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

District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

(Notified version 2006)

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

---

Hearing reports index

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

Topic:	Part 4 - General rules and appendix 14 - Plant pests
Report to:	The Hearing Panel
Author:	Richard Osborne
Date:	30 January 2008
Group file:	314/274007

1.0 Introduction

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to part 4 - General Rules and appendix 14 - Plant pests of the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006 ('the Plan'). The Plan was publicly notified on 18 September 2006. The closing date for lodging submissions was 11 December 2006. The submissions were publicly notified for further submission on 29 April 2007. The closing date for lodging further submissions was 28 May 2007.

This report has been prepared under section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 ('the RMA'), to assist the hearings panel to consider the submissions on part 4 - general rules and appendix 14 - Plant pests. This report discusses the submissions (grouped by subject matter or individually) and includes recommendations from the planner who prepared this report. The recommendations identify whether each submission should be accepted or rejected (in full or in part) and what amendments (if any) should be made to the Plan to address matters raised in submissions. Further submissions are dealt with in conjunction with the submissions to which they relate.

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

2.0 Statutory framework

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

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

   1. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s32(3)(a)); and

   2. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and

   3. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)).

2. The policies, rules, or other methods in the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:

   1. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan (s32(3)(b)); and

   2. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and

   3. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and

   4. (If a rule) achieve the objectives and policies of the Plan (s76(1)(b)).

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

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

(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and
(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and
(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment."

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

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

"(a) the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district:
(b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of—

(i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and
(ii) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and
(iia) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development, subdivision, or use of contaminated land:
(iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:

(c) ...
(d) The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:
(e) The control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of water in rivers and lakes."

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

1. The Plan must "give effect to" any national policy statement and any New Zealand coastal policy statement (s75(3)(a) and (b)).

2. The Plan must be "give effect to" the regional policy statement (made operative after 10 August 2005) (s75(3)(c)).

3. The Plan must be "not inconsistent with" any regional plan (s75(4)).

4. The council must ensure that that the Plan does not conflict with sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 ("the HGMPA").  Section 10 of the HGMPA requires that sections 7 and 8 of that Act be treated as a New Zealand coastal policy statement under the RMA.

3.0 Background

This section of the report sets out background information about the topic under consideration. It identifies how the Plan deals with the contents and approach of part 4 and appendix 14.

Part 4 of the Plan outlines the general rules, which address a variety of generic issues which apply throughout the HGI. It includes the following:

• activities not otherwise specified

• relationship with buildings and other activities

• prohibited activities

• temporary activities

• noise and vibration from construction activities

• wastewater

• signs

• lighting

• general rules about the application of land unit and settlement area classifications

• pest control

Appendix 14 of the Plan lists the plants that are considered to be pests in the HGI.

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about part 4 and appendix 14 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 4 and appendix 14 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 the whole of part 4 - general rules

Submissions dealt with in this section:  1139/4, 2001/23, 3061/40, 3521/44 and 3521/105.

4.2.1 Decisions requested

• To remove part 4 and replace the provisions with community mandated controls that will be in line with sites of strategic importance.

• To delete all general rules as they relate to Pakatoa island.

• To require Restricted Discretionary Activity consent for activities situated within certain distance from permitted drinking water supply bores.

• Amending rules relating to Whakanewha Regional Park to reflect its regional park status.

• Oppose the general rules in their entirety.

4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.2.2.1 Oppose general rules in their entirety

Submissions 1139/4 and 3061/40 request that the general rules are reviewed and amended and replaced with community mandated controls. The purpose of a general rules section is to address a variety of generic issues that apply throughout the Hauraki Gulf islands. As outlined in this report a number of changes are recommended to the general rules section to address some of the issues raised in submissions. In terms of replacing the general rules section with community mandated controls no details have been provided in the submissions about the form these would take. However, the submitters may wish to provide some examples of these at the hearing. Also, it is noted that consultation was undertaken with the community prior to the drafting of the Plan, and there has been further opportunity for input at the submissions and hearing stage. As such, it is considered that there has been opportunity for community input into the process.  It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

In relation to the reference in submission 1139/4 to a specific site, it is uncertain from the submission what the site's relevance is to the general rules section. The submitter may wish to provide further information at the hearing. In the absence of such information, it is recommended that this submission is rejected.

4.2.2.2 Pakatoa Island

Submission 2001 as a whole suggests a range of controls specific to Pakatoa island. Some of these would replace rules in the general rules section of the Plan that apply throughout the Hauraki Gulf islands, including Pakatoa. Submission 2001/23 therefore refers to the need for amendments to part 4. Until the hearings in relation to Pakatoa are undertaken, it is not possible to make a recommendation on this issue. It is therefore recommended that the decision on this submission be deferred until that time.

4.2.2.3 Water supply

Submission 3521/44 from the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) requests that a restricted discretionary activity consent be required in the Plan for activities situated within certain distance from permitted drinking water supply bore.

Section 30 of the RMA outlines the functions of regional councils, and in particular sections 30(e) and (f) outline that regional councils control the taking and use of water and the control of discharges of contaminants into or onto land or water and the discharges of water into water. Restrictions relating to water and the discharge of contaminants into the environment are controlled by sections 14 and 15 of the RMA respectively, which state that no person may contravene these sections unless expressly allowed by a rule in a regional plan. Section 5 of the proposed Auckland Regional Plan - Air, Land and Water controls discharges to land and water and section 6 controls water allocation. In applying for a water permit the ARC will require an assessment of effects on the environment. Should consent be granted conditions can be imposed measuring the quantity and quality of water taken. Therefore, the taking of water or the discharge of contaminants to land or water falls within the regional council's responsibilities.

While it is not stated in the submission it is assumed that the purpose of such a rule would be to control the potential contamination of groundwater used for water supply purposes. As noted, the proposed Auckland Regional Plan - Air, Land and Water controls the discharge of contaminants to land or water. Therefore, such a rule has the potential to duplicate responsibilities and consent requirements. 

It is considered that a rule requiring a land use consent for 'any activity' within a certain (unspecified) distance from a water supply bore would likely result in considerable additional consent activity for council and increase costs and uncertainties for applicants with little corresponding benefits. For example, a garden shed within 20m of a water supply bore would be unlikely to create any effects on the water quality associated with an aquifer.

Having regard to the requirements for an evaluation under section 32 of the RMA it is considered that the costs of such a rule would outweigh the benefits and it would result in a duplication of responsibilities and unnecessary consent activity. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected. 

4.2.2.4 Whakanewha Regional Park

In their submission 3521/102, the ARC includes a request for a special purpose land unit to be prepared for Whakanewha regional park. Submission 3521/105 seeks any necessary amendments to the general rules section provide for this. The Whakanewha regional park is currently zoned recreation 1 (local parks and esplanade reserves). The objective for the recreation 1 land unit is to facilitate the use and enjoyment of local parks and esplanade reserves for passive recreation while protecting the visual amenity and ecological value of the land unit. It is acknowledged that given Whakanewha's emphasis on conservation and recreation needs that the recreation 1 land unit may not be appropriate. However, it is considered that rather than developing a specific (new) land unit for Whakanewha that the conservation land unit can be modified and applied to it.  This issue will be addressed in more detail during the hearing for the recreation 1 and conservation land units when submission 3521/102 is considered.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about clause 4 That submissions 1139/4, 3061/40 and 3521/44 be rejected.  That submission 3521/105 be accepted in part. That the decision on submission 2001/23 be deferred until the hearings on the Pakatoa land unit are completed.

4.3 Submissions about clause 4.2 - activities not otherwise specified

Submissions dealt with in this section: 65/1, 526/3, 527/3, 528/3, 529/3, 539/3, 614/1, 618/35, 619/1, 754/1, 859/1, 1091/3, 1100/5, 1101/81, 1250/6, 1286/41, 1287/106, 1288/29, 1289/90, 2001/53, 2106/2, 2670/1, 2878/42, 2878/71 and 3061/26.

4.3.1 Decisions requested

• Amend clause 4.2 so that activities not provided for in the Plan require discretionary activity consent rather than non-complying activity consent.

• Retain clause 4.2.

• Amend clause 4.2 so that it reflects an effects based approach as in the Operative Plan.

• Clarification of the status of an activity situated on a road.

• Delete the words in second bullet of clause 4.2 which reads "not located on a road".

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.3.2.1 Non-complying activity status

Clause 4.2 specifically deals with activities not otherwise specified in the Plan. Submissions 526/3, 527/3, 528/3, 529/3, 539/3, 618/35, 619/1, 754/1, 859/1, 1091/3, 1100/5, 1101/81, 1286/41, 1287/106, 1288/29, 1289/90, 2001/53, 2106/2, 2670/1, 2878/42 and 2878/71 request that clause 4.2 be altered so that either a discretionary activity consent is required for activities not specified, or that the clause is amended to reflect an effects based approach rather than prescriptive use of activity tables. Submission 1250/6 requests that clause 4.2 be retained with no amendments.

Clause 4.2 of the Plan requires non-complying activity consent for an activity not specifically provided for as a permitted, controlled, restricted discretionary or discretionary activity. The provision is provided to give certainty and clarity to other activities not classified or identified in the Plan. This is a different circumstance than what is outlined in section 77C of the RMA, which specifically requires discretionary activity resource consent for activities that are not classified in a Plan.

The Plan, including its objectives and policies, was drafted so that specific activities require discretionary consent in particular land units and settlement areas. This is due to the inherent potential effects associated with these activities which warrant specific consideration via a resource consent process. Part 11 of the Plan outlines the assessment matters for those discretionary activities. While these listed discretionary activities are not 'provided for' as of right it is assumed that should they meet the relevant assessment criteria and other statutory requirements then resource consent (with appropriate conditions) can be granted. Therefore, discretionary activities are contemplated in certain circumstances.

Other activities that are not permitted or listed discretionary activities, are not contemplated within the land unit or settlement area, and are therefore appropriately considered as non-complying activities. Therefore, there are different expectations for discretionary and non-complying activities. Given a non complying activity is not contemplated within a land unit or settlement area, council considers it important that it is carefully assessed against the relevant objectives and policies, as required by section 104D of the RMA. It is therefore considered appropriate that non-specified activities are treated as non-complying and that these submissions are rejected accordingly. It is noted that other hearing reports will consider submissions seeking that various activity tables be amended to included additional discretionary activities.

Various submissions have suggested amending the Plan to reflect an effects based approach rather than the prescriptive use of activity tables, with reference to the operative Plan as an example.  It is noted that the clause 2.2.3 of the operative Plan states that "any activity which is not controlled by a specific rule in this Plan shall be required to obtain a resource consent for a non complying activity." Also, part 6A of the operative Plan lists various discretionary activities throughout the land units. Therefore, the operative Plan specifically requires non-complying activity consent for unspecified activities (as does the proposed Plan) and also lists various activities as requiring discretionary activity consent (as does the proposed Plan).

Notwithstanding this, it is acknowledged that the proposed Plan has become more prescriptive in its approach. However, developing activity tables and requiring consent for particular activities that have recognised potential effects is a legitimate planning approach which is based on a consideration of effects. It was also developed partly in response to concerns raised by the community about certain activities (e.g. restaurants, entertainments facilities, taverns etc) being able to establish 'as of right' in particular land units under the operative Plan. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

4.3.2.2 Activities not located on a road

Submissions 65/1, 614/1 and 2106/2 request that the second bullet point in clause 4.2 "not located on a road" be removed.  Submission 3061/26 suggests that it is not clear and in particular questions how it relates to part 5 - network utility services. It is acknowledged that the second bullet point results in a lack of clarity in relation to activities that are located on a road. Also, clause 5.5.1 of the Plan already provides for the construction, operation and maintenance of the road network as a permitted activity in specific circumstances. Therefore, it is not necessary to address this issue in clause 4.2 of the Plan as well. As such, it is recommended that these submissions are accepted and that this bullet point be removed.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about clause 4.2 That submissions 65/1, 614/1, 2106/2 be accepted That 1250/6 and 3061/26 be accepted in part. and that second bullet point of clause 4.2 and the preceding "and" be deleted as follows: , and not located on a road. That submissions 526/3, 527/3, 528/3, 529/3, 539/3, 618/35, 619/1, 754/1, 859/1, 1091/3, 1100/5, 1101/81, 1286/41, 1287/106, 1288/29, 1289/90, 2001/53, 2670/1, 2878/42 and 2878/71, be rejected.

4.4 Submissions about clause 4.3 - relationship between buildings & activities

Submissions dealt with in this section: 11/1, 614/2, 618/36, 618/37, 619/2, 619/3, 754/2, 754/3, 859/2, 859/3, 1101/82, 1101/83, 1243/38, 1286/42, 1286/43, 1287/107, 1287/108, 1288/30, 1288/31, 1289/91, 1289/92, 2001/54, 2001/55, 2670/2, 2670/3, 2878/43 and 2878/44.

