RMA Statutory Provisions and Plans

Combined Regional Land and District Plan (District Plan)

Gisborne District Council is a unitary authority and has the functions of both a regional and district council. The Combined Regional Land and District Plan (District Plan) fulfils

Gisborne District Council’s obligations under the RMA to develop a District Plan. Regional plans are not a requirement under the RMA but may also be developed by regional councils. The District Plan’s role in this unitary authority is as a combined Regional and District Plan.

Table 5.1 in Appendix 3 lists the objectives and policies from the District Plan used in the following analysis. It also identifies which objectives and policies the officer considered in their assessment of the application. There are twenty-six objectives in the District Plan that appeared to be applicable in assessing this subdivision consent application, although only seven were considered in the Officer’s Report. Under each objective there are one or more policies that guide how the objective will be achieved. Forty-six policies in the District Plan were considered to be relevant. However, in the Officer’s Report only 13 policies were considered.

Tangata Whenua and Cultural Heritage

Maori make up about one-third of the District’s population and have substantial land holdings. The District Plan’s overlay (Map r99a) identifies that there are a number of significant waahi tapu and archaeological sites identified on the Tatapouri headland and near the campground. There is also a heritage alert over the proposed development site (Map r99b). This suggests that there is a strong historical, if not current, relationship of Maori to the proposed development site and area. For this reason constructive

objectives and policies in Chapters 1A (Tangata Whenua) and 3 (Cultural Heritage) of the District Plan.

The Officer’s Report (p 7) noted that one submitter stated that “we are in no doubt that unrecorded archaeological sites and wahi tapu are on Tatapouri”. However, an

archaeological report from the applicants presented subsurface testing and concluded that no archaeological sites were identified on the property, although, the archaeologist

considered that land disturbance may encounter some sites (Gisborne District Council, 2007b). The same submitters also raised concerns about how increased residents and visitor numbers could impact on the adjacent waahi tapu and archaeological sites on the Tatapouri headland and campsite. From the Officer’s Report it appears that the applicant has consulted with local landowners and hapu representatives prior to submitting the application to the council (Gisborne District Council, 2007b). Once submissions were received the applicant continued discussions with submitters towards agreeing a protocol for archaeological remains that are discovered during development.

Although in the Officer’s Report it said that it would discuss the development’s effects on the adjacent waahi tapu sites, there is no further direct reference to this issue. However, the Report did say that “there may be a slight increase in numbers due to this subdivision” visiting the coastal area but also that it already “receives a large amount of visitors”

(Gisborne District Council, 2007b, p 11). As there will likely be an increase in people using the coastal area and the proposed esplanade strip as a result of the development, the objectives and policies in the District Plan would have supported discussions with hapu and the Department of Conservation about how to manage the biodiversity of the coastal area and known archaeological sites, including providing an opportunity for tangata whenua to play a larger role in kaitiakitanga or stewardship of the adjacent marine area and sites of significance to them. Therefore, this issue may have benefited from being addressed within the context of the policy guidance in Chapter 1A and 3 of the District Plan.

It was also noted that within Chapter 3 of the District Plan that the only policy guidance on newly discovered sites not within the current heritage overlays is Objective 3.3. However, the policies relating to this objective only cover identification of sites and not management.

Consideration of the application in isolation of its wider context

The assessment of the application focused on mitigating the effects from the development, mostly on the site itself. The application did not appear to be considered in the wider context of issues that face the district, for example, environmental issues (such as, natural hazards risk management, land care, loss of significant habitats, ecological corridors and plant pests management, degradation of outstanding natural landscapes, lack of energy efficiency, solid waste management) and social, economic, and cultural well-being issues such as, road and utility network impacts and costs, degradation to cultural and historical sites, and financial and rating impacts on the wider community. For example, Chapter 4 of the District Plan sets specific standards that, when met, should ensure the natural heritage of the district is not adversely affected. This includes six overlays which identify natural values of significance or that are particularly vulnerable. The District Plan also states “that they are not intended to encompass all natural heritage values and are not the sole measure of significance” (Gisborne District Council, 2006e, Chapter 4, p 4).

The Officer’s Report included one policy (policy 4.4.6) from Chapter 4 which seeks to avoid the adverse effects of subdivision on natural heritage values within the Coastal Environment. The policy’s focus is on the relationship of a site with the wider context of the environment, including avoiding sporadic and cumulative effects of subdivision, and

protecting natural landforms, biodiversity, and landscape. The Officer’s Report found that the proposal was generally consistent with policy 4.4.6 and that by clustering housing, a sprawling approach to the development and ad-hoc and cumulative effects of subdivision were avoided. The Officer’s Report mentioned that the closest settlement was Makorori and that the proposal occupied a different visual landscape. The Report also considered whether the activity was suitable for the proposed location and concluded with the advice of the Landscape and Visual Assessment, provided by the applicant, that the sites location between the state highway, existing buildings, and steeper hill country makes the location suitable for residential subdivision (Gisborne District Council, 2007b). Most of the

discussion on this topic in the Officer’s Report focused internally on the site itself rather than within the context of the wider rural coastline and in particular the northern coastline where it is relatively undeveloped.

Another example of the application being treated in isolation from its wider context is the consideration of biodiversity. Although the site itself may not be endowed with indigenous

flora and fauna there are areas of significant conservation value identified in the Regional Policy Statement near Makorori on the Tatapouri headland, as well as the adjacent marine area (Outstanding Landscape) (Regional Policy Statement, Map 2A.22). Protection and enhancement of these significant features is provided for by policy 4.4.1 and includes consideration of the impacts of pests and the use of ecological corridors. Policy 4.4.2 also provides support for the objectives in 4.3 by outlining factors to be considered when

assessing resource consents for areas not within Protection Management Area. The policy directs protection, through maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity and involves considering the location of development and its association with significant natural heritage, including as ecological corridors.

In addition policy 4.4.3 focuses on addressing the effects of activities on aquatic

ecosystems and riparian areas. It promotes dealing with the in-stream effects of activities such as soil, water, and nutrient runoff from land and encouraging planting of riparian margins where no vegetation exists. This policy is relevant to the application because two streams cross the property and enter the adjacent marine area. In a severe storm, which is not unusual on an exposed coastline, the steep unvegetated erosion prone farmland behind the site (the catchment for the streams) is likely to cause in-stream sediment loading. When combined with the site’s stormwater there is potential for the streams to be heavily laden with sediment and other materials that will affect not only the quality of water within the streams themselves but also the adjacent marine environment.

The Officer’s Report concluded that the steps taken by the applicant to avoid and mitigate the adverse effects of the development on the site would achieve consistency with the District Plan’s direction on natural heritage. However, the Report did not address the effects of stormwater disposal on the wider receiving environment, nor did it consider what actions could be taken to enhance biodiversity of the site in relation to its wider context. The application could have taken the opportunity to not only mitigate potential effects of the development but also enhance on-site natural values which would also increase the resilience of adjacent biodiversity and the receiving marine environment. This wider approach to assessing an application is supported by the policy guidance in the District Plan.

Addressing Natural Hazards

Chapter 5 of the District Plan seeks to address a range of natural hazards including land instability, flooding, coastal hazards such as erosion, volcanic activity, and climate change. It recommends a 100 year planning horizon and identifies that the Regional Coastal

Environment Plan and the Regional Policy Statement should be referred to alongside the District Plan for policy guidance in the coastal environment and natural hazards. The site is within the Area Sensitive to Coastal Hazards (ASCH). Policy 5.4.1 states that “in extreme hazard areas where the natural hazard cannot be avoided or mitigated new development and any related subdivision should not occur” (Gisborne District Council, 2006e, Chapter 5, p 3). The explanation of the policy identifies these areas as where severe effects from natural hazards are likely to occur. It acknowledges that they may not occur frequently but that they can occur with little warning.

The site is prone to a number of natural hazards, including overland flooding from the steep hills behind. An example of a rare event with significant potential effects was the tsunami that hit Tatapouri in 1947 (NIWA, 2002). The wave was estimated to be 10m high and travelled about 300m inland (NIWA, 2002). The proposed subdivision is between 50 and 200m from MHWS and building platforms 6-12m above sea level. The same source also stresses that smaller tsunami events which are reasonably frequent can cause significant damage if they coincide with a high spring tide or local storm event. Tsunamis are known to travel large distances up streams and rivers, like the streams that cross the site. The Officer’s Report acknowledges the risk of tsunami to the site but considers that the unpredictability of such an event makes it hard to quantify the risk and that the effects of the tsunami are some what mitigated by the proposed building heights (6m to 12m above sea level) (Gisborne District Council, 2007b).

The Officer’s Report refers to objective 5.3 which seeks to provide a pattern of human settlement that has a high level of personal safety from natural hazards, addresses risks to property and infrastructure, and protects natural features that could lessen the impact of natural hazards. The proposal involves developing small stop banks and realigning a stream to manage stormwater and flooding. Although not directly addressed in the

Officer’s Report, policies 5.4.5 and 6 include assessing the effects of these changes on the natural character of the site and the surrounding landscape. Overall the Report stated that “the site is not any less susceptible to the effects of climate change than other coastal

settings and is at an acceptable level above sea level” (Gisborne District Council, 2007b, p 19). Although this may be the case, many of the settlements currently in the coastal

environment will, if they are not already, potentially be affected by the impacts of climate change and natural hazards. The more appropriate focus, arguably, should be what makes this proposed settlement a lower risk to natural hazards and climate change than other coastal settlements in the district. When assessing the level of risk of the site it is unclear from the report if the wider context was considered, such as the historical facts, the risk to lives, property, and the environment, and cleanup costs to the community.

Pattern of settlement and cumulative effects of subdivision

There are several areas where the District Plan identifies that the pattern of human settlement causes adverse environmental effects, particularly cumulative effects.

Chapter 8 of the District Plan provides guidance to address the issues associated with network utilities. Network utilities include wastewater disposal, water, energy,

telecommunications, and roads. The chapter’s purpose is to promote the efficient use and development of utility networks while addressing adverse effects from them. The District Plan acknowledges that dispersed settlement patterns make installation and operation of utility networks difficult both economically and physically. This chapter was not referred to in the Officer’s Report. Arguably, it is applicable to assessing the application as there are a number of utility networks that are required by the proposal such as wastewater,

stormwater, and roads. The Officer’s Report discussed some aspects of network activities effects on the environment but not their effect on amenity values, efficient energy use, nor health and safety as directed by Objective 8.3.1. In addition Chapter 12 (Subdivision) of the District Plan has a long list of policies that mainly cover infrastructure. The Officer’s Report referred to parts of policies in this chapter. For example, policy 12.4.2, which was not referred to in the Officer’s Report, appears to be very relevant as it requires that council have regard to adverse effects on the functioning of any network utility

infrastructure. The policy makes it explicit that the council needs to consider whether the proposed infrastructure is viable, including whether it is affordable to the community (this is also supported by policy 14.5.5 in Chapter 14: Financial Contributions, Works and

specific standards in the District Plan and the environment is safeguarded. The Officer’s Report referenced this policy but did not directly address the issue. Some councils (as in case study 1) require that where possible certain network utilities, such as wastewater, be reticulated because the community, environmental, and health costs are too high if

something goes wrong or the incorporated company managing the facilities folds. There is no discussion in the Officer’s Report weighing up the cost and benefits of reticulation of infrastructure and alternatives.

The District Plan acknowledges in Chapter 12 (Subdivision), that subdivision is related to a number of other chapters in the District Plan. As discussed, this chapter was referred to in the Officer’s Report, however, there was no reference to Objective 12.3.2 which requires that subdivision is consistent with a high-quality urban environment and that landuse should be integrated with the provision of infrastructure to promote a high level of amenity, a safe and healthy environment, encourage resource and energy efficiency, and address adverse environmental effects. In line with this policy direction, the development offered an opportunity to encourage technology that reduces the amount of resources used by a subdivision such as private renewable energy generation (solar and/or wind power), recycling of grey water, sustainable drainage systems, and adopting house designs that utilise passive heating. In terms of resource and energy efficiency the development’s impact on the road network could also have been considered in terms of escalating private vehicle use in the absence of public transport and therefore increasing the use of fossil fuels.

The District Plan allows for the proliferation of non-reticulated wastewater systems along the coast and also stormwater directly entering the marine environment. Both activities have the potential to significantly affect the environment. The coastal environment is prone to natural hazards, including inundation. Particular care should be taken in the design of non-reticulated sewage schemes and stormwater disposal to ensure that untreated sewage and contaminates in stormwater do not enter the marine environment, particularly in the event of a natural hazard. The best practice planning horizon for

designing such schemes is to plan for a 1 in 100 year event as directed in Chapter 5 of the District Plan. It is unclear from the Officer’s Report whether the infrastructure was

Financial Contributions

The District Plan recognises that there is pressure on the physical environment and network infrastructure from among other things “growth in residential development” and “sensitivity of the environment to subdivision and development” (Gisborne District Council, 2006e, p 14-1). Financial contributions are considered in the District Plan as a way that the community can provide for services and facilities necessary for their well-being, health, and safety, and so that natural and physical resources are managed sustainably into the future and adverse environmental effects are addressed. The District Plan considers that the degree of contribution should be reasonable and fair and take into account several principles outlined. Contributions can take into account on-site services, such as roads and stormwater and also off-site services such as landfills, roading, and community facilities. The Officer’s Report did not refer to the policies and objectives in Chapter 14, although the proposal is considered as discretionary in the chapter rules. From the Officer’s Report it appears that only reserve contributions were requested from the applicant.

Residential subdivision in the rural zone within a coastal overlay

The structure of the District Plan creates a potentially confusing decision-making situation because the application is for a residential subdivision activity in a rural zone that is within a coastal overlay. The circumstances involve three chapters of the District Plan directly (Rural, Subdivision, and Residential) and the requirements of the Coastal Overlay in the Coastal Plan. I will briefly work through some of the difficulties that this situation presents.

The District Plan describes Gisborne District as a rural district with only 5 % of the region having highly productive soils (Chapter 21, p 1). One of the issues that Chapter 21(Rural Zones) seeks to address is that the Rural Coastal Environment tends to attract subdivision and in the past it has not always provided for amenity, natural, and cultural values. The site itself has not been classified as highly productive and therefore falls within the Rural General Zone which covers the majority of the district. The minimum Rural General lot size of 1000m2 is smaller than if not equal to, several residential zoning lot sizes. This lot size applies to the majority of land within the district which can be therefore subdivided down to what is essentially residential land use. There are likely to be some topographical and economic restrictions. However, the rural environment and, in particular, the coastal