District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006
(Notified version 2006)
Street index |
Planning maps |
Text |
Appendices |
Annexures |
Section 32 material |
Plan modifications |
Help |
Notified - Home |
Decision - Home
Hearing reports index
Report on submissions to the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands
Section - Proposed 2006
| Topic: |
Rural 3 (Rakino amenity) |
| Report to: |
The Hearing Panel |
| Author: |
Sarah Smith |
| Date: |
15 August 2008 |
| Group file: |
314/274021
|
1.0 Introduction
This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that
were received by the council in relation to Rural 3 (Rakino amenity) 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 Rural
3. 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:
- Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s32(3)(a));
and
- Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose
of the RMA (s72); and
- 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:
- Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan (s32(3)(b));
and
- Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose
of the RMA (s72); and
- Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and
- (If a rule) achieve the objectives and policies of the Plan (s76(1)(b)).
The purpose of the RMA is "to promote the sustainable management of natural and
physical resources", and "sustainable management" is defined in section 5(2) as
meaning:
"... managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources
in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their
social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while
(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals)
to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and
(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems;
and
(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the
environment."
Along with section 5, part 2 of the RMA includes sections 6 (matters of national
importance), 7 (other matters) and 8 (Treaty of Waitangi), which set out a range
of matters that the council needs to recognise and provide for in achieving the
purpose of the RMA. Those matters are also relevant when considering submissions.
The Plan must assist the council to carry out its functions under section 31
of the RMA. These functions are:
"(a) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and
methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development,
or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district:
(b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or
protection of land, including for the purpose of
(i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and
(ii) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use,
disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and
(iia) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development,
subdivision, or use of contaminated land:
(iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:
(c) ...
(d) The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of
noise:
(e) The control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation
to the surface of water in rivers and lakes."
In addition to the matters listed above from the Eldamos decision:
- 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 Rural 3.
Land unit Rural 3 applies specifically to Rakino Island, and is characterised
by sites of generally four to five hectares in size with limited existing indigenous
vegetation and large portions of sites being grass covered. Most of the sites in
this land unit have coastal frontage. Rural 3 has high amenity, character and ecological
value due to its unique coastal character.
A separate land unit for Rakino Island was requested by the community and the
council responded to this feedback by creating land unit Rural 3.
4.0 Analysis of submissions
4.1 Introduction
This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about
Rural 3 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 Rural 3 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 about additional house sites
Submissions dealt with in this section:
138/1
4.2.1 Decisions requested
Submission
138/1
seeks the creation of an additional house site or alternatively if necessary a separate
subdivisional site in the north eastern corner of Lot 16 DP52537 (20 Sandford Way).
4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
4.2.2.1 Subdivision
The submitter believes the heritage classification (category B) on the old homestead
will have a negative effect on the likely resale value of the property.
Part 12 of the Plan relates to subdivision in the gulf islands.
Subdivision in land unit Rural 3 is a discretionary activity subject to compliance
with the general rules and standards and terms within Part 12 of the Plan. The minimum
site area for land unit Rural 3, as notified, is three hectares (30,000m²). The
area of the subject property is 44044m², and is therefore not large enough for subdivision
to be assessed as a discretionary activity it would be a non-complying activity
for this site. The subdivision provisions are to ensure that the visual amenity
of the land unit is preserved.
4.2.2.2 Part 10a.21 provisions
The provisions within land unit Rural 3 permit one dwelling per site as of right
and as the property has an existing dwelling, the construction of a second dwelling
would be a non-complying activity.
It is not appropriate to change this provision in order to provide for two dwellings
at 20 Sandford Way. The objective and policies in clause 10a.21.3.1 identify the
outcomes sought by the council and the rules to achieve them.
"10a.21.3.1 Objective
To provide for residential buildings and small scale visitor accommodation in
a manner which protects the unique coastal character and amenity of the land unit.
Policies
- By controlling the scale, form, colour and location of new buildings to ensure
that they are visually compatible with, and do not dominate, the coastal environment.
- By restricting the type and size of visitor accommodation within the land
unit."
Permitting multiple dwellings on Rakino could result in a proliferation of buildings
that would have significant adverse effects on the landscape and visual amenity
values.
It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.
| Planner's recommendations about submission seeking additional
house site
That submission
138/1
be rejected.
|
4.3 Submissions about objective 10a.21.3.2
Submissions dealt with in this section:
440/1,
440/2,
448/1,
3521/97. Group 1:
1550/2,
2042/2,
2202/2,
3094/2,
3518/2,
3552/2
4.3.1 Decisions requested
Group 1 submissions seek for 'requiring' to be substituted with 'encouraging'
within clause 10a.21.3.2.
Submissions
440/1
and 440/2
seek the removal of the planting requirement.
Submission
448/1
seeks to amend the requirement to plant with 'require' replaced with 'encourage'
or 'support'.
Submission
3521/97 seeks to amend clause 10a.21.3.2 to include a policy that acknowledges
other methods outside of the plan that enable replanting and restoration on a voluntary
basis.
4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
4.3.2.1 Requiring or encouraging planting
Policy 1 in clause 10a.21.3.2 states:
"By requiring the planting of sites for amenity and wastewater disposal
and ecological enhancement purposes."
The use of the word requiring instead of encouraging is appropriate in relation
to planting of wastewater disposal areas, as this is a requirement of Technical
Publication 58 and the Auckland Regional Plan: Air, land and water. Due to a recommendation
below to remove the planting requirement of front yards, it is no longer appropriate
to use the word requiring for the planting of sites for amenity and ecological enhancement.
It is recommended below in section 4.5 of this report, as a subsequent amendment,
that the wording relating to planting for amenity and enhancement purposes be removed
from this policy.
The policy should now read:
By requiring the planting of sites for amenity and wastewater disposal
and ecological enhancement purposes.
It is recommended that these submissions be rejected, as it is not appropriate
to insert "encouraging" in this policy.
However, it is noted that a consequential amendment will need to be made to the
objective to accurately reflect the amended policy.
4.3.2.2 Removal of planting requirement
Submission 440 seeks to remove the planting requirement in relation to clause
10a.21.3.2. It is noted that it has been recommended to remove the requirement to
plant front yards, however the planting requirement for wastewater disposal areas
is to remain. Therefore it is recommended that this submission be accepted in part
in so far as it supports the removal of the planting requirement for front yards.
4.3.2.3 Other methods
The submitter seeks incentives to encourage landowners to undertake revegetation
and restoration on a voluntary basis and other methods outside of the district plan
to be acknowledged in a policy.
The policies of the Plan identify how the objectives can be achieved. It
is therefore considered unnecessary and inappropriate to include recognition of
other methods outside of the Plan process which are used to encourage replanting.
While it is acknowledged that non-statutory methods can encourage planting it is
considered that these methods are outside the scope of the Plan.
It is recommended that this submission be rejected.
4.4 Submissions about activity status of buildings
Submissions dealt with in this section:
339/2,
446/1,
449/2,
1550/3,
2042/3,
2202/3,
3093/2,
3094/3,
3147/2,
3518/3,
3552/3
4.4.1 Decisions requested
Submission
339/2 states that in respect to Rural 3, buildings as restricted discretionary
activity should be 'controlled' not 'restricted'.
Submission
446/1
seeks to change the status to build/construct from restricted discretionary to controlled
with clear and non-subjective definitions.
Submission
449/2
seeks for the removal of restricted discretionary and replace it with permitted
or controlled with more reasonable defined terms (for the construction of, or additions/
alterations to buildings in Rural 3).
Submissions
1550/3,
2042/3,
2202/3,
3093/2,
3094/3,
3147/2,
3518/3
and 3552/3
seek the council to consider removing the restricted discretionary status for construction
in Rural 3 and make it controlled with appropriate conditions.
4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
Submitter's are concerned that a restricted discretionary status gives too much
power to objecting neighbours.
Continuum of activities
Section 77B of the RMA sets out the continuum of activities that may be used
in a district plan as follows: permitted activity, controlled activity, restricted
discretionary activity, discretionary activity, non-complying activity, prohibited
activity. The Plan uses all of these statuses except for that of controlled activity.
The differences between permitted, controlled, and restricted discretionary activities
are briefly set out below:
| Activity type |
Explanation |
| Permitted activity |
No resource consent required.
Must comply with the standards, terms or conditions, if any
specified in the Plan.
|
| Controlled activity |
Resource consent required.
The council must grant the resource consent.
The council must specify in the Plan the matters over which
it has reserved control.
The council may impose conditions on the resource consent, but
only with respect to the matters specified in the Plan.
Must comply with the standards, terms or conditions, if any
specified in the Plan.
|
| Restricted discretionary activity |
Resource consent required.
The council must specify in the Plan the matters over which
it has restricted its discretion.
The council may decline a resource consent or approve and impose
conditions, but only with respect to the matters specified in the Plan.
Must comply with the standards, terms or conditions, if any
specified in the Plan.
|
Issues with controlled activity status
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 the 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.
The controlled activity status should be reserved for situations where the council
is confident that every proposal should be consented to and that adverse effects
can be adequately addressed via conditions without substantial modification to the
original proposal. While the controlled activity approach does provide greater certainty
to applicants, this needs to be balanced against the need to ensure good environmental
outcomes.
Comparison of proposed and operative Plans
There has been a well considered change in approach between the proposed and
the operative Plans in terms of the activity status applied to the construction
of buildings (including alterations and additions) in the more sensitive land units.
The operative Plan relies on the controlled activity status for dealing with construction
of buildings. The proposed Plan instead applies the restricted discretionary status
to the construction of buildings (including alterations and additions) in this land
unit. This is consistent with policies in the Plan about controlling the scale,
form (design and materials), colour and location of buildings so they do not have
adverse effects on the character and amenity values of Rakino.
It is considered that continuing with the approach in the operative Plan of relying
on a controlled activity status would not give the council sufficient certainty
that these critical policies could be achieved. At times it may be necessary to
require considerable modifications to a building or decline a particular building
in a particular location. For this reason the restricted discretionary status is
preferred and is considered to be more consistent with achieving the purpose of
the RMA.
With the given restricted discretionary status there is the option of non-notification,
however this also relies on obtaining written approvals from all the parties who
may be affected.
