Plans, policies and reports

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

District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

(Notified version 2006)

Hearing reports index

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

Topic:	Rotoroa land unit
Report to:	The Hearing Panel
Author:	Sarah Nairn: Senior Planner
Date:	30 May 2008
Group file:	314/274026

1.0 Introduction

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to the Rotoroa land unit in 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 the Rotoroa land unit. This report discusses the submissions 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

3.1 General

Rotoroa island is owned by the Salvation Army ('the Army') and is located to the east of Waiheke, between Ponui and Pakatoa islands.

Set out below are the key characteristics and features of the island:

The island is relatively small (82.5ha), has an overall length of over 2km and is 170m in width at its narrowest point.

The island is held in fee simple title (one allotment).
Between 1908 and 2006, the island provided a valuable community service in that it assisted hundreds of clients to overcome drug and alcohol related addictions. In 2006, the treatment centre formally ceased operating, although it has been used since on a temporary basis.
The farming operation (approx 25 cattle and 400 sheep) on the island has continued despite the closure of the treatment centre.
Access to the island by the general public is restricted under the Trespass Act (1980) so as to protect the privacy of clients.
In order to support the treatment operations, there are a number of existing buildings located behind Home Bay beach and on the adjacent hill slopes (refer to the photos and plan in appendix A ). These buildings include client accommodation, communal facilities (dining, therapy, teaching and recreation), administration and maintenance, a chapel and staff housing.
A large amount of infrastructure has been constructed on the island. In particular, the power is reticulated, an effluent disposal plant is located in a low-lying area adjoining the treatment centre, stormwater is managed through a series of open drains and partially piped systems and a wharf is located at Home Bay.
The topography of the island varies, but is characterised by a high point (over 60m above sea level) at either end of the island.
The shoreline is characterised by interspersed sandy beaches and a rocky shoreline. The main beaches are located in the centre of the island, namely Home Bay and Ladies Bay.
The dominant vegetation is the pasture and exotic shelterbelts which support the sheep and cattle on the island.
Pockets of indigenous vegetation (mainly pohutukawa and manuka) remain on the coastal fringe of the island.
There are a number of heritage features on the island. These include sites of significance to Maori, buildings such as the detention cells and teahouse and trees such as the pines and phoenix palms and the coastal pohutukawa and manuka. The details of the heritage sites is contained in appendix B .

3.2 Future use of the island as sought by the landowner

Given that the Army does not intend to operate the treatment centre into the future, it is necessary to determine the most appropriate future use of the island. As the landowner, the Army has given considerable thought to this matter and have provided the council with their driving principles and a vision for the island. These have been summarised below:

Driving principles:

Desire to retain ownership - the relationship of the Army to the land and the history of its use make it too important to the Army to not retain ownership of the island.
Conservation / restoration and ongoing management - while the island has been substantially modified through past uses the Army wishes to reverse this by undertaking revegetation and other conservation initiatives.
Community benefit - the Army is keen to ensure that the future use of the island maintains considerable community benefit (be that educational, conservation and restoration of the island or outdoor activities).
Ongoing income - financial realities dictate that an ongoing income from the island is critical as it will ensure that the island is not a burden on the Army and will provide funding for other community work.

Vision:

The Army's future vision is to re-develop the island for three key activities:

Conservation / open space - the Army wishes to provide an extensive open space area. This area is primarily located at the Home Bay and the southern end of the island but also includes the coastal edge at the northern end of the island. This area will provide public access to the island and will be the subject of an extensive restoration and conservation initiative. The Army also seeks to locate an education/visitors centre within this area.
A visitor / gateway area - the Army is keen to provide the opportunity for people to stay on the island and enjoy the conservation, recreational and/or educational activities. This area is located behind Home Bay beach and the adjacent hill slopes as this area is in close proximity to the wharf and it is where the majority of existing buildings are located.
Conservation / residential - in order to ensure that the island is not a financial burden on the Army and to provide funding for the educational, conservation and recreational activities, the Army is proposing to provide sites for residential development at the northern end of the island.

In addition to the driving principles and vision, the Army also provided other useful background information and draft district plan provisions which were used to inform the preparation of the Rotoroa land unit.

3.3 District plan provisions

The provisions of the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Operative 1996 ('the operative plan') could not be simply 'rolled over' into the Plan as these provisions provided for the on-going operation and future development of the treatment centre and, as such, were out of date.

Consequently, entirely new provisions had to be prepared and in this regard, a number of options were evaluated. Ultimately, it was decided that developing the island for conservation, residential and visitor activities was the most appropriate future direction. This decision was based on the rationale that these activities would provide for the reasonable use of the land whilst providing public access and ensuring that the environment is protected and in some cases enhanced.

A summary of the key provisions of the Rotoroa land unit is set out below:

A description of the characteristics of the island, including the high visual amenity value of the landscape and the location and form of existing development.
An objective which seeks to provide for residential, conservation and visitor activities and the protection and enhancement of the natural features and landscape character of the island.
Policies relating to public access, controlling the scale, form (design), colour and location of buildings, the nature and intensity of activities, re-vegetation and integrated visitor development.
A strategy that divides the land unit into two areas:
- A conservation/residential area which is applied to the majority of the island. This area provides for conservation and public recreation activities along with provision for up to ten dwellings to be located in the northern portion of the island.
- The visitor area which is located behind the main beach at Home Bay on the western side of the island. The role of this area is to provide for visitor associated activities and the service infrastructure for the rest of the island. Development in this area is required to be undertaken on a comprehensive and integrated basis.
An activity table that identifies the status of activities and buildings in each of the above areas.
Development controls relating to the height of buildings, building coverage, earthworks, vegetation removal, noise and setbacks from the coast, wetlands and other water bodies.
Assessment criteria to ensure that:
- Buildings in the residential / conservation area are of an appropriate scale, form (design), colour and location;
- Re-vegetation and removal of existing buildings occurs at the time the new dwellings are constructed;
- Access ways and tracks do not have adverse effects on the landscape character or natural features of the island;
- Public access is provided to appropriate areas;
- The scale and intensity of activities and buildings in the visitor area will not have adverse effects on the landscape character and amenity of the island;
- The activities in the visitor area can be serviced in terms of water supply and wastewater disposal.

While the provisions outlined above generally reflect those put forward by the Salvation Army, some important amendments have been made to ensure that the provisions are effective and efficient and to avoid adverse effects on the environment. These changes include:

Amendments to building height and coverage controls in the residential and visitor areas. These amendments ensure an appropriate level of development occurs (having regard to the activities provided for and the coastal environment of the land unit).
Requiring restricted discretionary consents for new residential buildings rather than controlled activity consents as the restricted discretionary status is a more effective tool for achieving an appropriate built form.
Changes to the objectives and polices and general drafting to ensure best practice and that the land unit has an approach that is consistent across the plan.
Amendments to ensure that public access is considered at the time of resource consents.

