Submission, plan changes 85, 85A, 85B, 85C, 85D, 86A, 86B, 87, 102, 112

Posted on by

Form 5 – Submission on a Change Proposed to the District Plan

Policy and Monitoring Department, Whangarei District Council.

Submissions must be received by: 4:00pm Tuesday, 4 October 2016

We are making a submission on:

  • PC85 Rural Area
  • PC86A Rural (Urban Expansion) Environment
  • PC85A Rural Production Environment
  • PC86B Rural (Urban Expansion) – Living Environment Zoning
  • PC85B Strategic Rural Industry Environment
  • PC87 Coastal Area
  • PC85C Rural Village Environment
  • PC102 Minerals
  • PC85D Rural Living Environment
  • PC114 Landscapes

Full name: Landowners Coalition Incorporated.

The Landowners Coalition Inc is a non-profit organisation dedicated to the protection of private property rights. Its primary role is to represent the interests of private landowners and advocate for the retention of private property rights on their behalf. We have some +300 members/supporters.

Postal address: PO Box 984, Whangarei 0140

Telephone no: 09 4343836 or 021 718478

Email: admin@landownerscoalition.nz

We could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission. Our members are  directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of the submission that:

  1. adversely affects the environment; and
  2. does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition

We wish to be heard in support of our submission.

Yes, if others make a similar submission, we will consider presenting a joint case with them at a hearing.

Frank Newan
Office holder, on behalf of the Landowners Coalition Inc

3 October 2016


 General comments

Our general comment is these plan changes create an unnecessarily complex web of rules that will create confusion and uncertainty and add to compliance costs. The plan changes are trying to do too much.

We believe this is the inevitable consequence of the Council integrating a series of Structure Plans which in our view were an unnecessary exercise in over-planning based on minimal public input. It is our view that these structure plans do not represent the wishes of the community at large and are not best practice in planning terms. They were the initiative of a single pro-regulation councillor at the time, embraced by council planning staff, and allowed by a somewhat indifferent council of the day.

We believe the creation of these new environments will make the District Plan so complex as to be inaccessible to anyone but those expert in such matters. This will inevitably add uncertainty and significant cost to landowners. We believe those negative consequences have not been recognised in the S32 analysis, and in this respect the analysis is fundamentally flawed.

Furthermore, we believe the Council has not adequately consulted the public on these draft plan changes, given the complexity of the changes and the extent – affecting some 80% of the land area of the district. We would have expected there to be public meetings.

In simple terms, we believe this raft of plan changes turns the District Plan into a mess. We therefore oppose all 10 proposed plan changes: PC85 Rural Area, PC85A Rural Production Environment, PC85B Strategic Rural Industry Environment, PC85C Rural Village Environment, PC85D Rural Living Environment, PC86A Rural (Urban Expansion) Environment, PC86B Rural (Urban Expansion) Living Environment Zoning, PC87 Coastal Area, PC102 Minerals, PC 114 Landscapes, and ask the Commissioners to instruct the Council to abort the current process, and revisit the exercise.

There are some aspects of the proposed plan changes that we do agree with, but these are relatively minor when the changes are taken in their entirety. The positive aspects are:

  • Reduction in permitted subdivision lot sizes for land transitioning between the urban and rural environments. This is what the market is demanding, as is obvious from what is actually occurring.
  • Provisions for the introduction of positive incentives, albeit limited and in general form, to encourage environmental protection. While we are encouraged by this, we remain sceptical that such measures will endure through the current process, and should they remain whether they will be implemented in practice by council staff. It is the experience of our members the staff culture at the Whangarei District Council (and local authorities generally) is one of regulation rather than encouragement.

The aspects we are most concerned about are:

  • The further erosion of private property rights, by transferring discretion about what one does on ones property from the property owner to council staff. We do not accept the presumption that council staff represent the values of the community at large. In any case we believe a private property owner is the most affected party when it comes to their own property and therefore should have the greatest say about what they do on their property. We believe the public at large should only be consulted when the effects are significant. We believe the “more than minor” threshold is too low.
  • There is a presumption that landowners and the existence of a residential dwelling and other buildings have negative environmental effects. We do not accept this as a base proposition. The empirical evidence is one of positive effects. We particularly note the beneficial effect of subdivision on the coast – very significant native tree planting and an explosion of wildlife. All this has been done voluntarily by lifestyle landowners who do not need nor seek assistance from the council – their first preference is that Council get out of the way and stop making their life difficult. These new draft plans will “get in the way” of landowners enhancing the environment, and have negative environmental consequences.
  • It is our view that rezoning the Coastal area as Rural Production is nonsense. It is actually so nonsensical that it makes one assume the Council planners have actually not undertaken a field visit of that area. Coastal land is marginal production land – that’s actually why very little viable production takes place on the coast. Having a 20ha minimum lot size is an absurdity – far too small to be economically viable, but too large for all but very wealthy landowners to revegetate. Instead they run a few animals to subsidise their rates bill, and land that would otherwise be returned to natural habit remains in grass. Where’s the environmental benefit in that?

