The Decision Report

The following section analyses of the Hearings Committee Decision Report (hereafter Decision Report) for the subdivision application.

The Decision Report identified a number of areas where the application failed to comply with the rules in the District Plan. The areas of non-compliance were:

 Minimum lot size (as discussed in the Officer’s Report)

 Effluent separation distance (on-site management and disposal). This particular issue was not discussed in the Officer’s Report.

 Unable to meet minimum sight distances for vehicle access ways and minimum separation distances (as discussed in the Officer’s Report)

 Vehicle crossings and road access (as discussed in the Officer’s Report)

 Roading and earthworks in an outstanding landscape area (as discussed in the Officer’s Report)

The Hearings Committee in their Decision Report identified the following as key areas in dispute after hearing evidence from the applicant, expert witnesses, submitters, and the officer:

(a) Should the Council require connection of the development to the Waitarere wastewater scheme?

(b) Whether the proposed buffer and reserve lots should be held in private ownership, in common ownership, or vested in Council?

(c) What the speed limit should be for the developments road layout? (d) Should Council take the proposed esplanade strip?

(e) What works off-site should be undertaken by the applicant?

(f) Should the boulevard design be adopted for the main internal road of the subdivision?

(g) What level of landscaping should be required of the applicant? (h) What level of earthworks is acceptable?

The Hearings Committee concluded that:

The applicant is required to connect to the Waitarere wastewater system and the

wastewater discharged per household should be no more than 1.45m3 per day. There was no explanation for this decision in the Decision Report.

The council chose not to accept the proposed reserves and buffers as it considered that “it did not need them and had no obligation to accept them” (Horowhenua District Council, 2007c, p 3). There was no further explanation why they did not need the reserves; therefore the reserves will be held in common ownership of the new residents.

The council considered “that the proposed roading did not need to confirm to urban standards and that a more rural standard would be appropriate for the development” (Horowhenua District Council, 2007c, p 3). Again there was no further explanation on why this was decided.

The council concluded that the development was consistent with the objectives and policies for both the rural zone and the sites outstanding landscape. The Council thought that the matters associated with landscaping should be mitigated by the applicant because of the highly modified vegetation on the site. For both of these issues there was no further explanation for the decisions.

The financial contributions provisions of the District Plan were only relevant to the extent set out in the LTCCP. This was the only reference to the LTCCP made in the Decision Report.

Overall the Hearings Committee considered that it has had regard to the matters outlined in section 104 of the RMA, in particular the Regional Plan and the District Plan and that the application was not inconsistent with the objectives and policies in the District Plan or Part 2 of the RMA (Horowhenua District Council, 2007c).

The Decision Report did not refer to any specific policies or objectives unlike the Officer’s Report. Instead it was very brief containing 4 pages on the decision and 10 pages detailing conditions on the application. The Decision Report did not provide much detail overall about why decisions were made. Of interest is the reference to the LTCCP and Financial Contributions Policy (developed under the RMA) which repeals and replaces itself with the Development Contributions Policy developed under the LGA. The Development

Contributions Policy in the LGA not only sets out what contributions the developer will pay to council but also provides detailed guidance and principles for development. This

guidance was not referred to in either the Decision Report or the Officer’s Report.

There are a number of differences between the Officer’s recommendations and the final conditions placed on the application. There is little or no explanation in the Decision Report about why the hearings committee decided not to implement several of the

that livestock were no longer farmed or grazed on most of the site. This direction formed part of the rationale that the development would enhance the natural values of the site. However, the Decision Report purposely included a condition that allowed grazing of livestock and cropping on the two largest lots. It is unclear from Decision Report and the conditions imposed whether livestock grazing and cropping were allowed on the other lots as there was no specific conditions restricting these activities.

Another area of difference between the recommendations and final decision was the area of the site to be vested in council as reserve for public use and access. The Officer’s Report recommended an esplanade reserve along Wairarawa Stream for public and access and riparian management be vested in council. The applicant also offered other areas of the site to the council as part of the development contribution. The Hearings Committee decided that it did not have the need for the proposed reserve areas, including the esplanade reserve, and was under no obligation to accept them. There is no further discussion about how this decision was reached.

The Officer’s Report did not make recommendations on several factors such as the boulevard concept, speed limit, and whether the development should connect to the existing wastewater scheme. The Hearings Committee made a decision on these issues but did not provide an explanation for their outcome.

4.5 Conclusion

From the Waitarere case study analysis there is no evidence of integration of the council’s mandates and responsibilities under RMA and LGA. Many of the issues identified in council’s non-RMA policy documents were also covered in the RMA planning documents used in the analysis. The non-RMA documents, however, provided up to date and more detailed information on district and regional issues, which arguably could have been useful for deliberations, particularly for understanding the cumulative effects of subdivision and costs implications to the wider community.

There were a significant number of possible effects of the proposal that were not discussed in Officer’s Report, including whether the development was an example of

sprawling subdivision in the coastal environment and also whether this activity was a good use of natural and physical resources.

Several possible barriers to achieving a sustainable outcome through the resource consent process were also identified in the analysis. The weaknesses in the District Plan itself are probably the most significant, where the underlying rural zoning rules allows subdivision as a permitted activity with no limitation in the number of lots. The approach taken in the Officer’s Report to assessing the application could also be inhibiting a more sustainable outcome as it was focused on mitigating the effects of the development on- site–demonstrating an insular approach to the assessment. This approach has arguably led to a development that is less likely to relate to the existing natural environment of the site or fit into the surroundings, including the adjacent settlement of Waitarere and the wider coastal landscape.

Chapter 5

Coastal Subdivision Case Study at Tatapouri–Data