Plans, policies and reports

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

District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

(Notified version 2006)

Hearing reports index

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

Topic:	Part 7 – Heritage (Ecological sites) and Appendix 6 – List of threatened and unusual plant and animal species
Report to:	The Hearing Panel
Author:	Sarah Smith
Date:	1 September 2008
Group file:	314/274010-004

1.0 Introduction

For ease of use and understanding, the heritage submissions and further submissions have been divided into the seven themes which relate to different heritage disciplines:

archaeological sites
buildings, objects, properties and places of special value
conservation areas
ecological sites
geological sites
Maori heritage
trees.

Each heritage theme has been addressed in a separate hearing report. Each hearing report addresses all matters within the Plan that relate to that discipline. For example, this report addresses submissions relating to ecological sites in:

part 7 – Heritage
appendix 1d – Schedule of sites of ecological significance – inner islands
appendix 2g – Schedule of sites of ecological significance and sensitive areas – outer islands
appendix 4 – Criteria for scheduling heritage items.

There are submissions that relate to more than one discipline; these have been addressed in the general heritage hearing report.

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

This report has been prepared under section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 ('the RMA'), to assist the hearings panel to consider the submissions on ecological sites. This report discusses the submissions (grouped by subject matter or individually) and includes recommendations from the planner who prepared this report. The recommendations identify whether each submission should be accepted or rejected (in full or in part) and what amendments (if any) should be made to the Plan to address matters raised in submissions. Further submissions are not specifically addressed but are dealt with in conjunction with the submissions to which they relate.

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

2.0 Statutory framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:

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

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

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

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

3.0 Background

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

The islands contain a number of important and distinctive natural features of ecological significance. These are described in the Plan as sites of ecological significance and sensitive areas. Sensitive areas only apply to the outer islands, but sites of ecological significance apply to both the inner and outer islands. The extent and variety of these sites of ecological significance and sensitive areas need to be conserved and their qualities maintained. The Plan recognises the value of these sites by identifying and scheduling them.

In determining whether sites with ecological values are worthy of protection they have been evaluated against the criteria listed in appendix 4 – Criteria for scheduling heritage items.

There are no permitted activities within a site of ecological significance or sensitive area. On sites where the site of ecological significance or sensitive area dominants the sites the clearance of modification of vegetation to provide a building platform, effluent disposal system and accessway is a restricted discretionary activity. Otherwise, any proposal to cut, damage, alter or destroy the indigenous vegetation is a discretionary activity.

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

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

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

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

4.2 Submissions about general issues

Submissions dealt with in this section: 111/2, 558/2, 558/3, 629/2, 1028/2, 1051/3, 1313/2, 1347/2, 1413/2, 1450/2, 1478/2, 1494/2, 1504/2, 1516/2, 1557/2, 1585/2, 1892/2, 1964/2, 2004/2, 2169/2, 2181/2, 2213/2, 2219/2, 2254/2, 2277/2, 2366/2, 2374/2, 2420/2, 2447/2, 2494/2, 2912/6, 3061/164, 3645/2, 3672/2, 3735/2, 3761/2

4.2.1 Decisions requested

These submissions in general raise the following issues:

allowing more flexible and realistic use of private land
limiting the criteria to which council can schedule sites
include the operative plan's wording or revise clause 7.11
traffic on existing accessway
effective integration
support for clause 7.11.

4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.2.2.1 Flexible and realistic rules

Submission 111/2 seeks for the rules to be modified to allow a more flexible and realistic use of these privately owned lands. Submissions 558/2 and 558/3 seek to amend clause 7.11.4.1 and 7.11.4.2 respectively to ensure that the activities recognise the practical aspects of protection, managing and restoring scheduled sites.

It is agreed that clause 7.11.4 – Rules for ecologically significant sites needs to be amended to allow for the practical use of land. The rules, as notified, require a resource consent for all activities within an SES that will alter the vegetation in some way. It is considered that these provisions are overly restrictive as they do not allow for any works to be undertaken as of right. It is also appropriate for the rules to recognise a balance between protecting and providing for the wellbeing of landowners.

It is therefore recommended that submissions 111/2, 558/2 and 558/3 be accepted and clause 7.11.4 be amended to provide for some activities as of right. These suggested amendments can be found in appendix 3 of this report.

4.2.2.2 Limiting the council's ability to schedule

Submissions 629/2, 1313/2, 1347/2, 1413/2, 1450/2, 1478/2, 1494/2, 1504/2, 1516/2, 1557/2, 1585/2, 1892/2, 1964/2, 2169/2, 2181/2, 2213/2, 2219/2, 2254/2, 2277/2, 2366/2, 2374/2, 2420/2, 2447/2, 2494/2, 3645/2, 3672/2, 3735/2 and 3761/2 seek that council's ability to list ecological sites is limited to those representing the 'most significant' examples. The submitters' concern is that the criteria are far too broad and that minimal application of it would mean that every property on the island could be subject to being scheduled as an ecological site.

Appendix 4 of the Plan outlines the criteria for scheduling heritage items. For sites of ecological significance, to determine whether particular areas are worthy of recognition and protection in the Plan they are evaluated against a variety of criteria. These range from the diversity of species; the rarity of the ecosystem; the naturalness of the area etc. If one or some of the criteria are satisfied, it does not necessarily mean the area is automatically scheduled in the Plan. Areas are recommended for scheduling based on the opinion of an experienced and qualified ecologist and an assessment against the relevant criteria.

It is not considered appropriate to limit the council to only schedule those ecological areas that are the most significant example for a number of reasons including:

A site of ecological significance may not be the most significant example but it may be the habitat for threatened species.
Sites of ecological significance contribute hugely to the natural character of the island.
Sites of ecological significance help protect networks of green corridors which are important in providing movement to indigenous species.
The RMA does not stipulate that the council should only schedule the most significant examples.

It is therefore considered that the council should not be limited to only scheduling the most significant examples of ecological sites and it is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

4.2.2.3 Operative plan wording

Submissions 1028/2 and 1051/3 state that the wording of the operative plan with regard to sites of ecological significance is more balanced and appropriate and it should be included or clause 7.11 should be revised.

The submissions state that the purpose of the RMA is to achieve a balance between the protection of natural resources and the needs of the community and that this balance has been lost in this instance. The submission further states that clauses from the operative plan are more reasonable and balanced.

The operative Plan requires resource consent for the modification or destruction of SES's but has exceptions to the rule when a site is wholly contained within a SES, or when there is less than 1,000m2 of land available for land use activities. The proposed Plan requires either restricted discretionary or discretionary activity consent for the modification or destruction of a SES. As noted above, it is considered that the proposed Plan provisions can be improved to provide for a range of "routine maintenance" type activities 'as of right'. It is considered that the suggested revised provisions are preferable to those in both the operative and proposed Plan.

The submitter's concern with provisions resulting in most activities as being discretionary such as gardening and weed grubbing is supported. This is not the council's intention. It is intended that small scale activities such as gardening and maintenance of existing accessways be permitted activities. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be accepted in part in so far as they support the amendments recommended above.

4.2.2.4 38 Medland Road

Submission 2004/2 seeks for clause 7.11 to be amended to allow for an increase in traffic on the existing access way at 38 Medland Road.

Submission 2004 is concerned about the effect of SES 57-1 on their shared accessway. They seek for the SES to be removed from the accessway OR for clause 7.11 to be amended as stated above. Due to the recommendation to accept submission 2004/1 and remove the SES from the accessway it is recommended that submission 2004/2 be rejected.

Notwithstanding this, the Plan does not restrict the number of vehicles that can use an accessway and therefore there is no need for clause 7.11 to be amended. However, if the accessway needed to increase in size and this resulted in the need to remove vegetation then a consent would be required. However, as noted above it has been recommended to remove this SES from the accessway.

4.2.2.5 Support

Submission 2912/6 seeks to retain clause 7.11. As some changes are recommended to clause 7.11 it is recommended that this submission be accepted in part.

Submission 3061/164 states that clause 7.11 is generally supported, as it is recognised that SES's make up an important part of the islands unique character. There is a need to ensure these provisions are effectively integrated with related areas such as catchments and wetlands, especially in terms of protection and management.

The ecology of the HGI is protected through a variety of techniques. At a broad level this includes the identification of particular landform land units that apply specific controls to dune and wetland systems, forest and bush areas etc. Inherent within these landforms is recognition of the ecological features. Sites of ecological significance and sensitive areas have also been identified which overlay the land unit controls. General tree protection rules also protect trees above a particular height and girth and there are other development controls that help protect ecological values. Therefore, it is considered there are sufficient controls within the Plan to provide for the protection and management of the natural environment in its totality. It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted with no amendments.

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to general issues

That submission 3061/164 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

That submission 2912/6 is accepted in part with no amendments to the Plan.