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in the five submissions about the Rotoroa land unit. It also recommends how the panel could respond to the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions. 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 the Rotoroa land unit 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 Submission by the Auckland Regional Council (3521)

4.2.1 Decisions requested

The submission by the Auckland Regional Council (3521/113) seeks that objective 10a.27.3 be retained.

4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Objective 10a.27.3 is one of the most important provisions within the land unit as it sets out the overall direction as to how Rotoroa should be developed in the future. Objective 10a.27.3 states:

"To provide for residential, conservation and visitor activities to occur while ensuring that the landscape character and natural features of the island are protected and enhanced".

The submission by the Auckland Regional Council is supported as it provides confirmation of the overall direction for the island.

Planner's recommendations about the submission by the Auckland Regional Council

That submission 3521/113 is accepted.

4.3 Submission by the Auckland Conservation Board (3574)

4.3.1 Decisions requested

The submission by the Auckland Conservation Board requests that:

The limit on the number of residential lots is retained (3574/21).
The provisions which allow public access are retained but that the bio-security requirements for the island are strict (3574/22).
The precarious old pine trees are removed and that future planting is native only (3574/23).

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.3.2.1 Limits on residential development (3574/21)

Submission 3574/21 seeks to retain the limit of 10 residential dwellings on the island. This submission is supported as limiting the level of residential development is important for ensuring that the landscape character and natural features of the island are protected and in some cases enhanced.

4.3.2.2 Public access and strict biosecurity controls (3574/22)

Submission 3574/22 supports "providing public access right around the island". This submission is supported to the extent that public access is an important corollary to providing for the re-development on the island and is also consistent with the provisions of the National Coastal Policy Statement, the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. Notwithstanding this, it should be recognised that not all areas of the island will be open to the public and that this is appropriate given that the island is in private ownership.

While it is acknowledged that public access will result in increased biosecurity risks, it is not considered necessary to increase the biosecurity controls for the island. This is because clause 4.4 of the Plan already prohibits the introduction, keeping or farming of specified plant and pest species and as it is an offence, under the Biosecurity Act 1993, to take specified animal pests, such as possums and ferrets, into the Hauraki Gulf Controlled Area or onto any of the islands of the Gulf.

4.3.2.3 Removal of pine trees and native planting (3574/23)

Submission 3574/23 seeks the removal of the precarious old pine trees on the island. It is not clear from the submission if the submitter is seeking a rule in the plan that would require immediate removal of the pine trees or if the removal of the trees is more of a long term goal. If the submitter is seeking immediate removal of the trees, it is considered that this is not appropriate because:

The provisions of the Plan must be focussed on controlling the adverse effects of use and development rather than day to day maintenance activities such as the removal of trees.
A number of the pine trees on the island are located within sites of ecological significance or are scheduled items (refer to appendix B ) and, as such, cannot be removed without a resource consent.

If the submitter is of the view that the removal of the trees is more of a long term goal, then this aspect of the submission is supported as it will increase the natural character values of the island. It is considered that this long term goal can be achieved by including reference to the removal of the trees in the assessment criteria relating to the revegetation planting and the conservation work that will be carried out as part of the re-development of the island. The recommended wording for the assessment criteria is set out in 4.4.2.2 below.

With respect to requiring future planting on the island to be native species this aspect of the submission is supported as it will enhance the natural features and natural character of the island. This matter is further address in 4.4.2.2 below.

Planner's recommendations about the submission by the Auckland Conservation Board

That submission 3574/21 is accepted and submissions 3574/22 and 3574/23 are accepted in part.

4.4 Submission by the Department of Conservation (2523)

4.4.1 Decisions requested

The submission by the Department of Conservation ("DOC") seeks that the Rotoroa land unit be amended to:

Amend clause 10a.27.3(2) to require a minimum of 50% revegetation to occur on the island (2523/1).
Amend the assessment criteria to require a minimum of 50% revegetation and to identify how the revegetation planting should be undertaken (2423/2).
Include an additional assessment criterion in relation to weeds and pests (2523/3 and 2523/44).
Remove the provision for a visitor information centre and playground within the residential / conservation area (2523/5).

4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.4.2.1 Inserting a requirement in the policies for a minimum of 50% revegetation (2523/1)

Submission 2523/1 seeks to amend policy 10a.27.3(3) to require a minimum of 50% revegetation to occur on the island. [Note: the submitter has referenced policy 10a.27.3(2) but from the wording it is apparent that the correct reference is 10a.27.3(3). The following discussion has been undertaken based on this assumption]. The particular amendment sought is as follows:

Policy 10a.27.3(3):

"By requiring a minimum of 50% revegetation of the island to be undertaken concurrently with the construction of residential buildings so that the adverse effects of those buildings are mitigated and the natural character of the island enhanced"

This submission was opposed by the further submission of the Army on the basis that it is unreasonable and overly restrictive.

DOC's position of seeking 50% revegetation of the island is consistent with its role as an advocate for the conservation of natural resources. However, inserting a target of 50% revegetation in the policies is not supported for the following reasons:

The level of revegetation should be commensurate with the effects generated by the proposed development rather than simply being an arbitrary amount.
Guidance as to the level of revegetation that should occur is already provided in the policies and assessment criteria in that these clauses require the adverse effects of the residential buildings to be "mitigated" and "integrated" and that the "natural character of the island should be enhanced".

Accordingly it is recommended that submission 2523/11 be rejected.

4.4.2.2 Inserting a requirement in the assessment criteria for a minimum of 50% revegetation and to identify how the revegetation on the island should be undertaken

Submission 2523/2 seeks to amend the assessment criteria to require a minimum of 50% revegetation and to identify how the revegetation planting should be undertaken. The particular amendment sought is as follows:

Assessment criterion 10a.27.7.2(2):

"The extent to which landscaping ~~including~~ and native revegetation will be undertaken to offset and integrate built development and to enhance the natural landscape character of the island. An overall target of 50% native revegetation of the island should be achieved to offset the effects of residential development. Revegetation planting is to be undertaken in accordance with best practice including (but not limited to) sourcing plant stock from within the island to maintain genetic purity (where possible), and only introducing new or exotic species if it part of an approved revegetation plan"

In terms of adding the words "native" and "offset" into the assessment criterion, it is considered that these amendments are appropriate as they provide clarity as to the nature and extent of revegetation required.

Inserting a requirement for 50% revegetation in the assessment criterion is not supported for the reasons outlined in 4.4.2.1 above.

