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:	Whole Plan
Report to:	The Hearing Panel
Author:	Katherine Dorofaeff, Senior planner
Date:	12 July 2007
Group file:	314/274002

1.0 Introduction

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to the whole 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 the whole Plan. 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 W047/05 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—

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

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

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:

"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:

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

the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and

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:

the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:

...

The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.0 Analysis of submissions

3.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions which support or oppose or seek changes to the whole Plan and recommends how the panel could respond to the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions. It is appropriate to consider this group of submissions at the beginning of the hearing process, as they have implications for the whole Plan. In this report, the submissions are addressed in groups under subject headings. While the relevant statutory matters (identified in section 2 of this report) will not necessarily be referred to directly, the discussion and recommendations have given appropriate consideration to these and any other relevant matters.

A list of the submissions which raise issues about the whole Plan 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.

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 will be considered by the council at the start of the hearing process and for the purposes of this report it is assumed that they have been accepted as provided for under sections 37 and 37A of the RMA.

3.2 Submissions seeking adoption of the Plan

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2733/1, 3106/1

3.2.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2733/1 asks that the Plan be adopted, subject to some specific amendments that are sought by the submitter, or amendments which give effect to the concerns of Progressive Enterprise Ltd as set out in their submission. Submission 3106/1 asks that council generally confirm the provisions in the Plan as notified.

3.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The other subparts of submission 2733 seek amendments to parts 10a, 10c, and 11 of the Plan. Submission 3106 also includes other subparts which seek amendments to the Plan. The other subparts to submissions 2733 and 3106 will be considered in the hearing reports for the affected parts of the Plan.

As a result of the submission and hearing process it is expected that the council will make some amendments to the Plan as notified. The final form of the Plan will not be determined until the hearing process is complete and the council has made decisions on all submissions. Therefore it is not appropriate for the council to fully accept submissions 2733/1 or 3106/1. However the general support of the Plan contained in these submissions should be accepted.

Planner's recommendations for submissions seeking adoption of the Plan

That submissions 2733/1 and 3106/1 be accepted in part.

3.3 Submissions seeking separate plans for Waiheke and Great Barrier

Submissions dealt with in this section: 40/1, 351/2, 363/1, 1287/2

3.3.1 Decisions requested

Submission 40/1 asks that two sets of documents be produced, one for Waiheke, one for Great Barrier (and any other smaller islands). Submission 351/2 seeks a Plan specifically for Great Barrier. Submission 363/1 seeks separate sections of the Plan for Great Barrier and Waiheke. Submission 1287/2, which is from a Waiheke submitter, suggests that the splitting off the Great Barrier provisions separate to the Waiheke provisions may be necessary.

3.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The RMA allows councils to prepare their district plans in territorial sections. Following local body amalgamation in 1989, the council decided to follow this approach and began developing its district plan in three sections - Hauraki Gulf islands, isthmus and central area. There are some advantages to this approach and some disadvantages. It does tend to result in an unnecessarily complex approach for the city as a whole. It is noted that most councils do not follow this approach - rather they produce one district plan which uses a variety of planning approaches to address a range of diverse communities, landscapes, and development types.

During the preparation of the Plan, officers and the working party were aware that there was some desire among Great Barrier residents to have a separate section or document for that island. It was a matter that the council included in the issues and options papers released for public feedback in May 2005. For this reason, officers gave careful thought to producing the Plan with two volumes of text - one for the inner islands and one for the outer islands. However this approach was not followed as large portions of the Plan apply across the islands and cannot be separated into 'inner' and 'outer'.

It is recommended that these submissions be rejected as it is not necessary to prepare separate sections of the Plan for Great Barrier, Waiheke, and other islands in order to address the different needs of each community and environment. The Plan distinguishes between Great Barrier, Waiheke, and other islands in the following ways:

by having three strategic management areas - Great Barrier, Waiheke, and other islands

by having some land units which are only used on particular islands. For instance the following land units are used on Waiheke but not on Great Barrier: island residential 1 and 2, commercial 1-6, Matiatia, recreation 3, rural 1 and 2.

by using the settlement area approach specifically for Great Barrier.

by having separate sets of heritage schedules for the inner islands (appendices 1a to 1g) and the outer islands (appendices 2a to 2g).

by having one volume of maps for the inner islands and a separate volume for the outer islands.

Overall it is considered that the Plan deals appropriately with planning for the islands as a group and as separate entities.

Planner's recommendations for submissions seeking separate plans for Waiheke and Great Barrier

That submissions 40/1, 351/2, 363/1, 1287/2 be rejected.

3.4 Submissions about land use

Submissions dealt with in this section: 68/1, 129/3, 130/3, 132/3, 172/3, 237/3, 241/3, 242/3, 243/3, 244/3, 270/3, 271/3, 272/3, 274/3, 275/3, 280/3, 3425/3, 3426/3, 3427/3, 3428/3, 3429/3, 3430/3, 3431/3, 3432/3, 3433/3, 3434/3, 3435/3, 3436/3, 3437/3, 3438/3, 3439/3, 3440/3, 3441/3, 3442/3, 3443/3, 3444/3, 3445/3, 3446/3, 3447/3, 3448/3, 3449/3, 3450/3, 3451/3, 3452/3, 3453/3, 3454/3, 3455/3, 3456/3, 3457/3, 3458/3, 3459/3, 3460/3, 3461/3, 3462/3, 3463/3, 3464/3, 3465/3, 3466/3, 3467/3, 3468/3, 3469/3, 3470/3, 3471/3, 3472/3, 3473/3, 3474/3, 3475/3, 3476/3, 3477/3, 3478/3, 3479/3, 3480/3, 3481/3, 3482/3, 3483/3, 3484/3, 3485/3, 3486/3, 3488/3, 3489/3, 3490/3, 3491/3, 3492/3, 3493/3, 3494/3, 3495/3, 3496/3, 3497/3, 3498/3, 3499/3, 3500/3, 3501/3, 3502/3, 3503/3, 3504/3, 3505/3, 3506/3, 3507/3, 3511/3, 3581/3, 3851/3, 3857/3

3.4.1 Decisions requested

Submission 68/1 suggests that zonings should reflect land use. Submission 280/3, from the same submitter (a Great Barrier resident), asks that the whole Plan be written around existing land usage. The other submissions listed above also relate to Great Barrier and suggest that the whole Plan should be rewritten around the existing land usage - reflecting what they are doing on their properties.

3.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

It is not necessary to rewrite the Plan around existing land use or to amend all zonings (land units and settlement areas) to reflect land use. Existing land use was one of the factors that was taken into account when developing the objectives, policies and rules in the Plan. It is not the only factor - under section 31 of the RMA the council has the function of 'the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development or protection of land'.

The submissions being considered in this section of the report should be rejected as they are too general to be the basis of any recommended amendments to the Plan. However, there are a large number of other submissions that raise more specific concerns about the implications of the Plan for existing uses. These will be considered in other hearing reports and the council may make some amendments in response.

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

Planner's recommendations for submissions about land use

That submissions 68/1, 129/3, 130/3, 132/3, 172/3, 237/3, 241/3, 242/3, 243/3, 244/3, 270/3, 271/3, 272/3, 274/3, 275/3, 280/3, 3425/3, 3426/3, 3427/3, 3428/3, 3429/3, 3430/3, 3431/3, 3432/3, 3433/3, 3434/3, 3435/3, 3436/3, 3437/3, 3438/3, 3439/3, 3440/3, 3441/3, 3442/3, 3443/3, 3444/3, 3445/3, 3446/3, 3447/3, 3448/3, 3449/3, 3450/3, 3451/3, 3452/3, 3453/3, 3454/3, 3455/3, 3456/3, 3457/3, 3458/3, 3459/3, 3460/3, 3461/3, 3462/3, 3463/3, 3464/3, 3465/3, 3466/3, 3467/3, 3468/3, 3469/3, 3470/3, 3471/3, 3472/3, 3473/3, 3474/3, 3475/3, 3476/3, 3477/3, 3478/3, 3479/3, 3480/3, 3481/3, 3482/3, 3483/3, 3484/3, 3485/3, 3486/3, 3488/3, 3489/3, 3490/3, 3491/3, 3492/3, 3493/3, 3494/3, 3495/3, 3496/3, 3497/3, 3498/3, 3499/3, 3500/3, 3501/3, 3502/3, 3503/3, 3504/3, 3505/3, 3506/3, 3507/3, 3511/3, 3581/3, 3851/3, 3857/3 be rejected.

3.5 Submission seeking restructuring of the Plan on the basis of catchments

Submission dealt with in this section: 664/2

3.5.1 Decision requested

Submission 664/2 asks that the Plan be restructured on the basis of catchments. Submission 664 as a whole is generally about the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 ('HGMPA'). It states that the operative Plan and the HGMPA are, in both ecological and social terms, structured on the basis of catchments. The submission refers specifically to Waiheke and to Waiheke ecosystems.

3.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Catchment is defined in part 14 of the Plan as meaning 'an area of topography from which surface water flows via a self contained drainage system'. The HGMPA defines catchment as 'meaning any area of land where the surface water drains into the Hauraki Gulf'.

The submitter appears to be of the view that the operative Plan, as it relates to Waiheke, is structured on the basis of catchments. This is not correct. The strategic management areas in the operative Plan divide Waiheke into western and eastern Waiheke. The proposed Plan adopts the same approach. Submission 664/2 does not specifically identify any changes needed or state what advantages are likely to result if the Plan were restructured on the basis of catchments. For this reason it is recommended that the submission be rejected.

The panel should note that under section 31 of the RMA, the council's functions in relation to water are limited to:

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

It is the Auckland Regional Council, rather than the city council, which has functions under the RMA (s30) relating to the quality, quantity, level, flow, taking or use, of water.

Planner's recommendation for a submission seeking restructuring of the Plan on the basis of catchments

That submission 664/2 be rejected.

3.6 Other submissions opposing the whole Plan

Submissions dealt with in this section:

Group 1: 64/1, 87/1, 88/1, 90/1, 91/1, 92/1, 99/1, 101/1, 103/1, 104/1, 175/1, 238/1, 240/1, 246/1, 267/1, 286/1, 287/1, 288/1, 289/1, 290/1, 309/1, 310/1, 311/1, 312/1, 313/1, 317/1, 318/1, 319/1, 320/1, 321/1, 322/1, 342/1, 343/1, 344/1, 345/1, 346/1, 347/1, 348/1, 349/1, 350/1, 386/1, 475/1, 1304/1, 1332/1, 1342/1, 1345/1, 1380/1, 1389/1, 1402/1, 1405/1, 1406/1, 1471/1, 1558/1, 1590/1, 1938/1, 1957/1, 1993/1, 1994/1, 1995/1, 1996/1, 1997/1, 1998/1, 1999/1, 2000/1, 2003/1, 2011/1, 2012/1, 2013/1, 2014/1, 2015/1, 2016/1, 2017/1, 2018/1, 2019/1, 2020/1, 2021/1, 2022/1, 2023/1, 2024/1, 2025/1, 2026/1, 2027/1, 2028/1, 2029/1, 2030/1, 2031/1, 2032/1, 2033/1, 2034/1, 2035/1, 2036/1, 2037/1, 2038/1, 2039/1, 2040/1, 2041/1, 2053/1, 2081/1, 2083/1, 2086/1, 2175/1, 2189/1, 2200/1, 2217/1, 2218/1, 2258/1, 2323/1, 2329/1, 2339/1, 2351/1, 2358/1, 2359/1, 2400/1, 2413/1, 2479/1, 2496/1, 2539/1, 2540/1, 2587/1, 2588/1, 2600/1, 2601/1, 2602/1, 2603/1, 2604/1, 2605/1, 2606/1, 2607/1, 2608/1, 2609/1, 2610/1, 2611/1, 2612/1, 2613/1, 2614/1, 2615/1, 2616/1, 2617/1, 2618/1, 2619/1, 2626/1, 2633/2, 2634/1, 2847/1, 3028/1, 3038/1, 3040/1, 3041/1, 3042/1, 3043/1, 3044/1, 3054/1, 3055/1, 3056/1, 3057/1, 3059/1, 3060/1, 3062/1, 3063/1, 3064/1, 3065/1, 3066/1, 3067/1, 3068/1, 3072/1, 3073/1, 3074/1, 3099/1, 3100/1, 3101/1, 3114/1, 3116/1, 3120/1, 3128/1, 3131/1, 3141/1, 3142/1, 3155/1, 3158/1, 3159/1, 3160/1, 3161/1, 3249/1, 3586/1, 3758/1, 3828/1

Other: 133/1, 175/1, 351/1, 553/1, 560/1, 615/1, 659/1, 666/1, 679/1, 722/1, 747/1, 770/1, 770/2, 773/1, 777/1, 780/1, 898/13, 899/1, 953/1, 1014/1, 1103/1, 1148/1, 1203/1, 1207/1, 1243/1, 1243/2, 1281/5, 1690/3, 1700/1, 1701/1, 1702/1, 1703/1, 1911/1, 1911/2, 2525/1, 2564/1, 2723/1, 2723/2, 2732/1, 2760/4, 2763/7, 2763/8, 2766/5, 2766/6, 2766/11, 2796/2, 2906/2, 3058/1, 3058/2, 3061/1, 3087/1, 3184/1, 3199/1, 3202/1, 3219/1, 3295/1, 3296/1, 3379/1, 3396/1, 3586/1, 3654/1, 3655/1, 3715/5, 3726/1

3.6.1 Decisions requested

The submissions dealt with in this section either oppose the Plan or seek the withdrawal, decline, rejection, rewrite, review of the Plan, or seek a new Plan or a return to the operative Plan. The submissions identified as group 1 ask the council to comprehensively re-review the entire Plan taking into account community views, in particular the views of the Great Barrier community.

Submissions 351/1, 1911/1, 3058/1 seek the exclusion or removal of Great Barrier from the Plan. The exclusion or removal of Great Barrier from the Plan would effectively require withdrawal of the large part of the Plan.

Some of the submissions raise concerns about:

consultation / community input into the Plan

the language of the Plan and its usability

identification of differences between the operative and the proposed Plan

Essentially Waiheke

the HGMPA

environmental protection and sustainable management (including section 5(2) of the RMA)

section 32

the prescriptive nature of the Plan

the lack of controlled activities

the planning maps for Great Barrier

monitoring.

These concerns will be further addressed under headings below. Individual submissions will not be referred to except where they raise particular points which warrant specific response. Some of the submissions considered come from overall submissions which have other subparts raising more specific concerns. Those subparts will be considered in other hearing reports.

3.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

3.6.2.1 Regarding withdrawal of the Plan

The operative Plan was proposed in 1992 and became operative in 1996. Under section 79 of the RMA the council is required to commence a full review of its district plan not later than 10 years after the plan became operative. After reviewing the operative plan, the council is required to either notify a replacement plan, or, if the council determines no changes are needed, to notify the operative plan as if were a proposed plan. It is the council's view that the operative Plan does need changes and could not simply be notified as if it were a proposed plan.

To meet RMA requirements the council has commenced a full review of the operative Plan within ten years of it becoming operative. The council has also followed RMA requirements throughout the process of preparing and notifying the proposed Plan. In formulating the new Plan, the council has taken into account the strengths and weaknesses of the operative Plan and the degree to which is has been able to address the issues that have arisen during the life of that Plan. Since 1992, when the operative Plan was notified, the RMA has been subject to some significant amendments and a considerable body of case law has developed. This has been taken into account in developing the new Plan.

It is not appropriate to withdraw the proposed Plan either fully or for Great Barrier only. Officers would only recommend withdrawal of the Plan in two circumstances. Firstly, if the process was so deficient as to not meet RMA requirements. Secondly, if the council had changed its position and wanted to make substantial amendments to the Plan which were not requested in submissions and which could not be readily included in variations. It is considered that neither of these circumstances apply – either with respect to the Plan as a whole or to its application to Great Barrier. It is therefore appropriate to continue with the hearing and decision part of the Plan review process. As a result of hearing submissions, the panel may reach a view that major amendments are required to the Plan to address issues raised. If that occurs, decisions will be made at that time as to whether the amendments sought can be addressed through decisions or variations.

3.6.2.2 Consultation / community input into the Plan

General

Some submissions suggest or state that there has been insufficient or inadequate community input into the development of the Plan. In association with requests for a modified review of the operative Plan with further community involvement, several submissions ask the council to set a new timeline for reviewing the operative Plan

Planner's comments

The consultation undertaken by the council during the preparation of the Plan is outlined in clause 1.3.7 of the Plan. Further information is available on the council's website. The panel can be satisfied that the level of consultation meets, and at times exceeds, the requirements of the RMA and of the Local Government Act 2002. In terms of public participation, the submission and hearing process provides a further opportunity for public involvement. As the panel can be satisfied with the level of consultation, it is considered that there is no need for a new review process with a revised timeline.

Waiheke governance

Submission 553/1 suggests that the whole Plan and process should be postponed until the governance of Waiheke community affairs is vested directly in the Waiheke community instead of the council.

Submission 1207/1, from a Waiheke resident, suggests that the community should be enabled to write their own district plan. Following completion, the community would then allow the council to make submissions on the Plan which would be considered for inclusion.

Planner's comments

With respect to submission 553/1, as noted above in section 3.6.2.1, the RMA requires the council to review the district plan. This obligation exists regardless of the extent to which the council may choose to devolve its functions.

The scenario proposed in submission 1207/1 is not possible as the RMA requires the council rather than the community to produce a district plan. The consultation and submission process provides the means for the community to become involved in producing the district plan.

Focus groups

Some submissions (659/1, 722/1, 1014/1, 1203/1, 1700/1, 1701/1, 1702/1, 1703/1, 3184/1, 3199/1, 3202/1, 3219/1, 3295/1, 3296/1, 3379/1) state that the council has made insufficient effort to show how the directions of the focus groups were incorporated into the Plan. Submission 3396/1 states that the Plan does not clearly and specifically state the views of the focus groups or show how their views were incorporated in the Plan.

Planner's comments

Each of the four focus groups held on Waiheke developed a set of directions for the working party. Those directions are publicly available and are on council's website ¹. Some focus groups did not reach agreement on all of their directions. The directions were reported to the working party and were one of a range of inputs taken into account in developing the Plan. Persons who are interested in following through on the focus group directions should read the online material and follow up matters of concern to them to see whether or not they were included in the Plan. As is appropriate, the Plan concentrates on objectives, policies and rules and does not include details about how the consultation process (including the focus groups) influenced the content of the Plan.

It is not always possible to clearly show links between consultation and the content of the Plan as a variety of diverse, and at times conflicting, views were presented during consultation. In addition, as well as considering matters raised in consultation, the council must also consider the requirements of the RMA and advice provided by technical experts employed by the council.

3.6.2.3 The language of the Plan and its usability

Some submissions raise concerns about the language of the Plan and its usability for lay people.

Planner's comments

The Plan is a technical and legal document which is created and administered under legal statute. This strongly influences the type of the language used. In particular the Plan, of necessity, contains planning terminology. However in the drafting and layout of the Plan the council has endeavoured to follow plain English principles.

The cross-referencing in the Plan is in keeping with best practice and assists users to navigate through the Plan and identify connections within the Plan. Extensive cross-referencing is necessary in a relatively complex and integrated document of this nature. It is noted that the council's website contains an 'html' version of the Plan which includes numerous hyperlinks to assist users to easily access the cross-references within the Plan.

While submissions 2723/1 and 2723/2 do raise concerns about language and usability, those concerns are in context of the island residential 2 provisions (clause 10a.10), and the impervious surface control (clause 10c.4.9). Other subparts of submission 2723 address these concerns more specifically and will be considered in other hearing reports.

3.6.2.4 Identification of differences between the operative and the proposed Plan

Some submissions state that the council did not sufficiently identify the differences between the operative and proposed Plan and did not provide an easy to use summary to assist potential submitters.

Planner's comments

In conjunction with the notification of the Plan, the council sent a summary of the key changes to all residents and ratepayers from the Hauraki Gulf islands. The document was of necessity a summary and people were encouraged to view the entire Plan to identify how it affected them. Both the operative and proposed Plan are available at council offices and on the council website. In addition, during the submission period, council staff were available on Waiheke, Great Barrier, and in the city, to answer customer queries about the Plan. It is considered that the council took sufficient steps to assist users to identify the key differences between the operative and the proposed Plan.

3.6.2.5 Essentially Waiheke

The supporting reasons given in submissions 666 and 747 (in relation to 666/1 and 747/1) suggest that the Plan is missing vital documents such as Essentially Waiheke.

Submission 679/1 asks that the council incorporate the entire Essentially Waiheke strategy into the Plan (with some further debate needed regarding a new village) and then start again with community consultation.

Planner's comments

The role of Essentially Waiheke in relation to the Plan is set out in clause 3.3.2 of the Plan as follows:

" Essentially Waiheke

Essentially Waiheke - A Village and Rural Communities Strategy is a non-statutory strategic document which sets out a community approved framework for Waiheke's development. It was adopted by council in 2000 after extensive consultation with the Waiheke community.

The five central principles of Essentially Waiheke are:

Principles of environmental protection.

Principles of economic development and employment.

Principles of strong communities.

Principles to protect and enhance Waiheke's character.

Principles of location.

These five central principles are reflected within the Waiheke strategic management area and within other parts of the Plan."

The Essentially Waiheke strategy has been adequately and appropriately acknowledged and incorporated into the Plan.

In March 2006, in accordance with RMA requirements, the council gave public notice of its proposal to incorporate material by reference in the proposed Plan. The Essentially Waiheke strategy was not included in the list of material. There was an opportunity for people to comment on the proposal to incorporate the proposed material by reference. The council did not receive any comments about Essentially Waiheke. The public notice was given in the following publications: the NZ Herald, City Scene, Barrier Bulletin, and in Gulf News.

3.6.2.6 HGMPA

Submission 953/1 states that the Plan does not address the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park as a whole. Submission 1690/3 states that the fact that Waiheke is part of the Hauraki Gulf and sits within the marine park needs to be recognised and underpin the whole Plan.

Planner's comments

As noted in section 2.0 of this report, the council must ensure that that the Plan does not conflict with sections 7 and 8 of 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. The Plan must 'give effect to' any New Zealand coastal policy statement. Appendix 3 contains sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the HGMPA.

It is considered that the Plan does appropriately recognise the role of the HGMPA. The HGMPA is addressed in the following places within the Plan:

clause 1.3.6

clause 2.3.2

clause 2.5 (at clause 2.5.3, issue (3); clause 2.5.8, objective (2))

clause 11.2(1)

appendix 10 - which contains sections 7, 8 and 9 of the HGMPA.

In addition, the HGMPA was considered by the council in the section 32 reports prepared.

There are some other submissions, which raise general or specific issues related to the HGMPA and which will be considered in other hearing reports.

3.6.2.7 Environmental protection and sustainable management

Submission 899/1 states that the whole Plan is unacceptable on the basis that it doesn't meet the central driver of the RMA which is to enable communities to manage their resources sustainably.

Submission 953/1 raises the following concerns about the Plan:

it does not sufficiently protect the Hauraki Gulf and Waiheke; it has little to no mention of identifying climate change issues

lack of evidence of a sustainable and integrated management of natural, physical, cultural, and historical / heritage resources by providing an overview of Waiheke's / the Hauraki Gulf's resource management issues, policies and methods, that especially includes managing and controlling water resources and catchments, based on environmental methodologies and reporting that is made accessible to the public

Submission 1148/1 seeks the removal of the Hudson landscape report, followed by a peer review and further community consultation so that a community mandated landscape assessment can be reintroduced into the Plan so as to give effect to the provisions of the RMA and the HGMPA. The submission is intended to relate to all sections of the Plan which have been in any way influenced by the Hudson landscape report.

Submission 1281/5 seeks a return to the existing (operative) Plan with the discretionary aspects tightened to really protect the landscape environment for the existing community.

Some other submissions maintain in their supporting reasons that the Plan is inconsistent with section 5(2) of the RMA as it does not "enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing".

Planner's comments

In response to submission 899/1, the panel can be satisfied that the objectives, policies and rules in the Plan have been written with the intention of achieving the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the RMA is "to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources". Sustainable management is defined in section 5(2) of the RMA and is also set out in section 2.0 of this report. The council is required to take the purpose of the Act into account when considering alternatives, benefits and costs under section 32.

In terms of climate change (which is also raised by submission 899/1 ), section 7 of the RMA requires that, in achieving the purpose of the RMA, the council take into account the effects of climate change. In developing part 8 of the Plan, which addresses natural hazards, the council has taken into account the potential effects of climate change, in particular coastal erosion and flooding. There is little empirical data on climate change effects for Auckland and the Hauraki gulf. Based on general effects expected across New Zealand, the Plan addresses coastal erosion and flooding through objectives, policies and rules in part 8.

Submission 953/1 refers to 'managing and controlling water resources and catchments'. As noted under section 3.5.2 of this report, the council's functions under the RMA in relation to water are limited.

The Hudson landscape report referred to by submission 1148/1 is dated September 2006 and it forms part of the background section 32 material for the Plan ². In recognition of the importance of considering landscape during the development of the Plan, the council retained Hudson Associates Landscape Architects to provide expert advice. The Hudson landscape report contains sections about landscape character, strategic management areas, land units, Rakino, Rotoroa, ridgelines, outstanding natural landscapes, settlement areas, and assessment criteria. Submission 1148/1 does not identify any specific concerns with the report other than the general statement that the methodology and report constitute a critical threat to community values and beliefs.

With regard to submission 1281/5, the request for a return to the operative Plan requires a withdrawal of the proposed Plan. This is not supported for the reasons set out in section 3.6.2.1 above. Submission 1281/5 also asks that the discretionary aspects (in the operative Plan) be tightened to protect the landscape environment. It is not possible to comment in any more detail about this submission as it is not clear which 'discretionary aspects' are being referred to by the submitter. It is noted that submission 1281 raises other points which will be considered in other hearing reports.

Those submissions which raise issues about social, economic and cultural wellbeing are generally of the view that the Plan is too restrictive. Some submissions suggest that the Plan has overemphasised environmental protection at the expense of people and communities. In some cases the overall submissions include more specific subparts (eg submissions 560 and 2906) about particular rules and these will be considered in other hearing reports.

It is not possible to further evaluate those submissions which make general (rather than specific) statements to the effect that the Plan does not meet the purpose of the RMA (section 5 of the RMA) or "enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing" (section 5(2) of the RMA). In terms of social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, providing for this is only part of the definition of sustainable management contained in section 5(2) of the RMA. The full definition of sustainable management is set out in section 2.0 of this report. It is a complex definition which requires balancing of a range of factors and includes both managing and enabling functions. Social, economic and cultural wellbeing needs to be provided for in a manner which does not compromise the matters set out in section 5(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the RMA.

3.6.2.8 Section 32

Submission 1243/1 asks the council to comply with the requirements of section 32(1) in the preparation of a new proposed Plan. Some other submissions (eg 560, 666, 747) refer to 'inadequate section 32 reports' in their supporting reasons.

Planner's comments

Under section 32 of the RMA, the council is required to consider alternatives, benefits and costs before a proposed district plan is notified. This includes considering whether the rules are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives. The council has undertaken the required evaluations and prepared reports summarising and giving reasons for the evaluations.

As is required in section 32(2)(a) of the RMA, the council will undertake further evaluations before making a decision on submissions.

3.6.2.9 The prescriptive nature of the Plan

Some submissions raise concerns about the prescriptive nature of the Plan and suggest that it contains unnecessary rules and regulations. In raising this issue, some submissions refer to the more permissive nature of the operative Plan and express concern about the narrowing of permissible activities. Associated with this are comments about the cost of the resource consent process and the reversal of reasonable expectations.

Submission 2525/1 seeks a much smaller less prescriptive Plan that better represents the ratepayers' interests. This submitter, a Great Barrier resident, appears to be concerned about the conservation aspects of the Plan, but does not clarify in this submission exactly what amendments are sought. This submitter has lodged other submissions which will be considered in other hearing reports.

Submission 2766/11 states that to avoid the adverse effects resulting from the misconceptions of 'issues, objectives policies, etc' the Plans should be audited in its entirety for the purpose of eliminating unnecessary rules and regulations, to mitigate adverse social, cultural and economic effects of over-regulation. Submission 2766 contains other subparts which will also be considered in other hearing reports.

Planner's comments

The RMA allows the council to include rules in its district plan. Section 76(1) of the RMA states:

"(1) A territorial authority may, for the purpose of—

(a) Carrying out its functions under this Act; and

(b) Achieving the objectives and policies of the plan,—

include rules in a district plan."

Under section 32 of the RMA, the council has to consider whether the rules are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives. The council undertook such an evaluation prior to notifying the Plan and is required to undertake a further such evaluation before making a decision on submissions.

In general terms it is considered that the rules in the Plan are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives. However throughout the hearing process the council will consider submissions which seek that specific rules be eliminated or relaxed. It will also consider submissions which seek new or strengthened rules.

Comparison with the operative Plan

The proposed Plan adopts an approach of listing specific activities as either permitted, restricted discretionary or discretionary in particular locations. In some situations (eg table 7.2), non-complying and prohibited activities are also specifically listed in the Plan. The general rule contained in clause 4.2 applies a non-complying status to activities not otherwise provided for as permitted, controlled, restricted discretionary or discretionary. Also included in the Plan are development controls which apply to all activities.

The approach taken in the operative Plan is, in general, to state in each land unit that an activity that complies with the standards in part 6B of the Plan is permitted unless it is otherwise provided for in the rules for the particular land unit as a controlled, discretionary or prohibited activity. Those activities which have been identified for a particular land unit as having the potential to generate adverse effects which need to be specifically addressed are identified as either controlled or discretionary activities. There also is a general rule in part 2.2 stating that an activity which contravenes a rule in the Plan, but which is not a prohibited activity, is a non-complying activity.

The standards in part 6B of the operative Plan address:

infrastructure and services (including effluent disposal; parking, access, traffic generation, roading and aircraft movements)

bulk and location of buildings (height, daylight control, lot yards, lot coverage, gross dwelling area, ridgeline control)

conservation amenity (sites of ecological significance, indigenous vegetation clearance, hazard areas, noise, earthworks, protection yards, building restriction yards, artificial lighting, and hazardous substances).

It is noted that the approach now taken in land unit 27 (Matiatia) of the operative Plan (as introduced by plan change 38) is to list activities in a similar manner as the proposed Plan.

The approach taken in the operative Plan is sometimes described as 'effects based'. However it is considered that this description is a misleading and unhelpful as the purpose of all district plans is to assist territorial authorities to carry out their functions including "the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, protection of land" (s31(1)(b) of the RMA). Neither is the approach taken in the operative Plan based solely on performance standards as that Plan does identify a consent status for certain activities. To differing degrees, both the operative and proposed Plan allocate particular activities to a specific activity status based on the likelihood of those activities generating adverse effects.

The following difficulties have been identified with the operative Plan:

The performance standards in part 6b relating to traffic and parking are inadequate, and in some cases, ultra vires ³. They are inadequate as a basis for determining whether or not an activity not otherwise listed is permitted.

There are relatively few activities listed in the land units as controlled or discretionary. Sometimes activities with potentially adverse effects qualify as permitted while activities with lesser effects require a consent.

The approach does not recognise the value of grouping or separating certain types of activities. For example, there are good resource management reasons for separating residential activities from industrial and commercial activities.

The approach relies too heavily on performance standards and gives little indication about the activities considered suitable (ie permitted) for each land unit or policy area.

Those activities which are listed as controlled or discretionary are sometimes ill defined by the definitions in part 11 of the Plan.

It is considered that the approach taken in the proposed Plan has satisfactorily addressed these difficulties without unduly creating other complexities. It has also avoided the complication which occurs with some district plans whereby a comprehensive and complicated range of performance standards need to be considered before it can be determined whether or not an activity is permitted. It is accepted that people who are used to the operative Plan, and who have not used plans with more extensive activity lists, may find the new approach somewhat intimidating.

3.6.2.10Controlled and restricted discretionary activities

In its supporting reasons (for 2796/2) submission 2796 expresses concern that the controlled activity status is not used in the Plan.

Planner's comments

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 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 (including alteration and additions) in some land units ie land units 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. The proposed Plan instead applies the restricted discretionary status to the construction of buildings (including alterations and additions) in some land units and parts of settlement areas. This is consistent with policies in the Plan about ensuring that the scale, form (design and materials), colour and location of buildings do not have adverse effects on the character and amenity values of the more sensitive land units and settlement areas. 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.

Not all activities which were controlled in the operative Plan have been moved into the restricted discretionary status in the proposed Plan. In some cases, building work which was identified as a controlled activity in the operative Plan is now a permitted activity in the proposed Plan. This has occurred for properties which are within the Tryphena or Claris policy areas in the operative Plan and are within the residential amenity part of the Tryphena or Claris settlement areas or within the light industry part of the Claris settlement area in the proposed Plan.

Conclusion re controlled activities

Other hearing reports will consider other submissions that seek a controlled activity status for specific activities. If, as a result of the these submissions, the council is persuaded that a controlled activity status provides an appropriate level of control for a particular activity, then it will be necessary at that time to consequentially amend clause 1.6.2 to include controlled activities. However at this time, for the reasons outlined above, it is recommended that the submissions seeking a controlled activity status, be rejected.

3.6.2.11The planning maps for Great Barrier

In their supporting reasons, some submissions raise concern about the accuracy and currency of the planning maps for Great Barrier and the aerial photography used.

Planner's comments

The aerials used for the outer islands planning maps were flown in 1999 and 2003. The 2003 aerials are ortho-corrected for spatial accuracy and cover the settled areas at Tryphena, Medlands, Claris, Port Fitzroy, Whangaparapara, Okiwi and Okupu. These aerials were commissioned by the council, and the coverage was limited due to the high cost of aerial photography. The 1999 aerials are not ortho-corrected and are therefore less accurate due to the distortions that occur in aerial photography. The cadastral base, which shows the property boundaries, was extracted from the council's geospatial information system ('GIS').

The council also has aerial photography (or digital imaging) taken between September 2005 and February 2006 as part of the regional LIDAR ('light detection and ranging technology') flights. That photography needed colour correction and was not available early enough to be used in the production of the outer islands planning maps. Even with the colour correction that has subsequently occurred, these aerials have a 'patchwork quilt' appearance and are not of a standard that is suitable for the planning maps.

As part of a regional project, new aerials for Great Barrier were scheduled to be flown and processed in 2007. However this timetable is weather dependent and has already been delayed. These aerials will be ortho-corrected to avoid spatial distortions.

It would have been useful to have more recent aerial photography for those parts of Great Barrier not included in the 2003 photography. However due to cost and logistical reasons this information is not available. It is considered that the combination of the 1999 and 2003 aerials used in the planning maps is acceptable. It is noted that the aerials used in the operative Plan were flown in 1990.

There are other submissions which raise specific concerns about the way in which land units or ecologically significant areas have been identified on the planning maps and applied to particular properties. Those submissions will be considered in other hearing reports.

3.6.2.12Monitoring

In their supporting reasons, some submissions raise concerns about monitoring. The supporting reasons in submissions 770, 773, 777, and 780 suggest that council has not monitored the strengths and weaknesses of the operative Plan, and that there has been poor recording and enforcement.

Submission 2796 refers to the need for the council to monitor the effects of its district plan rules throughout the life of its plan and keep records as to the effectiveness or otherwise of those rules. The submission suggests that this has not occurred as there are no reports to this effect.

Planner's comments

As set out in section 35 of the RMA, the council is required to gather such information, and undertake or commission such research as is necessary to carry out effectively its functions under the RMA. This includes monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of policies, rules or other methods in its plan.

The council is well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the operative Plan having administered it in some form since it was first notified in 1992. Once a district plan has statutory effect it is constantly subject to critique and criticism from those who use it or are affected by it. During the phase of formulating the Plan, the council has received information from a range of sources about what has and hasn't worked with the current Plan. Feedback has been received from residents and ratepayers, developers, council officers, landowners, interest groups, elected representatives (councillors and community board members), iwi, Ministry for the Environment, Auckland Regional Council, and the Department of Conservation. It is considered that the issues and options paper released by council in May 2005 for public feedback, shows a sound understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the operative Plan.

The council employs compliance staff to monitor resource consents, enforce conditions, and respond to complaints.

3.6.2.13Miscellaneous

In the supporting reasons for submissions 666/1 and 747/1, the submissions assert that the Plan is missing vital elements such as policy areas and night lighting controls.

Planner's comments

The statement that the Plan does not contain night lighting controls is incorrect. Artificial lighting controls are contained in clause 4.10. There are also specific rules in recreation 2 and 3 (see clauses 10a.23.5 and 10a.24.5) and assessment criteria identified in table 11.1.

With respect to policy areas, this approach has not been carried over directly from the operative Plan but has been further developed into settlement areas and targeted land units. The operative Plan contains eight policy areas as follows:

Tryphena, Medlands, Claris and Port Fitzroy on Great Barrier;

Oneroa, Onetangi, Okahuiti-Ostend-Tahi, and Rangihoua Park on Waiheke.

The policy area approach was confusing and lacked coherency as it added a layer of controls over and above the underlying land units. In the proposed Plan, policy areas (and their underlying land units) have been replaced with a more refined approach of either a settlement area (for Great Barrier) or a targeted land unit (for Waiheke). On Great Barrier, settlement areas have been applied to the previous policy areas at Tryphena, Medlands, Claris and Port Fitzroy as well as to five additional areas at Okupu, Whangaparapara, Awana, Okiwi, and Aotea. On Waiheke, the following specific land units apply to previous policy areas: commercial 1 (Oneroa village), commercial 2 (Ostend village) and recreation 3 (Rangihoua Park). A specific land unit was not developed for the Onetangi area as it was considered that the needs of this area could be adequately addressed by more generic land units ie commercial 3 (local shops), commercial 4 (visitor facilities) and recreation 1 (local parks and esplanade reserves). The content of the previous policy area for Onetangi had either been superseded by subsequent development or sought to achieve outcomes that were, in legal terms, beyond the scope of the Plan.

Planner's recommendations for submissions seeking withdrawal of the Plan

That submissions 64/1, 87/1, 88/1, 90/1, 91/1, 92/1, 99/1, 101/1, 103/1, 104/1, 133/1, 175/1, 238/1, 240/1, 246/1, 267/1, 286/1, 287/1, 288/1, 289/1, 290/1, 309/1, 310/1, 311/1, 312/1, 313/1, 317/1, 318/1, 319/1, 320/1, 321/1, 322/1, 342/1, 343/1, 344/1, 345/1, 346/1, 347/1, 348/1, 349/1, 350/1, 351/1, 386/1, 475/1, 553/1, 560/1, 615/1, 659/1, 666/1, 679/1, 722/1, 747/1, 770/1, 770/2, 773/1, 777/1, 780/1, 898/13, 899/1, 953/1, 1014/1, 1103/1, 1203/1, 1207/1, 1243/1, 1243/2, 1281/5, 1304/1, 1332/1, 1342/1, 1345/1, 1380/1, 1389/1, 1402/1, 1405/1, 1406/1, 1471/1, 1558/1, 1590/1, 1690/3, 1700/1, 1701/1, 1702/1, 1703/1, 1911/1, 1911/2, 1938/1, 1957/1, 1993/1, 1994/1, 1995/1, 1996/1, 1997/1, 1998/1, 1999/1, 2000/1, 2003/1, 2011/1, 2012/1, 2013/1, 2014/1, 2015/1, 2016/1, 2017/1, 2018/1, 2019/1, 2020/1, 2021/1, 2022/1, 2023/1, 2024/1, 2025/1, 2026/1, 2027/1, 2028/1, 2029/1, 2030/1, 2031/1, 2032/1, 2033/1, 2034/1, 2035/1, 2036/1, 2037/1, 2038/1, 2039/1, 2040/1, 2041/1, 2053/1, 2081/1, 2083/1, 2086/1, 2175/1, 2189/1, 2200/1, 2217/1, 2218/1, 2258/1, 2323/1, 2329/1, 2339/1, 2351/1, 2358/1, 2359/1, 2400/1, 2413/1, 2479/1, 2496/1, 2525/1, 2539/1, 2540/1, 2564/1, 2587/1, 2588/1, 2600/1, 2601/1, 2602/1, 2603/1, 2604/1, 2605/1, 2606/1, 2607/1, 2608/1, 2609/1, 2610/1, 2611/1, 2612/1, 2613/1, 2614/1, 2615/1, 2616/1, 2617/1, 2618/1, 2619/1, 2626/1, 2633/2, 2634/1, 2723/1, 2723/2, 2732/1, 2760/4, 2763/7, 2763/8, 2766/5, 2766/6, 2766/11, 2796/2, 2847/1, 2906/2, 3028/1, 3038/1, 3040/1, 3041/1, 3042/1, 3043/1, 3044/1, 3054/1, 3055/1, 3056/1, 3057/1, 3058/1, 3058/2, 3059/1, 3060/1, 3061/1, 3062/1, 3063/1, 3064/1, 3065/1, 3066/1, 3067/1, 3068/1, 3072/1, 3073/1, 3074/1, 3087/1, 3099/1, 3100/1, 3101/1, 3104/9, 3114/1, 3116/1, 3120/1, 3128/1, 3131/1, 3141/1, 3142/1, 3155/1, 3158/1, 3159/1, 3160/1, 3161/1, 3184/1, 3199/1, 3202/1, 3219/1, 3249/1, 3295/1, 3296/1, 3379/1, 3396/1, 3586/1, 3654/1, 3655/1, 3715/5, 3726/1, 3758/1, 3828/1 be rejected.

4.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding the whole 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 no amendments be made to the Plan, for the reasons outlined in this report. In particular it is recommended that those submissions which seek withdrawal of the Plan, either in full or in respect of Great Barrier only, be rejected.

Name and title of signatories Signature

Author Katherine Dorofaeff, Senior planner: islands

Reviewer Megan Tyler, Manager: islands

Approver Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning