Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report

(1)

Report

Prepared for Kaipara District Council (Client) By Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd (Beca)

20 April 2010

This report has been prepared by Beca on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client’s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance by any person contrary to the above, to which Beca has

(2)

Revision History

Revision Nº Prepared By Description Date

0 Carl Lucca First Draft 17/03/10

1 Carl Lucca Beca Review Comments 23/03/10

2 Carl Lucca / Perri Duffy Further Submissions input 14/04/10

Document Acceptance

Action Name Signed Date

Prepared by Carl Lucca 20/04/10

Reviewed by Amelia Linzey 20/04/10

Approved by Amelia Linzey 20/04/10

(3)

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Chapter 3 – Land Use and Development Strategy Issues Report

Appendix 2 - Chapter 3 – Land Use and Development Strategy Submitters who wish to be heard

(4)

1 Introduction

This report considers submissions and further submissions that were received by Kaipara District Council (Council) in relation to Chapter No 3. – Land Use and Development Strategy of the Kaipara District Plan – Proposed 2009. The Plan was publicly notified on 21 October 2009. The closing date for lodging submissions was 18 December 2009. The submissions were publicly notified for further submissions on 1 March 2010. The closing date for lodging further submissions was 12 March 2010.

This report recommends 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 addressed separately, but rather are dealt with in conjunction with the submissions to which they relate.

1.1 Statutory Framework – Resource Management Act 1991

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

matters were summarised by the Environment Court1

, which set out the following measures for evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other methods in District Plans:

1. The objectives of the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:

a. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s32(3)(a)); and b. Assist the Council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and

c. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)).

2. The policies, rules, or other methods in the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:

a. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan (s32(3)(b)); and b. Assist the Council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and

c. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and d. (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—

(5)

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

(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and (c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.”

Along with Section 5, part 2 of the RMA includes sections 6 (matters of national importance), 7 (other matters) and 8 (Treaty of Waitangi), which set out a range of matters that the council needs to recognise and provide for in achieving the purpose of the RMA. Those matters are also relevant when considering submissions.

The Plan must assist the Council to carry out its functions under Section 31 of the RMA. These functions are:

“(a) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district:

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

(i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and

(ii) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and

(iia) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development, subdivision, or use of contaminated land:

(iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity: (c) …

(d) The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:

(e) The control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of water in rivers and lakes.”

In addition to the matters listed above the following are relevant to considering the submissions on the Proposed District Plan:

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

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

3. The Plan must be “not inconsistent with” any regional plan (s75(4)).

4. A rule must not be more lenient and can only be more stringent than a national

environmental standard if the standard expressly says that a rule may be more stringent than it (s43B(1) and (3)).

1.1.1 Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009

As part of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009, changes have been introduced to the way Plan Reviews are undertaken. In summary, these changes concern how often Plans are required to be reviewed, the provision of combined Plans, the further submissions process, decisions on submissions, appeals on Plans and when Plan rules

(6)

take effect2_{. Of particular relevance to this part of the Plan Review process is the change to how the}

further submissions process is undertaken and the process of making decisions on submissions.

Further submissions

Clause 8 of Schedule 1 now provides that the only persons able to make a further submission are:

 Persons who are representing a relevant aspect of the public interest; or

 Persons who have an interest in the proposed policy statement or plan or change that is greater

than the interest the general public has; or

 The local authority.

Further submissions must also now be lodged within 10 working days from the day on which public notice is given.

Grouping of Submissions

Under clause 10 of Schedule 1, a decision is not required on each individual submission, and decisions may address submissions by grouping them (according to the Plan provisions or the matter to which they relate). Decisions must include the reasons for accepting or rejecting submissions, and may include any consequential changes to the Proposed Plan arising from decisions on submissions.

This hearing report has been prepared with regard to these amendments to the Act.

1.2 Background

Chapter 3 of the Proposed Plan sets out to describe the relevant land use and growth issues facing the District and the Council’s objectives, policies, methods to address those issues. In particular, the chapter provides guidance to assist in the clear and planned future urban development of the District that will respond to market expectations while seeking to avoid growth patterns that have the potential to result in adverse effects on the environment and community.

The need for this Chapter was identified by Council, particularly in considering how to deliver the outcomes of their Long Term Council Community Plan. The Kaipara District Council has recognised the opportunity and importance of providing a clear and planned provision for current and future ‘urban’ development - to meet market expectations.

In providing the direction of Chapter 3, Council anticipated that the provision of identified Growth Areas would encourage investment and attention to maintain the amenity of these areas. The Chapter identifies the following outcomes from the Plan for land use and development:

 Managed expansion of residential settlements is provided for.

 Consolidation of settlements (rather than sporadic sprawl and ad hoc development) that avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse environmental effects.

2

The Ministry for the Environment (2009), Improving Plan Development and Plan Change

(7)

 Well functioning residential and business markets that are able to cater for and respond to demand without generating adverse environmental effects, particularly effects from poor infrastructure supporting these land uses.

 Progressive implementation of development areas, in line with growth demand and availability of Council resources, as part of both the current and future District Plans.  Private initiation of Plan Changes / comprehensive subdivisions (through Management Plan

s) within identified development areas, to realise individual economic and development opportunities.

 Mangawhai is a key area of residential growth in the District.  Development of a contained urban area in Mangawhai

(8)

2 Analysis of Submissions

2.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about Chapter 3 – Land Use and Development Strategy and recommends how the Panel could respond to the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions. The submissions are addressed under subject

headings. Where relevant this report draws from the Section 32 Report3_{prepared to document}

Council’s consideration of the District Plan review. While the relevant statutory matters (identified in Section 1.2 of this report) will not necessarily be referred to directly, the discussion and

recommendations have given consideration to these as appropriate and any other relevant matters. A list of the submissions considered in this report together with the related further submissions is contained in Appendix 1 in the Chapter 3 – Land Use and Development Strategy Issues Report. Any amendments to the Plan recommended in response to submissions are identified in this section of the report.