In general terms, the final sentence of the proposed amendment to the assessment criterion in clause 10a.27.7.2(2) is supported as it indicates that a revegetation plan should be prepared and as it provides guidance as to how the revegetation should be undertaken. However, it is considered that the whole criterion should be reworded to increase the clarity and to address the matters identified in 4.3.2.3 above. The recommended wording of the criterion is as follows:

"The extent to which a revegetation plan has been prepared which demonstrates that:

the revegetation planting will offset and integrate the built development and will enhance the natural landscape character of the island
the revegetation planting is to be undertaken in accordance with best practice including (but not limited to) sourcing plant stock from within the island to maintain genetic purity where possible
the plants used in the revegetation programme are native and that new or exotic species have only been used where no native species are appropriate for the circumstance
where appropriate, exotic species such as pine trees, will be removed"

4.4.2.3 Weeds and pests and the keeping of domestic pets (2523/3 and 2523/44)

Submission 2523/3 and 2523/4 seek to include an additional assessment criterion in clauses 10a.27.7.2 and 10a.27.7.3 which states as follows:

"The extent to which any revegetation plan includes provision for the control and management of weeds and pests. The keeping of domestic pets on the island is considered to be inconsistent with best practice for revegetation and habitat restoration"

It is considered appropriate that the mechanisms for controlling weeds and pests is assessed as part of any revegetation planting. However, rather than adding an additional assessment criterion it is recommended that a fifth bullet point be added to the revegetation criterion proposed in 4.4.2.2 above. The proposed wording of this bullet point is as follows:

"methods are proposed for the control and management of weeds and animal pests"

With respect to the keeping of domestic pets on the island, the submission by DOC seeks to ensure that no domestic pets are kept on the island. The further submission by the Army indicates that banning cats is appropriate but not dogs. On balance, it is considered that the keeping of cats would be contrary to the conservation objectives for the island but that there has not been sufficient evidence to justify why dogs should not be allowed on the island, especially as they maybe used as part of the existing and on-going farming operation. Consequently, it is recommended that a sixth bullet point be added to the revegetation assessment criterion which states:

"legally binding mechanisms have been proposed which ensure that domestic cats cannot be kept on the island"

For completeness and clarity the full revegetation assessment criterion recommended to be added to clause 10a.27.7.2 is as follows:

"The extent to which a revegetation plan has been prepared which demonstrates that:

the revegetation planting will offset and integrate the built development and will enhance the natural landscape character of the island
the revegetation planting is to be undertaken in accordance with best practice including (but not limited to) sourcing plant stock from within the island to maintain genetic purity where possible
the plants used in the revegetation programme are native and that new or exotic species have only been used where no native species are appropriate for the circumstance
where appropriate, exotic species such as pine trees, will be removed
methods are proposed for the control and management of weeds and animal pests
legally binding mechanisms have been proposed which ensure that domestic cats cannot be kept on the island"

It should be noted that it is not necessary to add this criterion in full to clause 10a.27.7.3 as the criteria in this clause refer back to those in 10a.27.7.2.

4.4.2.4 Activity table for the conservation / residential area (2523/5)

Submission 2523/5 seeks to remove the provision for playgrounds and a visitor information centre from the activity table from the conservation/residential area.

The provision for a visitor information centre to be established within the conservation/residential area was included as it was understood to be part of the Army's overall strategy for the island and as the potential effects of this activity could be addressed through the restricted discretionary activity consent status. However, as the further submission by the Army supports this submission by DOC it would seem that this is no longer the case and, as such, this submission is supported. Section 4.5.2.9 of this report deals with the provision of the visitor centre in the Visitor Areas A and B.

The provision in the activity table for playgrounds to be established within the conservation/residential area was included as providing for outdoor recreation activities e.g. climbing frames and ropes is consistent with the objectives and policies relating to visitor activities and recreation. Consequently, this aspect of the submission by DOC and the further submission by the Army are not supported at this time and it is requested that these parties address this matter at the hearing.

Planner's recommendations about the submission by the Department of Conservation

That submission 2523/1 is rejected and submissions 2523/2, 2523/3, 2523/4 and 2523/5 are accepted in part.

4.5 Submission by the Salvation Army (1102)

4.5.1 Decisions requested

The submission by the Salvation Army is lengthy and seeks a number of amendments to the detailed provisions of the Rotoroa land unit. Notwithstanding the detailed submission, it is worth noting that the submission does not raise significant concerns above the overall direction of the land unit but rather focuses on making amendments to the provisions.

The decisions requested in the submission are as follows:

Amend the last paragraph of clause 10a.27.1 Introduction (1102/2).
Include an additional sentence in paragraph 10a.27.1 Introduction (1102/3).
Amendment to clause 10a.27.2 in relation to public access (1102/4).
Amend clause 10a.27.3 (objective) (1102/5).
Replace the word "enhanced" with "maintained" in clause 10a.27.3 Objective (1102/6).
Delete policy 10a.27.3(3) which requires revegetation to be undertaken concurrently with the construction of new residential dwellings.
Add additional words to clause 10a.27.4 Strategy (1102/8).
Add a 3rd paragraph to clause Part 10a.27.4(2) Visitor Area to provide for temporary accommodation for workers (1102/9).
Amend the activity table for the conservation / residential area (1102/10).
Amend the activity table for visitor areas a and b (1102/11)
Amend the standard for residential dwellings within the conservation/residential area (1102/12).
Delete assessment criteria 5 under 10a.27.7.2 (1102/13).
Amend Table 12.4: Activity table to provide for leases, including renewals, for longer than 35 years for sites which have complying or approved activities as a controlled activity (1102/14)
Amend Table 12.4: Activity table to provide for the following as controlled activities:
- subdivision that does not meet the minimum site sizes
- subdivision in SA9, C6, C7 and Rt (1102/15)

4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.5.2.1 Amendment to clause 10a.27.1 Introduction (1102/2)

Submission 1102/2 seeks to amend the last paragraph of clause 10a.27.1 Introduction from "it is intended that the majority of existing buildings will be removed" to "it is intended that ~~the majority of~~ selected existing buildings will be removed".

This submission is supported as it will more accurately reflect how the island will be redeveloped.

4.5.2.2 Amendment to add an additional sentence to clause 10a.27.1 Introduction (1102/3)

Submission 1102/3 seeks to include an additional sentence in clause 10a.27.1 Introduction. which reads "many of the physical features of Rotoroa Island are a direct reflection of the long established landuses on the Island and the fact that the Island has been in single private ownership since 1907".

It is considered that an amendment of this nature is appropriate, however, the following wording is recommended as it will better integrate better with the existing wording in the Plan:

"Rotoroa was used as a rehabilitation centre for people suffering from addiction problems between 1908 and ~~until~~ 2006. Many of the physical features of Rotoroa are a direct reflection of this past use".

4.5.2.3 Amendment to clause 10a.27.2 Issues in relation to public access (1102/4)

Submission 1102/4 seeks to amend point 3 in clause 10a.27.2 from "How to provide for public access around the island, particularly adjoining the coast" to "How to provide for manage public access to suitable areas of the ~~around the~~ island, particularly adjoining the coast".

While public access is important the provisions should not give the impression that there will be access to the whole island. Accordingly, this submission is supported.

4.5.2.4 Amendment to clause 10a.27.3 Objective (1102/5)

Submission 1102/5 seeks to amend paragraph 10a.27.3 (objective) to read:

"to provide for residential and conservation activities to occur and to facilitate and manage ~~and~~ visitor facilities ~~to occur~~ , whilst ensuring that the landscape character and natural features of the island are protected and ~~enhanced~~ maintained".