A permitted status for the construction of, or additions/ alterations to buildings
in Rural 3 is not appropriate. It would not ensure that the unique coastal character
of the land unit is protected from buildings. The scale, form (design), colour,
materials and location of the building need to be considered to ensure that the
proposed building is integrated with the natural landscape. A permitted status would
not achieve this.
It is assumed that by definitions and terms submissions
446/1
and 449/2
are referring to the matters to which the council has reserved its control.
It is recommended that these submissions be rejected as a controlled status would
not adequately address the potential adverse effects arising from a building proposal,
nor would the controlled status address the concerns of the submitters in regards
to neighbours involvement.
4.5 Submissions about clause 10a.21.6.1
Submissions dealt with in this section:
445/1,
1550/6,
2042/5,
2202/5,
2592/1,
2592/2,
3094/5,
3145/1,
3518/5,
3552/5
4.5.1 Decisions requested
Submissions
2202/5
and
3145/1 seek for clause 10a.21.6.1 to be removed.
Submissions
445/1,
1550/6,
2042/5,
3094/5,
3518/5,
3552/5
seek for the removal of clause 10a.21.6.1 and for the owner to provide a planting
plan as part of any application.
Submission
2592/1 seeks for clause 10a.21.6.1 to be amended to require owners to propose
a 'reasonable' planting plan as part of any application.
Submission
2592/2 seeks for an insertion into clause 10a.21.6.1 for a minimum number of
square metres based on a 'normal' road frontage and 60% of the 6 metre front yard.
4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
4.5.2.1 Removal of clause
Clause 10a.21.6.1 states:
On sites other than rear sites, not less than 60 per cent of the 6m front yard
must be planted with indigenous species (ecosourced where practicable).
The sites in Rural 3 are considered to be relatively large generally being 4
5 hectares in size. This rule is considered to be onerous for landowners. For
example, one of the large Rural 3 sites has a site frontage of approximately 218
metres. Clause 10a.21.6.1 would require an area of 784m2 to be planted in indigenous
vegetation. This results in considerable planting costs incurred by the landowners.
Policy 1 in objective 10a.21.3.2 states that planting of sites is required for
amenity and ecological enhancement purposes.
The island is characterised by open grassland with limited existing indigenous
vegetation which is typically located on the coastal fringe of the island. It is
considered that the grassed sites could be suitable for small scale productive uses
such as viticulture and horticulture. Providing for small scale productive uses
on these open, grassed sites will provide for the social and economic wellbeing
of the community and enhance the island's amenity. In addition, it is considered
that requiring landowners to plant such a large area of their site is not practical
nor reasonably enforceable.
Buildings are a restricted discretionary activity in the Plan and the council
has restricted its discretion to assessing matters to ensure that the proposed building
integrates with the natural landscape. Applicants may need to propose a planting
plan that will mitigate the effects of the proposed building.
It is recommended that clause 10a.21.6.1 be deleted and as a subsequent amendment
policy 1 of objective 10a.21.3.2 be corrected to remove wording around the requirement
of planting for amenity and enhancement purposes.
It is therefore recommended that submissions
2202/5
and
3145/1 be accepted and submissions
445/1,
1550/6,
2042/5,
3094/5,
3518/5
and 3552/5
be accepted in part.
It is recommended that submission
2592/1 be
rejected, as it is not considered necessary to require a planting plan as part of
any application. Applicants will most likely submit a planting plan in order to
show that the proposed building is not dominant in the landscape.
It is recommended that submission
2592/2 be
rejected as it seeks for amendments to the clause which is inappropriate due to
the above recommendation to remove the clause in its entirety.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments
to clause 10a.21.6.1 That submissions
2205/5 and
3145/1 be accepted and submissions
445/1,
1550/6,
2042/5,
3094/5,
3518/5
and
3552/5 be accepted in part and the Plan be amended to delete clause 10a.21.6.1.
and to amend clause 10a.21.3.2 (1) to state:
By requiring the planting of sites for amenity and wastewater disposal
and ecological enhancement purposes.
That submissions
2592/1
and 2592/2
be rejected.
|
4.6 Submissions about clause 10a.21.6.2
Submissions dealt with in this section:
447/1,
1550/7,
2042/6,
2202/6,
3094/6,
3518/6,
3146/1,
3552/6
4.6.1 Decisions requested
All of the submissions seek the removal of clause 10a.21.6.2.
4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
Clause 10a.21.6.2 states:
"On all sites, planting of the wastewater disposal area must be undertaken. Appendix
13 Planting guide, identifies vegetation that is appropriate for planting of effluent
disposal fields."
Onsite wastewater disposal has to be sustainably managed to avoid pollution to
the environment and risk to human health. This means that the wastewater disposal
area needs to be designed to avoid leaching of discharges into waterways and groundwater
aquifers. Planting significantly assists with the processing of effluent via evapo-transpiration
and soil stabilisation. The requirement for planting is consistent throughout all
the gulf islands.
In the Resource Management Act, sustainable management means managing the use,
development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a
rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic,
and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while
(a)Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals)
to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and
(b)Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems;
and
(c)Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the
environment.