That submissions 629/2, 1313/2, 1347/2, 1413/2, 1450/2, 1478/2, 1494/2, 1504/2, 1516/2, 1557/2, 1585/2, 1892/2, 1964/2, 2004/2, 2169/2, 2181/2, 2213/2, 2219/2, 2254/2, 2277/2, 2366/2, 2374/2, 2420/2, 2447/2, 2494/2, 3645/2, 3672/2, 3735/2 and 3761/2 be rejected.

That submissions 1028/2 and 1051/3 be accepted in part and submissions 111/2, 558/2 and 558/3 be accepted and clause 7.11.4 be amended to include the following as permitted activities and to change the discretionary activities to a restricted discretionary status:

The following are permitted activities:

The maintenance and removal of vegetation:
- 1m either side of lawfully existing accessways.
- 1m either side of existing fencelines.
- 2m around each side of lawfully existing buildings.
The removal of exotic trees and vegetation.
Eradication, control or management of plant pests listed in appendix 14 – Plant pest species.
The regular minor trimming or the maintenance of any tree undertaken by hand operated secateurs or pruning shears, in accordance with accepted arboricultural practice.
Restoration plantings and their management, using ecosourced plants where available and placed according to accepted ecological practice. Plantings must be in parts of the scheduled ecological area where there is sufficient capacity and must not endanger, damage, destroy or detract from the values for which the area has been scheduled.
Other minor works, including the routine maintenance and repair of existing lawns, gardens, accessways, roads, structures and signage, that would not endanger, damage, destroy or detract from the values for which the area has been scheduled.

4.3 Submissions about an ecological survey

Submissions dealt with in this section: 315/2, 949/1, 1028/1, 1051/1, 1349/4, 1382/4, 1419/4, 1446/4, 1477/4, 1497/4, 1500/4, 1503/2, 1506/4, 1510/2, 1555/4, 1934/4, 1965/4, 1969/4, 1985/4, 2147/4, 2163/4, 2171/4, 2176/4, 2198/4, 2208/4, 2257/4, 2275/4, 2314/4, 2342/4, 2349/4, 2361/4, 2406/4, 2416/4, 2422/4, 2473/4, 3521/56, 3521/162, 3640/4, 3684/4, 3688/2, 3756/4, 3763/4

4.3.1 Decisions requested

These submissions raise the following issues:

identifying vital ecological values which need protection
for the council to commit to an ecological survey of Great Barrier to be undertaken in consultation with the Community Board and landowners
carryout extensive ecological survey
exclude existing cleared areas, roads, gardens, house sites
further investigative work so that the true extent of SES's is checked
review the ecological values of all dune systems on Great Barrier and ensure there are mechanisms for protection and restoration

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.3.2.1 Ecological survey/review

Submission 315/2 seeks for the Plan to examine specific localities and identify the vital ecological values which need protection.

The Plan does identify the significant ecological values on the islands and provides them with protection through scheduling them. Further restrictions, through clause 7.11, are placed on land that is located within a site of ecological significance or sensitive area to ensure that activities do not damage the inherent values for which these significant areas have been scheduled for. It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted as the Plan currently identifies significant ecological areas and provides protection.

Submissions 1349/4, 1382/4, 1419/4, 1446/4, 1477/4, 1497/4, 1500/4, 1506/4, 1555/4, 1934/4, 1965/4, 1969/4, 1985/4, 2147/4, 2163/4, 2171/4, 2176/4, 2198/4, 2208/4, 2257/4, 2275/4, 2314/4, 2342/4, 2349/4, 2361/4, 2406/4, 2416/4, 2422/4, 2473/4, 3640/4, 3684/4, 3756/4 and 3763/4 seek for the council to commit to an ecological survey of Great Barrier Island in 2007 to be undertaken in consultation with Great Barrier Community Board, residents and landowners. Submission 949/1 seeks for the council to review sites of ecological significance consulting with the owners of the land and surveying for accuracy. Submissions 1503/2, 1510/2 and 3688/2 seek for the council to undertake a careful site survey in consultation with affected landowners and with their full cooperation to assess and identify exactly what feature it wishes to protect.

The sites of ecological significance and sensitive areas for the outer islands were 'rolled over' from the operative Plan. Post notification of the Plan, and in response to submissions, ecologists did reassess a number of sites on Great Barrier. The process for this was to contact property owners that had submitted on the Plan about a particular SES or SA and if permission was granted by the property owner, visit the site and assess its ecological values. If permission to enter the property was not granted by the property owner then where possible it would be assessed from an adjacent property or public land. While some modifications were recommended to the boundaries of the ecologically significant sites all of the sites that were visited were considered to have ecological significance. In terms of the accuracy of the information it is acknowledged that as the ecology for Great Barrier was not reassessed for the proposed Plan using modern GPS techniques, the information is unlikely to be as accurate as that for, say, Waiheke. As outlined in clause 7.4.4 it was not possible to identify and assess the entire heritage for the gulf islands at the time of notification. As such, it is anticipated that further work does need to be undertaken on a range of heritage matters such as ecology. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are accepted in part as further site surveys and ecological assessments of specific sites were undertaken.

Submissions 1028/1 and 1051/1 seek for the council to carryout an extensive ecological survey to justify the significance of special sites and to exactly delineate the extent of the designations before imposing a restrictive designation on privately owned land. Existing cleared areas, roads, gardens, house sites and woodlots should be excluded.

As noted above and in clause 7.4.4 of the Plan at the time of notification of the Plan it was not possible to identify and assess the heritage items for all the islands. The extent of the sites of ecological significance is shown on the planning maps and in the case for sites of ecological significance on Waiheke in appendix 1d. It is not considered appropriate to show the extent of the sites of ecological significance and sensitive areas for Great Barrier in appendix 2d due to their large extent and the scale of the diagrams. The planning maps for the outer islands show with reasonable clarity the location of the SES's and SA's.

It is not considered practical to exclude small areas that do not have significant ecological values such as roads and house sites due to the scale of the maps. It is however noted that in section 4.2.2.1 of this report it is recommended to permit a certain level of vegetation removal for maintenance around existing dwellings, along fence lines and driveways within SES's and SA's.

It is therefore recommended that these submissions be accepted in part.

4.3.2.2 True extent of SES's

Submission 3521/56 seeks for the council to undertake further investigative work so that the true extent of SES's are checked and verified. They also note that the extent of a number of sites of ecological significance on Waiheke extend beyond the SES boundaries into bush residential zoning. An example of this is the Kuakarau Bay SES 11, where the forest continues beyond the marked SES.

Ecological surveys were undertaken for the majority of the inner gulf islands and a number of areas were identified, assessed and scheduled as sites of ecological significance. However, not all bush areas in the gulf islands necessarily meet the criteria for protection in the Plan and as such have not been scheduled. Notwithstanding this, it should be noted that the ecology of the Hauraki Gulf islands is protected through a variety of techniques. At a broad level this includes the identification of particular landform land units that apply specific controls to dune and wetland systems, forest and bush areas etc. Inherent within these landforms is recognition of the ecological features. Sites of ecological significance and sensitive areas overlay the land unit controls. General tree protection rules also protect trees above a particular height and girth and there are other development controls that help protect ecological values. However, it should also be noted that the use, development and protection of the Hauraki Gulf island's natural resources need to be managed at a way or rate so that people and communities can provide for their social, cultural and economic wellbeing. Therefore, it is considered important to find an appropriate balance to ensure that sustainable management is promoted. As noted in clause 7.4.4 of the Plan some of the islands were not re-assessed for their ecological value and a plan change or variation may be required to update this information. However, it is not intended to reassess those inner gulf islands that have already being subject to ecological surveys. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.3.2.3 Review

Submission 3521/162 seeks for the council to review the ecological values of all dune systems on Great Barrier (with specific reference to Okupu, Palmers and Overtons Beach). Ensure that mechanisms for protection and restoration are developed and included in the Plan, this may include the closing of unformed road at Palmers Beach.

These areas generally have a dune system landform applied to them which inherently recognises their ecological importance and applies suitably restrictive provisions. Therefore, while it is acknowledged that the ecological values of these areas may need re-assessing, their ecological importance is recognised in the application of that land unit. In relation to unformed legal roads council has a road legalisation process in place for Great Barrier. However, this process is extremely time consuming, complicated and costly. It is also a process that is undertaken outside the scope of a Plan review.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking an ecological survey

That submissions 949/1, 1349/4, 1382/4, 1419/4, 1446/4, 1477/4, 1497/4, 1500/4, 1503/2, 1506/4, 1510/2, 1555/4, 1934/4, 1965/4, 1969/4, 1985/4, 2147/4, 2163/4, 2171/4, 2176/4, 2198/4, 2208/4, 2257/4, 2275/4, 2314/4, 2342/4, 2349/4, 2361/4, 2406/4, 2416/4, 2422/4, 2473/4, 3640/4, 3684/4, 3688/2, 3756/4 and 3763/4 be accepted in part with no amendments to the Plan.