In general terms, adding the words "facilitate and manage" in front of visitor activities is supported as it will increase the clarity of the objective. However, instead of this exact amendment it recommended that the words "facilitate and manage the development of" replace the words "provide for" so that the words apply to the residential and conservation activities to be established on the island as well as to visitor activities. The final wording of the recommended amendment is set out below:

"To ~~provide for~~ facilitate and manage the development of residential, conservation and visitor activities ~~to occur~~ while ensuring that the landscape character and natural features of the island are protected and enhanced".

The second amendment sought in submission 1102/5 relates to replacing the word "enhanced" at the end of the objective with the word "maintained". This amendment is also sought in submission 1102/6 and consequently has been addressed in 4.5.2.5 below.

It is noted that the wording in the submission replaces the word "visitor activities" in the objective with the "visitor facilities". It is assumed that this is simply an error as the change is not addressed in the submission. If it is not an error, it is requested that the submitter address this amendment at the hearing.

4.5.2.5 Amendment to delete "enhanced" from clause 10a.27.3 Objective (1102/6)

Submission 1102/6 seeks to delete the word "enhanced" from clause 10a.27.3 Objective and replace it with the word "maintained" as follows:

"To provide for residential, conservation activities and visitor activities to occur, whilst ensuring that the landscape character and natural features of the island are protected and ~~enhanced~~ maintained".

The submitter's concern with the use of the word "enhanced" is that there will be some areas of the island in which the landscape character and natural features will not be strictly be "enhanced". It is considered this concern would be better addressed by adding the words "where appropriate" after "enhanced" so that it is clear that the whole island will not be "enhanced". Such an amendment is preferable to that proposed by the submitter as replacing "enhanced" with "maintained" could result in a significantly lesser outcome for the island because:

The provisions for the conservation areas may become meaningless in that these areas could simply maintained as they are rather than being enhanced by conservation initiatives.
If the proposed development is not offset by an "enhancement" of the natural character and natural features it may result in significant adverse effects on the environment.

Accordingly, it is recommended that clause 10a.27.3 be amended as follows:

4.5.2.6 Amendment to delete clause 10a.27.3(3) Policy (1102/7)

Submission 1102/7 seeks to delete policy 10a.27.3(3) which states:

"By requiring revegetation to be undertaken concurrently with the construction of residential buildings so that the adverse effects of those buildings are mitigated and the natural character of the island enhanced".

The submitter's concern with this policy is that revegetation cannot practically happen at the same time as the construction of dwellings. This concern is accepted but rather than deleting the policy in its entirety it is considered that a more effective solution would be to reword the policy as follows:

"By requiring revegetation to be undertaken ~~concurrently with the construction of residential buildings~~ so that the adverse effects of ~~those~~ residential buildings are mitigated and the natural character of the island enhanced".

4.5.2.7 Amendment to add to clause 10a.27.4 Strategy (1102/8)

Submission 1102/8 seeks to add the following words to the first sentence in the first paragraph of 10a.27.4:

"The resource management strategy for Rotoroa is to divide the land unit into two different areas that are cohesively designed and managed to maintain, and where appropriate, enhance the landscape and natural character ".

This submission is supported as the proposed wording reinforces that each of the areas is expected to be cohesively designed to maintain and enhance the landscape and natural character of the island.

4.5.2.8 Addition of a new paragraph to clause 10a.27.4 Strategy (1102/9)

Submission 1102/9 seeks to add a 3rd paragraph to clause 10a.27.4(2) visitor area that reads:

"The existing buildings in the visitor area may also be used for temporary accommodation and amenity blocks for workers undertaking restoration and construction activities, provided that such accommodation does not involve external changes to the appearance of, or footprints to, existing buildings".

This submission is supported as workers accommodation will need to be provided on the island and as such should be recognised in the strategy for the Visitor Area.

4.5.2.9 Amendments to the activity table for the conservation / residential area (1102/10)

Submission 1102/10 seeks the following amendments to the activity table (clause 10a.27.5.1) for the conservation / residential area:

(a) Provide for multiple dwellings (up to a maximum of 10 - excluding caretaker's residence) and associated residential accessory buildings, located within the areas identified as indicative house sites on figure 10a.5: Rotoroa as a controlled activity (rather than as a restricted discretionary activity as notified in the Plan).

(b) Delete Visitor Information Centre and provide for that activity as a Restricted discretionary activity in Table 10a.27.5.2 (Visitor Areas A and B)

(c) Provide for two caretakers residences as a permitted activity in the conservation/residential area (as opposed to the provision for a single caretakers residence as notified in the Plan).

(d) Provide for the continued use of selected areas of the conservation/residential area for pastoral and rural activities as a permitted activity.

The recommendations on each of the above amendments are set out below:

(a) The Plan does not provide for controlled activities and, as such, it is not possible to support providing for multiple dwellings as a controlled activity (this matter was addressed in the hearing and decision report on the whole plan). Notwithstanding this, it is considered that a controlled activity status would not be an efficient and effective mechanism for addressing the potential adverse effects of the residential dwellings. This is because potential adverse effects may arise from the scale, form, location and materials to be used in the construction of the dwellings and not all of these matters can be adequately addressed through a controlled activity consent which only allows for the imposition of conditions of consent (as compared to the other forms of consent which can be declined if the application will generate more than minor adverse effects).

(b) Provision was made for a visitor information centre in the conservation / residential area because the draft discussion documents received from the Army indicated that this was the expected location for this activity. However, if this is not the case the submission is supported and provision for this activity should be removed from the activity for the conservation/residential area.

(c) Increasing the number of caretakers' residences in this area from 1 to 2 is not opposed in principle, however, the potential adverse effects of such residences are of concern particularly as the provision sought will increase the number of buildings in the conservation/residential area from 10 to 12 (being 10 dwellings and 2 caretaker residences). To address this issue, it is requested that submitter identify at the hearing which dwellings will be retained for use as caretakers' residences so that the potential effects can be better understood.

(d) It is considered that provision should be made for the continued use of the conservation/residential area for pastoral and rural activities. However, these activities should be referred to as "pastoral farming" and "horticulture" to be consistent with the wording used in other land units and the definitions contained in part 14 of the Plan.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the activity table for the conservation/residential area should be amended as shown in Appendix 3.

4.5.2.10 Amendments to the activity table for visitor areas A and B (1102/11)

Submission 1102/11 seeks the following amendments to the activity table (clause 10a.27.5.2) for visitor areas A and B:

(a) Provide for the Visitors Information Centre as a restricted discretionary activity

(b) Add the provision for pastoral and grazing activity as a permitted activity

(c) Add the provision for temporary accommodation for workers within existing buildings in visitor areas a and b as a permitted activity

(d) Amend the activity table in clause 10a.27.5.2 to include the provision for two caretakers residences as a permitted activity in visitor area a and b.

(e) Add provision for storage facilities for trailer boats and ancillary equipment in visitor areas a and b as a controlled activity.

