road and closed.
The part of Neil Ave above lost 68 & 69 should be classified as bush reserve.
Opposes the unformed road designation applying to Omiha Reserve. Reclassify as conservation reserve or regional park.
Retain the extent of unformed road at the Strand to frontage of 155 the Strand consistent with what is in the Plan.
There should be a maximum width for the Strand and setback for all properties.
The Wharf/Ostend Road be maintained as a secondary road.
Remove the unformed road designation along Awana cliffs.
Amend maps 34 to 61 to show unformed legal road as road.
Seeks that Little Goat Road is amended to show closure and stoppage.
Change map to show road in Mason Road onwards is a formed road.
That O'Shea Road be put into the planning map.
Remove the unformed road designation on O'Shea Road.

4.11.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Submissions 1055/4, 1258/1 and 2732/2 request retention of existing roading denotations in relation to Oneroa Beach, the Strand and Ostend and Wharf Roads. It is recommended that these submissions are accepted and the existing denotations retained.

Submissions 3061/148 and 3061/149 request that there is a maximum width for Beach Parade and the Strand and that there be setbacks for properties along these roads. This issue is addressed in section 4.9.2 of this report. For the reasons outlined in that section it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 579/34 and 3061/150 request that Miro Road along the front of Palm Beach is reclassified as unformed road to be closed. It is considered that this is the appropriate notation for this portion of Miro Road and that these submissions are accepted accordingly.

Submission 3712/6 requests that Neil Ave be reclassified as bush reserve. A recreation 1 (local parks and esplanade reserve) land unit and an unformed road denotation apply to Neil Ave in the Plan. There is no bush reserve land unit in the Plan. As such, it is not possible to use such a classification. Alternatively, if the submitter is requesting that it be re-zoned to the bush residential land unit it is not considered appropriate to apply a residential land unit to unformed road. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that the classification does not stop access to the site. It is therefore recommended that the submission is rejected.

Submission 1168/1 opposes the unformed road designation to the area of land east of where Upland and Omiha Roads meet and requests that it be classified as conservation reserve or regional park. It is noted that east of where Upland and Omiha Roads meet there is land which is denoted in planning map 15 as being unformed legal road (to be closed) and it has a recreation 1 (local parks and esplanade reserves) classification to it. As noted elsewhere in this report unformed roads in the gulf islands have had an appropriate land unit classification applied to them. Therefore, the Plan recognises that as the road has not been formed it must remain identified as legal road in the Plan but an appropriate land unit classification is also applied to it. The planning reports for the recreation 1 land unit recommend that the Whakanewha Regional Park be included in the conservation land unit, rather than recreation 1. Should this recommendation be accepted it would be possible to reclassify the land described in the submission into the conservation land unit. However, until the road is officially stopped it is not possible to remove the roading classification. It is therefore recommended that the submission is accepted in part and the land is denoted as conservation land unit, but that the unformed legal road (to be stopped) classification remains.

Submission 3051/1 requests that the unformed road designation along Awana cliffs, beach and estuary be removed. It is recognised that Great Barrier has a large number of unformed 'paper' roads that are unlikely to be constructed. However, to close these roads council has to go through a road stopping process under the Local Government Act. This cannot be done under the Plan review process. It is therefore recommended that the submission is rejected, but the information will be passed onto council's Property Group.

Submission 3621/2 seeks that the land unit classifications are not applied to unformed roads, and that the maps are amended to show them as road. Council has not applied a land unit classification to formed roads, but for unformed roads an appropriate land unit has been assigned to them. As noted, many unformed roads are unlikely to ever be constructed. Therefore, it is appropriate to assign them an appropriate land unit. It is therefore recommended that the submission is rejected.

Submission 2907/1 seeks that planning map 57 show the paper road access to lot 1 DP 188543 and the stoppage of section 7 and section 3 as agreed with council. Feedback has been received from council's Property Group indicating that council is in the process of stopping Little Goat Road, however, the process has not yet been finalised. As stopping a road is a legal process which has not been finalised in this particular circumstance it is recommended that the existing roading notation remain and that the submission is rejected. It is noted that this does not mean that the road stopping referred to by the submitter will not occur. However, the planning maps should accurately depict the existing situation, not the intended future situation.

Submission 14/1 requests that map 55 be altered to show that Masons Road onwards is a formed road. This part of the road has been incorrectly shown on the planning maps as unformed road so it is recommended that the submission is accepted and map 55 amended accordingly.

Submission 2719/4 requests that O'Shea Road be put on the planning map. Map 50 of the outer islands maps shows O'Shea Road. It is understood that a short portion of O'Shea Road is formed legal road. It is therefore recommended that the submission is accepted in part and that map 55 is amended accordingly.

Submission 3051/2 requests that the unformed road designation for O'Shea Road be removed. It is not possible to remove an unformed road 'designation' without going through a road stopping process. As this process has not been undertaken it is not possible to remove the unformed road 'designation'. It is therefore recommended that the submission is rejected.

Planner's recommendations for submissions in relation to miscellaneous submissions about roading notations shown on map 2

That submissions 14/1, 579/34, 1055/4, 1258/1, 2732/2 and 3061/150 are accepted.

That submissions 1168/1 and 2719/4 are accepted in part.

That submissions 2907/1, 3051/1, 3051/2, 3061/148, 3061/149, 3621/2 and 3712/6 and are rejected.

5.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding the Connectivity and Linkages section as well as miscellaneous submissions on roading and transport, bridle paths and roading notations, and recommends how the panel could respond to the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions 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	Richard Osborne, Reporting Planner
Reviewer	Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands
Approver	Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning

[1] ARC Technical Publication 124 is a Low Impact Design manual for the Auckland Region.

[2] It is noted that section 128 of the RMA outlines circumstances when consent conditions can be reviewed. Therefore when granting consent council could specify that particular conditions could be reviewed.

Home |
Terms of use