The best use of coastal land is lifestyle, with an optimum lot size of approx 4 hectares. That smaller lot size encourages revegetation, the benefits of which greatly outweigh the negative effect of a single dwelling as assumed by the draft plan changes.

We do not accept the presumption that a house on 4 hectares creates adverse visual effects of any consequence, and reject criteria which assesses visual effect from public land or the sea.

We are of a view that the coastal area has been included as Rural Production in the draft plan simply as a means to enable a 20ha restriction on subdivision and residential development. We consider this approach to be misleading and one we vigorously oppose.

  • The plan changes introduce two standards of environmental effect; a standard for Maori and one for everyone else. An environmental effect is an environmental effect, regardless of who creates it. We believe environmental effects should not be discriminatory.

We accept some Maori do have a special attachment to the land, but we utterly reject the assumption that Maori have a greater attachment to the land than others, and should therefore be permitted to create effects which others are not. We find it abhorrent that one would presume non-Maori do not have an equally strong attachment. Like Maori, many non-Maori have a special relationship with their land and consider it a legacy asset.

  • The draft plan changes have a general lack of regard to social and economic well-being, and the importance of development to building stronger communities.
  • The draft plan changes appear to be solving “problems” that do not exist, and not founded on actuality.

PC114 LANDSCAPES

LAN.1.2 Objectives.

  1. Protect the characteristics and qualities of identified Outstanding Natural Features and

Outstanding Natural Landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

We believe “inappropriate” needs to be better defined to add clarify and certainty.

  1. Provide greatest protection for Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural

Landscapes within the coastal environment.

“Greatest Protection” implies avoidance, which essentially means prohibiting human activity. We believe this objective is too onerous.

  1. Promote the conservation, enhancement and rehabilitation of Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscapes.

If “Conservation is the objective, the policy should be for a local authority to purchase the land from the private landowners.

  1. Recognise existing landuse and development, including regionally significant infrastructure, form part of the characteristics and qualities of the environment where they are located in or on Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscapes.

Agreed. Existing use rights should be protected.

  1. Recognise that some Outstanding Natural Landscapes contain undeveloped Māori Land and make allowance for the special relationship of Māori to this ancestral land.

Delete clause. Environmental effects are environment effects regardless of race. Many non-Maori have a special relationship with the land and treat their land as a legacy asset. We appreciate Maori have a special status when it comes to consultation, but we do not accept that special status extends to permitting environmental effects that non-Maori are controlled or prohibited from causing.

LAN.1.3 Policies

  1. To identify the location and extent of the District’s Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscapes that are sensitive to the effects of subdivision, use and development, on the District Plan Resource Maps.

We challenge the presumption that subdivision is bad for the environment. We believe the optimum lot size is considerably smaller than permitted in the District Plan. We believe there are many examples where subdivision has resulted in significant net benefit to the environmental as a result of human activity.

  1. To protect Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscapes with particular regard to their individual characteristics and qualities as identified in landscape assessment worksheets (Outstanding Natural Landscapes) and Schedule LAN.8 (Outstanding Natural Features).

We believe the landscape assessments are too subjective and esoteric.

  1. Within the Coastal Area, to avoid adverse effects of subdivision, use and development on the characteristics and qualities of Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscapes by restricting activities to those:
  2. Of a scale, location and design that have only minor or transitory adverse effects; or
  3. Associated with coastal hazard management that avoids the use of hard protection structures, such as seawalls and rock armouring, along with other visible artificial elements.

The positive effects of subdivision need to be included as a consideration. Avoiding the use of hard protection structures would limit options to avoid coastal erosion of public and private land.

  1. Outside of the Coastal Area, to avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects (including cumulative adverse effects) of subdivision, use and development on the characteristics and qualities of Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscapes.

Remove the reference to cumulative effects as these are subjective and unknown.

  1. Subdivision, use and development in or on an Outstanding Natural Landscape shall be located and designed to avoid, to the greatest extent, adverse landscape and/or visual effects by:
  2. Being integrated with identified characteristics and qualities of Outstanding Natural

Landscapes;

  1. Avoiding sensitive landforms such as ridges, spurs, headlands, knolls and peaks;
  2. Being responsive to natural contours;
  3. Being visually unobtrusive;
  4. Maintaining established areas and patterns of indigenous vegetation cover; and
  5. Avoiding permanent earthworks scarring.

“To the greatest extent” is to high a standard and implies avoidance. In our view ridges, spurs, knolls and peaks and not sensitive land forms. Natural colours is vague – every imaginable colour appears in nature. The policy regarding earthworks is inconsistent with the objective to avoiding permanent earthworks scaring. The policy focuses on volume not appearance following revegetation, which is the critical issue.  We believe a landowner are the most affected party are best able to make these judgments.

  1. To assess the scale and significance of adverse effects of subdivision, use and development on the characteristics and qualities of Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscapes by:
  2. Having particular regard to:
  3. The extent of the resource area affected;
  4. The sensitivity of resource to change;

iii. The degree of modification, damage, loss or destruction that will result from the

activity;

  1. The duration and frequency of adverse effects;
  2. Whether adverse effects are reversible or irreversible; and
  3. The potential for spatial or temporal cumulative adverse effects of the proposed activity on its own or in combination with other authorised activities, including permitted activities; and
  4. Recognising that a minor or transitory effect may not be an adverse effect.

“Potential for spatial or temporal cumulative adverse” should be removed.  “Transitory effect” needs to be better defined. In the long-run, everything is transitory.

  1. The location, scale and form of earthworks, vegetation clearance and built development in or on an Outstanding Natural Feature shall not reduce the overall form, integrity and extent of the feature and shall take into account the vulnerability of the feature to modification.

This is vague and of no practical value to anyone but the interpretation of planning staff.

  1. Buildings and structures, excluding regionally significant infrastructure, in Outstanding Natural

Landscapes shall be located and designed so that they:

  1. Are inconspicuous when viewed from public land;
  2. Avoid locating upon, or intruding above, ridgelines, spurs, knolls and peaks where this

results in adverse visual effects which cannot be remedied or mitigated;

  1. Use recessive colours and materials with low light reflectivity;
  2. Minimize artificial light spill; and
  3. Are visually recessive and blend with the surrounding vegetation and natural topography.

We believe the rights and values of an individual property are of greater regard than the assumed values of the public (as represented by planning staff). We believe when viewed from public land should be of minor regard only.

  1. To allow for adverse effects arising from the establishment and operation of regionally significant infrastructure and community facilities in or on Outstanding Natural Features or Outstanding Natural Landscapes where:
  2. It is demonstrated that there is no practical alternative location;
  3. The proposal is generally consistent with Policies 3(a) and 4; and
  4. Measures are in place to avoid adverse effects to the greatest extent practicable, and adverse effects that cannot be avoided are remedied or mitigated to the extent that they are no more than minor.

For the purposes of this policy, community facilities include district parks, reserves and network infrastructure including roading.

It is unacceptable that the Council itself should exempt itself from these effects. Effects are effects and the right of a landowner to exercise their right of expression to use their land as they see fit should be given at least equal status to infrastructure and community facilities.

  1. To avoid large scale earthworks, including mineral extraction, in or on Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscapes.

Large scale earthworks is inconsistent with the policies which place restrictions of earthworks that are relatively minor.

  1. To avoid, to the greatest extent practicable, the adverse visual effects of earthworks, including accessway and building platform creation, within Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscapes by:
  2. Careful analysis of existing site conditions;
  3. Consideration of alternative options and approaches; and
  4. Applying measures to blend areas altered by earthworks with the existing site conditions.

Relevant site conditions include site elevation, slope and orientation drainage patterns, together with soil and slope stability.

Replace “avoid” with mitigate.

  1. To ensure that adverse visual effects of cut and fill batters in Outstanding Natural Landscapes are remedied or mitigated by requiring revegetation where this is consistent with local landscape character and is practicable.

Agree.

  1. To protect areas of indigenous vegetation which contribute to the slope or soil stability of Outstanding Natural Features or the character and visual quality of Outstanding Natural Landscapes.

Exclude land rehabilitated by a private landowner, done at their own cost and initiative.

  1. To encourage the remediation of adverse effects of past or existing inappropriate land use activities on Outstanding Natural Landscapes.

Agree. Use positive incentives.

  1. To recognise the positive effects of development proposals that provide for the enhancement and rehabilitation of previously compromised localised areas within Outstanding Natural Landscapes.

Agree. Use positive incentives.

  1. To promote the active management, enhancement, and voluntary protection of Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscapes by utilising regulatory incentives and non-regulatory methods including:
  2. Provision of guidelines for landowners and professional advisors on appropriate landscape assessment and effects management options within Outstanding Natural Landscapes;
  3. Provision of a Council contribution toward the cost of professional landscape assessments required under LAN.2.3;
  4. Provision, through assessment criteria, for additional allotments to be approved during the subdivision application process if formal protection of all or part of an Outstanding Natural Feature or Outstanding Natural Landscapes is proposed;
  5. Provision of rates relief for covenanted areas within Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscapes; and
  6. In partnership with the Northland Regional Council, assisting with landowner costs of pest control and/or fencing for exclusion of stock from Outstanding Natural Features or Outstanding Natural Landscapes.

Strongly agree. These provisions should be retained and enhanced. We oppose removal of these provisions. There are also a number of private organsiations the Council could partner with for pest control.

  1. To recognise that identified Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscapes may contain existing and/or authorised subdivision, use and development, including infrastructure and rural production activity such as farming, forestry and horticulture, and provide for the continuation of such activities as far as is consistent with the overall protection of Outstanding Natural Features or Outstanding Natural Landscapes.

Expressly permit existing use rights, including the replanting of plantation forestry and other land based activities.

  1. To allow adverse effects arising from the maintenance and minor upgrading of existing authorised landuse and development in or on Outstanding Natural Features or Outstanding Natural Landscapes, wherever it is located, where:
  2. The adverse effects generated whilst the maintenance or minor upgrading is being undertaken are not significant; and
  3. The adverse effects after the conclusion of the maintenance or minor upgrading are the same or similar to those that existed before the activity was undertaken.

The exercise of existing use rights should not be limited. Those rights should be the same as those that exist currently.

  1. To recognise that Outstanding Natural Landscapes may contain undeveloped ancestral Māori land and provide for tangata whenua needs for papakāinga development on that land as far as is consistent with the overall protection of Outstanding Natural Landscapes.

Delete. The same planning rules should apply to land regardless of the identity of its owners, singularly or in multiple ownership.

 

LAN.2.1 Eligibility Rules

  1. The rules below apply in addition to the rules of the underlying Environment. Where the standards are different between the underlying Environment and the Outstanding Natural Landscape or Outstanding Natural Feature area, the most restrictive rule shall apply.

LAN.2.2 Notification Rules

  1. Proposals that are non-complying activities must be publicly notified.
  2. All other subdivision and land use proposals requiring consent shall be subject to the notification tests of the RMA.

We disagree that all non-complying activities must be publicly notified. Notification should be limited to directly affected parties.

LAN.2.3 Landscape Outcome Evaluation Requirement

  1. A site or property-specific landscape outcome evaluation, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person, shall be submitted with all consent applications for subdivision, use or development within an Outstanding Natural Landscape. The landscape outcome evaluation shall:
  2. Reflect the requirements of the policies within this section;
  3. Demonstrate any ways in which the proposal may conserve or heighten the characteristics and qualities of the Outstanding Natural Landscape through a comprehensive approach to landscape analysis and project design;
  4. Document how potential adverse effects on the are to be avoided;
  5. Clearly identify where the avoidance of adverse effects is not considered practicable and record the nature and scale of those effects; and
  6. Demonstrate how unavoidable adverse effects will be remedied or mitigated.

This should only be a requirement where a development proposal is significant in scale.

LAN.3.1 Permitted Activities

LAN.3.1.2 Buildings and Structures

  1. Construction of non-habitable buildings ancillary to rural production or network utility activities within an Outstanding Natural Landscape within the Coastal Area is permitted provided that:
  2. The gross floor area of any new building or buildings does not exceed 50m2; and
  3. The highest point of the building does not project above the nearest ridgeline, knoll or peak when viewed from a public road, public reserve, and/or the coastal marine area within 2km of the site; and
  4. The exterior facades (excluding joinery) are coloured or painted with a colour with a reflectance value no greater than 35% and with a roof colour with a reflectance value no greater than 30% as defined within the BS5252 standard colour palette.

We believe these thresholds are either unnecessary or overly restrictive.

  1. Construction of non-habitable buildings ancillary to rural production or network utility activities within an Outstanding Natural Landscape outside the Coastal Area is permitted where:
  2. The gross floor area of any new building or buildings does not exceed 100m2; and
  3. The highest point of the building does not project above the nearest ridgeline, knoll or peak when viewed from a public road, public reserve, and/or the coastal marine area within 2km of the site; and
  4. The exterior facades (excluding joinery) are coloured or painted with a colour with a reflectance value no greater than 35% and with a roof colour with a reflectance value no greater than 30% as defined within the BS5252 standard colour palette.

We believe these thresholds are either unnecessary or overly restrictive.

  1. External alteration or extension to an existing building, including a Residential Unit, within an Outstanding Natural Landscape is permitted provided that:
  2. The alteration or extension does not exceed 50m2 in area or does not exceed 20% of the gross floor area of the existing building which is being altered or added to, whichever is the lesser; and
  3. The alteration or extension does not exceed the height of the existing building.

We believe these thresholds are either unnecessary or overly restrictive.

  1. Maintenance and minor upgrading of buildings and structures associated with public parks, reserves, network utilities, or community infrastructure is permitted.

It is our submission that this same standard should apply to private landowners. It is not acceptable for a local authority to create onerous rules and then exempt themselves. It seems the only party affected by these rules are private landowners who are not of Maori descent!

  1. Installation of underground network utilities is permitted subject to compliance with Earthworks Rule 3.1.3.1 and Vegetation Clearance Rule 3.1.4.1.

We believe this same standard should apply to private landowners.

LAN.3.1.3 Earthworks

  1. Earthworks within an Outstanding Natural Landscape is permitted if:
  2. The excavation and fill volume is less than 150m3 and the area is less than 150m2 in any 12 month period within a site; and
  3. The height or depth is less than 2m over a continuous distance of less than 50m within a site; or

We believe these thresholds are either unnecessary or overly restrictive.

  1. The work is directly associated with:
  2. The repair and maintenance of roads, fences, utility connections, driveways, parking areas, effluent disposal systems, swimming pools, garden amenities, gardening, planting of any vegetation, burial of marine mammals, walking or cycling tracks, or farm and forestry tracks; or
  3. A sand dune restoration project; or

iii. The provision of walking or cycling tracks less than 3m wide.

Note: The height or depth of excavation will be based on an average height from existing ground level over the length of the excavation or fill or over 50m continuous length, whichever is the lesser length.

Agreed.

LAN.3.1.4 Indigenous Vegetation Clearance

  1. Indigenous vegetation clearance within an Outstanding Natural Landscape is permitted if it is:
  2. Of less than or equal to 150m2 of contiguous indigenous vegetation in any 12 month period within a site; and
  3. Directly associated with:
  4. Removal or pruning of trees, live or dead, that are a demonstrable danger to human life or structures; or

Delete “that are a demonstrable danger to human life or structures”.

  1. Routine maintenance and repair within 3m of existing buildings and structures (including network utilities), tracks, lawns, gardens, fences, drains and other lawfully established activities; or

Increase 3m to 20m for existing buildings.

iii. Forestry operations and the vegetation or tree comprises the understorey directly beneath exotic or native plantation forest canopy; or

Agree.

  1. Vegetation removal for customary rights; or

Delete clause.

  1. Conservation planting, including planting for ecological restoration purposes.

Agree.

LAN.3.2 Controlled Activities

  1. Earthworks or indigenous vegetation clearance within an Outstanding Natural Landscape, either within or outside of the Coastal Area, necessary to create a defined building platform:
  2. Identified through a professional landscape assessment; and
  3. Approved as part of a subdivision consent.

Clearing an area to create a platform for the building a residential structure should be a permitted activity.

  1. Construction of a Residential Unit within an Outstanding Natural Landscape, either within or outside of the Coastal Area, on a defined building platform:
  2. Identified through a professional landscape assessment; and
  3. Approved as part of a subdivision consent.

The building a residential structure should be a permitted activity. To deny this is to create uncertainty that is unreasonable and costs that is unfair.

  1. Control is reserved over:
  2. The appropriateness of the landscape assessment in relation to the identified characteristics and qualities of the Outstanding Natural Landscape.
  3. The suitability of the defined platform for the proposed building.
  4. Effects of platform access and onsite infrastructure arrangements.
  5. Any mitigation measures proposed.

It is our submission that these controls are unnecessary.

LAN.3.3 Restricted Discretionary Activities

  1. Papakāinga development on ancestral Māori land within an Outstanding Natural Landscape outside of the Coastal Area.
  2. Discretion is restricted to:
  3. The proposed siting of the activity in relation to ridgelines or other important natural landscape elements.
  4. The proposed location and design of the papakāinga development with respect to the concepts of tikanga Māori and kaitiakitanga.
  5. The proposed location and design of buildings, structures, vehicle access, manoeuvring and parking spaces.
  6. The extent of visible change to the Outstanding Natural Landscape which may result from the proposed activity.
  7. The potential for more than minor adverse effects on the Outstanding Natural Landscape.
  8. Any remediation or mitigation measures proposed to address adverse visual effects.

It is our submission that the effects of Papakāinga development should assessed and treated in the same manner as other development.

LAN.3.4 Discretionary Activities

  1. The following activities are discretionary activities within an Outstanding Natural Landscape outside the Coastal Area:
  2. Any activity that does not meet the permitted activity standards in Rules 3.1.2 (Buildings and Structures), 3.1.3 (Earthworks) or 3.1.4 (Indigenous Vegetation Clearance).
  3. Construction of a Residential Unit within an Outstanding Natural Landscape where the activity does not comply with Rule 3.2.2.
  4. The establishment of new production forestry.
  5. Construction of a Residential Unit within an Outstanding Natural Landscape within the Coastal Area where the activity does not comply with Rule 3.2.2; and
  6. The underlying zoning is Living 3; or
  7. The entire property title is included within the Outstanding Natural Landscape and does not include an existing dwelling.
  8. Papakāinga development on ancestral Māori land within an Outstanding Natural Landscape within the Coastal Area.

Our submission is that every landowner should be permitted to build a dwelling, and where restrictions are placed, they should only relate to significant effects set at a high threshold. Papakāinga development should assessed and treated in the same manner as other development.

LAN.3.5 Non-Complying Activities

  1. The following activities are non-complying activities within an Outstanding Natural Landscape within the Coastal Area:
  2. Any activity that does not meet the permitted activity standards in Rules 3.1.2 (Buildings and Structures), 3.1.3 (Earthworks) or 3.1.4 (Indigenous Vegetation Clearance).
  3. Construction of a Residential Unit within an Outstanding Natural Landscape within the Coastal Area which does not comply with Rule 3.4.2.

Our submission is that every landowner should be permitted to build a dwelling, and where restrictions are placed, they should only relate to significant effects set at a high threshold.

  1. The establishment of new production forestry.

We believe this is unnecessarily restrictive and has serious economic and social consequences. Replanting of production forestry should be a permitted activity.

LAN.3.6 Assessment Criteria

  1. Relevant criteria set out in LAN.7 Assessment Criteria shall apply to the consideration of all resource consent applications for land use and development activities within Outstanding Natural Landscapes.

We believe the assessment criteria is overly subjective and esoteric and should be amended accordingly.

Outstanding Natural Landscapes –Subdivision

LAN.4.1 Discretionary Activities

  1. Subdivision within an Outstanding Natural Landscape outside of the Coastal Area is a discretionary activity.

Our submission that a level of subdivision should, subject to certain criteria, should be permitted. We believe this would create positive environmental benefits.

LAN.4.2 Non-complying Activities

  1. Subdivision within an Outstanding Natural Landscape within the Coastal Area is a noncomplying activity.

We strongly object to this restriction. It fails to recognise the positive benefits that arise from lifestyle subdivision.

LAN.4.3 Assessment Criteria

  1. Relevant criteria set out in LAN.7 Assessment Criteria shall apply to the consideration of all resource consent applications for subdivision activity within Outstanding Natural Landscapes.

We believe the assessment criteria is overly subjective and esoteric and should be amended accordingly.

Outstanding Natural Features – Landuse

LAN.5.2 Restricted Discretionary Activities: Matters of Discretion

  1. Discretion will be restricted to the matters below for the activities listed as restricted discretionary in LAN 5 Table 1:
  2. The nature, form and extent of proposed works.
  3. The degree of existing geological modification.
  4. The need or purpose of the proposed building or structure.
  5. Alternative methods and locations for the proposed activity.
  6. The potential for erosion or other adverse effect on the Outstanding Natural Feature.

This is in effect a transfer of a property right from the landowner to council staff. We find that objectionable.

LAN.5.3 Assessment Criteria

  1. Relevant criteria set out in LAN.7 Assessment Criteria shall apply to the consideration of all resource consent applications for land use and development activities within Outstanding Natural Features.

We oppose the use of the criteria.

 

Outstanding Natural Features – Subdivision

LAN.6.1 Discretionary Activities

  1. Subdivision within an Outstanding Natural Feature outside of the Coastal Area is a discretionary activity.

Opposed. This creates significant uncertainty about the use of an individual’s property, which may in effect be rendered uninhabitable and significant compliance costs. In these circumstances we believe it appropriate the Council to purchase the land in question – given its apparent importance to the public interest.

LAN.6.2 Non-complying Activities

  1. Subdivision within an Outstanding Natural Feature within the Coastal Area is a non-complying activity.

Opposed. This creates significant uncertainty about the use of an individual’s property, which may in effect be rendered uninhabitable and significant compliance costs. In these circumstances we believe it appropriate the Council to purchase the land in question – given its apparent importance to the public interest. This is in effect a transfer of a property right from the landowner to council staff. We find that objectionable.

LAN.6.3 Assessment Criteria

  1. Relevant criteria set out in LAN.7 Assessment Criteria shall apply to the consideration of all resource consent applications for subdivision activity within Outstanding Natural Features.

We oppose the use of the criteria.

 

LAN.7.1 Assessment Criteria

  1. The following criteria shall apply to the consideration of restricted discretionary (where relevant), discretionary and non-complying resource consent applications for subdivision, land use, and development activities within identified Outstanding Natural Features or Outstanding Natural Landscapes.
  2. To extent to which the proposal is consistent with and not contrary to the objectives and policies contained in LAN.1.2 and 1.3

Agree.

  1. The extent to which the proposal is consistent with the Council adopted ‘Guidelines for Managing Change in Outstanding Natural Landscapes 2016’ or any subsequent replacement version.

Disagree as this is not a notified document.

  1. The elements which make up the distinctive character and qualities of the feature or landscape as recorded in Schedule LAN.8 (Outstanding Natural Features) or applicable worksheet from ‘Northland Regional Landscape Assessment Worksheets (for Whangarei District) February 2014’ (Outstanding Natural Landscapes).

Disagree with criteria.

  1. The specific characteristics of the application site, including its location, size, shape and topography.

Agree.

 

  1. The siting of the activity in relation to ridgelines or other important natural landscape elements.

Disagree. That is for a landowner’s discretion.

  1. The design of any building, structure, utility or any development.

Disagree. That is for a landowner’s discretion.

  1. The location and design of vehicle access, manoeuvring and parking spaces.

Disagree. That is for a landowner’s discretion.

  1. The extent of visible change to the Outstanding Natural Landscape which may result from an activity.
  2. The potential for more than minor adverse effects on the Outstanding Natural Landscape.

Agree, but only where potential effects are significant instead of more than minor.

  1. The extent to which adverse visual effects may be mitigated through locally appropriate vegetative screening or other means.

Agree.

  1. The extent to which an application proposes revegetation and/or enhancement of the Outstanding Natural Landscape, and the measures to secure the long term sustainability of the revegetation and/or enhancement.

Agree.

  1. Provisions for the permanent legal protection of the Outstanding Natural Feature or Outstanding Natural Landscape.

Agree, but Council should also offer incentive protection mechanisms as a matter of course to assist a landowner.

  1. For subdivision activity where permanent legal protection or enhancement is proposed:
  2. the number of additional lots that may be appropriate given the value and areal extent of the area(s) that are proposed to be protected; and

Agree.

  1. the potential adverse environmental effect of the increase in residential intensity, including any lots, in relation to the benefits of achieving permanent legal protection of an Outstanding Natural Feature or Outstanding Natural Landscape.

Agree, but Council should also offer incentive protection mechanisms as a matter of course to assist a landowner.

  1. Where excavation and / or filling is proposed within an Outstanding Natural Feature or Outstanding Natural Landscape, the following specific criteria will also be considered:
  2. The location, scale and alignment of excavation and/or filling in relation to any existing indigenous vegetation, site features, and underlying landform including ridgelines; and LAN.7

Disagree. That is for a landowner’s discretion.

 

  1. The nature of any avoidance, remediation or mitigation measures proposed, including consideration of alternatives, the profile of cut and fill batters, the likely long term stability of the works proposed, and provisions for revegetation.

Agree.

Schedule – Outstanding Natural Features

Largely agree with the features scheduled, but with concerns regarding the extent of protection on volcanic cones.

We disagree with the inclusive nature of large landforms and the inclusion of land that by itself is not worthy of outstanding status, including plantation forestry, farmland, and margin land. These properties should be excluded.

Our general view is that of Council deems a feature to be Outstanding I should purchase or encourage a state agency to purchase, the land (as was the case for the Ngunguru Sandspit).

 

PC 87 COASTAL AREA

CA.1.2 Objectives

Change, “5. Avoid significant adverse effects, and avoid remedy or mitigate other adverse effects, on the Coastal Area and identified High Natural Character Areas.” to “5. Avoid significant adverse effects, and remedy or mitigate other adverse effects, on the Coastal Area and identified High Natural Character Areas.”

Delete, “6. Direct development to established coastal villages and areas with existing development while retaining the special values of undeveloped parts of the coast.”

CA.1.3 Policies

Remove all references to visual effects. We believe the emphasis on visual effects is overstated, and is not as evident and adverse as this plan change assumes.

Delete, “5. To protect natural landforms in the Coastal Area by avoiding where practicable locating of buildings, building platforms, and structures on ridgelines, skylines, shorelines and prominent headlands.” We believe this problem has been overstated.

Delete, “6. To avoid sprawling, sporadic and ribbon development in the Coastal Area through the location and design of subdivision.” It is our submission that there is a case for extending the coastal settlement boundaries and the failure to do so has restricted the supply of land and exacerbated coastal property inflation.

Change, “7. To consolidate residential development in areas where landscape values and natural character have already been significantly compromised.” to “7. To consolidate residential development in areas where landscape values and natural character have already been compromised.”

Achieve, “13. To promote enhancement and rehabilitation in natural character by encouraging landscape planting that follows landform patterns, and softens or screens the appearance of built development.” by introducing positive policy incentives.

Delete, “22. To recognise that the Coastal Area may contain undeveloped ancestral Māori land and provide for tangata whenua needs for papakāinga development on that land as far as is consistent with the overall protection of the natural character of the Coastal Area.” Or alternatively recognise that non-Maori have a similar attachment to the land and links to ancestral land.

We agree with, “CA.2.2 Permitted Activities. 1. Construction of non habitable buildings ancillary to rural production or network utility activities outside a High or Outstanding Natural Character Area is a permitted activity.”

 

Amend, “3. Any other activity not requiring consent as a discretionary or non-complying activity is a permitted activity.” to permit the construction of a new residential building and the renovation of an existing dwelling. We believe the permitted activities are too restrictive and creates uncertainly and needless cost for land owners.

Delete, “CA.2.3 Discretionary Activities. 1. Construction or external alteration of a Residential Unit within both the Coastal Area and the Rural Production Environment but outside a High or Outstanding Natural Character Area:

  1. That exceeds a height of 8.5m, or
  2. With exterior facades (excluding joinery) coloured or painted with a colour with a light reflectance value greater than 35%, or
  3. With a roof colour with a light reflectance value greater than 30%.”

We believe construction or alteration of a dwelling should be a permitted activity.

 

Change 3m to 20m, “4. The destruction or clearance of an area of predominantly indigenous vegetation exceeding 500m2 in the Coastal Area; with the exception of vegetation clearance associated with:

  1. Routine maintenance within 3m of existing buildings, or”

 

CA.3.1 Discretionary Activities. Change, “1. Construction or External Alteration of a building within a High Natural Character Area: a. That exceeds a height of 5.5m…” to 6.5m for construction of a new building and no higher than the height of an existing building for an alteration.

Delete, “CA.4.1 Discretionary Activities.

  1. External alterations or extensions greater than 50m2 gross floor area of an existing building within an Outstanding Natural Character Area.
  2. Construction of a building within an Outstanding Natural Character Area with a gross floor area that exceeds 50m.
  3. Papakāinga development on ancestral Māori land within an Outstanding Natural Character Area.”

We believe these provisions are to restrictive (1 and 2).

 

Delete, “CA.4.2 Non-Complying Activities

  1. Earthworks with a volume greater than 150m3 within an Outstanding Natural Character Area…”

 In our view this is too restrictive and will impose unnecessary costs upon landowners.

 

Delete, “Subdivision. CA.5.1 Eligibility Rules

  1. Subdivision within a High Natural Character Area is a discretionary activity.
  2. Subdivision with an Outstanding Natural Character Area is a non-complying activity.”

In our view this is too restrictive.

 

Plan Change 85, A-D and 86A and B: Rural Environment Plan Changes

Plan Change 85 – Rural Area (PC85)

We believe the concept of sub-categories is overly complex, as previously noted.

RA.1.3 Rural Area Policies

Delete, “9. To ensure that the scale and nature of new rural land use activities is consistent with the existing level of amenity of the relevant Environment.” We believe this implies there will be no new development, and no change in future amenity (which may be a positive change).

RE: “10. To consider the extent to which proposed rural land use and subdivision activities achieve the stated Expectations for the relevant Environment.” Define and justify “Expectations”.

 

Plan Change 85A – Rural Production Environment (PC85A)

We disagree with the proposition that, “PC85A proposes to replace the existing Coastal Countryside Environment and Countryside Environment with the Rural Production Environment (RPE).  The RPE seeks to provide primarily for the productive use and development of rural land and resources.”

Generally the Coastal Countryside is best suited for small lifestyle blocks. The land is largely uneconomic for rural production, as is evident empirically. The other best use is forestry which is a highly restricted activity by the plan changes. It would be better described as a Rural Living Environment with a minimum subdivision lot size of between 2ha and 4ha. We believe a lot size considerably smaller than 20ha would provide significant environmental benefit in the form of replanting.

It is our submission that all land that is currently not being utilised for Rural production should be excluded from the Rural Production Environment.

 

Plan Change 85B – Strategic Rural Industries Environment (PC85B)

We make no comment regarding this plan change.

 

Plan Change 85C – Rural Village Environment (PC85C)

We oppose this plan change in its entirety. In our view this environment group (and sub categories) is unnecessary and would be better included as one of the Living environments.

 

Plan Change 85D – Rural Living Environment (PC85D)

We generally agree with the relaxed subdivision standards and believe this will better meet market demand for lifestyle blocks but without the burden of a large land area.

 

Plan Change 86A – Rural (Urban Expansion) Environment (PC86A)

We generally agree with the reduction in subdivision lot size on land transitioning between the urban and rural environments, and believe it is consistent with community demand as evident in the market place.

 

Plan Change 86B – Rural (Urban Expansion) Living Environment Zoning (PC86B)

We generally agree with the reduction in subdivision lot size on land transitioning between the urban and rural environments, and believe it is consistent with community demand.

PC102 Minerals

We make no comment regarding this plan change.

Mapping

We object to any changes to the mapping boundary lines, as shown in the in the Regional Policy Statement, where those boundaries enlarge:

  • The Coastal Environment, or
  • An Outstanding Natural landscape, or
  • An Outstanding natural feature.

We reserve the right to submit on property boundaries on a case by case basis where our members/supporters instruct us to do so.