The recommendations on each of the amendments is set out below:

(a) Locating a visitor information centre within the visitor area is appropriate as it will give effect to the objective of providing for recreation and conservation activities on the island. However, this activity does not need to be listed separately in the activity table as it is covered in the definition of integrated visitor development.

(b) As identified in 4.5.2.9 above, it is considered appropriate that provision is made for the continuation of pastoral and rural activities. However, these activities should be referred to as "pastoral farming" and "horticulture" to be consistent with the wording uses in other land units and the definitions contained in part 14 of the Plan.

(c) As identified in 4.5.2.8 above, it is appropriate to provide for temporary accommodation for workers within existing buildings in the activity table for visitor areas A and B.

(d) Increasing the provision for caretakers dwellings from one to two in visitor areas A and B is supported as this is the primary area in which built development will be located and as the potential visual effects of the dwellings will be addressed by the coverage and height limits.

(e) Providing for storage facilities for trailer boats and ancillary equipment is appropriate as these facilities will be necessary to support the residential, conservation and visitor activities. However, as in the case of the visitor information centre above it is not necessary to list this activity separately as definition of integrated visitor development includes "management and maintenance facilities and service infrastructure" albeit that this could be made clearer by adding the word storage so that it reads "management, storage and maintenance facilities and service infrastructure".

4.5.2.11 Amend the building coverage control for residential dwellings in the conservation / residential area (1102/12)

Submission 1102/12 seeks to amend the standard for residential dwellings within the conservation/residential area from 300m2 to 600m2 (table 10c.5 in the Proposed District Plan).

The provision for 300m2 of building coverage is considered to be appropriate as it provides for a large dwelling while ensuring that the cumulative impact of the dwellings does not detract from the visual amenity and landscape character of the island. This provision is also relative to the other coverage provisions in the plan in that it is smaller than the 500m2 of coverage provided for the large scale rural lots but larger than the coverage provision for the small scale lots on western Waiheke and the settlement areas on Great Barrier.

For the reasons outlined above, and as the submission does not contain a landscape analysis that would warrant a change in position, the submission is not supported at this point in time. However, the submitter is requested to present landscape evidence on this matter at the hearing, and this may change the recommendation. It also would be helpful if this evidence could factor in the two dwellings that are sought to be retained for use as caretakers residences.

4.5.2.12 Delete assessment criteria 5 in clause 10a.27.7.2 (1102/13)

Submission 1102/13 seeks to delete assessment criteria 5 under clause 10a.27.7.2. Assessment criteria 5 states:

"The extent to which public access will be provided throughout the island".

The submitter is concerned that this criteria implies a significantly wider level of assessment than that required in relation to a single building or activity: It is the submitter's view that the assessment criteria should assess the degree of environmental effect that a structure or activity should generate, and should not include the degree of public access around a privately owned island.

Having considered the submitter's concerns, it is considered that the assessment criteria should be amended so that it does not imply that public access will be provided throughout the island. The suggested wording is as follows follows:

"The extent to which public access will be provided for within ~~throughout~~ the island, particularly adjoining the coast".

The above amendment is preferable to deleting the criteria as sought by the submitter as if the criteria is deleted there will be no mechanism to ensure that public access is provided to the island. It is also noted that:

If public access is not provided the objectives and policies of the land unit will be meaningless as they are based around providing visitor activities and public access.
A significant amount of development is provided to occur on the island and public access is necessary to mitigate the effects of this development in the same way as public access was provided around the Church Bay and Owhanake subdivisions.

4.5.2.13 Subdivision provisions - leases ((1102/14)

Submission 1102/14 seeks that table 12.4 is amended so that subdivision for leases, including renewals, for longer than 35 years for site which have complying or approved activities are controlled activities.

In responding to the above request, it should be noted that during the formulation of the Plan, the council reached the view that the controlled activity status was not appropriate for any of the activities identified in the Plan. In the past, the council has used the controlled activity status in the Isthmus Plan, the Central Area Plan and in the operative Hauraki Gulf Islands Plan. Considerable experience in administering these Plans, together with the development of case law, has led council to the view that, in the main, the use of the controlled activity status does not provide the council with sufficient discretion to address the potential adverse effects associated with particular proposals. The council cannot decline an application for a controlled activity. While the council may impose reasonable conditions that relate to the matters over which it has reserved control, it cannot impose conditions which require such significant modification as to fundamentally alter the proposal. To do so would effectively negate the consent granted and prevent the activity from taking place. Not all proposals which warrant assessment through the resource consent process can be adequately mitigated by the use of conditions. Some proposals need to be declined or substantially modified.

Applicants seeking subdivisions for leases, including renewals, for longer than 35 years for a site require restricted discretionary activity consent which requires assessment against specific matters of discretion in clause 12.8.2. It is considered that in many circumstances such forms of subdivision will be approved especially when the sites have complying or approved activities.

Notwithstanding this, it is not considered appropriate that such forms of subdivision should have a controlled activity status, as there may be circumstances in which additional matters need to be addressed in order to address the potential adverse effects associated with a proposal. For example, an applicant applying to lease a portion of land for productive purposes may be undertaking an activity on land which has known heritage features. Council may consider that leasing this portion of land for productive purposes could have an adverse effect on these features. A controlled activity consent would result in Council approving consent for the leasehold subdivision with restrictive conditions relating to the protection of these heritage features. However, to do so may effectively negate the consent granted and prevent the activity from taking place. The applicant may also require a significant modification to the proposal in order to ensure that the effects on these site(s) are not adverse.

For these reasons, it is considered that the use of the controlled activity status does not provide the council with sufficient control to address the potential adverse effects associated with particular leasehold proposals. As such, it is recommended that submission 1102/14 be rejected.

4.5.2.14 Subdivision provisions - controlled activities (1102/15)

Submission 1102/15 opposes the non-complying activity status in the proposed plans for the following activities:

(a) Any subdivision including cross leases which do not comply with the minimum site sizes in tables 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3.

(b) Any proposed subdivision in SA 9 (Aotea Settlement area), C6 (quarry) C7 (wharf) and Rt (Rotoroa).

The submitter states that the use of non-complying activities does not take into consideration or provide for the fact that specific residential development on Rotoroa island is provided for in the proposed Plan (in figure 10a.5). The submitter therefore requests that subdivision in the above land units and settlement areas are controlled activities.

In relation to the matter of controlled activities the above submission is not supported for the reasons previously outlined.

With regard to (a) above, it is considered that subdivisions which do not meet the minimum and/or average site sizes in tables 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3, should be non-complying activities as the effects of reducing site sizes can lead to adverse amenity effects which detract from the character of the environment, and undermine the resource management strategy and objectives and policies for the land unit and/or settlement area. These non-complying activities are subject to the Act's section 104D test.

Prescribing a controlled activity status to subdivision which do not meet the minimum and/or average site sizes undermines the purpose of having minimum lot sizes, which seek to preserve the natural character of the land units settlement areas and relate minimum areas based on their physical and natural character, use and potential. Such an approach is not consistent with the objectives of securing appropriate management of resources, or consistent with achieving sustainable land use development.

With regard to (b) above, it should be noted that the proposed Plan has identified freehold subdivision in these areas as non-complying activities. The non-complying activity status is directly linked to the resource management strategy for these land units or settlement areas, which does not envisage freehold subdivisions taking place in these areas. The reason for the non-complying activity status is because the plan envisages a comprehensive land use development within these areas so that the overall intensity of development and the scale, form and location of individual activities and buildings can be assessed in a comprehensive and integrated manner for the island which results in better management of resources. Such an approach will provide greater public certainty over the extent to which subdivisions can be undertaken within these land units.

With regard to the point made by the submitter regarding the multiple dwellings identified in figure 10a.5 of the proposed Plan, this relates to the land use provisions of Rotoroa which seek to redevelop the island primarily for conservation purposes but also for residential and visitor activities. Providing for non-complying activity subdivision ensures that the overall intensity of development and the scale, form and location of individual activities and buildings can assessed in a comprehensive and integrated manner for the island, which results in the better management of resources. This approach is also consistent with the objective and polices for the island.

In addition to the above, it should be noted that while freehold subdivision is a non-complying activity, unit titling and leasehold subdivision can still be applied for as restricted discretionary activities.

For reasons outlined above, it is recommended that submission 1102/15 be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about the submission by the Salvation Army:

That submissions 1102/2, 1102/4, 1102/8, and 1102/9 are accepted, submissions 1102/3, 1102/5, 1102/6, 1102/7, 1102/10, 1102/11 and 1102/13 are accepted in part and submissions 1102/12, 1102/14 and 1102/15 are rejected.

4.6 Submission by the Hauraki Gulf Planning Group (947)

4.6.1 Decisions requested

The decisions requested in the submission by the Hauraki Gulf Planning Group are summarised below:

Provide for the ability to lease for more than 35 years in Part 12 of the Plan (947/2)
Amend clauses 10a.27.1, 10a.27.2 and 10a.27.4.1 to refer to the re-use of existing buildings and how that relates to integrated visitor development (947/3, 947/4, 947/7 and 947/10).
Amend clause 10a.27.2 to include reference to recreation activities (947/5).
Amend clause 10a.27.3 to support outdoor recreation and visitor activities (947/6).
Amend clause 10a.27.4(1) so that the conservation/residential area is referring only to the northern area of figure 10a.5 (947/7).
Amend clause 10a.27.4(2) so that visitor area A on figure 10a.5 is split into two (947/8).
Amend the site coverage within the visitor area (947/9 and 947/18).
Amend the activity table for the conservation/residential area in clause 10a.27.5.1 (947/11 and 947/13).
Amend the activity table for visitor areas A and B in clause 10a.27.5.2 (947/12, 947/14 and 947/22).
Limiting the height and footprint of residential buildings (947/15 and 947/17).
Clarification as to whether the 5m height limit in visitor area a provides for two storeys (947/16).
Including a conservation strip over the beach and wharf access area to reflect the 40m coastal yard (947/19).
Provision for boat launching activities and wharf access and maintenance as a controlled activity (947/20).
Inclusion of a requirement for a conservation management strategy (947/21).
Inclusion of minimum outcomes for public access and recreation (947/23).
Inclusion of the existing chapel and "ex-army" accommodation block within Appendix 1b - schedule of buildings, objects, properties and places of special value (947/24).

4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The submissions set out below have been ordered so that all those submissions relating to clauses 10a.27.1 to 10a.27.4 and other general provisions are addressed first. Those submissions are then followed by submissions relating to the residential development and then the submissions relating to the visitor areas.

4.6.2.1 Providing for the reuse of existing buildings and integrated visitor development (947/3, 947/4 and 947/10).

Submissions 947/3, 947/4 and 947/10 seek that clauses 10a.27.1, 10.27.2, 10a.27.4(1) and 10a.27.4(2) be amended to acknowledge that existing buildings may be retained either completely or in part and re-used or upgraded. The submission also identifies that if buildings are to be retained then the integrated approach to redevelopment is no longer applicable.

The further submission by the Army supports this submission in part on the basis that re-use of buildings should be provided for but not required. The Army does not support deleting the requirement for integrated development if buildings are re-used because it is considered that the integrated approach to development has the flexibility to include both new and existing buildings.

In terms of amending clause 10a.27.1 to provide for the re-use of existing buildings, it is considered that this concern was addressed by the amendment proposed to clause 10a.27.1 in section 4.5.2.1 above. An additional amendment to clause 10a.27.2 is not considered necessary as none of the issues in this clause explicitly comment on whether or not buildings are to be removed or reused.

In terms of amending the strategy to provide for the re-use of existing buildings, it is considered that this matter was addressed in part by the amendment proposed in 4.5.2.8 above. It is not considered necessary to make any further amendments as the strategy explicitly states that integrated visitor development refers to "all buildings" i.e. new buildings and re-use of existing buildings.

Amending provisions so that the reuse of existing buildings does not require consent as an integrated visitor development is not supported (except for temporary workers accommodation) as would run contrary to the reason for requiring integrated visitor development to occur. In particular, it would mean that the potential adverse effects of the overall development would not be assessed in a comprehensive manner as the application would not relate to the development as a whole i.e. it would exclude the existing buildings.

Notwithstanding the above, the following amendment is proposed to the definition of "integrated visitor development" in Part 14 - Definitions to ensure clarity on this matter:

"means a comprehensive proposal for all buildings (including new and existing buildings) and activities associated with a visitor development....."

4.6.2.2 Amend clause 10a.27.2 Resource management issues to refer to recreation activities (947/5)

Submission 947/5 seeks that clause 10a.27.2 is amended to include reference to recreation activities. This amendment is supported by the further submission by the Army.

This submission is supported as it will ensure consistency between the issues in 10a.27.2 and the policies in 10a.27.3. The recommended wording is as follows:

"How to provide for recreation activities and for public access around the island, particularly adjoining the coast".

4.6.2.3 Amend clause 10a.27.3 Objective to support outdoor recreation and visitor activities (947/6)

Submission 947/6 seeks that clause 10a.27.3 Objective and policies is amended to support outdoor recreation and visitor activities.

This submission is not supported as the objective and policies already support outdoor recreation activities and visitor activities. In particular, clauses 10a.27.3 and 10a.27.3(1) already reference visitor and recreation activities.

4.6.2.4 Amend clause 10a.27.4(1) so that the conservation / residential area is limited to the northern area of the island (947/7)

Submission 947/7 seeks that clause 10a.27.4(1) be amended so that the conservation/residential area is referring only to the northern area of figure 10a.5 and not the southern area (which should be defined as just conservation area) and to remove the reference to existing buildings being removed. The reason given for seeking these amendments is that the conservation areas should allow for outdoor recreation but not buildings.