That submissions 3521/56 and 3521/162 be rejected.

That submission 315/2 be accepted and submissions 1028/1 and 1051/1 be accepted in part with no amendments to the Plan.

4.4 Submissions about compensation

Submissions dealt with in this section: 794/2, 3695/3

4.4.1 Decisions requested

Submission 794/2 seeks significant rates relief as compensations as the council has now declared some two-thirds of our property at 218 Te Whau Drive as a SES (SES 23) which severely restricts the land use and development opportunities now available to us.

Submission 3695/3 seeks for the council to mitigate the highly inequitable effects of some of the council's designations (specifically for heritage sites in southern Great Barrier) which result in some landowners being much more heavily penalised than others in the promotion of the council's policies. The financial burdens of the council's policies should be much more equitably distributed among Great Barrier residents, landowners and visitors.

4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

In relation to SES 23 on Te Whau peninsula it is noted that Waiheke was reassessed for its ecological values as part of the Plan review process. So while the aerial photo that is used for the SES may be outdated the information used to protect the area is suitably current. In terms of compensation for this particular site it is noted that a similar sized SES to that in the proposed Plan was included in the operative Plan. Therefore, the restrictiveness of land use and development opportunities is similar now to what it has been for the last 10 plus years.

Notwithstanding that, it is considered that council is meeting its statutory obligations by providing protection through the Plan to ecologically significant areas. However, in doing so council is mindful of the need to balance this requirement against the need for people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing. In seeking to achieve this some modifications are recommended to the rules for SES's that reduce the overall activity status from discretionary to restricted discretionary and enable some works to occur.

In terms of rates relief and compensation these are issues that are outside the Plan review process. It is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking compensation

That submissions 794/2 and 3695/3 be rejected.

4.5 Submissions about criteria

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3695/1

4.5.1 Decisions requested

Submission 3695/1 seeks for the Plan to give consistent and objective criteria for the selection of heritage sites (specifically for southern Great Barrier).

4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The criterion for scheduling heritage sites is in appendix 4. This criteria is used to assess all heritage sites and is therefore consistent. The criteria is objective to the point that the assessment is carried out by an experienced specialist in the appropriate field. It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to criteria

That submission 3695/1 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

4.6 Submissions about clause 7.11.1

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1316/1, 1424/1, 1449/1, 1462/1, 1466/1, 1469/1, 1566/1, 1963/1, 1977/1, 1986/1, 1991/1, 2143/1, 2159/1, 2241/1, 2276/1, 2315/1, 2405/1, 2424/1, 2427/1, 2443/1, 2456/1, 2863/1, 3421/1, 3742/1, 3765/1

4.6.1 Decisions requested

These submissions seek for clause 7.11.1 to be amended to state:

How to ensure that ecologically significant sites, which have been depleted by a variety of land uses, will be adequately protected by the Plan.
How to ensure the landowners and residents are adequately consulted in the process of identifying and protecting sensitive sites.
How to balance the need to protect sensitive sites while recognising the rights of owners to enjoy their properties and maintain their economic, social and cultural rights in respect of the properties.

4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The issues are statements about existing or potential problems in the islands that must be resolved to achieve sustainable management. The issues statements in the Plan apply the RMA to the specific circumstances of the islands.

The first proposed issue relates to consultation with the landowners in identifying and protecting sensitive sites. The task of identifying sensitive areas is given to an experienced ecologist and scheduling is determined based on an assessment of ecological significance.

Landowners had the opportunity to be involved in consultation during the drafting of the proposed Plan in 2005, and through notification of the Plan there has, and is, the opportunity for further public participation through the formal submission, hearing and appeal process. The council is encouraging those people who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the matter to present their views at the hearings. It is also noted that issue documents were prepared for Great Barrier to launch the consultation process followed by workshops and thus it is considered that sufficient consultation was undertaken.

The second proposed issue relates to a balance between protecting significant vegetation and recognising the need for land to be used for living. This is considered to be an important issue of balancing the restrictions imposed by the Plan and the needs of the community. In section 4.10 of this report it is acknowledged that further work is needed to ensure that consideration is given to the needs of the community. It is recommended that a new issue be included acknowledging the effect of scheduling on the community, however the wording for this issue will not be completed until further work has been undertaken by council officers.

It is therefore recommended that these submissions be accepted in part.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to clause 7.11.1

That submissions 1316/1, 1424/1, 1449/1, 1462/1, 1466/1, 1469/1, 1566/1, 1963/1, 1977/1, 1986/1, 1991/1, 2143/1, 2159/1, 2241/1, 2276/1, 2315/1, 2405/1, 2424/1, 2427/1, 2443/1, 2456/1, 2863/1, 3421/1, 3742/1, 3765/1 be accepted in part.

4.7 Submissions about clause 7.11.2

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3521/54, 3521/68

4.7.1 Decisions requested

Submission 3521/54 seeks to retain clause 7.11.2(1) and retain sites of ecological significance.

Submission 3521/68 seek to amend clause 7.11.2(4) to read "... by maintaining or enhancing populations of threatened or protected species and threatened ecosystems such as wetlands and dunefields."

4.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.7.2.1 Support

It is recommended that submission 3521/54 be accepted as it seeks to retain policy 1 which sets out the actions the council will undertake to achieve the objective to protect significant ecological sites. It also seeks to retain sites of ecological significance; this is supported as it is a matter of national importance under the RMA to protect areas of significant indigenous vegetation.

4.7.2.2 Clause 7.11.2(4)

Clause 7.11.2(4) states:

By avoiding the loss of threatened or protected species within sites of ecological significance and sensitive areas.

The submitter wishes to expand the clause to read: "... by maintaining or enhancing populations of threatened or protected species and threatened ecosystems such as wetlands and dunefields." It is unclear as to whether the submitter is seeking for this wording to replace policy 4 or to be included at the end of the policy.

Policy 4 is a broad action from the council to achieve the protection of sites of ecological significance and sensitive areas. The suggested amendment is not considered appropriate as it relates to a broader level of protection that would extend beyond those areas that are defined as being ecologically significant sites. Therefore the proposed wording is considered unnecessary and it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to clause 7.11.2

That submission 3521/54 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

That submission 3521/68 be rejected.

4.8 Submissions about clause 7.11.3

Submissions dealt with in this section: 558/1

4.8.1 Decisions requested

Submission 558/1 seeks to amend clause 7.11.3 to ensure that only sites of actual significance are included.

4.8.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The submitter states that sites of ecological significance include areas of significance as well as driveways and other areas that are not significant.

Due to the scale of the maps it is not considered practical to exclude small areas such as driveways from the SES's. Therefore it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

However, it is noted that it has been recommended in this report to include permitted activities such as the maintenance of accessways so that the restrictions do not negatively affect the areas within the SES which are not significant.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to clause 7.11.3

That submission 558/1 be rejected.

4.9 Submissions about clause 7.11.4

Submissions dealt with in this section: 941/41, 1106/1, 1106/2, 1243/59, 1301/1, 1308/1, 1412/1, 1481/1, 1508/1, 1577/1, 1927/1, 1958/1, 1972/1, 1984/1, 2114/1, 2145/1, 2155/1, 2170/1, 2247/1, 2274/1, 2322/1, 2346/1, 2372/1, 2378/1, 2390/1, 2401/1, 2411/1, 2439/1, 2452/1, 2453/1, 2454/1, 2459/1, 2460/1, 2464/1, 2470/1, 2475/1, 2855/1, 3033/1, 3104/3, 3521/67, 3551/1, 3551/2, 3551/3, 3551/4, 3551/5, 3551/6, 3641/1, 3687/1, 3695/5, 3741/1, 3766/1, 3800/1, 3846/1

4.9.1 Decisions requested

These submissions relating to clause 7.11.4 in general relate to the following issues:

rules to work that is authorised by regulations or statutes
grazing of animals
complying with the Act
opposition to the clause entirely
support for the clause
allowing various activities to occur as permitted.

4.9.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.9.2.1 New activity

Submission 941/41 seeks for a new rule to be included in clause 7.11.4 to provide for the actions of any person in carrying out work which is authorised by statute or regulations as a permitted activity.

Adding this activity would allow companies and government agencies to undertake work without a resource consent or involvement of the council in assessing the potential effects on the significant ecological site. Such acts as the Electricity Act 1992 may authorise a registered electrician to do work which is authorised by statute. Given the ecological importance of the gulf islands, providing for network utility operators to undertake works as a permitted activity may result in an unacceptable level of effects on the scheduled item. As such, it is not considered appropriate to permit work on a scheduled geological item as a permitted activity. It is also noted that section 330 of the RMA provides for emergency works and power to take preventive and remedial action. Therefore, in emergency situations network utility operators can undertake works without having to comply with the relevant section of the RMA, such as section 9 restriction on use of land. It is therefore recommend that submission 941/41 be rejected.

4.9.2.2 Requirement outlined by part 3 section 9 (4) (c) of the RMA

Submission 1106/2 seeks that the requirement outlined by Part III 9(4) (c) of the RMA be adequately complied with, particularly in relation to the grazing of cattle on legal roads adjoining unfenced sensitive areas, specifically SES 57-3 and 60-1. It is noted that the council does have objectives, policies and rules for SES and SAs which, as notified, require consent for works within a SA. While modifications are recommended to these provisions it is considered that these amendments effectively outline the land use requirements in terms of s9 of the RMA. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.9.2.3 Grazing

Grazing - for

Submission 1243/59 seeks for the Plan to provide for grazing to take place as a permitted activity on ecologically significant sites in rural locations that are in private ownership and that are farmed. It is noted that farmers may have existing use rights to continue grazing on land that has been scheduled as a site of ecological significance. Notwithstanding this, grazing within a site of ecological significance would only require a resource consent if it will result in modification, damage or destruction to any indigenous vegetation or if the underlying land unit requires consent for grazing. It is not considered necessary to specifically provide for grazing as a permitted activity as this is the purpose of the land units. It is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Grazing – against

Submission 1106/1 seeks for the grazing of cattle on legal roads adjoining unfenced sensitive areas particularly sites of ecological significance 57-3 and 60-1, be either prohibited entirely, or be effectively controlled so that damage to the sensitive areas does not continue to occur.

It is considered inappropriate to make the activity of grazing cattle on legal roads adjoining unfenced sensitive areas a prohibited activity. A prohibited activity status can only be used for activities were there are no circumstances were such an activity would be appropriate. Prohibited activities must be backed with strong evidence of its necessity and that it would never be appropriate. It is not considered that the council could provide such justification for this activity status as the land in which the grazing occurs on is not within a sensitive area and the council is not trying to achieve the protection of legal roads from grazing. It is also noted that as sensitive areas are largely on private land, the council has no authority to fence these areas from livestock. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 3695/5 seeks for the Plan to provide practically enforceable means whereby damage to sensitive and heritage areas by grazing cattle is prevented. As there are controls in the Plan that require a consent for damage to vegetation in sensitive areas it is considered that the Plan already has practically enforceable rules to control damage to sensitive areas. It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

4.9.2.4 Opposition and support to clause 7.11.4

Opposition to clause

Submission 3104/3 opposes clause 7.11.4. The council has a legal requirement under section 6 of the RMA to protect areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna as a matter of national importance. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submissions 1301/1, 1308/1, 1412/1, 1481/1, 1508/1, 1577/1, 1927/1, 1958/1, 1972/1, 1984/1, 2114/1, 2145/1, 2155/1, 2170/1, 2247/1, 2274/1, 2322/1, 2346/1, 2372/1, 2378/1, 2390/1, 2401/1, 2411/1, 2439/1, 2452/1, 2453/1, 2454/1, 2459/1, 2460/1, 2464/1, 2470/1, 2475/1, 2855/1, 3033/1, 3641/1, 3687/1, 3741/1, 3766/1 and 3800/1 seek for the removal of clause 7.11.4.2 (1).

Clause 7.11.4.2(1) states that the following is a discretionary activity:

"Any proposal to cut, damage, alter or destroy any indigenous plant (including its roots) within a scheduled site of ecological significance or sensitive area."

The submissions state that this clause severely limits any activity which residents and landowners can undertake without requiring a consent and deprives them of enjoying their properties. It has been acknowledged above that the vegetation clearance for some activities such as maintaining lawfully existing activities needs to be permitted. This then provides for more activities to occur within sites of ecological significance without requiring a consent. It is also recommended that the activity status be changed to restricted discretionary activity for those works and activities that do not comply with the permitted activity standard.

It is inappropriate to remove this clause therefore it is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Support for clause

Submission 3521/67 seeks to retain the rules for ecologically significant sites under clause 7.11.4. It is recommended that this submission be accepted in so far as it supports the amendments recommended above in section 4.2.2.1 of this report.

4.9.2.5 Maintenance and existing activities

Submission 3551/1 states the need to be able to maintain the existing buildings/bach on the Noises (map ref 32-1) used by the family and also weed control contractors and research scientists. This requires regular repairs and maintenance and seeks amendments to relevant provisions to allow the bach to be rebuilt if it is ever destroyed by fire or vandalism.

Submission 3551/4 and 3551/5 seek for the Plan to allow for:

for the need to maintain existing access pathways/tracks on the Noises which requires annual trimming of trees and shrubs
for the need to keep the bush trimmed around the existing dwelling/buildings

In section 4.2.2.1 of this report it has been recommended that clause 7.11.4 be amended to give the following activities among others a permitted activity status:

The clearance of vegetation for the maintenance of lawfully established existing dwellings and accessways.
The eradication, control or management of plant pests listed in appendix 14.

Therefore the submitter can undertake maintenance of existing buildings and accessways, and eradication of plant pests as of right.

However, submission 3551/1 also seeks for the bach to be rebuilt if it was burnt down in a fire. A proposal to rebuild the bach would have to comply with the land unit rules and in this case – land unit Conservation. In this land unit, the construction of a building is a restricted discretionary activity and therefore consent would be required. If the building platform exists and no vegetation needs to be modified or cleared then there would be no further restrictions relating to the site of ecological significance.

It is also noted that sections 10 and 10b of the RMA also provide for the ability to rebuild to the same footprint, bulk and location.

It is therefore recommended that this submission 3551/1 be accepted in part and submissions 3551/4 and 3551/5 be accepted based on the above recommendation in section 4.2.2.1 of this report.

Submissions 3551/2, 3551/3 and 3551/6 seek for the Plan to allow:

the possibility of extending the bach/larger building or second small building as the family groups
existing long drop toilet to be used 3-4 weeks per year
for the existing outdoor fireplace used for heating water and cooking.

Extending bach or second building

An extension to the existing bach or construction of a new building would have to comply with the land unit rules and therefore would require a resource consent under land unit Conservation. Further, a consent would be required if vegetation had to be modified or cleared to provide for a building platform. Therefore there is an opportunity to extend the building but it will require a consent. It is recommended that this submission be accepted in part.

Using existing long drop toilet and outdoor fireplace

As the toilet and fireplace are existing and no vegetation will be cleared to use these items, no resource consent will be required by part 7.11.4 of the Plan. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be accepted in part. It is noted that wastewater is regulated by the Auckland Regional Council.

4.9.2.6 Vegetation clearance

Submission 3846/1 seeks for all vegetation clearance to be a restricted discretionary activity with respect to clause 7.11.4. The suggested amendments to clause 7.11.4 also recommend changes to the rules to permit some activities to occur 'as of right' as well as changing the overall activity status to restricted discretionary. The rationale for this is that council's discretion can be adequately restricted to ecological issues, and it is not necessary to broaden the range of issues considered which may occur through a full discretionary activity.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted.

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to clause 7.11.4

That submissions 941/41, 1106/1, 1106/2, 1243/59, 1301/1, 1308/1, 1412/1, 1481/1, 1508/1, 1577/1, 1927/1, 1958/1, 1972/1, 1984/1, 2114/1, 2145/1, 2155/1, 2170/1, 2247/1, 2274/1, 2322/1, 2346/1, 2372/1, 2378/1, 2390/1, 2401/1, 2411/1, 2439/1, 2452/1, 2453/1, 2454/1, 2459/1, 2460/1, 2464/1, 2470/1, 2475/1, 2855/1, 3033/1, 3104/3, 3641/1, 3687/1, 3741/1, 3766/1, 3800/1 and be rejected.

That submission 3695/5 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

That submissions 3551/2, 3551/3 and 3551/6 be accepted in part with no amendments to the Plan.

That submission 3551/1 be accepted in part and submissions 3521/67, 3551/4, 3551/5 and 3846/1 be accepted with the amendments set out in section 4.2.2.1 of this report.

4.10 Submissions about clause 7.11.5

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1300/1, 1421/1, 1458/1, 1472/1, 1513/1, 1534/1, 1901/1, 1902/1, 1983/1, 2253/1, 2265/1, 2348/1, 2448/1, 2486/1, 2532/1, 3642/1, 3683/1, 3767/1, 3739/1

4.10.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 1300/1, 1421/1, 1458/1, 1472/1, 1513/1, 1534/1, 1901/1, 1902/1, 1983/1, 2253/1, 2265/1, 2348/1, 2448/1, 2486/1, 3642/1, 3683/1, 3767/1 and 3739/1 seek for the following bullet points to be added in clause 7.11.5:

The extent to which any development or modification of a site may act to support the recovery of the environment including, but not limited to:
- Pest control
- Stock and access control
- Compensatory planting
- Establishment and development of seed banks/reserves
- Introduction of rare and endangered species (flora and fauna)
The extent to which any development or modification of a site may enhance the economic potential of the site, the economic well-being of the residents and landowners, and economic development of the island.
Whether the proposed activity reflects established or historic patterns of land use for the island.
Whether the activity promotes the economic, social and cultural enjoyment of the property in a sustainable way.
Whether the proposed activity will significantly change the character of the wider ecological area in which the site is located.