For clarity, original submissions received during the first submission period following notification of the Proposed Plan are referred to as ‘submissions’ throughout the report, where as submission received during the second submission period and made in respect to the original submissions are referred to as ‘further submissions’ or ‘FS’.

2.2 Submissions Addressed in this Report

The Issues Report (Appendix 1 to this Report) provides a summary of submissions that were received on this Chapter. A number of submission points related to a number of chapters, and have been responded to in the following Hearings Reports:-

 Chapter 2 – District Wide Issues;

 Chapter 3 – Land Use and Development Strategy  Chapter 3A - Growth Areas

 Chapter 3B – Mangawhai Growth Area  Chapter 10 – Network Utilities

 Chapter 12 – Rural

 Chapter 17 - Heritage

 Chapter 22 - Financial Contributions

A list of those submitters who wished to be heard, whose submissions are reported on in this report, is included in Appendix 2.

(9)

2.3 Submissions on Chapter 3 – Land Use and Development Strategy as a whole or in general

The submissions dealt with in this section are outlined in Table 1.1 of Appendix 1. These

submissions do not relate to any particular provision but rather relate to the overall chapter or the chapter generally.

2.3.1 Analysis and Recommendations

a. General Submissions

Submission 230/6 states that the Proposed Plan is bureaucratic and anti growth. The submitter seeks amendments to promote growth. Similarly, submission 308/11 seeks amendments to relax rules for subdivision, ensure lots of commercial/industrial land are available and increase the number of rateable properties in order to promote growth. The submitter states that the Proposed Plan is too restrictive and does not promote growth.

FS 511/29 was received in support of submission 308/11 and the submitter states the relief sought is appropriate, necessary and consistent with the provisions of the RMA.

As stated in Section 2.1.1 of the Section 32 Report, the District has aspirations for ongoing economic growth and development, many of which cannot be achieved through the District Plan. The District Plan is a mechanism to address resource issues and create an environment that does not restrict these aspirations. Further, the land use strategy contributes to realising the economic aspirations of the Long Term Council Community Plan. The cost/benefit analysis undertaken in regard to the Proposed Plan provisions shows that the Proposed Plan is considered to be neither bureaucratic nor anti growth and that to relax the proposed rules would potentially result in unsustainable future growth within the District. Accordingly, it is recommended that submissions 308/11, 230/6 and FS 511/29 be rejected.

Submission 92/1 seeks that the Proposed Plan provide improved provisions to provide a better balance between providing for growth and protection of the environment. The submitter states that the District Plan provisions lack support for existing capital investment and development, and has an unbalanced bias towards environmental issues which do not promote development.

As stated within Section 3.1 of the Proposed Plan, the Council has established a strategy that provides direction to enable current and future residential and business development within the Kaipara District, over the period of the Plan and beyond. In addition to this, Council has taken an approach that recognises the current limit of resources to commit to this future development and the uncertainty over when development pressure is likely to require land areas to be available. It is considered that this approach is appropriate in terms of seeking a balance between encouraging future capital investment and development, and achieving the purpose of the Act. Accordingly, it is recommended that the submission be rejected.

Submission 117/4 opposes Chapter 3 as the principles on which the chapter is based are inappropriate for Kaipara District.

(10)

 FS 478/1 supports submission 117/4 as the additional costs of reviewing and modifying the Proposed Plan are unacceptable and can be avoided by postponing the District Plan process until the regional policy statement has been completed.

 FS 504/1 supports submission 117/4 as the document ought to have been a draft which was

available for further consultation. Individuals and communities need time to understand and the wide ranging changes and effects.

 FS 511/21 supports submission 117/4, as the relief sought is appropriate, necessary and

consistent with the provisions of the RMA.

As stated in the Section 32 Report, the issues, objectives, policies and methods outlined in Chapter 3 are the result of the Operative Plan review and an Issues and Options assessment, including Council workshops and community consultation. The principles on which the Chapter are based upon are aligned with the purpose of the Act (i.e. to promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources) and respond appropriately to the growth pressures that Kaipara is likely to continue to face in the future. Accordingly, it is recommended that the submissions 117/4, FS 478/1, FS 504/1 and FS 511/21 be rejected.

Submission 81/8 and 81/9 seek more focus within Chapter 3 on appropriate zoning for suitable pre-established industry and improvement of service provisions to businesses and industries,

respectively. It is considered that the Proposed Plan, through the objectives and policies set out in Chapter 2 District Wide Resource Management Issues and Chapter 14 Business, provides for adequate focus on zoning and provision of services for industrial activities. Further, it is noted that specific consideration was given to further zoning in the District Plan review (as discussed in the Section 32 Report). It was concluded that the costs to Council and the community to confirm these areas outweighed the benefits, given the uncertainty of timing and nature of growth in the District. Accordingly, it is recommended that the submissions be rejected.

Submission 106/1 seeks that self sufficient household water supply should be taken into account when building consents are granted. Within the Proposed Plan, and pursuant to the Act (particularly sections 5 and 7), there is provision for consideration of sustainable resource use such as may be provided for by self sufficient water supplies. Notwithstanding, self sufficient household water supply is not a requirement of the Proposed Plan and is a matter that will be more specifically considered pursuant to the Building Act. No amendments to the Proposed Plan are recommended.

Submission 187/8 seeks that only minor amendments be made to the existing Operative Plan. The submitter states that the Proposed Plan is going to have a huge cost to ratepayers and the existing plan only needed to be adjusted and the use of consultants and engineers kept to a minimum. Similarly, Submission 451/1 seeks that the Proposed Plan be withdrawn and the old plan be revised. The submitter states that because of the lack of direction in the Proposed Plan, Mahuta Community Water Supply will be disadvantaged in presenting any future developments they may wish to pursue; the Plan will be a financial burden that could inhibit developments; due to the location of the submitters water supplies and the lack of guidelines in the Proposed Plan, a development would require a raft of paperwork in determining what would be acceptable from the District Council, for the Mahuta Water Community Supply.

(11)

 FS 509/5 and FS 510/5 oppose submission 187/8 as the relief sought would not achieve the purpose and principles of the RMA. The submitters state the Council is required to review its District Plan under and in accordance with the RMA.

 FS 465/42 opposes submission 187/8 as the Council needed to replace the operative Plan as it

is outdated and no longer achieves the purpose of the RMA and does not give effect to national or regional policy statements.

The Proposed Plan has been prepared to meet the Council’s obligations under the Act and

constitutes what are considered to be the most appropriate methods of achieving the purpose of the Act and responding to the current and likely issues to face the District in the future (as discussed in the Section 32 Report. Accordingly, it is recommended that submissions 187/8 and 451/1 be rejected and submissions FS 509/5, FS 510/5 and FS 465/42 be accepted.

Submission 319/10 conditionally supports Chapters 3 and 3A and Appendix A subject to

amendments to enable a sustainable supply of business land and allow flexibility to appropriately locate new business activities. It is considered that the provisions of the Proposed Plan will allow flexibility to appropriately locate new business activities, while also ensuring that potential adverse effects on the environment will be no more than minor. The intent the submission is considered to be fulfilled by the Plan and no amendments are considered necessary.

Submission 92/4 seeks that where holiday parks and similar activities are located within the District, the zoning should be replaced with a specific zone providing for existing and similar activities. The submitter states that the Plan should include statements that recognise the different and unique requirements of holiday parks and similar activities and should be supportive of these activities in the coastal environment. The decision requested is that the Council should include specific zoning provisions for these activities.

Where existing holiday parks and similar activities have been legally established, these will retain existing use rights as provided for by Part 3 of the Act. Where similar additional activities are sought alongside existing activities, these are provided for by the Proposed Plan subject to meeting the relevant performance standards and/or obtaining resource consent. Accordingly, it is considered unnecessary to provide for an additional zoning and it is recommended that the submission be rejected.

Submission 335/8 supports the recognition that private plan changes are an appropriate alternative to Council-initiated plan change or structure plan processes. No decision is requested and no amendments are considered necessary.

Submission 424/5 seeks that that where the economic effect of the Plan is to reduce the value of existing properties due to extended contributions and/or increased uncertainty and/increased complexity the Council provide a statement either in the Plan or in transitional provisions as to how that burden is to be borne fairly by ratepayers.

FS 511/32 supports submission 424/5 as the relief sought is appropriate, necessary and consistent with the provisions of the RMA.

(12)

There is no mechanism under the RMA to provide financial compensation to private landowners. The consideration of individual property values is a subjective matter and is not considered a matter to address under the Act. Furthermore, consideration of costs to landowners collectively was considered in the cost – benefit considerations of the Section 32 Report (balancing these with the social, cultural, environmental and other economic costs and benefits). On this basis, it is

recommended that submission 424/5 and FS 511/32 be rejected.

Submission 298/4 seeks that Council improve the Chapter with some encouragement for activities which are emerging in the Council LONG TERM COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLAN e.g.

encouragement of cooperative community activities that foster care for the land (community gardens).

The Proposed Plan provides for a wide range of activities within the Rural zone. These activities, which may include cooperative community activities that foster care for the land and other activities identified in the LONG TERM COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLAN, may be provided for so long as they meet the relevant performance standards outlined in Chapter 12 or otherwise evidencing that the potential adverse effects will be no more than minor. It is considered unnecessary to amend the Proposed Plan and it is therefore recommended that the submission be rejected.

Submission 14/19 seeks that Chapter 3 be expanded to include a strategy statement about future land use especially related to protecting against the impact of Climate Change on the land use in the District.

Section 7(i) of the Act specifically requires that all persons exercising functions and powers under the Act in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard to the effects of climate change. Overall, while it is

considered that the intent of the objectives, policies and methods outlined within the Proposed Plan will assist in giving effect to the Section 7(i), it will be helpful to outline the Council’s intention within the explanation section of Chapter 3. Accordingly, it is recommended that the submission be accepted in part and that the following wording be added to paragraph three in section 3.1 of the Proposed Plan:

“The outcomes described above have the potential to generate both adverse environmental and amenity effects and result in an increase in conflicts between incompatible activities (e.g. reverse sensitivity impacts). In addition, it is recognised that sustainable land use and

development has a role to play in reducing adverse effects that have the potential to result in climate change, such as may be associated with emissions from road transport; heating homes; energy generation; and commercial buildings. It is the intention of the Council that sustainable growth, through deliberate planning and design of future urban and rural areas, reduce effects that may contribute to global warming.”

b. Section 3.1 Introduction / Resource Description

Submission 207/44 requests that the terminology used in Section 3.1 paragraph 2 be amended. In particular, the submitter states that the term ‘considered’ is weak and should be amended. The relevant sentence currently reads:

(13)

“If land use and economic growth is not considered, the following outcomes may occur:

 Increased fragmentation and development of urban activities on versatile and

productive soils (a finite resource) or to sensitive environments (harbour and coast);

 Stifled growth and development opportunities; and

 Ineffective and inefficient provision of infrastructure servicing for economic

development.”

There were two further submissions in opposition to submission 207/44 and one further submission in support of it.

 FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 oppose submission 207/44 as the relief sought would not achieve the

principles and purpose of the RMA. The submitters state the Council is required to review its District Plan under and in accordance with the RMA; the provisions of Chapters 3 and 3A achieve the purpose and principles of the RMA whilst providing a mechanism to ensure the adequate and timely supply of business and residential land. It is appropriate for Council to identify areas for future growth and financial contributions are an appropriate method for funding the costs of development within Kaipara.

 FS 494/1 supports submission 207/44 because they have the best interests of the ratepayers at

heart. The submitter states that the submissions are well written and researched.

It is agreed that the terminology has the potential to be strengthened. ‘Considered’ has the potential to result in a passive outcome (i.e. the matter was ‘considered’ but no action was taken).

Accordingly, it is recommended that submissions 207/44 and FS 494/1 be accepted and submissions FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 be rejected, and relevant sentence be amended to read:

“If land use and economic growth is not considered responded to, the following outcomes may occur.”

Submission 207/45 requests the provision of overlay areas which restrict subdivision and land use on versatile and productive soils. The submitter states that land fragmentation is an important issue, particularly where versatile and productive soils will be compromised.

There were three further submissions in opposition to submission 207/45 and one further submission in support of it.

 FS 466/21 opposes submission 207/45 as the versatile and productive soils are part of rural

production activities and do not need to be specifically identified.

It is agreed that that land fragmentation is an important issue, particularly where versatile and productive soils will be compromised. However, specific objectives, policies and rules have been

(14)

provided within the Proposed Plan (refer specifically Chapters 2 District Wide Resource

Management Issues and 12 Rural) to assist in reducing adverse effects on the soil resource. In

addition, the overlays are specifically concerned with addressing natural environments that have been identified for their sensitivity and value. Accordingly, it is recommended that submissions 207/45 and FS 494/1 be rejected and submissions FS 509/6, FS 510/6 and FS 466/21 be accepted.

Submission 207/46 requests Section 3.1, paragraph 2 be amended to acknowledge more sensitive environments. The submitter does not believe that the harbour and coast is a sensitive environment which in turn cannot be developed and suggests there are other sensitive environments within the District which may be more sensitive to development than the coastal margins.

The reference to harbour and coast environments within Section 3.1, paragraph 2 is appropriate to identify examples of sensitive landscapes. These examples align with the overlays, which represent natural environments that have been identified for their sensitivity and value. As outlined in Chapter 4 of the Proposed Plan, many of the coastal areas are considered to be sensitive natural

landscapes with high ecological, historical, environmental and cultural values. Identification of this environment is considered consistent with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2004 and the Northland Regional Policy Statement. Accordingly, it is recommended that submissions 207/46 and FS 494/1 be rejected and submissions FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 be accepted.

Submission 135/15 seeks the following outcome be added to the three outcomes identified in the second paragraph of Section 3.1, as shown below:

 Increased fragmentation and development of urban activities on versatile and productive soils

(a finite resource) or to sensitive environments (harbour and coast);

 Stifled growth and development opportunities; and

 Ineffective and inefficient provision of infrastructure servicing for economic development.

 The amenity, heritage, landscape, ecological and natural values of the District can be

reduced.”

The submitter states that the introduction does not identify important adverse environmental outcomes that can result from poorly managed growth, especially in the vicinity of existing settlements. Identifying and acknowledging these potential adverse environmental outcomes provides a starting point for the development of a comprehensive and robust policy response.

(15)

It is appropriate to ensure that the values identified by the submitter are adequately protected from adverse effects and that such potential effects be acknowledged as an issue early in the Plan provisions. Accordingly, it is recommended that the submission be accepted and that Section 3.1 be amended as shown below (the recommended amendments are summarised within Appendix 2 to this report):

 The amenity, heritage, landscape, ecological and natural values of the District can be

reduced.”

Submission 105/4 seeks the following outcome be added to the three outcomes identified in the second paragraph of Section 3.1:

 Increased fragmentation and development of urban activities on versatile and productive soils

(a finite resource) or to sensitive environments (harbour and coast);

 Stifled growth and development opportunities; and

 Ineffective and inefficient provision of infrastructure servicing for economic development.

 The inability to enable extraction of aggregate resources which are necessary to provide

important resources to the District, where these resources are utilised to provide for the communities economic and social well-being".

FS 511/16 supports submission 105/4 as the relief sought is appropriate, necessary and consistent with the provisions of the RMA.

It is considered that the above point is out of context with those matters identified within Section 3.1 which relates to the impacts of uncontrolled land use and development on the wider environment. The issue raised by the submitter is adequately dealt with through the District Wide provisions in Chapter 2 of the Proposed Plan. It is also noted that recommendations to submissions 105/1, 105/2 and 105/3 have suggested appropriate changes to Chapter 2 to provide for aggregate and mineral extraction where such activities are able to demonstrate benefits to the wider community.

Accordingly, no amendments are considered necessary and it is recommended that submission 105/4 and FS 511/16 be rejected.

Submission 135/16 seeks that the ninth paragraph of Section 3.1 be amended to state that the Council will also monitor development of rural land within and in the vicinity of the identified growth areas. The submitter states that given the desire to avoid ad hoc development, any monitoring needs to include the development of the rural zoned land included within and adjacent to the growth areas. Paragraph 9 of Section 3.1 reads:

“The Council is keen to ensure that ad hoc land use development is avoided. Council will monitor the development of both residential and business land during the District Plan period, and proposes to initiate Structure Plans for the Growth Areas as demand arises. In addition, Council provides the opportunity for such investigations to be initiated privately, where this will enable individual economic opportunities in these areas to be realised.”

It is considered appropriate that the Council also monitor growth and growth related pressures on rural lands within and around proposed growth areas. Such an approach will assist Council to be

(16)

well placed to respond to demand as it occurs. Accordingly, it is recommended that the submission be accepted and that the following paragraph 9 of section 3.1 be amended as follows:

“The Council is keen to ensure that ad hoc land use development is avoided. Council will monitor the development of both residential and business residential, business and

surrounding rural land during the District Plan period, and proposes to initiate Structure Plans for the Growth Areas as demand arises. In addition, Council provides the opportunity for such investigations to be initiated privately, where this will enable individual economic opportunities in these areas to be realised.”

Submission 117/39 requests that all references to "fragmentation of land", and to "productive soils" and to "versatile soils" be removed from Section 3.1 of the Proposed Plan.

Four further submissions were received in support of submission 117/39.

 FS 466/20 supports submission 117/39 as the versatile and productive soils are part of rural

production activities and do not need to be specifically identified.

 FS 478/1 supports submission 117/39 as the additional costs of reviewing and modifying the

Proposed Plan are unacceptable and can be avoided by postponing the District Plan process until the regional policy statement has been completed.

 FS 504/1 supports submission 117/39 as the document ought to have been a draft which was

available for further consultation. Individuals and communities need time to understand and the wide ranging changes and effects.

 FS 511/21 supports submission 117/39, as the relief sought is appropriate, necessary and

consistent with the provisions of the RMA.

It is considered that the terminology referred to by the submitter is appropriate. Ongoing

fragmentation of rural lands has the potential to result in numerous adverse economic, cultural and environmental effects if not managed appropriately. As has been evidenced in many districts of New Zealand, the fragmentation of land containing productive and/or versatile soils into lifestyle and rural residential living plots has the potential to greatly reduce the productivity and workability of land and hence would be contrary to the purpose of the Act which includes safeguarding the

life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems. It should be noted that the Proposed Plan

does not set out to prohibit subdivision or non-rural activities within rural areas but rather manage it in a sustainable manner. Having regard to the above discussion, it is recommended that

submissions 117/39, FS 466/20, FS478/1, FS504/1 and FS511/21 be rejected.

Submission 207/49 requests that Section 3.1, paragraph 9 be reviewed and amended to remove reference to define 'ad hoc' development. The submitter states that paragraph 9 makes reference to “ad hoc” development but what does this mean and where are examples within the District?

Paragraph 9 of Section 3.1 reads:

“The Council is keen to ensure that ad hoc land use development is avoided. Council will monitor the development of both residential and business land during the District Plan period, and proposes to initiate Structure Plans for the Growth Areas as demand arises. In addition, Council provides the opportunity for such investigations to be initiated privately, where this will enable individual economic opportunities in these areas to be realised.”

(17)

FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 oppose submission 207/49 as the relief sought would not achieve the principles and purpose of the RMA. The submitters state the Council is required to review its District Plan under and in accordance with the RMA; the provisions of Chapters 3 and 3A achieve the purpose and principles of the RMA whilst providing a mechanism to ensure the adequate and timely supply of business and residential land. It is appropriate for Council to identify areas for future growth and financial contributions are an appropriate method for funding the costs of development within Kaipara.

FS 494/1 supports submission 207/49 because they have the best interests of the ratepayers at heart. The submitter states that the submissions are well written and researched.

Ad hoc development refers to development undertaken with no regard to wider planning or growth strategies. Ad hoc development is often piecemeal and such sporadic and unplanned changes to land use have resulted in development patterns that create challenges in the subsequent

development and implementation of infrastructure servicing. As expectations for environmental standards increase, particularly with respect to discharges to sensitive receiving environments, and as growth and development continue, it is expected that issues associated with ad hoc development will become increasingly significant. It is considered inappropriate to remove reference to ad hoc development, however, it may be useful to include definition of the terms as described above. Accordingly, it is recommended that submissions 207/49 and FS 494/1 be accepted in part, and submissions FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 be rejected, such that the Section 3.1, paragraph 9 be amended as follows:

The Council is keen to ensure that ad hoc land use development is avoided. Ad hoc development refers to development undertaken with no regard to wider planning or growth strategies. Ad hoc development is often piecemeal and such sporadic and unplanned changes to land use have resulted in development patterns that create challenges in the subsequent development and implementation of infrastructure servicing. Council will monitor the development of both residential and business land during the District Plan period, and proposes to initiate Structure Plans for the Growth Areas as demand arises. In addition, Council provides the opportunity for such investigations to be initiated privately, where this will enable individual economic opportunities in these areas to be realised.

Submissions 417/1, 426/1, 428/1 and 429/1 conversely to the Submission above, support the comment in 3.1 that "direction is required to avoid ad hoc expansion of settlements" and the Council's keenness "to ensure that ad hoc land use development is avoided". No decision is requested and therefore no amendments are considered necessary.

Submissions 417/2, 426/2, 428/2 and 429/2 support the identification in 3.1 of Growth Areas. One further submission was received in opposition to submission 417/2, two were received in support. Two further submissions were received in support of submissions 426/2, 428/2 and 429/2.

 FS 477/1 opposes submission 417/2. The submitter opposes the extent and scope of the growth

(18)

 FS 509/7 and FS 510/7 support submissions 417/2, 426/2, 428/2 and 429/2 as the provisions achieve the purpose and principles of the RMA. The submitters state they provide a mechanism to ensure the adequate and timely supply of business and residential land and it is appropriate for Council to identify areas for future growth.

It is recommended that the submissions 417/2, 426/2, 428/2, 429/2 FS 509/7 and FS 510/7 be accepted, and submission FS 477/1 be rejected. No amendments to the Proposed Plan are considered necessary.

Submission 99/7 requests that paragraph 7, Section 3.1 be deleted. The submitter states that the assertion that making people reside in specific isolated small town areas and then commute to work will contribute to protecting rural economic opportunities, contributing to the social and economic well-being of the rural heartland is unsubstantiated and incorrect. Paragraph 7 of Section 3.1 reads:

“It is anticipated that the provision of identified Growth Areas, will encourage investment and attention to maintain the amenity of these areas. The provision of Growth Areas will also work to limit ‘urban’ development in other areas, and will assist in protecting the values of these areas, including their amenity and character. This approach will assist in protecting rural economic opportunities, contributing to the social and economic well-being of the rural heartland.”

Two further submissions were received on submission 99/7, both in support.

 FS 472/1 supports submission 99/7 as it is a comprehensive and well thought analysis of the

Draft Plan. The point is relevant to further submitter’s situation as a ratepayer.

 FS 511/14 supports submission 99/7 as there is no clear explanation in the section 32 analysis

as to why the rural subdivision provisions have been adopted. The submitter states the immediate application of the Engineering standards is technically incorrect as these replace standards with full weighting in the Operative District Plan. The submitter considers growth and overlay areas have not been appropriately investigate and the financial obligations to ratepayers have not been identified and does not support the introduction of any rule which compromises the activity of farming where resource consents are required for everyday activities.

As has been evidenced within the Kaipara District and throughout New Zealand, uncontrolled urban growth has the potential to lead to a range of issues including those identified in Section 3.3 of the Proposed Plan:

 Future land use patterns unreasonably constraining rural land;

 Potential adverse effects of ad hoc residential and business development on natural and

physical resources; and

 Potential to result in unsustainable and costly service provision to residential and business

developments.

Having regard to the above discussion, it is recommended that submissions 99/7, FS 472/1 and FS 511/14 be rejected.

Submission 99/27 seeks that the reference to minimum size standards be deleted from Policy 3.5.2. The submitter states that the subdivision of land should create sites which are of an appropriate size to achieve the scale, density and type of development which is provided for by the Objectives, Policies and Methods for each zone and that the standards should be used as guidelines not as inflexible minimum standards. Policy 3.5.2 reads:

(19)

“By establishing standards for minimum site sizes, for each Zone in the District.”

Three further submissions were received on submission 99/27, one in opposition and two in support.

 FS 508/2 opposes submission 99/27 as it is considered that the Engineering Standards are

necessary to manage the effects of development on the roading network including state

highways. The submitter opposes the removal of road vesting for accessways and considers that the retention of the provision assists in ensuring that the effects of traffic generated by standards can be properly managed by the provision of appropriate roading facilities.

 FS 472/1 supports submission 99/27 as it is a comprehensive and well thought analysis of the

Draft Plan. The point is relevant to further submitter’s situation as a ratepayer.

 FS 511/14 supports submission 99/27 as there is no clear explanation in the section 32 analysis

as to why the rural subdivision provisions have been adopted. The submitter states the immediate application of the Engineering standards is technically incorrect as these replace standards with full weighting in the Operative District Plan. The submitter considers growth and overlay areas have not been appropriately investigate and the financial obligations to ratepayers have not been identified and does not support the introduction of any rule which compromises the activity of farming where resource consents are required for everyday activities.

The Proposed Plan establishes minimum site size standards which assist to achieve the objectives, policies and methods for the respective zones within the Plan, while still providing certainty for landowners and the community, and sufficient flexibility to establish sites to suit their particular needs. The use of fully discretionary regimes with no minimum lot sizes has been used within other districts and has been found to result in low certainty in regard to outcomes and high costs for Council and applicants. The Section 32 Report, particularly as it relates to Chapter 12 Rural and Chapter 13 Residential has undertaken a cost benefit analysis in relation to various approaches to subdivision, including lot sizes. In particular, when considering no minimum lot sizes for integrated development subdivision within rural areas, the following costs where stated:

 Risks to rural amenity open space.

 Limited direction on outcomes being sought may result in higher processing and application

costs, cost to ratepayers generally and landowners.

 Risk of inconsistent decision making, given the broad scope of the rule.

Having regard to the above, it is recommended that submission 99/27, FS 472/1 and FS 511/14 be rejected and submission FS 508/2 be accepted.

Submission 103/7 seeks that the following sentence to be added to the end of the 9th paragraph of Clause 3.1 as follows:

“The Council is keen to ensure that ad hoc land use development is avoided. Council will monitor the development of both residential and business land during the District Plan period, and proposes to initiate Structure Plans for the Growth Areas as demand arises. In addition, Council provides the opportunity for such investigations to be initiated privately, where this will enable individual economic opportunities in these areas to be realised. The Council will require a Structure Plan to be completed either before or at the same time any Plan Change proposed for land within a Growth Area.”

FS 465/3 supports submission 103/7 because it is appropriate and necessary that structure planning preceded the development of identified growth areas if ad-hoc development is to be

(20)

avoided. The submitter states that growth areas give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (Policy 1.1.1).

The submitter considers that plan provisions which allow for subdivision and development within Growth Areas in advance of the formulation of Structure Plans for these areas are not consistent with sound resource management and will not achieve the outcomes sought by clause 3.7.1 of the Proposed Plan. Accordingly, the submitter considers that Chapter 3 should be amended to indicate that structure plans for all Growth Areas should be developed either before or concurrently with subdivision and development proposals to ensure integrated planning of land use and

transportation.

The intention of the submission is considered to be appropriate. To achieve a sustainable balance between current and future generations, Council has sought to provide direction on future

development and to establish, through monitoring of demand, a programme for future structure planning of identified Growth Areas. Notwithstanding this, there may be instances where a

Proposed Plan change does not require a structure plan (e.g. the land use proposed or the scale of development may not warrant a structure plan). Having regard to the above, it is recommended that submissions 103/7 and FS 465/3 be accepted in part and that the additional wording requested be provided for as follows:

“The Council is keen to ensure that ad hoc land use development is avoided. Council will monitor the development of both residential and business land during the District Plan period, and proposes to initiate Structure Plans for the Growth Areas as demand arises. In addition, Council provides the opportunity for such investigations to be initiated privately, where this will enable individual economic opportunities in these areas to be realised. Unless shown to be otherwise unnecessary, the Council will require a Structure Plan to be completed either before or at the same time as any Plan Change proposed for land within a Growth Area.”

c. Growth Areas and Structure Plans

Submission 207/48, 207/50 and 207/51 seek that all identified “growth areas” are deleted from the Plan. The submitter does not agree with this approach as some areas are not suffering from growth pressure and further states that the identification of Growth Areas within the Plan is contrary to the underpinnings of the Plan which seeks to encourage growth and development in the District. The submitter states that growth areas do not need to be included in the Plan for future “structure planning” exercises to be undertaken.

There were three further submissions in opposition to submissions 207/48 and 207/50 and one further submission in support of them.

 FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 oppose submissions 207/48, 207/50 and 207/51 as the relief sought

would not achieve the principles and purpose of the RMA. The submitters state the Council is required to review its District Plan under and in accordance with the RMA; the provisions of Chapters 3 and 3A achieve the purpose and principles of the RMA whilst providing a mechanism to ensure the adequate and timely supply of business and residential land. It is appropriate for

(21)

Council to identify areas for future growth and financial contributions are an appropriate method for funding the costs of development within Kaipara.

 FS 465/58 opposes submission 207/48 and 207/50 as the identification and management of

growth areas in the Proposed Plan gives effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (Policy 1.1.1). The submitter states that deleting the issue would result in a national policy statement not being given full effect to.

 FS 494/1 supports submission 207/48, 207/50 and 207/51 because they have the best interests

of the ratepayers at heart. The submitter states that the submissions are well written and researched.

Submission 207/47 requests that all reference to structure plans be removed from the Proposed Plan. The submitter does not agree with the development of Structure Plans (non-statutory

documents) which have limited weighting until such a time as they are formally adopted into a plan. There were three further submissions in opposition to submission 207/47 and one further

submission in support of it.

 FS 465/47 opposes submission 207/47 and states structure planning is a necessary tool in the

Proposed Plan to achieve the purpose of the RMA and give effect to policy statement.

heart. The submitter states that the submissions are well written and researched. As outlined within the Section 32 Report, the District Plan must provide for the sustainable management of both urban and rural resources and Council considers that such development should be comprehensively planned and managed to address potential resource management issues. To achieve a sustainable balance between current and future generations, Council has sought to provide direction on future development and to establish, through monitoring of demand, a programme for future structure planning of identified Growth Areas.

Recognising the uncertainty of the timing for future land use change and the limited resources of Council, the Land Use and Development Strategy seeks to provide clear direction on future Growth Areas without placing undue costs and resources on existing and current communities to fully investigate these areas (as would be required for full re-zoning). The purpose of the Land Use and Development Strategy is also to identify areas that need to be protected from residential and business growth.

As demand for residential and business land occurs, the Council intends to undertake Structure Planning, followed by re-zoning of these areas. This enables the community to have confidence that adequate land will continue to be provided, and ensures that other rural landowners will be able to manage their activities without the risk of uncoordinated, ad hoc development occurring that may negatively impact on their ability to sustainably manage their resources. Furthermore, it provides the opportunity for privately initiated investigations and Plan Changes to be undertaken to enable parties to realise individual economic opportunities.

The provision of identified growth areas is an appropriate method to address the range of issues outlined in Section 3.3 and, subsequently, the purpose of the Act. The intent is not to only provide appropriate growth strategies for those areas currently subject to growth pressure but to provide

(22)

direction for sustainable growth of the existing and future growth areas. Having regard to the above discussion, it is recommended that submissions 207/48, 207/50 207/51, 207/47, FS 494/1 and FS 494/1 be rejected and submissions FS 465/47, FS 509/6, FS 510/6, FS 465/58, FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 be accepted.

Submission 450/8 states that the Mangawhai Structure Plan (MSP) is effectively nullified since most of the rural residential zone has been removed and when combined with the Harbour Overlay this nullifies the intent of the MSP.

The MSP was adopted by Council in 2005 and provides a strategic framework to assist in guiding decisions on development, infrastructure management, and environmental matters for Mangawhai. Chapter 3B summarises the methods that the Council intends to use to implement the Structure Plan and specifies the outcomes being sought through the District Plan. In this manner, the Council, through the Proposed Plan, has taken proactive steps to ensure that the intent of the MSP be implemented over time. The removal of the rural residential zone and addition of the Harbour Overlay will not detract from the overall intent of the MSP. As discussed in the Section 32 Report, it was considered that the additional subdivision provisions in the Mangawhai Harbour Overlay (in the area of the Structure Plan) adequately provided for the outcomes of the rural-residential policies of the Structure Plan without the costs and other disbenefits of establishing a rural-residential zone in the District. It is recommended that the submission be rejected.

2.4 Submissions about Issues

The submissions dealt with in this section are outlined in Table 1.2 of Appendix 1 and relate to Section 3.3 Issues of the Proposed Plan.

2.4.1 Analysis and Recommendations

a. Section 3.3 Issues

Submission 103/4 seeks that Section 3.3 be retained in its current form. The submitter supports in principle the strategic approach taken to long-term planning within the District. It is recommended that the submission be accepted.

Submission 222/6 seeks that Section 3.3 be amended to so that the emphasis is on Council taking a leadership role in creating land use opportunities (for new residential and business land), but not at the expense of excessive or unnecessary damage to our environment. It is considered that the Council, through the methods described in the District Plan, is taking a proactive role in the

leadership in creating land use opportunities while seeking to avoid potential adverse effects on the environment. While the intent the submission is considered to be fulfilled by the Plan, no

amendments are considered necessary and it is recommended that the submission be rejected.

b. Issue 3.3.1 It is anticipated that there will be future demand for new residential and business

land. However, there is uncertainty with respect to the timing and realisation of the uptake for such areas.

Submission 319/4 seeks that Issue 3.3.1 be retained in is current form. The submitter supports the issue as it enables opportunities for economic growth and development and ensuring a sustainable

(23)

c. Issue 3.3.2 Uncertainty over future land use patterns has the potential to place unreasonable

constraints on the rural resource.

Submission 207/52 seeks that Issue 3.3.2 be deleted. The submitter considers the Kaipara District does not display the growth pressure characteristics that generate effects which either prohibit rural activities or render them untenable. It is considered that there are mechanisms that can be

imposed at resource consent stage to manage this effect without the need for onerous and costly non-statutory processes.

There were three further submissions in opposition to submission 207/52 and one further submission in support of it.

 FS 466/18 opposes submission 207/ 52 because it is important to retain recognition of reverse

sensitivity.

As outlined within the Section 32 Report, there has been little control over the effect of activities located at or near the boundaries between residential/business and rural areas. Growing awareness of the impacts of rural activities on adjoining land uses (e.g. from spray drift, noise and other

emissions) has the potential to increase reverse sensitivity conflicts between these activities. Uncertainty about future land use patterns, resulting from ad hoc development has the potential to constrain investment and development opportunities in the rural heartland. Planned development reduces demand for ad hoc land use change and will minimise the potential for conflict between rural and urban land uses. The identification of future development areas will also enable the future interface of residential and business land uses with rural areas to be planned for. Managing such issues solely through the resource consent process will not result in sustainable management of the District’s resources. Having regard to the above discussion, it is recommended that submissions 207/52 and FS 494/1 be rejected and submissions FS 509/6, FS 510/6 and FS 466/18 be accepted.

d. Issue 3.3.3 Ad hoc residential and business development has the potential to adversely impact

on the District’s natural and physical resources; and

Issue 3.3.4 Ad hoc residential and business development can reduce the ability to provide

appropriate infrastructure servicing to these developments, which in turn has the potential to adversely impact the District’s natural resources, particularly sensitive receiving environments.

Submission 207/53 seeks that Issue 3.3.3 be deleted. The submitter states that the new effects based regime encourages development and growth so long as effects can be managed. As such, there are no specific areas within the District that such business activities should be located. To develop Structure Plans and Growth Areas flies in the face of the “effects-based” regime. It is questioned whether ad-hoc development can actually be managed under an effects based regime.

(24)

principles and purpose of the RMA. The Council is required to review its District Plan under and in accordance with the RMA. The provisions of Chapters 3 and 3A achieve the purpose and principles of the RMA whilst providing a mechanism to ensure the adequate and timely supply of business and residential land. It is appropriate for Council to identify areas for future growth. Financial contributions are an appropriate method for funding the costs of development within Kaipara.

 FS 494/1 supports Submission 207/53 as they have the best interests of the ratepayers at heart.

Submissions are well written and researched.

As outlined within the Section 32 Report, to accommodate unsatisfied demand and due to limited zoning and/or mismatches between the provision and demand for residential and business

development, Council has been under pressure to provide for these activities on rural land (e.g. via resource consents) or to consider small-scale Plan Changes. This has not been considered effective in terms of meeting people’s needs and expectations or in some cases in protecting the District’s natural and physical resources and providing for servicing of these areas. The District Plan needs to provide for the sustainable management of these more urban demands and the natural and physical resources of the District. In this respect, Council considers that future residential and business development should be comprehensively planned and managed. Having regard to the above discussion, it is recommended that submissions 207/53 and FS 494/1 be rejected and submissions FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 be accepted.

Submission 135/17 seeks that Issues 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 be amended so they apply to ad hoc rural residential and lifestyle development as well as residential and business development. The submitter states that this is a significant resource management issue with the ad hoc development of rural residential and lifestyle lots, especially within the coastal environment and in areas of high landscape or ecological value.

Issues 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 set out to respond to issues associated with urban development, as opposed to residential development within rural areas. It is considered that the issues associated with

potential ad hoc development in rural areas are adequately identified within Chapter 2 District Wide

Resource Management Issues and Chapter 12 Rural. Notwithstanding the previous statement, it is

also noted that the term ‘residential’ could effectively include residential activities within rural areas and, for this reason, no amendment is necessary. Having regard to the above discussion, it is recommended that the submission be rejected.

Submissions 417/3, 426/3, 428/3 and 429/3 support Issues 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 in there current form. No decision is requested and therefore no amendments are considered necessary.

Submission 169/2 supports Issue 3.3.3 in its current form and agrees that the potential for reverse sensitivity is a significant issue and supports the objectives and policies that relate to the issue. There were two further submissions in support of submission 169/2.

(25)

 FS 487/6 supported submission 169/2 as the potential for reverse sensitivity is a significant issue and objectives and policies which acknowledge this are supported. Retain Issue 3.3.3 and those objectives and policies relating to reverse sensitivity (Objectives 3.4.2, 3.4.3 and associated policies).

It is recommended that submissions 169/2, FS 498/218 and FS 487/6 be accepted.

Submission 319/13 conditionally supports Issue 3.3.3 subject to flexibility of appropriately locating new business activities and ensuring a sufficient supply of subdivision and land use opportunities. It is considered that the provisions of the Proposed Plan allow for flexibility of appropriately locating new business activities and ensuring a sufficient supply of subdivision and land use opportunities. However, no decision is requested by the submitter and therefore no amendments are considered necessary.

Submission 207/54 seeks that Issue 3.3.4 be deleted. The submitter states that despite the effects based nature of the Plan, methods are being proposed to ring fence appropriate areas for specific activities in the District. This issue sends a message that Council is responsible for the appropriate servicing of future developments. However, the onus, through the District Plan, should be on developers to provide satisfactory infrastructure when and where is it required.

There were two further submissions in opposition of submission 207/54 and one further submission in support of it.

 FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 opposed submission 207/54 as the relief sought would not achieve the

principles and purpose of the RMA. The submitter states the Council is required to review its District Plan under and in accordance with the RMA; the provisions of Chapters 3 and 3A achieve the purpose and principles of the RMA whilst providing a mechanism to ensure the adequate and timely supply of business and residential land. It is appropriate for Council to identify areas for future growth and financial contributions are an appropriate method for funding the costs of development within Kaipara.

 FS 494/1 supported submission 207/54 as they have the best interests of the ratepayers at

As outlined in the Section 32 Report, sporadic and unplanned changes to land use have resulted in development patterns that create challenges in the subsequent development and implementation of infrastructure servicing. As expectations for environmental standards increase, particularly with respect to discharges to sensitive receiving environments, and as growth and development continue, it is expected that this issue will become increasingly significant. In response to this, Council considers that future residential and business development should be comprehensively planned and managed, with infrastructure and servicing identified and provided for alongside or in advance of such development. It is the Council’s role as a local authority to ensure that appropriate mechanisms, such as structure plans for future growth areas, are in place to ensure that growth of the District occurs in a coordinated, sustainable manner. Having regard to the above discussion, it is recommended that submissions 207/54 and FS 494/1 be rejected and submissions FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 be accepted.

Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report

Report

Table of Contents

Appendices

1

Introduction

2

Analysis of Submissions