Amending the conservation/residential area so that it only relates to the northern end of the island is not supported as it is unnecessary and will simply result in large parts of the activity table in clause 10a.27.5.1 Conservation/residential area being printed twice. It is also noted that the submitter's concern about residential buildings being able to be constructed in the southern end of the island is unfounded as the provision in the activity table requires the dwellings to be located within the areas identified as indicative house sites on figure 10a.5.

With respect to deleting the reference in the strategy to removing existing buildings, this amendment is also not considered appropriate as there are a number of existing dwellings and farm buildings located at the northern end of the island that will need to be removed concurrently with the residential development so that cumulative adverse effects are avoided. Notwithstanding, further clarity could be added to the strategy by inserting the words ("except caretakers dwellings") so that it is clear that the existing buildings may be retained for caretakers residences.

4.6.2.5 Activity table in the conservation / residential area (947/11 and 947/13)

Submissions 947/11 and 947/13 seek that clause 10a.27.5.1 be amended to take account of existing activities and that:

outdoor recreation should be a permitted activity
caretakers dwellings should be a restricted discretionary activity
the maintenance and formation of accessways and roads should be restricted discretionary activities
multiple dwellings should be a discretionary activity
any structures should be a restricted discretionary activity.

Set out below are the recommendations in respect of the above matters:

Activities listed in the activity table such as walking trails, observation areas and playgrounds already provide for outdoor recreation activities, however these provisions could be further enhanced by including "outdoor adventure activities" in the activity table.
In 4.5.2.9 above, it has been requested that the Army identify which dwellings will be retained for use as caretakers dwellings. If the dwellings identified are appropriate from a visual perspective it is not considered necessary to require a restricted discretionary consent for the re-use of the building however, the activity table and Figure 10a.5 could be amended to reflect the buildings identified.
It is not necessary to require a separate consent process for the construction of accessways and roads as these activities are covered in the assessment criteria for the residential dwellings.
It is not necessary to require a discretionary activity consent for multiple dwellings as the potential effects of such dwellings are limited to the scale, form, location and materials to be used in the construction of the dwellings.
Given that multiple dwellings require a restricted discretionary activity consent the buildings does in effect require a restricted discretionary activity consent as sought by the submitter. However, this could be made clearer by inserting a separate line in the activity table which makes this clear and is consistent with the approach used in other land units.
The only existing activities that are not recognised in the activity table is pastoral farming and horticulture. This matter was addressed in 4.5.2.9 above.

Given the recommendations set out above, these submissions are supported in part.

4.6.2.6 Height and footprint of residential buildings (947/15 and 947/17)

Submission 947/15 seeks that table 10c.5 be amended so that the maximum height of residential buildings is reduced from 6m to 5m. Submission 947/17 seeks that the maximum footprint for each dwelling is reduced from 300m2 to 250m2 and that any increase above 250m2 be by way of a non-complying activity consent rather than as a discretionary activity. This submission is opposed by the Army on the basis that they are too prescriptive and restrictive.

As identified in 4.5.2.11 above, the 300m2 of building coverage is considered to be appropriate for the island and in terms of the other provisions in the Plan. As such, this submission is not supported at this point in time, however, as was recommended for the submission by the Army, the submitter may wish to present evidence on this matter at the hearing.

4.6.2.7 Splitting visitor area A into two areas (947/8)

Submissions 947/8 and 947/9 seek to amend clause 10a.27.4 (2) - and figure 10a.5 so that visitor area A is split into 2 parts and the majority of buildings are required to locate in the south western part at the wharf side of the island so as to reduce visual bulk and dominance. This submission is opposed by the Army as being unnecessary.

It is assumed that the submitter's concern is in relation to the visual bulk and dominance effects of buildings on Ladies Bay on the western side of the island. It is considered that this issue has already been addressed in the provisions by the fact that the integrated visitor development will require a discretionary activity resource consent and, as such, the visual bulk and dominance effects on the beach will be able to be addressed as part of this consent. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the following amendment should be made to the assessment criteria to highlight this issue:

"Being located so that it does not dominate or detract from ~~private or public views which are characterised by~~ natural landscapes , natural features (such as beaches) and the coastal character of the island".

4.6.2.8 Site coverage in the visitor accommodation area (947/9 and 947/18)

Submissions 947/9 and 947/18 respectively seek that:

33% of the defined site coverage for the visitor accommodation area should be the maximum area allowed at the eastern part of area A with the boundary being the highest part of area A more or less.
In Table 10c.5 the 3000m2 maximum coverage for the visitor area should be split into a ratio allocation where it is specified how much can occur in area A1 or A2 (split into 2 parts as noted earlier in submission) and in area B.

The rationale for these submissions is not entirely clear but it is assumed that the intent is to ensure that the bulk of the development occurs away from the beaches on either side of the island and roughly in the same location as the majority of the existing development (which is essentially the area defined as visitor area B in the Plan).

In this regard, the Plan already includes an incentive for the majority of buildings to locate in visitor area B as this area has a higher height limit (8m) than visitor area A (5m). It is considered that this incentive is sufficient as even if it did not work and an application was lodged to locate the majority of buildings within area A, the discretionary activity status of the application means that all potential and actual effects, including visual, character, scale, bulk and location effects, could all be considered.

4.6.2.9 Activity table in visitor areas A and B (947/12, 947/14 and 947/22)

Submissions 947/12, 947/14 and 947/22 seek that clause 10a.27.5.2 be amended to take account of current/historical uses and that:

outdoor recreation should be a permitted activity
caretakers dwellings should be a restricted discretionary activity
the maintenance and formation of accessways and roads should be restricted discretionary activities
any structures/new buildings/additions and alterations should be a discretionary activity
Wharf activities should be defined and limited to scale if they are permitted activities
The list of activities should include rehabilitation of youth offenders, rehabilitation of at risk families and people in the community, education purposes, job skill workshops, spiritual gatherings, historical gatherings, gatherings for cultural significance, a retreat for community workers, a teaching resource and workshop, education and outdoor pursuit activities.

Set out below are the recommendations in respect of the above matters:

Activities listed in the activity table such as walking trails, observation areas and playgrounds already provide for outdoor recreation activities, however these provisions could be further enhanced by including "outdoor adventure activities" within the definition of "integrated visitor development".
It is not necessary for caretakers dwellings to be a restricted discretionary activity as such dwellings already exist within the visitor areas and, as such, will simply be re-used.
It is not necessary to require a separate consent process for the construction of accessways and roads as these activities are covered in the assessment criteria for the integrated visitor development.
Given that integrated visitor development is a discretionary activity, buildings within the visitor area already do, in effect, require a discretionary activity consent as sought by the submitter. However, this could be made clearer by inserting a separate line in the activity table which makes this clear and is consistent with the approach used in other land units.
As identified in 4.5.2.9 above, it is recommended that pastoral farming and horticulture are included in the activity table.
It is not considered necessary to further define "wharf administration and freight handling activities" as they are self explanatory. However, it is considered appropriate to limit the scale of these activities by limits in table 10c.5 of 6m on the height of buildings and 200m2 on the building coverage.
The intention with the visitor area is that one resource consent is sought for the construction of the buildings and the activities to be located within those buildings hence the term "integrated visitor development". If the activities sought by the submitter are added to the activity table then those activities will be outside of the integrated visitor development process and contrary to the intent of the provisions. Consequently, it is considered that the activities should be added to the definition of integrated visitor development rather than the activity table. It is also considered that these activities can be encapsulated in the terms "educational facilities" and "rehabilitation facilities" rather than being listed as sought. It should also be noted that the "spiritual", "historical" and "cultural" gatherings are already covered by the inclusion of "tourist complex" within the definition of integrated visitor development.