Submission 2532/1 seeks to add the following assessment criteria:

Pest control
Stock and access control
Compensatory planting
Establishment and development of seed banks
Introduction of rare and endangered flora and fauna.

4.10.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

As it has been recommended to change the activity status from discretionary to restricted discretionary for activities other than those that are permitted, it is appropriate to include additional matters of discretion to consider a wider range of issues.

The matters of discretion require refinement to include matters relating to the significance of the particular area where proposed works is located and to consider the positive effects on the ecological resource. It is also considered that some consideration needs to be given to the positive effects of the development on the community.

Therefore it is recommended that these submissions be accepted in part in so far as they support a rewrite of the matters of discretion. Some new matters of discretion have been included in the amendments to Part 7 to provide an indication of the new direction the council is heading with regards to assessing proposals within sites of ecological significance and sensitive areas.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to clause 7.11.5

That submissions 1300/1, 1421/1, 1458/1, 1472/1, 1513/1, 1534/1, 1901/1, 1902/1, 1983/1, 2253/1, 2265/1, 2348/1, 2448/1, 2486/1, 2532/1, 3642/1, 3683/1, 3767/1 and 3739/1 be accepted in part and clause 7.11.5 be amended to include the following new matters:

Whether the proposed activity results in better stewardship of the ecological resource.
The ecological significance of the particular area the works or activity are proposed to be undertaken within.

4.11 Submissions about specific sites on Great Barrier

Submissions dealt with in this section: 17/1, 34/1, 111/1, 249/1, 266/2, 430/1, 451/1, 451/2, 476/1, 476/2, 1051/2, 1251/1, 1252/2, 1284/7, 1309/1, 1309/2, 1309/5, 1354/1, 1363/1, 1363/2, 1363/5, 1428/1, 1430/1, 1439/1, 1445/1, 1445/2, 1445/3, 1473/1, 1482/1, 1487/1, 1487/2, 1496/1, 1496/2, 1496/5, 1502/1, 1502/2, 1502/5, 1503/1, 1509/1, 1509/2, 1509/5, 1510/1, 1527/1, 1527/2, 1553/1, 1595/1, 1595/2, 1890/1, 1890/2, 1890/5, 1899/1, 1899/2, 1899/5, 1930/1, 1954/1, 1954/2, 1954/5, 1966/1, 2004/1, 2006/2, 2009/1, 2073/1, 2073/2, 2104/3, 2104/5, 2157/1, 2167/1, 2167/2, 2167/5, 2188/1, 2188/2, 2188/5, 2228/1, 2235/1, 2235/2, 2235/3, 2248/1, 2249/2, 2249/3, 2249/6, 2266/1, 2266/2, 2266/5, 2272/1, 2312/1, 2312/2, 2312/5, 2350/1, 2350/2, 2350/5, 2353/1, 2354/1, 2354/2, 2354/5, 2396/3, 2397/3, 2398/3, 2507/1, 2513/1, 2518/4, 2518/5, 2518/6, 2518/7, 2518/8, 2518/9, 2518/10, 2518/11, 2518/12, 2518/13, 2518/14, 2518/15, 2518/16, 2518/17, 2518/18, 2518/19, 2518/20, 2518/21, 2518/22, 2518/23, 2518/24, 2518/25, 2518/26, 2518/27, 2518/28, 2518/29, 2542/1, 2543/1, 2716/1, 2728/3, 2729/1, 2730/1, 2858/1, 2865/1, 2865/2, 2865/3, 2871/1, 2876/1, 3001/1, 3035/1, 3052/3, 3090/1, 3090/2, 3104/1, 3104/7, 3134/1, 3139/1, 3154/1, 3156/2, 3156/1, 3156/3, 3157/1, 3298/1, 3630/1, 3632/1, 3632/2, 3632/5, 3670/1, 3670/2, 3670/5, 3680/1, 3688/1, 3688/2, 3690/1, 3690/2, 3690/5, 3714/1, 3733/1, 3734/1, 3734/2, 3734/5, 3740/1, 3759/1, 3759/2, 3759/5, 3764/1, 3797/1, 3797/2, 3797/5, 3797/6, 3811/1, 3827/1

4.11.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 17/1, 34/1, 111/1, 249/1, 266/2, 430/1, 451/1, 451/2, 476/1, 476/2, 1051/2, 1251/1, 1252/2, 1284/7, 1354/1, 1428/1, 1430/1, 1439/1, 1445/1, 1445/2, 1445/3, 1473/1, 1482/1, 1487/1, 1487/2, 1503/1, 1510/1, 1527/1, 1527/2, 1553/1, 1595/1, 1595/2, 1930/1, 1966/1, 2004/1, 2006/2, 2009/1, 2073/1, 2073/2, 2104/3, 2104/5, 2157/1, 2228/1, 2235/1, 2235/2, 2235/3, 2248/1, 2272/1, 2353/1, 2396/3, 2397/3, 2398/3, 2507/1, 2513/1, 2518/4, 2518/5, 2518/6, 2518/7, 2518/8, 2518/9, 2518/10, 2518/11, 2518/12, 2518/13, 2518/14, 2518/15, 2518/16, 2518/17, 2518/18, 2518/19, 2518/20, 2518/21, 2518/22, 2518/23, 2518/24, 2518/25, 2518/26, 2518/27, 2518/28, 2518/29, 2542/1, 2543/1, 2716/1, 2729/1, 2730/1, 2858/1, 2865/1, 2865/2, 2871/1, 2876/1, 3001/1, 3035/1, 3052/3, 3090/1, 3090/2, 3104/1, 3134/1, 3139/1, 3154/1, 3156/2, 3156/1, 3156/3, 3157/1, 3298/1, 3630/1, 3680/1, 3688/1, 3688/2, 3714/1, 3733/1, 3740/1, 3764/1, 3797/6, 3811/1 and 3827/1 are addressed in Table 1.

Submission 2865/3 requests that all text and references to sensitive area 50-4 be withdrawn from the Plan.

Submission 2728/3 expresses concern that sensitive areas on Great Barrier Island are only placed on farm valleys.

Submissions relating to the removal of sensitive areas and sites of ecological significance

Submissions 1309/1, 1309/2, 1363/1, 1363/2, 1496/1, 1496/2, 1502/1, 1502/2, 1509/1, 1509/2, 1890/1, 1890/2, 1899/1, 1899/2, 1954/1, 1954/2, 2167/1, 2167/2, 2188/1, 2188/2, 2249/2, 2249/3, 2266/1, 2266/2, 2312/1, 2312/2, 2350/1, 2350/2, 2354/1, 2354/2, 3632/1, 3632/2, 3670/1, 3670/2, 3690/1, 3690/2, 3734/1, 3734/2, 3759/1, 3759/2, 3797/1 and 3797/2 seek to remove all sensitive areas in appendix 2d.

Submission 3104/7 opposes the sensitive areas.

Submissions 1309/5, 1363/5, 1496/5, 1502/5, 1509/5, 1890/5, 1899/5, 1954/5, 2167/5, 2188/5, 2249/6, 2266/5, 2312/5, 2350/5, 2354/5, 3632/5, 3670/5, 3690/5, 3734/5, 3759/5, 3797/5 seek to remove the SES's in appendix 2d. Submission 3690/5 also seeks to remove SA 41-5.

4.11.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.11.2.1 Sensitive areas and sites of ecological significance

Removal

These submissions oppose sensitive areas and sites of ecological significance and seek for them all to be removed from Great Barrier. This is considered inappropriate as these areas have been identified as having significant ecological value that is worthy of protection, beyond the general indigenous vegetation controls in part 10c. Reasons for the high ecological values may be that it is habitat for endangered species, a rare ecosystem, biodiversity, and the naturalness of the area.

Not only are these areas scheduled for their ecological protection but for their contribution to the natural character and integrity of these areas.

As discussed above, the council has a legal requirement under the RMA to protect areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna as a matter of national importance. However, it is acknowledged that this section 6 matter needs to be achieved in terms of promoting sustainable management of natural and physical resources. In achieving the purpose of the RMA it has been recommended that the SES and SA rules are modified and additional 'matters of discretion' have been added.

It is noted that it has been recommended to amend the boundaries of some of these sensitive areas and sites of ecological significance in the table 1.

It is therefore recommended that submissions 1309/1, 1309/2, 1309/5, 1363/1, 1363/2, 1363/5, 1496/1, 1496/2, 1496/5, 1502/1, 1502/2, 1502/5, 1509/1, 1509/2, 1509/5, 1890/1, 1890/2, 1890/5, 1899/1, 1899/2, 1899/5, 1954/1, 1954/2, 1954/5, 2167/1, 2167/2, 2167/5, 2188/1, 2188/2, 2188/5, 2249/2, 2249/3, 2249/6, 2266/1, 2266/2, 2266/5, 2312/1, 2312/2, 2312/5, 2350/1, 2350/2, 2350/5, 2354/1, 2354/2, 2354/5, 3104/7, 3632/1, 3632/2, 3632/5, 3670/1, 3670/2, 3670/5, 3690/1, 3690/2, 3690/5, 3734/1, 3734/2, 3734/5, 3759/1, 3759/2, 3759/5, 3797/1, 3797/2 and 3797/5 be rejected.

Placement of sensitive areas

The submitter states that sensitive areas are basically only placed on farm valleys. Sensitive areas were identified based on their ecological worth irrespective of the land use. Sensitive areas are not only placed on valleys. They are also placed on coastal locations, ridgelines and heavily bushed areas. It is therefore recommended that submission 2728/3 be rejected.

4.11.2.2 Submission 2865/3

This submission seeks for all text and reference to SA 50-4 to be removed. It is noted that in Table 1 of Appendix 4 of this report it has been recommended that the SA be amended to the property boundary. As it has been recommended that the SA remain it would be inappropriate to withdraw all text and references to SA 50-4 from the Plan. It is therefore recommended that submission 2865/3 be rejected.

4.11.2.3 Site specific submissions

The following submissions have been addressed in Appendix 4 - Table 1: Great Barrier specific submissions :

17/1, 34/1, 111/1, 249/1, 266/2, 430/1, 451/1, 451/2, 476/1, 476/2, 1051/2, 1251/1, 1252/2, 1284/7, 1354/1, 1428/1, 1430/1, 1439/1, 1445/1, 1445/2, 1445/3, 1473/1, 1482/1, 1487/1, 1487/2, 1503/1, 1510/1, 1527/1, 1527/2, 1553/1, 1595/1, 1595/2, 1930/1, 1966/1, 2004/1, 2006/2, 2009/1, 2073/1, 2073/2, 2104/3, 2104/5, 2157/1, 2228/1, 2235/1, 2235/2, 2235/3, 2248/1, 2272/1, 2353/1, 2396/3, 2397/3, 2398/3, 2507/1, 2513/1, 2518/4, 2518/5, 2518/6, 2518/7, 2518/8, 2518/9, 2518/10, 2518/11, 2518/12, 2518/13, 2518/14, 2518/15, 2518/16, 2518/17, 2518/18, 2518/19, 2518/20, 2518/21, 2518/22, 2518/23, 2518/24, 2518/25, 2518/26, 2518/27, 2518/28, 2518/29, 2542/1, 2543/1, 2716/1, 2729/1, 2730/1, 2858/1, 2865/1, 2865/2, 2871/1, 2876/1, 3001/1, 3035/1, 3052/3, 3090/1, 3090/2, 3104/1, 3134/1, 3139/1, 3154/1, 3156/2, 3156/1, 3156/3, 3157/1, 3298/1, 3630/1, 3680/1, 3688/1, 3688/2, 3714/1, 3733/1, 3740/1, 3764/1, 3797/6, 3811/1 and 3827/1.

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to specific sites on Great Barrier

That submissions 1309/1, 1309/2, 1309/5, 1363/1, 1363/2, 1363/5, 1496/1, 1496/2, 1496/5, 1502/1, 1502/2, 1502/5, 1509/1, 1509/2, 1509/5, 1890/1, 1890/2, 1890/5, 1899/1, 1899/2, 1899/5, 1954/1, 1954/2, 1954/5, 2167/1, 2167/2, 2167/5, 2188/1, 2188/2, 2188/5, 2249/2, 2249/3, 2249/6, 2266/1, 2266/2, 2266/5, 2312/1, 2312/2, 2312/5, 2350/1, 2350/2, 2350/5, 2354/1, 2354/2, 2354/5, 2728/3, 2865/3, 3104/7, 3632/1, 3632/2, 3632/5, 3670/1, 3670/2, 3670/5, 3690/1, 3690/2, 3690/5, 3734/1, 3734/2, 3734/5, 3759/1, 3759/2, 3759/5, 3797/1, 3797/2 and 3797/5 be rejected.

See Appendix 4 - Table 1: Great Barrier specific submissions for the recommendations on the following submissions:

4.12 Submissions about specific sites on Waiheke

Submissions dealt with in this section: 38/1, 258/1, 556/1, 558/4, 794/1, 1049/1, 1139/2, 1154/1, 1187/1, 1263/1, 2085/1, 2085/2, 2085/3, 2085/4, 2085/5, 2085/6, 2085/7, 2085/8, 2085/9, 2085/10, 2205/1, 2205/2, 2518/1, 2518/2, 2518/3, 2624/1, 2645/1, 2646/1, 2829/1, 3165/1, 3166/1, 3166/2, 3579/1, 3580/1, 3583/8, 3846/2

4.12.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 38/1, 558/4, 794/1, 1049/1, 1139/2, 1154/1, 1187/1, 1263/1, 2085/1, 2085/2, 2085/3, 2205/1, 2518/1, 2518/2, 2518/3, 2624/1, 2645/1, 2646/1, 2829/1, 3165/1, 3166/1, 3166/2, 3579/1, 3580/1, 3583/8 and 3846/2 are addressed in the Table 2 of Appendix 5.

Submission 2205/2 seeks the following conditions for control of the wetland at Seaview Road (map ref 10-9)., 1. A proper Drainage Scheme administered by The Council with a regular yearly maintenance regime., 2. A dispensation of the 15 metre set backs from a wetland, for building and sewage projects is sought be reduced to 5 - 6m., 3. The proposed wet land area is a Significant Natural Feature for future Subdivision consideration and is too limiting as it stands., 4. The Tawaipareira Stream on Mrs.Johnson's boundary and downstream should be cleaned of various debris., 5. The site belonging to Mrs.Johnson reverts to its classification of 20 years ago the former Residential and Industrial zone.

Submission 556/1 seeks for the causeway, the existing bridge and approaches to be removed (to enhance SES 41). The bridge and causeway were put in for military purposes and were to be removed at the end of the war. If a bridge is deemed necessary, then a longer bridge is required so that the tidal flow is not impeded and it should be high enough for small keel boats to pass under.

Submissions 2085/4, 2085/6, 2085/7 and 2085/9 seek for the council to provide confirmation in writing that the existing use rights they have for 20 Waimangu Road for the following activities will continue to be permitted now and in the future without the need for us to make any further (resource consent or other similar) application:

stocking the area
removing dead vegetation
use, maintain and upgrade both existing farm tracks for access to their home and other parts of the property
use existing farm tracks as access ways
routine maintenance such as weed removal.

Submission 2085/5 seeks to provide the submitter with confirmation in writing that with scheduling any SES any "significant environmental features" will have not already been "protected" and thus the option to "protect" these features in exchange for subdivision under the council's discretion is lost.

Submission 2085/8 seeks for the council to confirm in writing that the SES will not preclude them from developing at 20 Waimangu Road a further pond adjacent to the existing ponds. Confirm in writing that SES will not preclude us from maintaining the existing and proposed ponds.

Submission 2085/10 seeks for the council to confirm in writing that the submitter is not put in the position, in future, of having to obtain resource consent from the council for any activities that would have been permitted if the area were not a scheduled SES.

Submission 258/1 seeks to align the site of ecological significance (16-7) to the boundary of lot 2 DP 350930.

4.12.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.12.2.1 SES 8 Tawaipareira Creek (map ref 10-9)

Submission 2205/2 seeks the following conditions for control of the wetland at Seaview Road (map ref 10-9):

(Note it is unclear as to what the submitters means by 'conditions', notwithstanding this each 'condition' has been addressed.)

1. A proper drainage scheme administered by the council with a regular yearly maintenance regime.

This is a matter outside the scope of the district plan.

2. A dispensation of the 15 metre set backs from a wetland, for building and sewage projects is sought be reduced to 5 - 6m.

The 15-metre set back stated in the submission is incorrect. The Plan as notified states that no buildings are to be located in, and no earthworks undertaken within the wetland protection yard. In this case, the wetland protection yard is 20 metres. An application to infringe this development control is a discretionary activity. It is not appropriate to create a dispensation for the submitter, as the protection yard is there to help preserve the natural character of the wetland margins, to maintain and enhance water quality and to preserve amenity values. This will not be achieved if buildings and sewage projects are allowed within 5 to 6 metres of the wetland.