Planting is also a requirement in the Technical Publication 58: On-site wastewater
systems, Design and management manual and consequently the Auckland Regional Plan:
Air, Land and Water. It is appropriate to have consistency between the regional
plan and the district plan. Therefore it is not appropriate to remove this clause,
and it is recommended that these submissions be rejected.
4.7 Submissions about landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes)
Submissions dealt with in this section:
131/1,
339/1,
443/1,
490/1,
831/1,
1050/1,
1549/1,
1550/13,
2042/12,
2050/1,
2202/12,
2734/1,
3105/1,
3105/2,
3105/3,
3105/4,
3143/1,
3518/12,
3519/1,
3520/1,
3544/1,
3552/12,
3553/1
4.7.1 Decisions requested
Submissions
339/1,
443/1,
490/1,
1550/13,
1549/1,
2042/12,
2050/1,
2202/12,
3143/1,
3518/12,
3519/1,
3520/1,
3552/12,
3553/1
seek for the northern end of Rakino to be reclassified from landform 1 to Rural
3.
Submissions
131/1,
3105/2
and 3544/1
seek for the removal of landform 1 from lot 4, 160 South Pacific Road and for Rural
3 to be retained.
Submissions
831/1
and 1050/1
seek for the complete deletion or substantial alteration of landform 1 on Rakino
and specifically on the northern end and rezoning all of this land to Rural 3.
Submission
2734/1
objects to the proposed zoning of landform 1 on the northern end of the Rakino including
the site 168 South Pacific Road.
Submission
3105/3
seeks for landform 1 to include all private land bounding the sea if landform 1
is to proceed on Rakino.
Submission
3105/1
seeks that the council forget the landform 1 land unit, particularly on Rakino and
focus on assisting current coastal landowners to continue their ongoing work in
maintaining and enhancing coastal cliffs and slopes.
Submission
3105/4
seeks that if the council requires the level of control outlined, then it should
purchase the area classified as landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) at 160 South
Pacific Road, Rakino.
4.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
4.7.2.1 Removal of Landform 1
Landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) has been applied to the northern end of
Rakino in the Plan as notified. All activities in landform 1 are non-complying except
for ecosourced planting which is a permitted activity. This provides a high level
of protection to this significant coastal environment.
The council has considered these submissions and it is supported that Landform
1 should not be applied to the northern end of Rakino for the following reasons:
- There has not been a consistent approach in applying Landform 1 to Rakino,
as there are coastal cliffs on other parts of the island that have not been included.
- The land would be reclassified to Rural 3 if Landform 1 were to be removed,
and this land unit along with the provisions in the Plan provide sufficient protection
to these coastal cliffs and slopes. The various provisions in the Plan that provide
protection are discussed below:
- A 40-metre coastal protection yard provides protection to the fringes of
the coast. No buildings and earthworks are permitted in this protection yard
and an application to infringe this rule is a discretionary activity.
- Rural 3 provides for visitor accommodation and residential focussed activities
as permitted or discretionary activities. All buildings have a restricted discretionary
activity status and therefore the council assesses all proposed buildings to
ensure that they integrate with the natural environment. A matter for which
proposed buildings are assessed against is whether their scale, form, colour
and location give rise to cumulative effects within the natural landscape.
Therefore the council can ensure that the location of the buildings will not
give rise to adverse effects to the coastal cliffs.
- Part 8 natural hazards provides protection to the coastal cliffs. The
removal of any vegetation on any piece of land where the slope is steeper than
1 in 3 (18°) is a restricted discretionary activity and therefore requires consent.
It is considered that the coastal cliffs, in general, will be steep enough to
trigger this rule. Secondly, approximately one quarter of the Landform 1 classification
on Rakino is situated on a property that has a soil warning area over the entire
site. Part 8 states that the location of any land use development activity,
building, permanent structure, fence and wall; earthworks and other listed activities
are a discretionary activity when located in any natural hazard area identified
on the maps. Therefore, any development on this site is most likely to require
a resource consent and thus provides the council with the opportunity to assess
the activity based on the effects it may have on the coastal cliffs.
- The development controls in Part 10c of the Plan control building coverage,
earthworks and indigenous vegetation removal. A significant portion of the area
classified as Landform 1 is covered in vegetation and therefore may be protected
through the provisions in part 10c. It appears from aerials that many of the
trees situated in the land classified as Landform 1 would be greater than 3
metres in height and therefore pruning or removal of these trees may require
a restricted discretionary consent. One of the matters the council has restricted
its discretion to is the effects on slope instability and erosion. Where the
vegetation is below 3 metres in height land unit Rural 3 permits the removal
of 300m².
It is noted that some of the northern end of the island, where Landform 1 has
been placed, is classified as an Outstanding Natural Landscape in the Auckland Regional
Policy Statement, refer to Appendix 4. The council has a responsibility to avoid
subdivision and the introduction of built structures in this area. It is considered
that as buildings are a restricted discretionary the council has the ability to
avoid built structures in this area. One of the matters the council has restricted
its discretion to is whether the building is of a scale, form and location so that
it maintains the visual coherence of the landscape character of the landscape character
by not breaking the pattern of any natural features such as coastal escarpments,
ridges or prominent slopes [writers emphasis].
It is therefore recommended that these submissions be accepted and Landform 1
be reclassified to Rural 3.
4.7.2.2 Assistance with maintaining and enhancing coastal cliffs
Submission
3105/1
seeks to remove the entire landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes) land unit. The
submitter suggests that the council should focus its energy on assisting coastal
landowners with their ongoing maintenance and enhancement work on the cliffs and
slopes.
Whilst it is recognised that landowners may benefit from with the maintenance
and enhancement of the coastal areas of their properties, this is not something
that can be addressed as part of the Plan review process.
As it has been recommended above to remove the landform 1 land unit from Rakino
it is recommended that this submission be accepted in part.
4.7.2.3 Purchasing land
Submission
3105/4
seeks for the council to purchase the area of their land that is classified as landform
1. Due to the above recommendation to remove landform 1 from Rakino it is recommended
that this submission be rejected.
4.7.2.4 Including all land that borders the sea
Subsequent to the above recommendation to reclassify Landform 1 as Rural 3, it
is recommended that this submission be rejected as the Landform 1 classification
will be removed from Rakino Island.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking changes
to landform 1 That submissions
131/1,
339/1,
443/1,
490/1,
831/1,
1050/1,
1550/13,
1549/1,
2042/12,
2050/1,
2202/12,
2734/1,
3105/2,
3143/1,
3518/12,
3519/1,
3520/1,
3544/1,
3552/12
and
3553/1 be accepted and submission
3105/1
be accepted in part and the Maps Volume 1 inner islands, Map 1, Sheet 32 and
Sheet 33 be amended to reclassify Landform 1 on Rakino Island to Rural 3.
That submissions
3105/3
and 3105/4
be rejected.
|
4.8 Submissions about restricting individual rights
Submissions dealt with in this section:
265/1
4.8.1 Decisions requested
Submission
265/1 seeks for the council not to proceed with the rezoning of the northern
end (proposed landform 1 zoning) or any part of Rakino which restricts individuals
rights that they currently have under the current zoning.
4.8.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
The classifications under the Operative Plan comprises of land unit 20 landscape
protection, land unit 23 conservation islands, land unit 25 - wharf and land unit
11 traditional residential.
The areas of land unit 23 have been classified as land unit conservation in the
proposed Plan. Land unit conservation has replaced land unit 23 but is essentially
the same with the strong conservation focus and similar activity statuses.
Land unit 25 has been replaced with land unit commercial 7 (wharf) in the proposed
Plan. This land unit is placed on the road reserve and therefore does not restrict
individual rights.
Land unit 11 has been replaced with land unit island residential 1 (traditional
residential) which in essence is the same. The resource management issues, strategy,
objectives and policies of island residential 1 have the same outcomes as land unit
11. Due to the controlled activity status being removed from the Plan some activities
such as constructing a building now have a restricted discretionary status which
provides the council with more control. This is considered necessary to ensure that
the form, scale, appearance and colour of buildings do not detract from the character
and amenity of the coastal environment. This higher level of restriction for buildings
does not restrict the rights of individuals to build houses; it only provides a
higher level of control to ensure the sought outcomes for this land unit are achieved.
Land unit 20 has been replaced with land unit rural 3 (Rakino amenity) in the
proposed Plan. Land unit 20 provides for more activities, as compared to rural 3,
under a discretionary activity status such as commercial airstrips, forestry and
camping facilities. Under the proposed Plan any activity not listed in the activity
table is a non-complying activity. Rural 3 provides more protection for the coastal
environment.
The only reclassification that places a higher level of restriction on individuals
is the land unit landform 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes). The resource management
strategy does not provide for activities and buildings. As discussed above, it is
considered that the rules in the Plan, including those of Rural 3 would be appropriate
in protecting the coastal cliffs from inappropriate uses and development.
It is therefore considered that the further restrictions of land use on the northern
end of Rakino from Landform 1 are unnecessary. It is therefore recommended that
submission 265/1
be accepted in so far as it supports the removal of landform 1 on Rakino.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking no restrictions
on individual rights
That submission
265/1
be accepted, in support of the amendment recommended below.
|
4.9 Submissions about map amendments
Submissions dealt with in this section:
2103/13
4.9.1 Decisions requested
Submission
2103/13 seeks for sheet 33, map 1 to be amended by deleting the portion of the
Rural 3 classification which goes over the coastline at 123 South Pacific Road (Lot
29 DP52537).
4.9.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
This amendment is to correct a mapping error as the land unit has been placed
over the mean high water springs mark and subsequently into Auckland Regional Council
jurisdiction. It is inappropriate for the land unit to cross this boundary of jurisdiction
and it recommended that this submission be accepted.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking map amendments
That submissions
2103/13 be accepted and Maps Volume 1 Inner Islands Sheet 33, Map 1 be
amended accordingly to delete the portion of the Rural 3 (rk) classification
which goes over the coastline at 123 South Pacific Road.
|
4.10 Submissions about development restrictions
Submissions dealt with in this section:
3574/20
4.10.1 Decisions requested
Submission
3574/20 supports the intent of the Plan to retain the ten hectare Special Land
Unit, and would wish to see the number of five hectare lots restricted to take into
consideration the ability of the land and the environment to support that level
of development, and to preserve the amenity value and particular character of this
island.
4.10.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
It is assumed that by ten hectare special land unit, the submitter is referring
to land unit Rural 3 which is the land unit only applied to Rakino.
In land unit Rural 3, subdivision is a discretionary activity if it meets the
general rules in clause 12.6 as well as the standards and terms in clause 12.9.8.3.
The general assessment criteria for discretionary activities are set out in clause
12.11. It includes consideration of objectives, policies, low impact design, site
design and layout, natural water systems and protecting vegetation and landscape.
If a subdivision does not meet the minimum site size specified in table 12.1
or does not meet the standards and terms in clause 12.9.8.3 it has a non-complying
activity status.
The minimum site size in Rural 3, in the Plan as notified, is three hectares
and therefore to subdivide a five hectare site would be a non-complying activity.
The subdivision provisions provide sufficient control of development to ensure
that it takes into consideration the environment and preserves the amenity values
and character of Rakino Island.
It is noted that buildings are a restricted discretionary activity and therefore
all development requires a resource consent and will go through a process which
will take into consideration the scale, form and location of buildings and the possible
cumulative effects within the natural landscape.
Therefore five hectare lots, along with all lots, on Rakino Island have sufficient
control to ensure that the development that occurs is of an appropriate level. It
is recommended that this submission be accepted as the Plan already has sufficient
control on subdivision and site sizes.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking development
restrictions
That submission
3574/20 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.
|
4.11 Submissions about avoiding visual prominence
Submissions dealt with in this section:
3148/3
4.11.1 Decisions requested
Submission
3148/3 seeks for the council to encourage flat roofs and the hiding of water
tanks, tractors and other unsightly equipment. The submitter questions who wants
to see ugly water tanks on the skyline because the council footprints do not allow
for bunkers or sheds to hide the required equipment.
4.11.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
The council encourages buildings that
- are of a scale, form and in a location that is not visually prominent
- are located so that they do not dominate or detract from public or private
views which are characterised by natural landscapes
- are of a scale, form and in a location that maintains the visual coherence
of the landscape character by not breaking the expanses of indigenous vegetation,
or the pattern of any natural features such as coastal escarpments, ridges or
prominent slopes.
The council controls the scale, form and location of buildings through the assessment
criteria in part 11 of the Plan. Clause 11.5.3.6 sets out the matters on which a
building will be considered.
Policy 1 in clause 10a.21.3.1 states:
"By controlling the scale, form, colour and location of new buildings to ensure
that they are visually compatible with, and do not dominate, the coastal environment."
Therefore, the Plan encourages buildings that are of a form that is not visually
prominent by assessing and controlling new buildings based on their scale, form
and location.
The submitter states that water tanks on the skyline are ugly and that the council
should allow these to be hidden in bunkers or sheds. A shed on a skyline could be
just as visually prominent as a water tank would be, and therefore it is considered
that allowing for sheds to be built over the water tank will not address this issue.
Although not directly found in the relief sought from the council, the submitter
has issues with sheds not being allowed to hide equipment. This is seen as a relevant
point as the island is reasonably self sustainable and requires storage for equipment
such as tractors. In section 4.13.2 of this report, residential accessory buildings
are recommended to be added into clause 10a.21.5 Rules activity table as a permitted
activity. This will address the concerns of the submitter in relation to sheds.
The land unit conveys the high amenity, character and ecological value of Rakino
Island and encourages developments that are not visually prominent in order to protect
those values. This is the underlying theme throughout the land unit and even though
the land unit does not specifically mention avoiding the placement of water tanks
and equipment on the skyline, it does encourage this.
It is not considered appropriate to request property owners to hide their tractors
and other equipment.
It is recommended that this submission be accepted as the council already encourages
buildings that are not visually prominent.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking control
of visual prominence
That submission
3148/3 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.
|
4.12 Submissions about visitor facilities
Submissions dealt with in this section:
446/2,
1050/2
4.12.1 Decisions requested
Submission
446/2
supports visitor facility for 10 people as a permitted activity.
Submission
1050/2
seeks for the Plan to allow suitable visitor facilities.
4.12.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
Submission
446/2
is accepted as it supports the provision of visitor accommodation in the Plan.
Allowing visitor facilities
It is assumed that the submitter means 'visitor accommodation' when they refer
to 'visitor facilities'. If this assumption is incorrect, the submitter should clarify
this at the hearing.
Visitor accommodation for up to 10 people is a permitted activity in the Plan.
The definition of visitor accommodation is:
"means land or buildings used for the day to day accommodation of tourists and
short-stay visitors away from their normal place of residence.
It may include shared or centralised services for the tourists or visitors such
as kitchen and dining facilities, toilet and washing facilities, and recreational
and bar facilities.
It includes any of the following:
- motels and hotels
- backpacker lodges
- serviced rental accommodation for visitors that is offered at a daily tariff
or with a pricing structure that is consistent with short stay accommodation
- timeshare accommodation.
It may include premises licensed under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989.
It does not include any of the following:
- the letting of dwellings
- homestays
- boarding houses and hostels
- camping facilities
- taverns
- restaurants, cafes and other eating places except where these are limited
to the use of people staying in the accommodation and their guests.
It may form part of a tourist complex."
The construction and relocation of buildings, alterations and additions, is a
restricted discretionary activity and thus to construct a building(s) for visitor
accommodation would require going through a resource consent process.
In this process the building(s) is assessed on matters stated in clause 11.5.3.6.
"11.5.3.6 Rural 1-3
In rural 1-3, discretion over the matters identified in
clause 11.5.2 will be applied so that the proposed building is integrated with
the natural landscape by:
- Being of a scale, form and location that are not visually prominent.
- Having an external colour that is integrated with the surrounding natural
landscape. The council will refer to
clause 10c.4.8 for guidance in assessing this matter.
- Being located so that it that does not dominate or detract from public or
private views which are characterised by natural landscapes.
- Being of a scale, form and location so that it maintains the visual coherence
of the landscape character by not breaking the expanses of indigenous vegetation,
or the pattern of any natural features such as coastal escarpments, ridges or
prominent slopes.
- Being of a scale, form, colour and location that does not give rise to cumulative
effects within the natural landscape."
Therefore ensuring that the visitor accommodation is of an appropriate scale,
form, colour and in a location that is not visually prominent.
The Plan therefore provides for suitable visitor accommodation. It is recommended
that this submission be accepted as the Plan already accomplishes what is being
sought.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking visitor
accommodation
That submissions
446/2
and 1050/2
be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.
|
4.13 Submissions about dangerous goods storage facility
Submissions dealt with in this section:
1550/5
4.13.1 Decisions requested
Submission
1550/5
seeks for gas bottle storage facility and or dangerous goods (fuel) to be provided
for in clause 10a.21.5 Rules activity table, for the reason being that LPG is
a major fuel on the island.
4.13.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
The definition of hazardous facility in part 14 of the Plan excludes the incidental
use and storage of hazardous substances in minimal domestic scale quantities.
Therefore the storage of hazardous substances such as LPG (liquefied petroleum
gas) for domestic purposes would only have to comply with provisions within land
unit Rural 3. Currently Rural 3 does not provide for sheds. Such sheds would provide
for the storage of hazardous substances.
Energy supply on Rakino Island is the responsibility of individual landowners.
There is no reticulated electricity supply and it is unlikely that it will be connected
to a mainland supply within the foreseeable future. Solar power, diesel generators
and bottled gas are common sources of energy on the island.
It is therefore appropriate to provide for storage facilities on the island.
This can be achieved by providing for residential accessory buildings.
"Residential accessory building means an accessory building which is either:
- Incidental to the use of a dwelling on a site; or
- Incidental to the residential use of a site.
It may include a garage or carport, a shed, a workshop, an office, a building
used for a home occupation, a recreation room, a spa pool or swimming pool.
It does not include any of the following:
- a sleepout or other buildings that generally form part of a dwelling
- a building which contains a kitchen sink or dishwashing facility."
As all buildings in Rural 3 have a restricted discretionary activity status residential
accessory buildings will go through a resource consent process in which the application
will be assessed based on matters set out in clause 11.5.3.6 of the Plan (these
matters are discussed above in section 4.12.2 of this report).
The potential effects of a residential accessory building are considered to be
effectively controlled by the applied restricted discretionary status.
It should be noted that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 controls
LPG, which is classed as a flammable gas. If someone is using and/or storing more
than 100kg of LPG in one place then a Location Test Certificate is needed. Typically,
domestic installations are supplied by 2 x 45kg cylinders and therefore would not
need a certificate.
It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted and clause 10a.21.5
be amended to include residential accessory building as a permitted activity
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking dangerous
goods storage facility
That submission
1550/5
be accepted and the Plan be amended accordingly to include the following in
clause 10a.21.5 Rules activity table:
| Activities |
Status |
| Residential accessory building |
P |
|
4.14 Submissions about the direction of Rakino
Submissions dealt with in this section:
442/1
4.14.1 Decisions requested
Submission
442/1
seeks for the Plan, in relation to Rural 3, to move back into the 'middle ground'.
4.14.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
The submission further states that it supports clause 10a.21.2 where is provides
for residential 'lifestyle'. However the submitter does not say what they consider
to be residential lifestyle encouraged in the Plan details. The submitter goes on
to say that it should allow for reasonable expectations of the two hypothetical
extremes the nature lover and the retired business man.
Residential lifestyle is encouraged in this land unit through provision for residential
uses and activities such as dwellings, dairies, home occupations and homestays.
However, the level of residential activity provided for in this land unit is
limited due the characteristics of the small island and the high coastal character
and amenity values. It is not appropriate to provide for an intense level of residential
activity or to provide for residential activities such as healthcare services, community
facilities and educational facilities in this land unit.
It should be noted that there are six land units on Rakino Island, of which two
are relevant to this discussion. There is Rural 3 which is applied to the larger
sites that essentially border the coast, and Island residential 1 which contains
the most intensive form of residential development in the centre of the island.
It is more appropriate to provide for residential activities in island residential
1 than providing for a large range of residential activities in Rural 3 as island
residential 1 has a higher level of development and a more modified nature.
Rural 3 is characterised by larger blocks of land with most of the sites largely
covered in grass with small areas of indigenous vegetation and high ecological and
visual amenity values. The first resource management issue for Rural 3 states:
"How to provide for residential 'lifestyle' activity on larger blocks of land
on Rakino in a manner which protects the character and coastal amenity of the island."
Therefore the land unit needs to be balanced to provide for residential activities
as well as providing a level of protection. This has been done by providing for
more intense residential activities in island residential 1 and affording more protection
to the coastal environment in Rural 3.
The document titled 'The Rakino Way' is a community approved framework for the
development of Rakino. One of the aims of this strategy is "to enhance the special
rural and coastal island character and lifestyle opportunities of Rakino Island."
The unique rural and coastal character of Rakino is maintained through clustering
residential development in certain areas of the island which have subsequently been
classified as island residential 1. It is therefore not appropriate to provide for
residential activities other than the ones currently provided for in land unit Rural
3 as notified. It is also unnecessary as residential activities that are not provided
for in Rural 3 are provided for in island residential 1, thus the island is not
deprived of associated residential activities.
The submitter states that the land unit as it stands leans more towards the nature
lover rather than the retired business man. The submitter does not however further
elaborate on what expectations a retired business man may have and what activities
are not provided for to achieve those expectations.
It is recommended that this submission be rejected for the reasons outlined above.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking middle
ground
That submission
442/1
be rejected.
|
4.15 Submissions about definition of residential lifestyle
Submissions dealt with in this section:
3149/1
4.15.1 Decisions requested
Submission
3149/1 seeks for this land unit to cover all people in its definition of residential
lifestyle.
4.15.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
It further states that the term residential lifestyle is subjective and that
it means different things to different people such as a nature park and golf courses
and cafes.
Clause 10a.21.2(1) states:
"How to provide for residential 'lifestyle' activity on larger blocks of land
on Rakino in a manner which protects the character and coastal amenity of the island."
It is agreed that a residential lifestyle can mean different things to different
people. The word 'lifestyle' seems to be added to this issue to acknowledge that
many sites in this land unit are operated as lifestyle blocks.
There is an issue in defining the term lifestyle block, and what it constitutes.
The term was first introduced by real estate agents in the 1980s to describe a rural
smallholding attractive to people who wished to live a rural lifestyle but whose
income derived from non-farming activities
[1] . It is considered that the
sites in land unit Rural 3, which comprise areas of generally four to five hectares,
are lifestyle blocks with a residential use.
Lifestyle blocks can be used for rural, residential or semi-productive uses.
Yet this land unit does not provide for a rural or semi-productive use such as horticulture
and pastoral farming. These lifestyle blocks can only have a residential use, unless
a resource consent is granted for agricultural or horticultural uses. It is considered
that horticultural and agricultural uses are appropriate for this land unit and
are inferred to by the word 'lifestyle'. It is therefore considered appropriate
for the word 'lifestyle' to remain in this clause and for pastoral farming and horticulture
to be provided for in the activity table as permitted activities. This also acknowledges
one of the existing uses of this land as identified in the introduction to the land
unit that mentions that the sites are operated as 'lifestyle blocks'.
This recommendation provides clarity that this land unit provides for residential
and productive activities and therefore does not provide for golf courses and cafes
as described by the submitter.
This submission is accepted in part, in so far as it supports the recommendation
made above.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking all people
to be covered
That submission
3149/1 be accepted in part and clause 10a.21.5 of the Plan be amended accordingly
to include pastoral farming and horticulture as permitted activities.
|
4.16 Submissions about lifestyle activities
Submissions dealt with in this section:
1550/1,
2042/1,
2202/1,
3094/1,
3518/1,
3552/1
4.16.1 Decisions requested
These submissions seek for more general recognition that lifestyle activities
are permitted by general relaxation of many of the restrictions referred to in this
submission.
4.16.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
4.16.2.1 General relaxation of rules
The submissions further state that the provision of "providing for lifestyle
activity" is not evident in the detailed plan clauses which excessively restrict
activities.
It is assumed that the submitters are seeking for the provisions in this land
unit to be relaxed and in particular the provisions further described in these submissions.
Each 'restriction' is further addressed separately in this report above, where
it is determined whether a relaxation or amendment is appropriate. Therefore more
recognition is not appropriate unless any of the restrictions referred to further
in these submissions have been amended above.
The submitter, as an example, states that the compulsory requirements for planting
may well restrict lifestyle activities. It is noted that it has been recommended
above to remove the planting requirement for front yards. Therefore there has been
a relaxation of the rules in this instance. It is therefore recommended that this
submission be accepted in part based on the recommendations above.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking more recognition
That submissions
1550/1,
2042/1,
2202/1,
3094/1,
3518/1
and
3552/1 be accepted in part with no amendments to the Plan.
|
5.0 Conclusion
This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding
Rural 3 (Rakino amenity) 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 |
Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands |
|
| Approver |
Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning |
|
Appendix 1
List of submissions and further submissions
Appendix 2
Summary of decisions requested
Appendix 3
Recommended amendments to the Plan
Part A
Part B
Appendix 4
Map of Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes
From the Auckland Regional Policy Statement
[1] John Paterson (2005)
http://www.lifestyleblock.co.nz/articles/voice/01_what_is_a_lifestyleblock.htm