For the reasons set out above, submissions 947/12, 947/14 and 947/22 are supported in part.

4.6.2.10 5m height limit in visitor area A (947/16)

Submission 947/16 seeks clarification as to whether or not the 5m height limit in visitor area A allows for 2 storeys.

Table 10c.5 does not limit the number of storeys for building in visitor area A and, as such, it is possible, although not likely, that a two storey building could be constructed in this area through excavation.

4.6.2.11 Inclusion of a conservation strip (947/19)

Submission 947/19 seeks that figure 10a.5 be amended to show a defined conservation strip over the beach area and wharf access alignment to reflect the 40m coastal yard requirement.

This submission is not supported as the 40m coastal yard requirement already achieves, in effect, a conservation strip. In this regard, it is noted that the 40m coastal yard requirement means that buildings cannot be placed within 40m of mean high water springs without resource consent for a discretionary activity.

4.6.2.12 Boat launching activities and wharf access and maintenance (947/20)

Submission 947/20 seeks that the Plan provisions should allow for access to the water for boat launching and also provide explicitly for wharf access and maintenance as a controlled activity.

This submission is supported to the extent that provision should be made for boat launching ramps and jetties (including boat trailer parks). This amendment is consistent with the provisions of Commercial 7 (wharf) land unit except that unlike in Commercial 7, the activity cannot be allocated a permitted activity status, as the relief sought by the submitter was that it be listed as a controlled activity. Since it is recommended that there are no controlled activities provided for in the plan, the activity will require consent as a restricted discretionary activity.

It is not considered necessary to provide for wharf maintenance as the wharf is located over the coastal marine area and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Plan. Wharf access is not considered to be an activity in itself and, as such, does not be listed separately in the activity table. It should also be recognised that even if it was considered an activity in itself, requiring a controlled activity consent for such a day to day activity would be unduly onerous.

4.6.2.13 Conservation management strategy (947/21)

Submission 947/21 seeks that the provisions of the land unit include a requirement for a specific conservation management strategy for those areas mapped as conservation. The reason given for requiring a conservation strategy and plan is to ensure that development is in sequence with conservation management.

The assessment criteria in clauses 10a.27.7.2 and 10a.27.7.3 require applications for residential dwellings and integrated visitor development to consider the extent to which landscaping and revegetation will be undertaken to integrate the building development and to enhance the natural landscape character of the island. However, the submitter is correct in identifying that there is no mechanism for ensuring when and how and when conservation activities will occur.

Consequently, it is recommended that an additional assessment criteria be added into clause 10a.27.7.3 which states as follows:

" The extent to which a conservation strategy has been prepared which:

describes the ecological value of the islands, including the ecological values of the SES areas
details how the threats to the ecological values of the island will be addressed, including detailing weed and pest management
details how the ecological values of the island will be enhanced, including the areas to be replanted, the species to be used and any vegetation to be removed.
addresses how the conservation works will inter-relate with any re-vegetation planting that has occurred as a result of the dwellings at the northern end of the island
addresses how public access will be provided around the island while ensuring that the conservation values are protected.
addresses the bullet points 1-5 of the revegetation plan assessment criteria above. "

The end result of this amendment will mean that an application(s) for the construction of the residential dwellings will need to include a revegetation plan whereas an application for integrated visitor development will need to include a revegetation/landscaping plan to address the area surrounding the built development and a conservation strategy for the remainder of the island. This distinction is considered appropriate as the integrated visitor development will have a larger scale and intensity and the visitors that will use the development will utilise the conservation area for recreation activities.

4.6.2.14 Public access and recreation (947/23).

Policy 10a.27.3 (1) needs to be carried through into rules so that there are specified minimum outcomes for public access and recreation. Policy 10a.27.3(1) states:

"By providing areas throughout the island for public access and recreation activities".

It is considered that this policy is given effect to by the assessment criteria contained in clause 10a.27.7.2 which states:

"The extent to which public access will be provided throughout the island".

Consequently, submission 947/23 is not supported.

4.6.2.15 Subdivision provisions - leases (947/2)

Submission 947/2 states that "subdivision options should be provided for where public recreation or public visitor related activities are established/proposed and require leases over 35 years such that subdivision is deemed to occur. Such subdivision should be provided for as a restricted discretionary activity."

Table 12.4 of the Proposed Plan provides for "leases, including renewals, for longer than 35 years for sites which have complying or approved development activities" as restricted discretionary activities on Rotoroa. It is noted that "leases, including renewals, for less than 35 years which have complying or approved development activities" are provided for as permitted activities on Rotoroa.

Therefore, unit titling and leasing on Rotoroa as either permitted or restricted discretionary activities are already provided for within the Plan. However, it is accepted that this is not clearly stated within the Rotoroa land unit provisions. It is further noted that several submissions have requested similar decisions in the hearings report for Part 12 - Subdivision. It is therefore evident that Part 12 of the Plan does not specify that in many land units and settlement areas, leasehold subdivision may still occur on sites which may not be able to be subdivided into freehold sites. Accordingly, this matter will be addressed within hearings report for Part 12.

For reasons set out above, it is recommended that submission 947/2 be accepted however, no changes to Rotoroa is recommended.

4.6.2.16 Recognition of existing chapel and "ex-army" accommodation block (947/24) >)

Submission 947/24 states that the existing chapel and "ex-army" accommodation block should be scheduled for protection in Appendix 1b of the proposed plan.

It is assumed that the accommodation block is the one that was burned down and accordingly was not considered for protection. All buildings considered worthy of protection on the island have been included in Appendix 1b. The submitter is invited to give reasons for scheduling these buildings at the hearing. At this stage it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about the submission by the Hauraki Gulf Planning Group:

That submissions 947/5, 947/4, 947/2 are accepted, submissions 947/3, 947/10, 947/7, 947/8, 947/ 12, 947/14, 947/22 and 947/20 are accepted in part and submissions 947/4, 947/6, 947/9, 947/18, 947/19, 947/23 and 947/24 are rejected.

5.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding the Rotoroa land unit 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 Nairn: Senior Planner Islands
Reviewer	Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands
Approver	Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning

Appendix A

Photos of existing development

Appendix B

Details of scheduled heritage features

Appendix 1

List of submissions and further submissions

Appendix 2

Summary of decisions requested

Appendix 3

Recommended amendments to the Plan

Home |
Terms of use