3. The proposed wetland area is a Significant Natural Feature for future Subdivision consideration and is too limiting as it stands.

It is unclear as to what the submitter considers to be too limiting. It is assumed they are referring to the provisions in part 12 of the Plan. The wetland may not be a significant natural feature under part 12 as clause 12.9.3.3 states that areas that are scheduled in the Plan as sites of ecological significance or sensitive areas will not necessarily be considered as a significant environment feature under this clause.

4. The Tawaipareira Stream on Mrs. Johnson's boundary and downstream should be cleaned of various debris.

This is an operational matter that is outside the scope of the district plan.

5. The site belonging to Mrs. Johnson reverts to its classification of 20 years ago the former Residential and Industrial zone.

The submitter has not stated which site they are referring to. From the council's GIS system it can be seen that Mrs Johnson is the owner of four sites within this vicinity. The smaller sites are classified as Island residential 1 and the larger site is classified as Island residential 1 and Commercial 5 (industrial). In its most basic sense of residential and industrial, the land unit classification of Mrs Johnson's site has not changed. It is not appropriate to revert back to these former zones under the current district plan regime.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected for the reasons outlined above.

4.12.2.2 SES 41 Motutapu Coastal Bird Zone

It is noted that the submitter does not request for the causeway and bridge to be removed from the SES but for the structures to be physically removed. This is outside of the scope of the district plan and therefore it recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.12.2.3 20 Waimangu Road, Waiheke

Existing use rights

The following submissions seek the council to confirm that the submitter has existing use rights for various activities: 2085/4, 2085/6, 2085/7 and 2085/9.

Section 10 of the RMA allows certain existing uses which were lawfully established to continue despite contravening a rule of a proposed or operative district plan which subsequently comes into force.

The council cannot provide written confirmation of existing use rights to the submitter. The submitter would have to provide supporting evidence and documentation that the activities were lawfully established to Auckland City Environments.

However, it is noted that these submissions are outside the scope of the district plan and therefore it is recommended that they be rejected.

SES's and subdivision

It is noted that part 12 of the Plan addresses subdivision. Clause 12.9.3.3 sets out the standards and terms for the protection of significant environmental feature(s) in return for subdivision benefits. It states:

"... Any area to be covenanted that is already scheduled in the Plan as a site of ecological significance (SES) or sensitive area (SA) or identified as an outstanding landscape (ONL) in a regional policy statement will not necessarily be considered a significant environmental feature under this clause. ..."

Therefore it is at the discretion of the council as to whether an SES can be used as a significant environmental feature under clause 12.9.3 in the Plan, and this will be assessed on a case by case basis. It is noted that this definition may change through the submission and hearing process, however, if a site is scheduled in the Plan then this does not preclude it being used as an significant environmental feature.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted.

Future development

The submitter must comply with the provisions set out in clause 7.11.4 and the land unit applicable. These provisions determine whether a resource consent is required. In the Plan as notified, all activities in an SES require a resource consent. However, it is noted that it has been recommended for these provisions to be altered.

It is therefore recommended that submission 2085/10 be rejected as the council cannot exempt the submitter from having to obtain a resource consent for future development.

Ponds

Submission 2085/8 seeks for the council to confirm in writing that the SES will not preclude us from developing at 20 Waimangu Road a further pond adjacent to the existing ponds. Confirm in writing that SES will not preclude us from maintaining the existing and proposed ponds.

If the proposed pond is to be located in the SES then it must comply with the SES provisions, or a resource consent is required. It is a discretionary activity to cut, damage, alter or destroy any indigenous plant within an SES and so it is envisaged that a resource consent may be required to create a new pond. If the existing pond was lawfully established then the maintenance of this pond will be a permitted activity.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.12.2.4 Map reference 16-7

Submission 258/1 seeks for this SES to be moved back to the properties boundary. A full assessment of this site has not yet been undertaken but will be completed for the decision version of the Plan. Therefore at this stage it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.12.2.5 Site specific and SES specific submissions

The following submissions have been addressed in Appendix 5 – Table 2: Waiheke specific submissions :

38/1, 558/4, 794/1, 1049/1, 1139/2, 1154/1, 1187/1, 1263/1, 2085/1, 2085/2, 2085/3, 2205/1, 2518/1, 2518/2, 2518/3, 2624/1, 2645/1, 2646/1, 2829/1, 3165/1, 3166/1, 3166/2, 3301/1, 3579/1, 3580/1, 3583/8 and 3846/2.

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to specific sites on Waiheke

That submissions 258/1, 556/1, 2085/4, 2085/6, 2085/7, 2085/8, 2085/9, 2085/10 and 2205/2 be rejected.

That submission 2085/5 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

See Appendix 5 - Table 2: Waiheke specific submissions for recommendations on the following submissions:

4.13 Submissions about general issues for the inner islands and appendix 1d

Submissions dealt with in this section: 482/1, 3061/68, 3061/73, 3292/1, 3292/2, 3297/1, 3297/2

4.13.1 Decisions requested

These submissions relating to the inner islands in general raise the following issues:

for the notes in appendices to be fuller
large areas often obscure the fact that one portion of the site is of greater ecological significance
include streams and wetlands
recognising covenants on private land
index to maps is inadequate.

4.13.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.13.2.1 Fuller notes

Submissions 3292/1 and 3297/1 seek for the notes for sites of ecological significance to be fuller in many instances. Many of the sites include reserves and other special features for which more detailed data may be available e.g. each Forest and Bird reserve has a management plan containing information on flora and fauna and this information could be either used directly or be cross referenced.

It is considered that the current notes that describe the significance of the sites in appendix 1d and 2d are sufficient. It is not considered necessary to put all information on a particular feature in the Plan. However, council may hold further information outside the Plan, which can be obtained.

It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected.

4.13.2.2 Portions of greater significance

Submissions 3292/2 and 3297/2 state that many of the SES's cover large areas often obscuring the fact that one particular portion of the site is of greater ecological significance than the rest. In such cases the important part of the site needs to be identified and then described separately.

It is correct that there are differing levels of significance within and between SES's. However, for the purposes of the Plan it is not considered practical to break them up further, for example into category A and B. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that should someone seek to undertake works within a SES then they will likely be required to produce an ecological report which will assess the ecological values of the area in question. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected.

4.13.2.3 Streams and wetlands

Submission 3061/73 seeks for the streams and wetland sites that have been omitted from plans and from sites of ecological significance be included, through consultation with the community and interested parties.

If a wetland is situated within a site of ecological significance then the wetland vegetation will be protected by clause 7.11.4 which requires a resource consent for the modification and clearance of indigenous vegetation. The Plan also has a specific land unit, Landform 4 (wetland systems), for wetlands. This makes buildings and other activities (other than eco-sourced planting) non complying activities. So the Plan exercises restrictive controls over identified wetlands. However, although the majority of the inner islands were subject to an ecological survey not all ecologically sensitive areas may have warranted protection, or alternatively others may not have been scheduled. Streams and wetlands largely fall within the Auckland Regional Council's jurisdiction and there is additional protection afforded by the Auckland Regional Plan: Air, land and water. In particular, sections 3.2 – Wetland Management Areas, Schedule 1:Wetland Management Areas and the policies and rules in chapters 5, 6 and 7 relate to the protection of wetlands in the Auckland Regional Plan.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.13.2.4 Recognising covenants on private properties

Submission 482/1 seeks to have an appendix that identifies those properties that have 'over title' a conservation covenant.

It is not appropriate to include covenants on private properties in an appendix as such a list would need to be updated on a regularly basis with new covenants. This cannot be done easily as it would require a plan change each time and this is considered to be an inappropriate use of resources. It is noted that future landowners will be aware of any covenant as this is listed on the property title and in the Land Information Memoranda report. It is therefore unnecessary to create an appendix with a list of covenants and it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.13.2.5 Index to maps

Submission 3061/68 states that the index to the maps of SES (appendix 1d) is inadequate as it does not give the name or site of ecological significance number to each feature.

The maps in appendix 1d do name the scheduled item, provide a map reference as well as provide a brief description of the item and its ecological features. It is not considered necessary to provide any further information. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to the inner islands

That submissions 482/1, 3061/68, 3061/73, 3292/1, 3292/2, 3297/1 and 3297/2 be rejected.

4.14 Submissions about general issues for the outer islands and appendix 2d

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1405/19, 1406/19, 3061/43

4.14.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 1406/19 and 1405/19 seek to remove all listings in appendix 2d (SES and SA) which are not supported by a proper assessment.

Submission 3061/43 states in relation to appendix 2d that the use of GIS as the primary positioning and identification methodology is opposed and the Plan should revert to traditional legal descriptions as per appendix C in the operative plan.