4.4.1 Decisions requested

• Amend clause 4.3(1) by deleting the words in italics.

"Unless an activity table specifically provides otherwise, an activity listed in an activity table includes:

1. The construction and relocation of buildings used for the activity, and the construction and/or relocation has the same status as the activity for which the building will be used; and

2. Alterations and additions to the exterior of existing buildings used for the activity, and the alterations and/or additions will have the same status as the activity for which the building will be used."

   • Redraft so that the intent of clause 4.3 can be understood.

   • Retain clause 4.3(1)(a)

   • Clause 4.3(1)(a) and (b) are subject to misinterpretation as the proposed provisions will prevent many permitted activities being carried out inside existing buildings.

   • Amend Clause 4.3(2).

   • Remove clause 4.3(2).

4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Clause 4.3(1) seeks to clarify the relationship between buildings and other activities. For example, if a winery required resource consent as a discretionary activity in a particular land unit then clause 4.3(1)(a) would mean that the building which the winery sought to operate from would also require a discretionary activity consent. Taking that example further, in relation to clause 4.3(1)(b), if the owner subsequently wanted to undertake additions to the building, because the winery itself was a discretionary activity those additions to the building (from which the winery was operating) would also require discretionary activity consent. Clause 4.3(2)(a) is consistent with clause 4.3(1)(a) and 4.2 because it requires non complying activity consent for the construction and relocation of buildings used for an activity that is not otherwise specified in accordance with clause 4.2.

Submissions 618/36, 619/2, 754/2, 859/2, 1101/82, 1286/42, 1287/107, 1288/30, 1289/91, 2001/54, 2670/2 and 2878/43 suggest that clause 4.3(1) be amended so that the relocation, construction or alteration of a building is not linked to the status of the activity for which the building will be used. It is considered that requiring the construction of a building to have the same status as the activity that will use the building may result in unreasonable situations where the building may comply with the relevant bulk and location standards (and therefore be anticipated within a particular land unit or settlement area) but subsequently require discretionary activity consent because of the activity for which the building will be used.  It is also noted that in many land units, particularly those with important landscape values, all buildings require a resource consent as a restricted discretionary activity. Therefore, the impact of the building per se can be addressed through the resource consent process.

Also, it is noted that when processing resource consents council takes an integrated approach and 'bundles' infringements rather than compartmentalising them. This means that when a resource consent application is lodged the various infringements are bundled together and an overall activity status is assigned to the proposal. Given the inequities that can occur with the approach outlined in clause 4.3(1) and the current practise in processing resource consents it is recommended that these submissions are accepted in part.

In relation to clause 4.3(2)(a) submissions 618/37, 619/3, 754/3, 859/3, 1101/83, 1286/43, 1288/31, 1287/108, 1289/92, 2001/55, 2670/3 and 2878/44 state that it is unreasonable and onerous for a building to become a non-complying activity simply because the activity is non complying. The approach used in clause 4.3(2)(a) ensures consistency with clauses 4.2 and 4.3(1). However, as it is recommended that clause 4.3(1) is altered then clause 4.3(2) should also be changed. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are accepted in part.

Submissions 618/37, 619/3, 754/3, 859/3, 1101/83, 1286/43, 1288/31, 1287/108, 1289/92, 2001/55, 2670/3 and 2878/44 also state that clause 4.3(2)(b) is unreasonable and onerous. It is noted that clause 4.3(2)(b) clarifies that minor additions and alterations to existing buildings are permitted activities. It is considered that as 4.3(2)(b) seeks to avoid unnecessary resource consents for minor works it is neither unreasonable nor onerous. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected in part.

Submission 2001/55 also broadly refers to clause 4.3(2) as being unreasonable and unrealistic and that it should be amended for the same reasons that clause 4.3(1) is amended. Recommended changes to clauses 4.3(2)(a) and (b) are addressed above. In relation to clause 4.3(2)(c) it essentially clarifies what is outlined in the activity tables for the land units and settlement areas, that is, where an activity is permitted the construction, or alteration to an existing building may still require a resource consent. It is considered that clause 4.3(2)(c) is neither unreasonable nor onerous. It is therefore recommended that the submission is accepted in part, particularly in relation to clause 4.3(2)(a), but that no changes are made to clauses 4.3(2) (b) and (c).

Submission 614/2 noted that clause 4.3 is difficult to understand. It is acknowledged that the concept of linking the activity status of a resource consent for a building to other activities is complex and not easily explained. However, it is considered that the existing provisions were legally robust. Notwithstanding this, as changes are recommended to clause 4.3 this should remove any confusion and essentially address the issues raised by submitter 614/2.

Submission 11/1 requests specific changes to clause 4.3(1) by deleting specific words. As it is recommended that the focus of this section be altered it is recommended that this submission be accepted in part.

Submission 1243/38 seeks that clause 4.3(1)(a) be retained. For the reasons outlined above it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Consequential amendments will be needed to some of the activity tables applying to land units and settlement areas. An example of what would need to be amended for landform 2 land unit forms part of appendix 3 of this report.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about clause 4.3 That submission 1243/38 be rejected. That submissions 11/1, 614/2, 618/36, 618/37, 619/2, 619/3, 754/2, 754/3, 859/2, 859/3, 1101/82, 1101/83, 1286/42, 1286/43, 1287/107, 1287/108, 1288/30, 1288/31, 1289/91, 1289/92, 2001/54, 2001/55, 2670/2, 2670/3, 2878/43 and 2878/44 be accepted in part and that clause 4.3 be amended as follows: 4.3 Relationship between buildings and other activities 4.3 Construction, relocation, alteration and additions to buildings 1.Unless an activity table specifically provides otherwise, an activity listed in an activity table includes: a. The construction and relocation of buildings used for the activity, and the construction and/or relocation has the same status as the activity for which the building will be used; and b. Alterations and additions to the exterior of existing buildings used for the activity, and the alterations and/or additions have same status as the activity for which the building will be used. Rule 1 is subject to the following: a. Where a building will be used for an activity not listed in an activity table, the construction and/or relocation of the building, or alteration and/or addition to the exterior of the building are non-complying activities (in accordance with clause 4.2). ba Minor alterations and additions (as defined in part 14 - Definitions) to the exterior of existing buildings is a permitted activity in all land units and settlement areas. cb An activity table may specifically provide for the activities of constructing or relocating buildings, or undertaking exterior alterations and additions to existing buildings, as separate from the activity of using buildings for any other permitted activities listed in the table. Therefore, in those cases, even when an activity is permitted in the table, a resource consent may still be required for any construction or relocation of, or any exterior alteration or addition to, the building used for the activity. And any other consequential amendments to the activity tables in the land units and settlement areas.

4.5 Submissions about clause 4.4 - prohibited activities, and plant and animal pests - appendix 14

Submissions dealt with in this section: 314/1, 462/1, 463/1, 613/5, 618/38, 619/4, 754/4, 859/4, 1101/84, 1174/4, 1184/4, 1243/39, 1243/40, 1277/4, 1286/44, 1287/109, 1288/32, 1289/93, 2102/4-5, 2290/1, 2506/3-4, 2647/4, 2670/4, 2878/45, 2931/1, 3061/27, 3521/45, 3607/1-2 and 3613/4.

4.5.1 Decisions requested

• Farming activities should not be classed as a prohibited activity. It should either be a permitted activity, restricted discretionary or discretionary activity

• Septic tank sludge processing should be defined as a prohibited activity on the Owhanake Wastewater Treatment Plant site.

• All prohibited activities should be listed in clause 4.4 rather than elsewhere in the Plan i.e. Part 7.

• Delete clause 4.4(1)(a).

• Remove the words 'goats', 'deer' and 'wapiti' from clause 4.4(1)(c)

• Add to clause 4.4 so that the operation of large retail stores such as the Warehouse and large prepared food retail operations such as 'Kentucky fried' as a prohibited activity.

• Reword clause 4.4(1)(c) to read: c. any animal species listed in Appendix 14a - Animal Pest Species'

• Amend clause 4.4 so that activities which affect the amenity values that contribute to the essential village of HGI be classed as prohibited activities. Objectives, policies and assessment criteria be established and to class activities that contravene those as prohibited activities.

• To add to clause 4.4 so that medium and high density residential and visitor facility development should be prohibited activities within the coastal amenity areas.

• Amend clause 4.4 so that all pest plant and animal listed in the Auckland Regional Council Pest Management Strategy 2007 - 2012 are prohibited on HGI.

• Remove clause 4.4(1)(a) because new organisms, including genetically modified organisms (GMOs), have the potential to promote sustainable management, so their prohibition is the antithesis of the promotion of sustainable management, and therefore is contrary to the purpose of the RMA. And, because the central government has control over land use involving GMOs under statutory and common law i.e. the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) by means of Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO).

• That clause 4.4(1)(a) be altered so that it provides for biological control authorised under other statute and introduced for the purposes of pest control.

• Include plant pests included in rule 19.2(2)(1) of the proposed Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy 2007 - 2012 as an appendix to the Plan.

• Insert a new appendix 14a based on table 11.1(a) of the proposed Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy 2007 - 2012.

• That Mexican devil weed be added to the list of plant pests in appendix 14.

• To identify Cupressus macrocarpa (and Pinus Radiata) particularly in Landform 1, but also in Landforms 6 and 7 as plant pests.

• Amend table 1 plant pests by inserting new entries.

4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.5.2.1 New organisms

Submission 1243/39 seeks that clause 4.4(1)(a) be removed because new organisms, including genetically modified organisms, have the potential to promote sustainable management, and because the central government has control over land use involving genetically modified organisms under statutory and common law.

While the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO) may require approval from the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) to introduce any new organisms it is noted that territorial authorities are required under section 31 of the RMA to control any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land. In relation to those functions it is noted that the Hauraki Gulf islands are acknowledged as having an outstanding quality and diversity of biology and landscape. Some islands have natural ecosystems which remain intact, while others are rapidly evolving or provide opportunities for habitat restoration. The islands are surrounded by a diverse marine environment. Given the importance of those resources and the potential threat posed by new organisms council has included rules in the Plan that address this issue.

Notwithstanding this, the definitions section of the Plan outlines what constitutes a new organism. This is the same definition as used in the HSNO Act. It is noted that the definition outlines circumstances when an organism (including a genetically modified organism) is not a new organism. Therefore if an organism, including a genetically modified organism, meets the criterion outlined in sections 2(a), (b) & (c) of the new organism definition in the Plan (for example the organism has the same taxonomic classification and has been approved for full release under section 38 of the HSNO Act) then it is not considered a new organism and is not prohibited under the Plan.

Given this, the definition effectively provides circumstances when organisms and genetically modified organisms can be released in the Hauraki Gulf islands. Part of the rationale for this is that council does not have the expertise to identify issues associated with new organisms and genetically modified organisms that would not be adequately addressed by the HSNO Act and the Environment Risk Management Authority. It is therefore recommended that the submission to remove the provision is rejected, but it is acknowledged that exclusions as to what constitutes a new organism are provided for in the definition. 

Notwithstanding the above explanation and recommendation it is acknowledged that the definition may not meet the expectations of some Hauraki Gulf island residents, visitors or interested parties because it provides for the release of organisms and genetically modified organisms in certain circumstances.

Submission 2506/3 (DOC) generally supports the prohibited activity status applying to the introduction of "new organisms". However, the submitter is concerned that it provides no exemptions for the introduction of biological control organisms that are used to create positive conservation outcomes that are controlled and managed under the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the HSNO Act 1996. As explained in the preceding paragraph the definition of what constitutes a new organism has specific exclusions (refer sections 2(a), (b) & (c) of the definition). These exclusions mean that the Plan does not necessarily prohibit the introduction of a biological control mechanism for the purposes of pest management in the Hauraki Gulf islands. It only prohibits the introduction of a biological control mechanism when it constitutes a new organism as defined in the Plan. However, it is acknowledged that the current wording of the rule lacks clarity. It is suggested that as the definition of a new organism in the Plan addresses genetically modified organisms that the words in brackets "(including a genetically modified organism)" are removed from clause 4.4(1)(a). It is therefore recommended that the submission is accepted in part.

4.5.2.2 Plant and Animal Pests

The Hauraki Gulf islands have hundreds of introduced plants and animals. Many of these species are beneficial or at least do not impact detrimentally on the environment.  However, some do harm the natural, human or economic environment.  With many endangered animals and plants, significant forest, scrub and wetland areas the impact of pests is a major issue within the Hauraki Gulf islands. The council, through the District Plan and other mechanisms has a strong commitment to preserving and enhancing the natural values of the Hauraki Gulf. To ensure this occurs it is important to prohibit species that have a detrimental impact on these natural values.

Submissions 3521/45 and 3607/1 request that clause 4.4(1) be amended so that it refers to all pest species in the proposed Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy 2007 - 2012 (proposed ARPMS 2007-2012). Submission 2506 supports the prohibition of animal and plant pest species contained in appendix 14. 

The plant pest list in appendix 14 of the Plan has been compiled from appendices 1 and 2 of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy 2002-2007 and includes plants from the National Pest Plant Accord as of 1 October 2001. It is considered to be a robust list of plant pests. However, the proposed ARPMS 2007-2012 is the current relevant document in relation to pests for the Auckland Region. Discussions with the ARC indicate that this document was approved in December 2007 and it only requires formal notification for it to be made operative. Given the proposed ARPMS 2007 - 2012 status compared with when the Plan was notified in September 2006 it is possible to use it with more assurance. However, it has not been incorporated by reference under part 3 of schedule 1 of the RMA. As such, there are issues associated with directly referring to it in a rule. Also, it is approximately 140 pages long and lists a hierarchy of plant pests for total control, containment and surveillance. Given its length and relative complexity, it would not be clear whether a plant was prohibited. Therefore, rather than directly reference the proposed ARPMS 2007 - 2012 in the rule itself it is recommended that the plant list in appendix 14 is updated so that it is consistent with the strategy. It is therefore recommended that submissions 2506/3, 3521/45 and 3607/1 are accepted in part. 

Clause 4.4.1(c) of the Plan prohibits a variety of animal pest species due to the ecological threat they pose to the natural values of the Hauraki Gulf islands. Submission 1243/40 seeks that goats, deer and wapiti are removed from clause 4.4(1)(c) of the Plan, which specifically prohibits the introduction, keeping or farming of these species. As outlined in section 4.5.2.1 of this report the Hauraki Gulf islands are valued as important habitats for plants and animals and contain important ecosystems. Particular animal species are considered a threat to those values. However, for the reasons outlined below it is recommended that this clause be altered by accepting submission 2506/3 in part, so that prohibited animal pests are consistent with the proposed ARPMS 2007 - 2012 in so far as it applies to possums, goats, wallaby, deer and mustelids. It is noted that the amended appendix 14 would prohibit feral goats and deer as it only considers goats and deer as pests when they are not held in secure containment. Wapiti are not specifically listed in the proposed ARPMS 2007-2012, but are included as deer. Therefore, it is recommended that submission 1243/40 is accepted in part.

Submission 2506/3 supports the prohibition of animal pest species but considers that other species, such as those in the pest management strategy, should also be prohibited. As the list of prohibited animal species in the Plan does not accurately reflect the range of animal species that pose a threat to the Hauraki Gulf islands ecological values and because the proposed ARPMS 2007-2012 is now effectively operative it is considered appropriate to use this document as the basis for which to identify animal pests. Rather than include these in part 4 of the Plan it is recommended that appendix 14 be expanded to include animal pest species as well as plant pest species. A recommended revised version of appendix 14 is included within appendix 3 of this report. It is therefore recommended that this submission is accepted. 

Submission 3521/45 also suggests that the wording of clause 4.4(1) is amended by altering the words "introduction, keeping or farming" to "introduction, propagation, distribution or farming". It is considered that the relief sought is preferable to what currently exists in the Plan and it therefore recommended that submission 3521/45 is accepted in part.

Submissions 462/1 and 463/1 request that farming activities are either permitted, restricted discretionary or discretionary activities. It is noted that part 4.4 of the Plan does not restrict farming activities per se. Pastoral farming is defined in the definitions section (part 14) and is provided for as a permitted activity in specific land units within the Plan. Clause 4.4 of the Plan prohibits specific activities and it is considered that this does not unnecessarily restrict normal farming activities. For these reasons it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

4.5.2.3 Appendix 14 - Plant Pests

Submissions 2506/4 and 3607/2 generally seek greater reference to the proposed ARPMS 2007-2012 or the inclusion of specific species in this part of the Plan. As noted in section 4.5.2.2 of this report the plant pest list in appendix 14 of the Plan has been compiled from appendices 1 and 2 of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy 2002-2007 and includes plants from the National Pest Plant Accord as of 1 October 2001. However, as the proposed ARPMS 2007-2012 is effectively operative it is preferable that appendix 14 be consistent with this document. Therefore, it is recommended that the list of plant pest species in appendix 14 be modified so that it is consistent with those in the proposed ARPMS 2007 - 2012.  Therefore, it is recommended that submissions 2506/4 and 3607/2 are accepted.

Submission 314/1 recommends that Ageratina adenophora (Mexican devil weed) is included in appendix 14. Ageratina adenophora (Mexican devil weed) is not included in the proposed ARPMS 2007-2012 as a plant pest for the Auckland region. However, it is a recognised plant pest and it is therefore recommended that it is included in appendix 14 and that the submission is accepted accordingly.

Submissions 1174/4, 1184/4, 1277/4, 2647/4 and 3613/4 request that Cupressus macrocarpa (macrocarpa) and Pinus radiata, particularly in landform 1, but also in landforms 6 and 7, be listed as plant pests in appendix 14 of the Plan. Currently macrocarpa over 8m in height and greater than 800mm in girth (measured at 1.4m above ground level) that are not used as shelterbelts in landforms 1-7 and rural 1-3 are protected in Waiheke island in the Plan. While submissions 1174/4, 1184/4, 1277/4, 2647/4 and 3613/4 have also requested that the exotic tree protection controls be changed to exclude macrocarpa this issue can only be addressed during the hearing for development controls (the tree protection controls form part of the development controls in part 10c of the Plan). Making the macrocarpa a pest species in appendix 14 (as requested by the submissions) would conflict with the fact that it is a protected species.  While Pinus radiata are not protected under the Plan (when they reach a particular height or girth) it is not recommended that they are listed as plant pests. Therefore, it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 2102/4 and 2102/5 seek that Erica baccans (berry heath) andPsoralea pinnata (dally pine) are also added to the list of prohibited plant pests. Neither of these plants is included in the proposed ARPMS 2007-2012 as a plant pest for the Auckland region. However, they are recognised plant pests and it is therefore recommended that they are included in appendix 14 and that these submissions are accepted accordingly. Furthermore, the ARPMS 2007-2012 identifies Dally Pine as a plant species requiring research, and notes that it is widespread on Great Barrier island.

4.5.2.4 Other prohibited activities

The issue of prohibited activities has recently been addressed in the Court of Appeal decision Coromandel Watchdog of Hauraki Incorporated vs Ministry for Economic Development & Anor CA 285/05. This decision found that the High Court had erred in holding that a prohibited activity can only be used when a planning authority is satisfied that, during the time span of the Plan, the activity in question should in no circumstances be allowed in the area under consideration. This essentially means that prohibited activity status can be used in circumstances where it may be more appropriate for the issue to be considered through a plan change process, rather than through a resource consent. Therefore, councils have a broader discretion to classify activities as prohibited than previously thought.

Submissions 2290/1 and 3061/27 request that other activities, such as large retail stores and food retail operations, as well as medium and high density residential development in coastal amenity areas, be included as prohibited activities. It is considered that the Plan adequately addresses these issues through its objectives, policies, activity statuses, developments controls and assessment criteria. Therefore, while there will be circumstances where bulk retail and high density developments may not be suitable in the Hauraki Gulf islands it is considered that there may be situations or locations where they may be acceptable, and that these are appropriately considered through a resource consent process. Therefore, it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 2931/1 requests that any activity that detracts from the essential village amenity be prohibited. The Plan defines amenity values in part 14 - definitions (using the same definition as the RMA) and parts 10a.11 and 10a.12 of the Plan outline the issues, objectives and policies for Oneroa and Ostend villages. In achieving the objectives and policies, the Plan lists activities and has development controls and assessment criteria which seek to recognise the amenity values of the villages on Waiheke. Therefore, it is considered that there are sufficient controls addressing the issue of village amenity. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that what constitutes 'village amenity' is subject to interpretation based on people's values and opinions. For this reason it would not be possible to prohibit activities that detract from 'village amenity' because there would be no certainty associated with such a rule. Given the above it is recommended that this submission is rejected. 

Submission 613/5 requests that septic tank sludge is prohibited on the Owhanake wastewater treatment plant site. Section 30 (f) of the RMA outlines that the control of discharges of contaminants into or onto land, air or water and discharges of water into water is a function of regional councils. Part 15 of the RMA controls the discharge of contaminants into the environment, and the Auckland Regional Council addresses this issue through its proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water. The proposed Air, Land and Water Plan would require a discharge permit for the disposal of sludge and through this process any effects would be appropriately addressed. Therefore the disposal of sludge is more an issue for the ARC than Auckland City Council. Notwithstanding this, a careful and detailed analysis of why the disposal of sludge should be a prohibited activity in a particular location would be required. This has not been undertaken. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

It is however noted that policy 4.8.1(3) of the Plan indicates that settled solids should be disposed of in landform 5 - productive land. The Owhanake area is predominantly within the rural 2 (western landscape) land unit. Therefore, while it is not considered appropriate to prohibit the disposal of settled solids within the Owhanake area, council's policy direction is that only sites in landform 5 would be appropriate for this type of activity.

Submissions 618/38, 619/4, 754/4, 859/4, 1101/84, 1286/44, 1287/109, 1288/32, 1289/93, 2670/4 and 2878/45 state that all prohibited activities should be listed in clause 4.4 of the Plan. It is noted that part 7 - Heritage of the Plan prohibits particular activities in relation to specific heritage sites. The reasons for including these in the heritage section are because they are specific to heritage items, whereas the prohibited activities outlined in clause 4.4 apply throughout the Hauraki Gulf islands. Also, prohibited activities only apply in specific circumstances in relation to heritage items and it would be difficult to replicate these circumstances accurately in clause 4.4 without providing considerable detail regarding when prohibited activities apply. It is noted that clause 4.4 of the Plan includes a note that states "there are some prohibited activities identified in other parts of the Plan, such as part 7 - Heritage". It is considered sufficient that should Plan users wish to know that there are other prohibited activities in the document that they are directed to them. 

Planner's recommendations for submissions about clause 4.4 That submissions 264/4, 462/1, 463/1, 613/5, 618/38, 619/4, 754/4, 859/4, 1101/84, 1174/4, 1184/4, 1243/39, 1243/40, 1277/4, 1286/44, 1287/109, 1288/32, 1289/93, 2290/1, 2506/3-4, 2670/4, 2878/45, 2931/1, 3061/27 and 3613/4 be rejected. That submissions 314/1, 2102/4, 3521/45 and 3607/1-2 be accepted. That the following changes are made to clause 4.4: The following are prohibited activities throughout the islands: 1. The introduction, keeping propagation, distribution or farming of: a. Any new organism (including genetically modified organisms). b. Any plant pest species listed in the appendix 14 - Plant and animal pests species. c. The following animal pest species: possums, feral goats, wallaby, feral deer, wapiti and mustelids (ferrets, stoats, and weasels).

4.6 Submissions about clause 4.5 - temporary activities

Submissions dealt with in this section:

102/1-10, 123/1-10, 146/1, 147/1, 148/1, 150/1, 245/1-10, 269/1-10, 472/1-10, 473/1-10, 609/1, 614/3, 614/4, 614/5, 752/1, 752/2, 880/1-10, 915/1-5, 917/1, 1093/12-13 1131/1, 1131/3, 1143/1, 1211/1-10, 1298/1-10, 1299/1-10, 1338/1-10, 1378/1-10, 1414/1-10, 1431/1-10, 1432/1-10, 1441/1-10, 1442/1-10, 1443/1-10, 1456/1-10, 1492/1-10, 1535/1-10, 1554/1-10, 1596/1, 1945/1-10, 2010/1-10, 2054/1-10, 2055/1-10, 2071/1-10, 2072/1-10, 2184/1-10, 2232/1-10, 2267/1-10, 2324/1-10, 2344/1-10, 2360/1-10, 2377/1-10, 2499/1-10, 2534/1-10, 2562/5, 2585/1-10, 2631/7, 2631/8, 2631/9, 2631/10, 2631/11, 2631/12, 2649/1, 2649/2, 2856/1-10, 2857/1-10, 3061/28, 3423/1-10, 3594/1-10, 3598/1, 3634/1-10,  3712/3, 3730/1-4, 3731/1-3, 3732/2, 3736/1-10, 3760/1-10, 3799/1-10 and 3816/1.

4.6.1 Decisions requested

• Clause 4.5 be deleted, with specific reference made to community mandated controls and the need to consider the special nature of Waiheke island and the Hauraki gulf. 

• That clause 4.5 be retained and that the term scheduled site surrounds be clarified.

• That clause 4.5 be deleted or that resource consents be required for events, that more stringent noise limits be imposed, that there be limits on the number of people and events and that any consent be subject to the normal notification requirements.

• That clause 4.5.3(2) be rejected.

• That the temporary noise provisions be reconsidered, reduced, altered or rejected.

• To reassess the underlying philosophy of the Hauraki Gulf islands as an event destination.

• That in some circumstances measurements should be taken from the house site, that sound testing should only be for 1 hour and no earlier than 10.00am, that any noise level higher than those in the landform rules should not occur more than twice per annum, that events should not occur more than twice per annum, and event durations should be two days.

• That clause 4.5.3(2)(f) be amended or reconsidered. That noise and traffic generating events are controlled per area and not per site, that lower noise levels are permitted and that the communities right to peace and quite is protected.

• That activities outlined in clause 4.5.3(2) are restricted discretionary activities.  That film shoots be removed as permitted activities. That there be a more realistic time period for construction activities, festivals and events.

• That erecting art forms displayed for more than 120 days be a non complying activity which must be publicly notified.

• Change the number of days events or a temporary building can occupy a venue and the length of time an event can occur for.

• Change the finishing times for events.

• Change from an event based system to a time based system

• Change where the noise measuring is undertaken from.

• Reduce sound testing to 1 hour, no earlier than 10am.

• Allow more time for construction activities.

• Allow a longer period for festivals and events.

• Control events per area, not per site.

• Prohibit high levels of bass output.

• Exclude various landform land units from clause 4.5.3(2)

That specific to Great Barrier island the following be provided for:

• Clause 4.5.3(2)(a) that events and temporary buildings do not occupy buildings for more than 30 days (rather than 5 days),

• Clause 4.5.3(2)(b) that events do not occur for more than 30 days (rather than 3 days);

• Clause 4.5.3(2)(b)(i) that the event starts no earlier than 8.00am (rather than 10.00am),

• Clause 4.5.3(2)(c)(ii) be deleted,

• Clause 4.5.3(2)(c)(iii) be amended to read "it does not exceed 12 hours in duration" (rather than 5 hours),

• Clause 4.5.3(2)(d)(i) be amended to read "it does not cumulatively exceed 5 hours" (rather than 2 hours),

• Clause 4.5.3(2)(d)(ii) be amended to read "it does not commence before 8.00am" (rather than 9.00am)

• Clause 4.5.3(2)(d)(iii) be amended so that reference to "on the day of the performance" is removed.

• Clause 4.5.3(2)(f) be deleted altogether.

• Clause 4.5.3(3) be amended to read 12 months (rather than 6 months).

4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.6.2.1 Temporary activities - clause 4.5

It is noted that part 2.6 of the operative Plan refers to temporary activities. However, it does not deal with them adequately because it provides no certainty of what constitutes a temporary activity and whether or not a resource consent is required. Therefore, clause 4.5 of the proposed Plan addresses issues, which effectively are not addressed in the operative Plan.

Submissions 609/1, 1131/1, 1131/3, 1143/1, 3061/28, and 3712/3 request that clause 4.5 be deleted, with some submissions making specific reference to community mandated controls and the need to consider the special nature of Waiheke island and the Hauraki gulf. The submissions do not provide examples of what form the community mandated controls would take. However, the submitters may wish to provide some examples of these at the hearing.

As stated in clause 1.3.7 of the Plan, council carried out consultation with the local community in preparation for drafting the Plan. In preparing the Plan it also took into account the uniqueness of Waiheke island and the Hauraki Gulf islands as a whole.  Given the consultation that was undertaken and the opportunity for input through the submission process it is considered that there is sufficient opportunity for community input into the temporary activity requirements.

In relation to the suggestion that the temporary activity provisions be deleted it is considered important that the Plan address the issue of temporary activities, especially given the role of the visitor industry and the number of events and festivals that occur throughout the gulf islands. As such, it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 2631/7 and 8 seeks that clause 4.5 is deleted or that resource consent be required for all temporary activities. Submission 752/2 states that activities of this magnitude should require a resource consent. Submission 1093/12 requests that clause 4.5 be retained.

As outlined in objective 4.5.1 the intent of providing for temporary activities is to permit some activities that occur for a short period of time, while limiting their effects on neighbouring properties. The provisions seek to strike a balance by enabling temporary activities of a limited duration while requiring resource consent for those activities that last for longer periods or which exceed permitted noise standards. As noted above, it is considered important that the Plan address the issue of temporary activities, especially given the role of the visitor industry and the number of events and festivals that occur throughout the gulf islands.

To require resource consent for all activities that are currently permitted in clause 4.5.3 of the Plan would add considerable time and costs to activities which often have negligible adverse effects, and would discourage many activities which contribute positively to the gulf islands community. It is considered that by providing controls in relation to the duration, time period and by setting noise standards for permitted temporary activities that the effects on the environment, in particular neighbouring properties, can be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated. As such, it is recommended that submissions 752/2 and 2631/7 & 8 be rejected and that 1093/12 be accepted in part.

Submissions 3731/3 and 3732/2 request that temporary events be excluded from landforms 5 (productive land), 6 (regenerating slopes) and 7 (forest and bush) as well as landforms 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes), 2 (dunes and sandflats) and 4 (wetland systems). The reasons why temporary activities were excluded from landforms 1, 2 and 4 in the Plan are due to the particular sensitivities of the landforms and the inherent difficulty there would be establishing an event on a coastal cliff or a wetland. Landforms 5, 6 and 7 may be suitable for temporary activities given the likely distance from neighbouring properties. Therefore, it is recommended that these submissions are rejected

4.6.2.2 Temporary activities - clause 4.5(3)

Clause 4.5.3 outlines the permitted activity standards for temporary activities. A number of submissions address clause 4.5.3 specifically in relation to Great Barrier island. These are addressed in section 4.6.2.3 of this report. Other submissions which are not necessarily specific to Great Barrier are addressed below.

Clause 4.5.3(1) of the Plan permits certain construction related buildings to be located throughout the Hauraki Gulf (with the exception of landforms 1, 2 and 4 and on any scheduled items and their site surrounds), but limits the timeframe to 12 months.  Submission 2649/1 requests a longer timeframe given the "inevitable delays in building in the gulf". It is not considered appropriate to provide for a longer time period for construction as large scale, or long term construction activities have the potential to impact on amenity values. Such effects should be addressed through a resource consent, if required. It is also noted that while construction for large projects may take longer than a year these developments will most likely require a resource consent and the timeframe for construction may be outlined in the conditions. Smaller developments should be able to be undertaken within the 12 month period. It is therefore considered that 12 months is an appropriate timeframe as a permitted activity for construction projects and that this submission is rejected accordingly.

In relation to clause 4.5.3(1), submission 1093/13 sought clarification on what constitutes scheduled site surrounds. The term scheduled site surrounds relates specifically to heritage items and is defined in part 7 of the Plan (see clause 7.15). It is not considered necessary to redefine this term in part 4 of the Plan.

Clause 4.5.3(2) includes film shoots in the explanation of what may constitute a temporary activity. Submission 614/3 requests that film shoots are removed as a permitted activity. It is considered that film shoots are a legitimate temporary activity that should be provided for through the temporary activity provisions. Therefore, it is recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submissions 752/1 and 3598/1 request a rejection of clause 4.5.3(2), which addresses temporary events. Submissions 3731/1 and 3732/1 request that all events are a restricted discretionary activity. A 'rejection' of clause 4.5.3(2) would mean that it was either removed from the Plan in its entirety and temporary activities were subject to the normal consent requirements with no allowance made for their temporary nature, or it was rewritten, presumably with more restrictive controls.

Removing clause 4.5.3(2) from the Plan would mean that temporary events and buildings would be subject to the controls specific to that land unit or settlement area. The objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria for these land units or settlement areas have not been developed to address temporary events or buildings. Therefore, many temporary activities would require resource consent, and there would be no guidance in the Plan as to how these activities should be assessed. It is considered important that the Plan address the issue of temporary activities, especially given the role of the visitor industry and the number of events and festivals that occur throughout the gulf islands.

In relation to the possibility of rewriting clause 4.5.3(2) as outlined in section 4.6.2.1 of this report, the intent of providing for temporary activities is to permit some activities that occur for a short period of time, while limiting their effects on neighbouring properties. The provisions seek to strike a balance by enabling temporary activities of a limited duration while requiring resource consent for those activities that last for longer periods or which exceed the noise standards. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Clause 4.5.3(2)(a) & (b) address the timeframes for temporary events. Submissions 146/1 and 147/1 request that the timeframes be extended so that the temporary buildings can remain in place for 3 months and the festivals can occur for 2 weeks. Submission 2649/2 requests that a longer period for festivals and events is allowed. It is considered that a 3 month timeframe for the events and temporary buildings to occupy a venue is too long (as a permitted activity) and could lead to adverse effects on the amenity of the subject site or neighbouring sites. It is also considered that a festival lasting 2 weeks could detrimentally affect amenity values. Should temporary buildings, and the events associated with them, seek to establish for that period of time then the effects can be addressed through a resource consent. Therefore, it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Clause 4.5.3(2)(c) of the Plan places controls over the time that electronically amplified entertainment can be used. Submission 148/1 requests later finishing times. Submissions 915/3 and 917/1 request that non electronic entertainment should be considered in clause 4.5.3(2)(c).  As events that use electronically amplified entertainment and operate outside this time are likely to have a greater impact on amenity levels it is considered inappropriate to change the times outlined in clause 4.5.3(2)(c). In relation to including non electronic entertainment in clause 4.5.3(2)(c) it is noted that the event would still have to comply with the noise levels outlined in clause 4.5.3(2)(e). It is recommended that clause 4.5.3(2)(c) continue to address electronic amplified entertainment only. Therefore, it is recommended that these submissions are rejected. 

Clause 4.5.3(2)(d) addresses sound testing. Submission 915/4 requests that it be reduced to 1 hour and be no earlier than 10.00am. It is considered that 2 hours is an appropriate length of time to be able to adequately test equipment and that a 9.00am start is not too intrusive.  Therefore, it is recommended that this submission is rejected.

Clause 4.5.3(2)(e) states the permitted noise levels for events. Submissions 614/4, 915/1, 2562/5, 2631/9, 3730/2-4 and 3731/2 have sought that the noise levels be reduced. It is acknowledged that the noise levels outlined in clause 4.5.3(2)(d) would be clearly audible for neighbouring properties. However, it is also noted that it would be difficult to have an event with a lower noise level as a permitted activity, because the majority of events would not be able to comply with a lower noise level and would therefore require a resource consent. As council is trying to provide for such events to assist tourism, as well as enable people and communities to provide for their economic and social wellbeing it is considered appropriate to retain the noise levels as notified.  It is noted that this control works in conjunction with 4.5.3(2)(c) which limits the timeframes and the duration for the use of electronically amplified entertainment. It is therefore recommended that the noise levels remain and that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 915/2 and 917/1 seek that topography and the location of buildings and dwellings should be taken into account when measuring noise for temporary activities. Noise can be affected by topography, however, noise measurements undertaken in accordance with national acoustic standards do address this issue. Clause 4.7 addresses the methodology for measuring noise.  Some minor amendments have been suggested to this clause as a result of submissions, which is discussed in section 4.8 of this report. 

In relation to noise levels, submission 1596/1 suggested that it apply to other activities such as bird scaring devices. The controls are intended to apply to events, such as performances, functions and parades. They are not intended to apply to rural activities that are an anticipated part of rural areas. These activities need to comply with the relevant noise limits for that land unit. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Clause 4.5.3(2)(f) limits the number of events which use electronically amplified entertainment in any 12 month period. Submission 150/1 recommends that the number of events allowed be increased and that the rule be based around the proximity of the venue to the nearest residential property. Submissions 614/5, 915/5 and 917 request a reduction in the number of permitted events.

The limit on outdoor events using electronically amplified entertainment is based on recognition that a large number of such activities have the potential to detrimentally affect amenity values. Six events over a 12 month period for a venue is considered a reasonable number provided that the noise levels and start and finish times outlined in clauses 4.5.3(2)(c) & (d) are complied with. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 3730/1 requests that the noise and traffic generating events should be controlled per area not per site. Submissions 915 and 917 also mention the need to address cumulative effects. It is considered that it would be difficult to define an area, presumably based on set criteria, and determine what an appropriate number of people would be. In relation to cumulative effects, it is admittedly difficult to address this issue in relation to temporary activities and under the RMA in general. However, the definition of effect outlined in section 3 of the RMA does include cumulative effects and this issue can be addressed for resource consent applications for temporary activities.

Submissions 2631/10 and 11 state there should be controls on the number of people as well as limits on the number of indoor and outdoor events both with and without amplified entertainment to the satisfaction of the submitter. It is considered that it would be difficult to effectively enforce a rule which controlled the number of people at an event. Also, choosing a limit on how many people could attend an event would be an arbitrary exercise and difficult to justify in terms of effects. In relation to additional controls on the number of indoor and outdoor events both with and without amplified entertainment it is considered that the likely effects associated with these events will be minimal. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to place additional controls on indoor and outdoor events.

4.6.2.3 Submissions specific to Great Barrier island

A number of submissions have been lodged which are specific to temporary activities on Great Barrier island. These seek substantial relaxation of temporary activities controls for Great Barrier island. While all the islands in the Hauraki Gulf that fall within council's jurisdiction are subject to the requirements of the Plan, it is recognised that different islands face different issues and pressures and that a single planning approach may not best address those issues. Temporary activities are relatively generic in their nature and this is why the controls have been applied throughout the Hauraki Gulf islands. However, it is acknowledged that the remote nature of Great Barrier may result in less demand for temporary activities than for example Waiheke. Also, the lower density of population and distance between many residents may result in reduced effects. Therefore, it is recommended that the temporary activity controls are relaxed for Great Barrier island, as outlined in the planner's recommendation. However, in recommending a relaxation of the temporary activity controls it is acknowledged that permitted temporary activities have greater potential to adversely effect generally accepted amenity values.

4.6.2.4 Temporary activities - clauses 4.5.4 & 4.5.5

Clause 4.5.4 states that a temporary activity requiring consent as a restricted discretionary activity will be considered without public notification or the need to obtain written approval of, or serve notice on, affected persons. Submission 2631/12 requested that the provision for non-notification be removed and these applications be subject to the usual requirements for public notification under sections 93 and 94 of the RMA.  Submission 3816/1 requests that the activity status for art forms (displayed for public viewing for greater than 120 days) be changed to non complying and that they be notified.

Given the short-term nature of temporary activities it is considered appropriate that that are assessed without the need for public notification or service of notice. Assuming art forms that are displayed for greater than 120 days are considered temporary activities, and they do not occur on a scheduled heritage item or its scheduled site surrounds, they would require consent as a restricted discretionary activity. Clause 4.5.4(1) allows council to assess "any adverse effects of temporary buildings or structures on visual amenity values including through physical dominance or overshadowing on adjacent sites." Furthermore, council can also assess "adverse effects from noise or lighting"as well as "the location, scale and intensity of the activity" outlined in points 3 and 4. It is considered that the matters which council has restricted its discretion to will allow an appropriate assessment of the effects of these applications. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to make public art forms displayed for greater than 120 days non complying activities because council can adequately restrict its discretion to the relevant matters that need to be considered.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about clause 4.5 That submissions 146/1, 147/1, 148/1 150/1, 609/1, 614/3-5, 752/1, 752/2, 915/1-5, 917/1, 1093/13, 1131/1, 1131/3, 1143/1, 1596/1, 2562/5, 2631/7, 2631/8, 2631/9, 2631/10, 2631/11, 2631/12, 2649/1, 2649/2, 3061/28, 3598/1, 3712/3, 3730/1-4, 3731/1-3, 3732/1-2, and 3816/1 be rejected. That submission 1093/12 be accepted in part. That submissions 102/1-10, 123/1-10, 245/1-10, 269/1-10, 472/1-10, 473/1-10, 880/1-10, 1211/1-10, 1298/1-10, 1299/1-10, 1338/1-10, 1378/1-10, 1414/1-10, 1431/1-10, 1432/1-10, 1441/1-10, 1442/1-10, 1443/1-10, 1456/1-10, 1492/1-10, 1535/1-10, 1554/1-10, 1945/1-10, 2010/1-10, 2054/1-10, 2055/1-10, 2071/1-10, 2072/1-10, 2184/1-10, 2232/1-10, 2267/1-10, 2324/1-10, 2344/1-10, 2360/1-10, 2377/1-10, 2499/1-10, 2534/1-10, 2585/1-10, 2856/1-10, 2857/1-10, 3423/1-10, 3594/1-10, 3634/1-10, 3736/1-10, 3760/1-10 and 3799/1-10 be accepted in part. That a new subheading be added after clause 4.5.3(2) and before clause 4.5.3(2)(a) to read as follows: For the Hauraki Gulf islands (excluding Great Barrier) That a new subheading and text numbered 4.5.3(3) be added after clause 4.5.3(2)(f) and that existing clauses 4.5.3(3) and 4.5.3(4) be consequentially renumbered accordingly. For Great Barrier only 3. Events, including performances, meetings, private or public functions, parades, sporting events, exhibitions, film shoots, markets and fairs and activities of a similar character, including associated parking, buildings or other structures, provided that: a. The events and temporary buildings or other temporary structures do not occupy a venue for more than twelve days, including the time required for establishing and removing all temporary buildings and structures associated with the event. b. The event does not occur for more than six days. c. Any associated electronically amplified entertainment complies with all of the following: i. It starts no earlier than 10.00am. ii. It finishes no later than 10.30pm between Sunday and Thursday, 11.00pm on Fridays and Saturdays and 1am on New Years Day. iii. It does not exceed eight hours in duration. d. Sound testing and balancing of all sound systems including vocal checks by performers complies with all of the following: i. It does not cumulatively exceed two hours. ii. It does not commence before 9am on any day. iii. It is completed by 7pm on the day of the performance. e. The Leq noise level and L1 noise level arising from the event does not exceed 75dBA Leq or 85dBA L1 when measured at the notional boundary of any adjacent site with a residential use. f. The outdoor use of the venue does not exceed six events which use electronically amplified entertainment in any 12 month period.

4.7 Submissions about clause 4.6 - noise & vibration from construction activities

Submissions dealt with in this section: 610/1 - 610/4, 1022/3, 1022/4, 1026/5, 1131/2, 1143/2, 1596/2, 2106/3, 2292/1 and 3061/29.

4.7.1 Decisions requested

• Allowable noise level for construction sites should be reduced.

• Hours for construction work not to commence until 8am Mon to Friday and 9am on Saturdays and finishing 5.30pm Monday - Friday, 12 noon on Saturdays and no work on Sundays.

• Remove clause 4.6 and reinstate with community mandated policies and rules.

• Rewrite clause 4.6 noise and vibration for construction activities.

• Abandon across the board increase in noise levels.

• Rules should reflect the sensitivity of the area so that health and safety of those communities is protected and enhanced, thereby providing for the sustainable management of those communities and the natural environment.

• Agricultural noise and dust nuisance should be addressed.

• Provide an area-specific noise limit.

• Make provision for agricultural noise in clause 4.6.

• The start time for construction noise should be 30 minutes later.

• Consider the cumulative effects of ongoing building and construction noise and abandonment of higher noise allowance for short term duration work.

• Provide equipment and trained staff to enforce permitted noise levels.

• Amend table 4.1 so that the time periods for each time of the week (i.e. weekdays, Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays) run from midnight to midnight, rather than from 6.30am to 6.30am.

• Amend table 4.1 by deleting the ability to generate noise on Sunday's and public holidays under the heading "typical Duration of Work" and requiring the short term duration of work noise to be significant lower between 7.30am and 6pm at 45 and 75 respectively.

4.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.7.2.1 Construction noise

The construction noise standards are outlined in clause 4.6, tables 4.1 and 4.2 of the Plan. The New Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics - construction noise, has been used as the basis for drafting these provisions. Submissions 610/1, 610/2, 610/3, 1022/3 & 4, 1026/5, 2292/1 and 3061/29 generally consider that these standards are too permissive and require modification. More specifically, they request a reduction in the hours for construction activities, that across the board increases in noise levels are abandoned, that construction activities are prohibited on Sundays and public holidays and that there is adequate consideration of accumulative effects from construction noise.

The intent of the controls in relation to construction noise is to enable a reasonable level of construction activity to occur while recognising that noise from construction activities can have adverse effects on amenity values and public health. Therefore, the Plan limits the noise levels over particular times of the day and days of the week. It also differentiates between construction noise undertaken within the commercial 5, 6 and 7 land units and the transport area of the Matiatia land unit and construction noise within other land units and settlement areas. It is considered that the proposed times and standards for construction activities provide for a reasonable level of construction activity, while avoiding adverse effects outside these timeframes. While it is not considered appropriate to prohibit construction activities on Sundays or public holidays it is noted that the permitted noise levels are considerably lower than other days. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 1131/2 and 1143/2 request that clause 4.6 be removed and replaced with community mandated policies. In terms of replacing the general rules section with community mandated controls no details have been provided in these submissions about the form these would take. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that consultation was undertaken with the community throughout the development of the Plan, and has been further opportunity for input at the submissions and hearing stage. Therefore, there has been opportunity for community input into the process.

Submissions 1596/2 request that standards need to be developed for agricultural noise in relation to clause 4.6. The intent of clause 4.6 is to address noise and vibration from construction activities so it is not considered appropriate to address agricultural noise within this section. While rural activities are an anticipated part of the environment in rural land units these activities still need to comply with the noise provisions which are outlined in part 10c of the Plan (see clause 10c.5.4). Therefore, it is considered that these issues have already been addressed through the development controls.

Submission 3061/29 requests that consideration be given to other effects such as dust.  It is noted that part 10c of the Plan controls earthworks and that the assessment criterion in clause 10c.5.6.5(3) specifically refers to dust mitigation measures. Dust has therefore been addressed elsewhere in the Plan.

Submission 610/4 request appropriate equipment and trained staff be provided on the island to enforce noise levels. This is a resourcing issue rather than a District Plan issue and cannot be addressed in the Plan.  However, it is noted that the council does have specialist staff with appropriate noise equipment who undertake monitoring and enforcement of noise levels on Waiheke. Therefore it is recommended that these submissions be rejected. 

Submission 2106/3 requests that table 4.1 be amended so that the time periods run from midnight to midnight rather than 6.30am to 6.30am. It is considered that this would add clarity and it is therefore recommended that this submission is accepted.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about clause 4.6 That submissions 610/1, 610/2, 610/3, 610/4, 1022/3, 1022/4, 1026/5, 1131/2, 1143/2, 1596/2, 2292/1 and 3061/29 be rejected. That submission 2106/3 be accepted That the following changes are made to Table 4.1. Time of the Week Time Period Duration of the Work Typical Duration(1) (dBA) Short-term duration(2) (dBA) Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Weekdays 6.30am-7.30am 60 75 65 75 7.30am-6.00pm 75 90 80 95 6.00pm-8.00pm 70 85 75 90 8.00pm-6.30am 45 75 45 75 Saturdays 6.30am-7.30am 45 75 45 75 7.30am-6.00pm 75 90 80 95 6.00pm-8.00pm 45 75 45 75 8.00pm-6.30am 45 75 45 75 Sundays and Public Holidays 6.30am-7.30am 45 75 45 75 7.30am-6.00pm 55 85 55 85 6.00pm-8.00pm 45 75 45 75 8.00pm-6.30am 45 75 45 75 Time of the Week Time Period Duration of the Work Typical Duration(1) (dBA) Short-term duration(2) (dBA) Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Weekdays 12.00am-6.30am 45 75 45 75 6.30am-7.30am 60 75 65 75 7.30am-6.00pm 75 90 80 95 6.00pm-8.00pm 70 85 75 90 8.00pm-12.00am 45 75 45 75 Saturdays 12.00am-6.30am 45 75 45 75 6.30am-7.30am 45 75 45 75 7.30am-6.00pm 75 90 80 95 6.00pm-8.00pm 45 75 45 75 8.00pm-12.00am 45 75 45 75 Sundays and Public Holidays 12.00am-6.30am 45 75 45 75 6.30am-7.30am 45 75 45 75 7.30am-6.00pm 55 85 55 85 6.00pm-8.00pm 45 75 45 75 8.00pm-12.00am 45 75 45 75

4.8 Submissions about clause 4.7 - methodology for measuring noise

Submissions dealt with in this section: 612/1, 1596/3, 3061/35, 3153/1, and 3706/2.

4.8.1 Decisions requested

• That a type 1 sound meter complying with at least international standard IEC 651 be stationed on Waiheke and there be qualified staff available to operate it.

• Measurement methodology and standard required for annoying and intrusive agricultural noise.

• The methodology for measuring noise in clause 4.7 needs to be reviewed to ensure it is adequate within the context of locations on Waiheke in particular.

• Amend clause 4.7 as outlined in the submission.

• Reverse the burden of proof of noise so that it falls on adjacent properties to that from which the complaint was made. If there is more than one complaint of noise recorded at the ACC call centre, then it shall be for the owner of the site or sites to show that it was not them or their site which was originating the noise. It shall be a further defence if the owner of site can prove that the noise originating was not a nuisance, and that it did not exceed 45 dBA at the boundary of the site from which the noise originates.

4.8.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Submission 612/1 requests specific noise measuring equipment be located on Waiheke and that there be staff to monitor it. This is a resourcing issue rather than a District Plan issue and cannot be addressed in the Plan. Therefore, it is recommended that this submission be rejected. However, it is noted that the council does have specialist staff with appropriate noise equipment who undertake monitoring and enforcement of noise levels on Waiheke.

Submission 1596/3 requests that agricultural noise be addressed in clause 4.7. As noted in section 4.8.2.1 of this report agricultural noise is addressed in clause 10c.5.4 and the relevant land unit controls. Therefore, it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 3061/35 requests that clause 4.7 be reviewed in relation to concerns that a Leq measurement dampens noise and effectively increases noises levels. This is because the noise levels have been increased in some land units and the Lmax measurement removed.

The Leq is a time average, a frequency weighted sound pressure level which is used in most international noise standards for environmental sound. Leq is a replacement for L10 (which was the level met or exceeded for 10% of the measuring period). The New Zealand Standard NZS 6801:1991: Measurement of Environmental Noise recommends that Leq is used to measure environmental noise. Leq measurements do not dampen noise: NZS 6801 notes that each measurement sample time should be sufficient for the resulting measured sound level to be representative of the sound under investigation. It also notes that it in order to determine both the variability and the overall sound level of the sound present it may be necessary to take a number of measurement samples at different times during the period of interest.

Whilst the Leq level of a measured sound will be slightly lower than the L10 level (typically up to 3dBA lower), the proposed Plan provisions recognise that higher background noise levels (particularly on Waiheke) now exist that when the noise levels were set in the operative Plan. A 3dB increase in noise level is just perceptible. It is also noted that the noise methodology outlined in clause 4.7 of the Plan limits the averaging to no more than 5dB for any single time interval.

The noise levels proposed are consistent with the guidelines for the protection of health and amenity in NZS 6802: 1999: Assessment of Environmental Noise. Maximum noise levels (Lmax) are not used (and are not specified by NZS 6801) during the day because they are only to control loud noises of short duration which may be disturbing to sleep. Therefore, it is recommended that submission 3061/35 is rejected because the methodology for measuring noise already addresses the issues raised by the submitter.

Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that the issue of averaging noise levels is being addressed at a national level in the review of the noise standard (NZS 6802:1999 Acoustics - Measurement of Environmental Sound), however, the revised standard will not be released until later in 2008.

Submission 3706 principally addresses noise from entertainment facilities and 3706/2 requests that in relation to clause 4.7 that the burden of proof for noise nuisance be reversed. However, it is not possible through a District Plan process to apply such an approach. Council does not have the statutory powers to require property owners to illustrate their compliance with the District Plan noise controls every time a noise complaint is made in a specific area. If activities cannot comply with the noise controls outlined in the Plan then they would have to cease the activity that caused the noise and apply for a resource consent. Therefore, it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 3153/1 requests changes to clause 4.7 because it has drafting defects and because the noise averaging provisions do not have acceptance by the New Zealand acoustical profession. It is considered that the minor changes to clause 4.7 (outlined below) address any drafting defects, or uncertainty surrounding noise measurement. It is not considered necessary to undertake the substantive changes to clause 4.7 outlined in submission 3153/3. It is therefore recommended that this submission is accepted in part.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about clause 4.7 That submission 612/1, 1596/3, 3061/35 and 3706/2 be rejected. That submission 3153/1 be accepted in part. That clause 4.7 be amended accordingly: Except where otherwise stated, the following methodology applies to the measurement of noise for all noise controls contained in this Plan: All noise measurements levels must be made measured at or within 20m from any building where people may reside overnight on a permanent or temporary basis (on another site from the noise source) or within at the legal boundary, when this is closer to the building. This may be referred to as the notional boundary. Noise levels must be measured in accordance with the NZS 6801:1999 Acoustics - Measurement of Environmental Sound and with a sound level meter complying at least with the International Standard IEC 651 (1979) Sound Level Meters, Type 1. The noise measured must be assessed in accordance with NZS 6802:1999 Acoustics - Assessment of Environmental Noise except that the averaging of the noise measured will be in accordance with the following: Averaging A noise nuisance does not generally arise from a single isolated incident infringement. The amount by which limits are exceeded may vary between repeat infringements incidents. Averaging of measured Leq values for separate time intervals to derive a single figure for comparison with any limit, will be subject to the following constraints: a. Averaging of measured Leq levels for comparison with any applicable noise limit, if employed, must only be performed on the rating LR levels derived in accordance with Appendix A of NZS 6802:1999 and must only relate to time intervals during which the sound of interest is present. Measured Leq levels must not be averaged if comparison is to be made with night-time limits where sleep disturbance will be of concern. b. The averaged value of the descriptor eg Leq must not exceed the relevant limit, and in any case the limit must not be exceeded by more than 5dB for any single time interval.  Leq values must be averaged on an energy basis, ie the logarithmic mean must be determined. Explanation An average Leq determined from, for example, four 15 minute Leq measurements, may differ from a Leq measured over an interval of 60 minutes. The time of measurement and the measurement interval should relate to the duration of the sound and any repetitiveness or pattern of sound events. Representativeness and repeatability of measurements should be an overriding consideration in deciding what time interval to measure and the time of measurement.

4.9 Submissions about clause 4.8 - wastewater

Submissions dealt with in this section: 515/1, 519/3, 614/6, 618/39-44, 619/5-10, 668/1, 753/30, 754/5-8, 754/10-11, 821/34, 836/20, 859/5-8, 859/10-11, 1024/8, 1043/1, 1101/85-90, 1190/28, 1157/1, 1286/45-50, 1287/110-115, 1288/33-38, 1289/94-99, 1596/4, 1596/5, 1785/8, 2106/4, 2649/3, 2670/5-10, 2878/46-51, 2699/1, 2699/2, 3061/36, 3061/37 and 3521/47-50

4.9.1 Decisions requested

• Requested that septic tanks continue to be used for residential activities including for all new subdivisions.

• Insert a rule to ensure that the installation of all on site wastewater treatment disposal facilities is a permitted activity only if the installer or the property owner can provide sufficient evidence and commitment that the installation will be properly inspected and where necessary maintained over its life.

• Remove clause 4.8 so that there is no reliance upon ARC for wastewater disposal resource consent.

• Policies for clause 4.8 should provide alternative solutions including communal systems.

• Other land units beyond landform 5 should be described in clause 4.8 as suitable for the disposal of treated solids.

• Clause 4.8 be rewritten as a checklist to assess the design of wastewater disposal system. TP 58 should be used as a guideline, but the provision should also allow a certified engineer to assess its adequacy, ability to promote concepts and disposal of wastewater.

• To prevent development in areas that are not currently reticulated that would make reticulation necessary.

• All septic tank cleaning and emptying is to be done by the two organisations presently doing the work. It is not to be put out to tender for organisations based in Auckland or elsewhere.

• That on site wastewater systems should protect public health. There shall be risk management plans to protect drinking water. Land use activities should provide system to treat stormwater in a sustainable manner.

• To remove aspects of clause 4.8 which explicitly or implicitly provide for a future reticulated system on HGI.

• The disposal of septic sludge is only possible in land unit Landform 5 is unnecessarily restrictive.

• To designate the Greenacres disposal site at 1 Fisher Road, Onetangi for waste solids disposal site.

• Council should take responsibility for all stormwater that falls on council land, roads and reserve and to provide mechanism to capture and clean i.e. via reticulated system for stormwater.

• All wastewater provisions e.g. clause 4.8 needs to be integrated into and become part of a comprehensive waters management strategy incorporate for example protection from and remediation in regard to the adverse effects of wastewater system failures on streams, catchments, ecosystems and coastal and marine habitats.

• A link required in clause 4.8 to the protection and enhancement of the HGMPA.

• Make amendments to clause 4.8(1) to address the joint processing of resource consents, cumulative effects, to make direct reference to ARC statutory documents and wastewater infrastructure.

• Refocus the strategy so there is a clearer management regime for wastewater.

• Wastewater management is a locally resolvable matter and should not be abrogated to a solely regional matter.

• Insert a new permitted activity rule that states where the proposal complies with the ARC permitted activity standards then it remains a permitted activity in the Plan. Where it does not comply with ARC requirements, or where an ARC consent is not held then it's a restricted discretionary activity.

• Make amendments to clause 4.8.2, the resource management strategy for wastewater.

• That council takes responsibility for stormwater from council land and provide mechanisms to capture and clean it. 

• Council should recognise better methods for reticulating stormwater. 

4.9.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The operative Plan has rules that address effluent disposal (clause 6B.1.1.1) and a gross dwelling area control (clause 6B.1.2.5) for sites less than 2000m2. These controls have not been included in the proposed Plan because it is considered they essentially duplicate controls in other statutory documents (such as the proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water) and their inclusion in the Plan would not promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources. 

4.9.2.1 Reticulation

Submissions 515/1, 1157/1 and 1785/8 have sought removal of any reference in the Plan to reticulation. It is noted that clause 4.8 of the Plan does not encourage reticulation and notes that all existing and future development (excluding specific exceptions such as Oneroa) must be capable of satisfactorily disposing of wastewater on-site. As such, it is not considered necessary for the Plan to explicitly state that reticulation is opposed. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected. 

Submissions 753/30, 821/34, 836/20 and 1190/28 request that the Plan prevent development in areas that would make reticulation necessary. Through subdivision controls, building coverage and impervious surface controls the Plan already restricts development that would result in a necessity for reticulation. Therefore, it is recommended that these submissions are rejected to the extent they seek amendments to the Plan.

Submission 2699/1 comments on stormwater run-off from council roads and reserves and the need to provide mechanisms to capture and clean it. Submission 2699/2 requests that council find a better means for reticulating stormwater. While stormwater run-off from impervious surface areas can result in adverse effects, it is unlikely that that it would facilitate the need for reticulation in the Hauraki Gulf islands. Vegetated swales, buffer strips or other low impact design approaches would better address any issues from stormwater run-off than a reticulated stormwater system. It is also noted that retrofitting a reticulated stormwater system would be expensive. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

4.9.2.2 Permitted activity status

Submission 614/6 requests that a rule be inserted requesting that on-site wastewater treatment is permitted only if the property owner can provide sufficient evidence that the installation is properly connected and maintained. The installation and maintenance of septic tanks is currently controlled by Part 29 of the Auckland City Council Consolidated Bylaw. The Bylaw requires that sufficient detail is provided with a building consent application so that the council can determine whether or not the disposal system will operate in a satisfactory manner. It is considered that the installation and maintenance of septic tanks should continue to be managed through the Bylaw rather than the Plan. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

4.9.2.3 ARC requirements 

Submissions 618/39, 619/5, 754/5, 859/5, 1101/85, 1286/45, 1287/110, 1288/33, 1289/94, 2670/5 and 2878/46 request that clause 4.8 be deleted or amended so that there is no reliance on the ARC for any proposal that requires consent under the Plan. As outlined in clause 4.8.2 of the Plan the disposal of wastewater is controlled through a variety of techniques. Under the operative Plan developments may be required to obtain land use consent from council as well as a discharge permit from the ARC. The wastewater issue may also have been addressed through the building consent and by Part 29 of the Auckland City Council Consolidated Bylaw. Applying for a discharge permit from the ARC did not obviate the need to obtain land use consent from council if clause 6B.1.2.5 of the operative Plan was infringed. Council considered that this approach created unnecessary duplication and that the costs of such a rule to individuals outweighed the benefits, given two consents were required for the same issue. 

Council will still be closely involved in managing wastewater through the building consent process and Part 29 of the Bylaw. The application of the building coverage and impervious surface area rules in the Plan will ensure that there is sufficient room for on-site wastewater disposal. It is also noted that should someone require a discharge permit from the ARC they will be dependent on the ARC timeframes regardless of whether a land use consent is also required from council.  It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected. 

Submission 668/1 requests that clause 4.8 be rewritten as a checklist. While clause 4.8 of the Plan provides policy direction regarding wastewater it also removes the requirement for resource consent for on-site wastewater disposal from the Plan. There is therefore no need to insert a checklist to base an assessment on as wastewater issues will be assessed through other mechanisms. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submissions 618/42, 619/8, 754/7, 859/7, 1101/88, 1286/48, 1287/113, 1288/36, 1289/97, 2670/8 and 2878/49 request that clause 4.8.2 is amended to provide a clearer management regime for wastewater in the Plan. The wastewater management approach for the Hauraki Gulf islands is for it to be managed predominantly outside the District Plan process. This approach is adequately described in clause 4.8.2. It is not considered necessary to readdress clause 4.8.2 in this regard.  It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 3521/48 (lodged by the ARC) request that the objective be amended to better address cumulative wastewater effects. It is considered that the cumulative effects of wastewater disposal are an important issue to address. However, it is recommended that this occur through an additional policy rather than a change to the objective. It is therefore recommended that this submission is accepted in part.

Submission 3521/49 requests that a policy be included to cover the joint processing of any discretionary land-use activities applications where any new ARC consents or variations to ARC consents are required. It is generally considered 'best practice' to encourage the processing of an ARC wastewater discharge permit at the same time as when a land use consent for the remainder of the development is being addressed. However, it recommended that this approach is considered on a case by case basis and that a specific policy is not required in this regard. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 3521/50 requests a more definitive reference to the relevant ARC planning documents. The reason for the indirect reference to ARC requirements for wastewater disposal is that these may change over the lifetime of the Plan. Therefore rather than make reference to specific documents (such as the proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water, or Technical Publication 58) it is recommended that the more indirect reference remain. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected. 

Submissions 618/40 & 43, 619/6 & 9, 754/6 & 8, 859/6 & 8, 1101/86 & 89, 1286/46 & 49, 1287/111 & 114, 1288/34 & 37, 1289/95 & 98, 2670/6 & 9 and 2878/47 & 50 request that alternative solutions, such as communal systems, should be provided for. The wastewater strategy for the Hauraki Gulf islands has been to require existing and future development to satisfactorily dispose of and treat wastewater on-site. This was modified because of the inability of commercial developments in Oneroa to adequately dispose of wastewater on small commercial sites. Therefore, limited reticulation was provided for Oneroa village through the construction and operation of the Owhanake wastewater treatment plant. Capacity for the wastewater treatment plant was increased, principally to serve the Matiatia wharf facility and the future Matiatia development.  Notwithstanding this, the broad strategy is still to require existing and future development to satisfactorily dispose and treat wastewater on-site. As such, the inclusion of policies recognising communal systems is not considered consistent with the overall strategy. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected

Submissions 618/41, 619/7, 754/8, 859/9, 1101/87, 1286/47, 1287/112, 1288/35, 1289/96, 1596/4, 2670/7 and 2878/48 suggest that other land units outside of landform 5 - productive land may be suitable for the disposal of treated solids. Given the practical limitations of some land units (eg landform 1 - coastal cliffs, landform 2 - dune systems and sand flats), or the ecological values of other land units (eg landform 4 - wetland systems), or the residential or commercial nature of other land units it is considered that landform 5 is the appropriate land unit for disposal of treated solids. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 618/44, 619/10, 754/11, 859/11, 1101/90, 1286/50, 1287/115, 1288/38, 1289/99, 2670/10 and 2878/51 indicate that wastewater treatment is not solely a regional matter and it should be managed in an integrated way through the Plan. It is considered that the Plan recognises that wastewater is not solely a regional matter by outlining that wastewater is addressed through the Building Act 2004, Council's Bylaw controlling wastewater, through building coverage and impervious surface controls in the Plan, as well as through regional rules. It is considered that including additional rules for wastewater treatment in the Plan would only duplicate the consent requirements from the ARC and result in additional costs for individuals. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 754/10 and 859/10 request that permitted activities be defined by a new rule that states where compliance with the Air, Land and Water Plan is demonstrated then such activities shall be deemed permitted activities. Where no compliance is proven or where ARC consent is not held then activities can be deemed restricted discretionary activities.

As outlined above in this section of the report, the Plan does not require resource consent for wastewater issues. This is adequately controlled through Part 29 of the Bylaw, the Building Act requirements, the ARC's requirements in terms of the proposed Auckland Regional Plan - Air, Land and Water and technical publication 58, as well as impervious surface area and building coverage controls in the Plan. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to include a rule regarding wastewater. Notwithstanding this, it is not considered appropriate to develop a rule in a District Plan that relies on a rule in a Regional Plan to determine whether a resource consent is required. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

4.9.2.4Miscellaneous

Submission 1596/5 states that while the Plan states that "....the impervious surface and building coverage controls ensure that there is sufficient permeable land for on-site wastewater disposal" that this may not be true. The submission is technically correct that these controls do not necessarily ensure that sufficient land is available for wastewater treatment. It is therefore recommended that less absolute language is used and that this submission is accepted.

Submission 2106/4 requests that an exception be inserted for Matiatia in relation to on-site treatment. Given that Matiatia wharf facilities currently connect to the Owhanake Wastewater Treatment plant and resource consent has been obtained for future development at Matiatia to also connect to the treatment plant it is logical that the strategy is amended to allude to this.  It is recommended that this submission is accepted.

Submissions 519/3 suggests amendments to policy 4 so that it the wording is clearer and more succinct. It is considered that the wording outlined in submission 519/3 is preferable to the current wording of policy 4 and that it should be changed and the submission accepted accordingly.

Submission 2649/3 seeks that a particular site is designated for the disposal of biosolids. All local authorities are "requiring authorities", which means they can apply to designate land in accordance with the requirements of the RMA. Council has chosen not to lodge a notice of requirement for the site noted in the submission as part of the Plan process. Notwithstanding this, notices of requirements can be lodged at any time. However, this decision would need to be made by the appropriate council committee (the City Development Committee) and it is not a decision for this hearings panel. It is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 3061/36 & 37 request that there be a comprehensive water management strategy to address wastewater run-off into streams and a link to the HGMPA. As outlined in clause 4.8(2) wastewater is addressed by a variety of techniques. Taking the consent requirements out of the Plan does not result in a lesser level of management of wastewater issues, but reduced duplication. In relation to the need to link wastewater to the HGMPA it is considered that the Plan is consistent with the HGMPA, gives effect to sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA, and that the HGMPA is referenced sufficiently throughout the Plan. It is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 1024/8 states that all septic tank cleaning and emptying is to be done by the two organisations presently doing the work. This is not a decision that is made through the Plan process. Therefore it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

It is not considered possible to accurately determine what relief submission 1043/1 is seeking. The submitter may wish to give further information at the hearing. In the absence of such information, it is recommended that the submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about clause 4.8 That submissions 515/1, 614/6, 618/39-44, 619/5-10, 668/1, 753/30, 754/5-8, 754/10-11, 821/34, 836/20, 859/5-8, 859/10-11, 1024/8, 1043/1, 1101/85-90, 1190/28, 1157/1, 1286/45-50, 1287/110-115, 1288/33-38, 1289/94-99, 1596/4, 1596/5, 1785/8, 2106/4, 2649/3, 2670/5-10, 2878/46-51, 2699/1, 2699/2, 3061/36, 3061/37 and 3521/47, 49 & 50 are rejected. That submissions519/3 and 1596/5 are accepted. That submission 3521/48 is accepted in part. That clause 4.8 be amended accordingly: Objective To provide for wastewater disposal and the disposal of settled solids in a manner which ensures that adverse effects are adequately avoided or remedied. Policies 1. By recognising that the adverse effects associated with wastewater disposal are controlled by Auckland Regional Council requirements and the Building Act 2004. 2. By ensuring the proper maintenance of wastewater treatment and disposal systems through bylaws made under the Local Government Act 2002. 3. By providing for the disposal of settled solids from septic tanks and wastewater treatment and disposal systems in an appropriate manner on suitable sites in the landform 5 land unit. 4. By protecting wastewater infrastructure and through designations, council operations relating to wastewater treatment (such as Owhanake wastewater treatment plant) and settled solids disposal (such as Claris landfill). 5. By ensuring that particular regard is given to the cumulative effects of wastewater disposal 4.8.2 Resource management strategy The disposal of wastewater within the islands is controlled through a variety of techniques, including ARC rules and the ARC Technical Publication 58 - On-site Wastewater Systems: Design and Management Manual; the Building Act 2004; and the council's bylaw controlling wastewater. While the Plan does not have specific wastewater rules, the impervious surface and building coverage controls will ensure that there is sufficient permeable land for on-site wastewater disposal. The commercial portion of Oneroa village is connected to the council's Owhanake wastewater treatment plant. Otherwise wastewater in the islands is currently disposed of through a wide range of on-site disposal systems, consisting in the main of septic tank pre-treatment units and effluent soakage fields. Therefore, all existing and future development (except for development at Oneroa, Matiatia and Matiatia wharf) must be capable of satisfactorily treating and disposing of wastewater on-site. As the council's bylaw, the Building Act and the ARC already place controls on the disposal of wastewater it is not necessary to include additional controls in the Plan. In recognition of its strategic importance, the council has introduced a designation to protect the continuing operation of the Owhanake wastewater treatment plant. The existing designation for the Claris landfill, which includes sludge disposal, has been carried over and extended. There are also rules in part 9 - Hazardous facilities and contaminated land which apply to the storage of septic tank waste. Refer to clause 9.5.1.3 for further details.

4.10 Submissions about clause 4.9 - signs 

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/45, 619/11, 754/12, 859/12, 1101/91, 1286/51, 1287/116, 1288/39, 1289/100, 2670/11, 2878/52 and 2930/1.

4.10.1 Decisions requested

• Clause 4.9 should be amended so that where a proposal is subject to a resource consent then signs are dealt with as an integral part of that process and not separately through a bylaw.

• In clause 4.9 provide for objectives, policies, assessment criteria and rules that prohibit company brands and flagship or promotional colours being used to substantially cover a building so as to advertise an article or operation or activity.

4.10.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Submissions 618/45, 619/11, 754/12, 859/12, 1101/91, 1286/51, 1287/116, 1288/39, 1289/100, 2670/11 and 2878/52 suggest that clause 4.9 should be amended so that where a proposal is subject to a resource consent then signs are dealt with as an integral part of that process and not separately through a bylaw. Part 27 and 27B of the Auckland City Council Consolidated Bylaw control signage and billboards respectively within Auckland City, and it is also noted that this includes specific provisions in relation to the HGI. To ensure a consistent approach is undertaken the Plan outlines that all signs (apart from those in relation to a heritage item) will be assessed through an application for dispensation from the Consolidated Bylaw. Should some signs be addressed through the resource consent process and others through a dispensation application it will mean there is potential for inconsistency in the approach, and it is also potentially confusing for both council officers and applicants. It is therefore recommended that all signs, with the exception of those that relate to heritage items, are addressed through the Consolidated Bylaw and that these submissions are rejected accordingly.

Submission 2930/1 requests that clause 4.9 provide for objectives, policies, assessment criteria and rules that prohibit company brands and flagship or promotional colours being used to substantially cover a building so as to advertise an article or operation or activity. As outlined above the Auckland City Council Consolidated Bylaw controls signage and billboards respectively within Auckland City, apart from those in relation to a heritage item. Therefore, any request that company brands, promotional colours etc constitute signage should have been addressed through submissions on the Bylaw, which occurred in 2007. However, it is noted that the external colour of buildings is controlled in specific land units to ensure that buildings blend in with the surrounding natural landscape. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Planner's recommendations for submissions about clause 4.9

That submissions 618/45, 619/11, 754/12, 859/12, 1101/91, 1286/51, 1287/116, 1288/39, 1289/100, 2670/11, 2878/52 and 2930/1 are rejected. 

4.11 Submissions about clause 4.10 - lighting

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1/1, 618/46, 618/47, 619/12, 619/13, 663/1, 663/3, 663/4, 754/13, 754/14, 859/13, 859/14, 1022/9, 1022/10, 1101/92, 1101/93, 1101/94, 1101/95, 1101/96, 1101/97, 1147/1, 1147/3, 1147/4, 1250/7, 1250/8, 1250/9, 1286/52, 1286/53, 1287/117, 1287/118, 1288/40, 1288/41, 1289/101, 1289/102, 1289/103, 1289/104, 1289/105, 1289/106, 2631/13, 2670/12, 2670/13, 2878/53, 2878/54, 2919/1, 2919/2, 2919/3, 2919/4, 2919/5, and 3061/38.

4.11.1 Decisions requested

• Request that footpath lighting (situated within footpath) be no more than 20 watts.

• Amend clause 4.10 to recognise that people need lights for daily living purposes and that include accessway lighting, security lighting and landscape lighting.

• Where lighting exceeds 150 lux clause 4.10.4 should provide for neighbours' input, thus a notified discretionary consent status should be provided for.

• Ban all 'up' lighting and remove them to eliminate all light scatter to the night sky.

• Ensure that only the minimum and adequately screened lighting required to do the job is installed.

• Where street lighting is installed there shall be a shielding of that lighting so that there is no illumination of adjoining properties.

• Street lights should be shielded so that the light source is not visible from outside the road to be illuminated, or the night sky.

• Review clause 4.7 and reinstate 2.3B artificial lighting, and 6C.1.3.10 artificial lighting, from the operative Plan.

• Incorporate community mandated controls into clause 4.10

• Require the use of intermittent lighting options in clause 4.10

• Lighting should be restricted to essential lighting only.

• Acknowledge that amalgamating Waiheke County and Auckland City Bylaws was ill-considered. 

• Retain 4.10. but include controls on visual intrusion and spillage of indoor and street lighting.

• Where lighting may exceed 150 lux clause 4.10.4 should provide for neighbours input.

4.11.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.11.2.1 Street lighting

Submissions 1/1, 1101/94, 1101/96, 1250/8, 1289/103, 1289/105 and 2919/4 raised concerns regarding street lighting and associated effects on adjoining properties. Council has a street lighting policy that sets out the lighting standards for roads and pedestrian areas. It is therefore considered that any issues associated with street lighting should be addressed through this forum rather than the Plan. It is therefore recommended these submissions are rejected.

4.11.2.2 Security lighting, access lighting and landscape lighting

Submissions 618/46, 619/12, 754/13, 859/13, 1101/92, 1286/52, 1287/117, 1288/40, 1289/101, 2670/12, 2878/53 and 2919/1 request that clause 4.10 be amended to recognise that people need lights for daily living purposes, such as security lighting, landscape lighting etc. It is noted that the Plan does recognise and provide for lighting to be used for daily purposes through the permitted activity standard for artificial lighting which allows for a luminance up to but not exceeding 150 lux. This standard should provide for a reasonable level of lighting for daily household needs. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected as they seek amendments to the Plan.

4.11.2.3 Activity status for lighting consents

Submissions 618/47, 619/13, 754/14, 859/14, 1101/97, 1286/53, 1287/118, 1288/41, 1289/106, 2631/13, 2670/13, 2878/54 and 2919/5 request that where lighting exceeds 150 lux clause 4.10.4 should provide for neighbours' input, thus a discretionary consent status should be provided for. The Plan requires restricted discretionary activity consent for activities that infringe the permitted activity standard.  Clause 4.10.4 states that applications for restricted discretionary activity consent for lighting will be considered without public notification or the need to obtain written approval, or serve notice on, affected persons.  However, it is acknowledged that impact from light glare can extend beyond the boundaries of a site and has the potential to affect a wide range of properties, especially in the Hauraki Gulf where lighting is minimal. It is therefore recommended that the activity status become full discretionary and that it be subject to the associated requirements regarding notification and written approvals. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are accepted.

4.11.2.4 Lighting affecting the night sky

Submissions 663/1, 663/3, 663/4, 1022/9, 1022/10, 1101/93, 1101/95, 1147/3, 1289/102, 1289/104, 2919/2 & 3 and 3061/38 address the issues of lighting affecting the night sky. In general these submitters request that all lighting be downward lighting so that any impacts on the night sky are minimised. It is acknowledged that greater emphasis can be placed on reducing the adverse effects from lighting on the night sky through appropriate policy and assessment criteria. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are accepted in part. 

Submission 1250/7 supports clause 4.10 but raises concerns that indoor lighting can detrimentally affect the night-time visual amenity, particularly when buildings are surrounded by undeveloped or rural open space land. It is acknowledged that the focus in the objectives, policies and strategy for clause 4.10 - lighting, relate to outdoor lighting. This is because the effects associated with outdoor lighting are more likely to cause light spill and glare than indoor lighting. However, the rules control the luminance measured from the light source, which could be internal or external. As the rules apply to both interior and exterior lighting then it is considered that it is not necessary to place additional controls on indoor lighting. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

4.11.2.5Miscellaneous - lighting

Submission 1250/9 requests that intermittent lighting options be included in clause 4.10. It is considered that council can request intermittent lighting be required as a condition of consent and that it is not necessary to address it in clause 4.10.  It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 1147/4 requests acknowledgement that community mandated provisions for lighting will form the basis of future bylaws. It is noted that the rolling review of the Auckland City Council Consolidated Bylaw is a completely separate process to the review of the Hauraki Gulf Islands section of the District Plan and is subject to different legislation (i.e. the Local Government Act 2002). It is not possible to provide recommendations on the Consolidated Bylaw when considering the District Plan. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected. However, it is noted that bylaw reviews do involve public notification and opportunity for submissions.

Submission 1147/1 requests that the provisions from the operative Plan be reinstated instead of those in the proposed Plan. It is considered that the provisions in the proposed Plan, with the suggested amendments, better articulate the issues, provide an appropriate policy platform and rules for addressing those issues. As such, it is considered that (amended) clause 4.10 should be retained and that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendation for submissions about clause 4.10 That submissions 1/1, 618/46, 619/12, 754/13, 859/13, 1101/92, 1101/94, 1101/96, 1147/1, 1147/4, 1250/7, 1250/8, 1250/9, 1286/52, 1287/117, 1288/40, 1289/101, 1289/103, 1289/105, 2670/12, 2878/53, 2919/1 and 2919/4 are rejected. That submissions 618/47, 619/13, 754/14, 859/14, 1101/97, 1286/53, 1287/118, 1288/41, 1289/106, 2631/13, 2670/13, 2878/54 and 2919/5 are accepted. That submissions 663/1, 663/3, 663/4, 1022/9, 1022/10, 1101/93, 1101/95, 1147/3, 1289/102, 1289/104, 2919/2, 3 and 3061/38 are accepted in part. That clause 4.10 is amended accordingly: By adding a new policy numbered 4.10.1.5 after policy 4.10.1.4 5. By avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of lighting on the night sky. By changing clause 4.10.4 as follows: 4.10.4 Restricted dDiscretionary activities The following are restricted discretionary activities: 1. The use of artificial lighting producing an illuminance exceeding 150 lux, measured at any point on the site containing the light source, in a horizontal or vertical plane at ground level or at the exterior of any building within or adjacent to the site on which the lighting is placed. Note: This does not apply in recreation 2 and 3. In these land units artificial lighting over 150 lux is provided for as a discretionary activity. 2. Exterior lighting on any scheduled item or within its scheduled site surrounds. Matters of discretion Assessment criteria The council has restricted its discretion to considering the following matters: • amenity, visual and privacy effects • public or personal safety • the proposed hours of operation and duration of the lighting • the public benefits of the proposal The extent to which the outdoor lighting is located, directed and designed to ensure that glare is not directed at adjacent sites. The extent to which glare from outdoor lighting causes discomfort and loss of amenity to adjacent sites. The extent to which glare from outdoor lighting detracts from the dark night-time sky environment. Whether outdoor lighting appropriately lights public and semi-public areas in a manner consistent with the principles of crime prevention through environmental design. Notification requirements Except as provided for by section 94C(2) of the RMA, applications for a resource consent for lighting under this clause (4.10.4) will be considered without public notification or the need to obtain written approval of, or serve notice on, affected persons (in accordance with section 94D(2) and (3) of the RMA). Associated amendments also need to be made to the recreation 2 land unit (community facilities and sports parks) and recreation 3 land unit (Rangihoua) and part 11 - assessment matters in relation to lighting matters.

4.12 Submissions about clause 4.11 - land unit and settlement area classifications

Submissions dealt with in this section: 618/48, 619/14, 754/15, 859/15, 1101/102, 1101/103, 1101/104, 1127/25, 1286/54, 1286/55, 1286/56, 1286/57, 1287/119, 1287/120, 1287/121, 1288/42, 1288/43, 1288/44, 1289/111, 1289/111, 1289/113, 2670/14, 2878/55, 2878/56 and 2878/57.

4.12.1 Decisions requested

• Amend clause 4.11 to provide for both a stand-alone application where activities are permitted, and a conjunctive application where resource consent is required. To determine the actual on-the-ground boundary where there are discrepancies in land unit or settlement area mapping, eg Waitakere example.

• Clause 4.11.3 should make it clear that a residual lot created where there is a boundary between a settlement area and a land unit can be approved as a discretionary activity even where the lot size does not meet minimum area standard. The cross reference to a Part 12 except is of little assistance unless it states here what the exception is.

• Clause 4.11.3 is unclear and conflicting where it states that the boundary between land units and/or settlement area is not a boundary for the purposes of applying development controls. That rule should be deleted or amended as it will result in future non-complying issues as buildings or activities close to those common boundaries should meet the relevant development controls as if that were a site boundary in order to prevent future problems.

• Amend clause 4.11.3 to reflect changes proposed to part 12 (to enable the residual lot created where properties are split zoned to be separated out as a restricted discretionary activity).

• The Plan should be amended so clause 4.11.3 is clearer thus less subject to misinterpretation.

4.12.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.12.2.1 Clause 4.11.1 - Planning Maps for Great Barrier

Submissions 619/14, 618/48, 754/15, 859/15, 1101/102, 1286/54, 1286/55, 1287/119, 1288/42, 1289/111, 2670/14 and 2878/55 request clause 4.11.1 be amended to provide for both a stand alone application where activities are permitted, or a conjunctive application where resource consent is required, in order to determine the actual 'on-ground-boundary' where there are discrepancies in land unit or settlement area mapping e.g. as per the Waitakere City District Plan.

Clause 4.11.1 states that different data sources were used for the Great Barrier planning maps, which may result in discrepancies between the property boundaries and land unit and settlement area boundaries shown on the aerial photograph. The intent is to provide clarification for people using the Plan when there are discrepancies between data sources. It states that the where there is a discrepancy, the aerial photograph rather than the property boundaries should be relied upon for determining the extent of any particular land unit or settlement area. It is considered that clause 4.11.1 is sufficiently clear in terms of the required approach when a discrepancy arises between data sources. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submissions 1101/103, 1286/56, 1287/120, 1289/112, 1288/43 and 2878/56 state that clause 4.11.3 should make it clear that a residual lot created where there is a boundary between a settlement area and a land unit can be approved as a discretionary activity even where the lot size does not meet minimum area standard. Submission 1127/5 requests that clause 4.11.3 be changed to reflect suggested changes to part 12 - subdivision.

It is considered that clause 4.11.3 is clear that it does not apply to subdivision controls.  In response to other submissions, the hearing report on the subdivision section will consider whether sites which are split between settlement areas can be subdivided without meeting the minimum site size. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected in relation to clause 4.11.3.  However, it is noted that hearing report on part 12 - subdivision may recommend changes to clause 12.6.6 which deals with the subdivision of sites split between settlement areas or land units.

Submissions 1101/104, 1286/57, 1287/120, 1289/120, 1288/44, 1289/113 and 2878/57 state that clause 4.11.3 is unclear and conflicting where it states that the boundary between land units and/or settlement area is not a boundary for the purposes of applying development controls. It is considered that the rule clarifies the situation in relation to boundaries between land units, or between land units and settlement areas. Nor does the rule create future non-complying issues as suggested by the submitters. The rule simply clarifies that for the purposes of applying development controls the boundary between land units is not treated as the site boundary. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected. 

Planner's recommendations for submissions about clause 4.11 That submissions 618/48, 619/14, 754/15, 859/15, 1101/120, 1101/103, 1101/104, 1127/25, 1286/54, 1286/55, 1286/56, 1286/57, 1287/119, 1287/120, 1287/121, 1288/42, 1288/43, 1288/44, 1289/111, 1289/112, 1289/113, 2670/14, 2878/55, 2878/56 and 2878/57be rejected.

4.13 Submissions about clause 4.12 - pest control 

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3061/39 and 3521/46

4.13.1 Decisions requested

• Submission 3061/39 recommends that clause 4.12 pest control and the relevant provisions of part 9 need to be reviewed to ensure that the rules governing the use of herbicides and poisons are adequate to avoid run off or escape of residues into streams, watercourses, catchments and the coastal marine environment. They also need to be adequate to provide appropriate protection for human activities within those areas.

• Submission 3521/46 recommends that clause 4.12 permit in all land units and settlement areas, the eradication or control of all pest plant or animal species included in the Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy 2007 - 2012 and associated lists relating to the Hauraki Gulf Islands.

4.13.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Clause 4.12 requires the use of any hazardous substances associated with pest control to comply with part 9 - hazardous facilities and contaminated land and any ARC requirements. It is considered that these controls are sufficiently robust to ensure that they will not give rise to contamination issues. It is therefore recommended that submission 3061/39 is rejected.

As noted in section 4.5.2.2 of this report it is recommended that appendix 14 of the Plan be amended so that it lists both plant and animal pests and so that it is consistent with the proposed Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy 2007 - 2012. To ensure that clause 4.12 is consistent with this approach it is recommended that it is amended in accordance with submission 3521/46. 

Planner's recommendations for submissions about clause 4.12 That submission 3061/39 is rejected. That submission 3521/46 is accepted. That clause 4.12 be amended accordingly: 4.12 Pest control The following are permitted activities in all land units and settlement areas: 1. The eradication, control or management of any plant and animal pests listed in appendix 14 - Plant and animal pests species is a permitted activity in all land units and settlement areas. 2. The eradication, control or management of any animal pest species.

 5.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding part 4 - general rules and appendix 14 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 part 4 and appendix 14 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

Appendix 1

List of submissions and further submissions (155kb PDF)

Appendix 2

Summary of submissions (88kb PDF)

Appendix 3

Amendments to the Plan (a) (40kb PDF)
Amendments to the Plan (b) (124kb PDF)
Amendments to the Plan (c) (124kb PDF)