4.14.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.14.2.1 Supported by assessment

It is acknowledged that the outer islands were not re-surveyed for their ecological significance prior to the Plan being notified. However, ecological field work and assessments were undertaken post notification of the Plan and those areas that were submitted on were generally confirmed as having ecological significance. Given the ecological importance of these areas it is not considered appropriate to remove them from the appendices. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be accepted.

4.14.2.2 Identification of SES/SA

The submitter believes the GIS positioning technology used by the council to be ineffective. It is difficult for scheduled ecological sites to be identified by legal descriptions as in most cases the scheduled site does not follow property boundaries. This results in uncertainty as to the location of the scheduled area. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to appendix 2d

That submissions 1405/19 and 1406/19 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

That submission 3061/43 be rejected.

4.15 Submissions about appendix 4

Submissions dealt with in this section: 629/1, 1313/1, 1347/1, 1413/1, 1450/1, 1478/1, 1494/1, 1504/1, 1516/1, 1557/1, 1585/1, 1892/1, 1964/1, 2169/1, 2181/1, 2213/1, 2219/1, 2254/1, 2277/1, 2366/1, 2374/1, 2420/1, 2447/1, 2494/1, 3645/1, 3672/1, 3735/1, 3761/1

4.15.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 629/1, 1313/1, 1347/1, 1413/1, 1450/1, 1478/1, 1494/1, 1504/1, 1516/1, 1557/1, 1585/1, 1892/1, 1964/1, 2169/1, 2181/1, 2213/1, 2219/1, 2254/1, 2277/1, 2366/1, 2374/1, 2420/1, 2447/1, 2494/1, 3645/1, 3672/1, 3735/1 and 3761/1 seek the deletion of appendix 4 section 4.0 pending a review of criteria for scheduling sites of ecological significance to be conducted by the community board in consultation with residents, owners and recognised authorities. Inclusion of a set of criteria which have community agreement as represented through the Community Board.

4.15.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The criteria for scheduling sites of ecological significance in appendix 4 is considered to be robust. The criteria is typical of that used in other district plans and for other ecological assessments in New Zealand and represents Council policy in assessing ecological sites across Auckland. It is therefore inappropriate to delete this criteria.

It is therefore considered inappropriate to delete appendix 4(4) from the Plan and it is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking deletion of appendix 4

That submissions 629/1, 1313/1, 1347/1, 1413/1, 1450/1, 1478/1, 1494/1, 1504/1, 1516/1, 1557/1, 1585/1, 1892/1, 1964/1, 2169/1, 2181/1, 2213/1, 2219/1, 2254/1, 2277/1, 2366/1, 2374/1, 2420/1, 2447/1, 2494/1, 3645/1, 3672/1, 3735/1 and 3761/1 be rejected.

4.16 Submissions about appendix 6

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2514/1, 2514/2, 2514/3, 2514/4, 2514/5

4.16.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2514/1 seeks for the introduction to appendix 6 to be amended to remove the statement that "Species that are only found on islands that are entirely Department of Conservation estate have not been included."

Submission 2514/2 requests that the schedule of threatened and unusual plant species be amended to include all plant species identified in the Stanley et al 2005 study, and included in the list of threatened and extinct species.

Submission 2514/3 seeks for the following plant species to be added to section 2 of appendix 6: Ipomoea cairica (Pouwhiwhi) and Cyperus insularis – gradual decline.

Submission 2515/4 seeks for section 3 of appendix 6 to be amended to include other animals.

Submission 2514/5 seeks that the reference to the "Great Barrier Skink" in 3.0 Threatened and unusual animal species of appendix 6 be amended to the "Chevron Skink".

4.16.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.16.2.1 Species on DOC land

It is agreed that the lists should not exclude species thought to only occur on the DOC estate. Species may expand to other areas or be translocated to other islands and therefore it is appropriate to have an extensive list regardless of the landowner. It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted and the introduction be amended.

4.16.2.2 Additions to the list of plants

The Stanley et al 2005 study is the latest peer reviewed list of threatened and uncommon plants specific to the Auckland region. It is therefore appropriate for Appendix 6 to list the same species.

Submission 2514/3 is supported as Ipomoea cairica is naturally uncommon in the Auckland region and therefore of local conservation importance and interest. It is considered that the intended Cyperus species to be listed was Cyperus insularis as Cyperus ustulatus as listed is extremely common and neither threatened nor unusual. It is therefore recommended that submission 2514/3 be accepted and Cyperus ustulatus be replaced with Cyperus insularis and Ipomoea cairica be added to the list.

4.16.2.3 Addition to the list of animals

Submission 2514/4 seeks to add the following:

Scientific name	Common name	Threat status	Recommendation / Comment
Frogs and Reptiles
Hoplodactylus granulatus	Forest gecko	Not threatened	Reject – not threatened or especially unusual.
Hoplodactylus maculates	Common gecko	Not threatened	Reject – not threatened or especially unusual.
Cyclodina aenea	Copper skink	Not threatened	Reject – not threatened or especially unusual.
Oligosoma smithi	Shore skink	Sparse	Accept – threatened species known from several gulf islands including Motutapu, Waiheke, Rangitoto and the Mokohinau Group.
Shendodon punctatus	Northern tuatara	Sparse	Accept – Threatened species, known from Little Barrier Island.
Invertebrates
Paranephrops zealandicus	Koura	Gradual decline	Accept – threatened species.
Geodorcus ithagnis	Mokohinau stag beetle	Nationally critical	Accept – threatened species, currently only known from the Mokohinau Group.
Deinacrida heteracantha	Giant weta	Nationally endangered	Accept – threatened species, currently only known from Little Barrier Island.
Birds
Gallirallus austalis greyi	North Island weka	Nationally endangered	Accept – known from Rakitu Island. Captive reared birds re-located to Pakatoa in 1996.
Apteryx mantelli	North Island brown kiwi	Serious decline	Accept – threatened species known from Little Barrier Island.
Philesturnus carunculaturs rufusater	Saddleback	Range restricted	Accept – threatened species known from Little Barrier Island.
Callaeas cinerea wilsoni	Kokako	Nationally endangered	Accept – threatened species known from Little Barrier Island.
Acanthisitta chloris granti	Rifleman	Gradual decline	Accept – threatened species known from Little Barrier Island.
Mohoua albicilla	Whitehead	Not threatened	Accept – regionally uncommon species.
Pelagodroma marina maoriana	White faced storm petrel	Not threatened	Reject – not threatened according to NZ Threat Classification List updated 2007.
Freshwater fish
Galaxias argenteus	Giant kokupu	Gradual decline	Accept – threatened species known from Great Barrier and Little Barrier Islands.

4.16.2.4 Amendment to animal list

Submission 2514/5 seeks for reference to the "Great Barrier Skink" in 3.0 Threatened and unusual animal species of appendix 6 be amended to the "Chevron Skink". There is no reference to Great Barrier Skink in section 3 of Appendix 6. The term Chevron skink is used as a common name for Oligosoma homalonotum . It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to Appendix 6

That submission 2514/1 be accepted and section 1 of Appendix 6 be amended to state:

This appendix contains lists of threatened plant and animal species thought to be on the islands as at June 2006. The lists also include plant and animal s species that are not threatened, but which are of particular importance or interest. ~~Species that are only found on islands that are entirely Department of Conservation estate have not been included.~~

That submission 2514/2 be accepted and that Appendix 6 be checked to include all species listed in the Stanley et al 2005 study.

That submission 2514/3 be accepted and section 2 of Appendix 6 be amended to replace Cyperus ustulatus with Cyperus insularis and to add Ipomoea cairica .

That submission 2514/4 be accepted in part and section 3 of Appendix 6 be amended by adding the following:

Scientific name	Common name	Threat status
Frogs and Reptiles
Oligosoma smithi	Shore skink	Sparse
Shendodon punctatus	Northern tuatara	Sparse
Invertebrates
Paranephrops zealandicus	Koura	Gradual decline
Geodorcus ithagnis	Mokohinau stag beetle	Nationally critical
Deinacrida heteracantha	Giant weta	Nationally endangered
Birds
Gallirallus austalis greyi	North Island weka	Nationally endangered
Apteryx mantelli	North Island brown kiwi	Serious decline
Philesturnus carunculaturs rufusater	Saddleback	Range restricted
Callaeas cinerea wilsoni	Kokako	Nationally endangered
Acanthisitta chloris granti	Rifleman	Gradual decline
Mohoua albicilla	Whitehead	Not threatened
Freshwater fish
Galaxias argenteus	Giant kokupu	Gradual decline

That submission 2514/5 be rejected.

5.0 Conclusion

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

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

	Name and title of signatories	Signature
Author	Sarah Smith, assistant planner
Reviewer	Nicola Short, Manager: Heritage
Reviewer	Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands
Approver	Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning