before the hearings panel for auckland council

BEFORE THE HEARINGS PANEL FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER

of submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan by: Baigent (#6127) Smalley (#5699) Geottler (Brookdale Ltd) (#5878) Wolfgram (#6381) Wallace (Tripp Andrews) (#4998) Chapman (COEL Ltd) (#5172 Vol. 2)

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF PETER JOHN NICHOLLS

for Baigent (#6127), Smalley (#5699), Geottler (Brookdale Ltd) (#5878),

Wolfgram (#6381), Wallace (Tripp Andrews) (#4998), Chapman (COEL Ltd)

(#5172 Vol. 2)

FIRST STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE TOPIC 057: Rural Activities & Controls

(Subdivision)

Dated 28 May 2015

INTRODUCTION AND EXPERIENCE

1. My name is Peter John Nicholls. I am a Registered Professional and Licensed

Cadastral Surveyor and self-employed director of independent consultancy Tripp

Andrews and Partners Ltd Limited. I have over 40 years of Land Surveying and Land

Development related employment and have worked in the private sector for over

30 years.

2. I hold a Diploma in Land Surveying from Otago University (1975) and I am a member

of the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors.

3. My experience includes subdivision and land development, resource consent

processing, and resource consent preparation and representation from private

perspectives. I specialise in Land Transfer subdivisions, both urban and rural, and

mainly in the rural sector over the last 20 years. More recently I have specialised in

the transfer of Rural Development Rights.

4. I am familiar with and experienced in addressing the resource management issues,

district plan policy and regulatory tools that apply to the former Franklin District. I

have worked in this District almost exclusively since 1983.

5. I appear on behalf of the submitters Baigent (#6127), Smalley (#5699), Geottler

(Brookdale Ltd) (#5878), Wolfgram (#6381), Wallace (Tripp Andrews) (#4998),

Chapman (COEL Ltd) (#5172 Vol. 2). I have prepared this evidence in accordance

with the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note and agree to comply with

the Expert Witnesses Code of Conduct. I confirm that the evidence I present is within

my area of expertise and I am not aware of any material facts which might alter or

detract from the opinions I express in respect of the appropriateness of planning

mechanisms proposed by the Council.

6. I am largely speaking for the southern areas of the region.

STRUCTURE OF EVIDENCE

7. The technical evidence prepared on behalf of the submitters is split between

this statement of evidence, and that of Nick Williamson (Planner).

8. My evidence discusses the problems with the rules regarding rural subdivision as

proposed in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The problems identified are vast,

and far too extensive to reconcile within the statements of evidence. Our evidence

has therefore been limited to the most significant failings we have identified, and we

offer suggested remedies that are reasonably achievable, but will require further

work to be done by all parties.

STATEMENT OF POSITION

9. The rural subdivision regulatory methods are inappropriate, and appear to be based

on a confused interpretation of ‘rural production’.

10. Consequential changes are proposed to the subdivision rules and objectives and

policies for the rural areas of Auckland.

SUBDIVISION OF A SUBSIDIARY DWELLING FROM THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING.

11. The subdivision of a subsidiary dwelling from the principle dwelling house on the site

as a prohibited activity is not a logical method for ensuring that additional buildings

are prevented from being built in the rural environment.

12. I understand Councils position that the actual existence of the subsidiary dwelling

should not be used as a reason to allow a subdivision. I contend that if the

subdivision right is being established via a TRSS or Boundary adjustment, and no

additional building rights are being established as a result of the application then the

land use creating the subsidiary dwelling can be surrendered contemporaneously

with the subdivision and the subsidiary dwelling will then become a principal

dwelling on the new lot.

13. When you are required to keep the subsidiary dwelling on the same new lot that is

being subdivided you are in-fact creating one additional building right on the balance

lot as a permitted right. If you subdivide the subsidiary dwelling off from the main

dwelling on the property you will create two new lots that already have existing

established dwellings located within their boundaries. This means that there will be

no additional potential effects on amenity as the built elements are already present.

It is very likely that this sort of subdivision will also occur through the transfer of an

existing donor lot under the TRSS, therefore removing an existing development right

in the process. In summary there will be no additional burden or effects placed on

the rural environment though allowing for this type of subdivision, under the

circumstances described above.

14. There are often situations where the subsidiary dwelling is no longer in use on a

property and it is simply logical to separate this dwelling into a different land parcel

so that it can be more efficiently used for rural residential purposes, rather than

waste a perfectly useful built element .

15. I strongly disagree that this should be a prohibited activity as there are a number of

positive benefits to allowing for this type of subdivision, in conjunction with a TRSS

or boundary adjustment.

IN SITU-RURAL SUBDIVISION

16. In his evidence, Barry Mosley has proposed a number of changes to the minimum

and average site size for the four main rural zones as proposed under the Proposed

Auckland Unitary Plan (Mixed Rural, Rural Coastal, Rural Conservation, Rural

Production).

17. In order to investigate a suitable minimum lot size for subdivision in the rural area

we have to first work backwards from the total amount of growth from subdivision

that is intended in all areas, how much subdivision should be from the rural sector,

and then how much subdivision should come from each zone within the rural sector.

18. From the 400,000 new homes intended to be constructed over the next 30 years

prescribed by the Auckland Plan, it is intended that 10% or 40,000 new homes should

be allocated to the rural sector, mostly in the Countryside Living Zone. Within the

rural sector there are 5 zones (Countryside Living, Mixed Rural, Rural Coastal, Rural

Conservation and Rural Production). I propose that an appropriate weighting should

be given to each zone to determine what percentage of the 40,000 new homes will

come from each zone. I suggest the following weightings: Countryside living – 90%

or 36,000 new homes, Mixed Rural – 4% or 1600 new homes, Rural Coastal - 4% or

1600 new homes, Rural production – 1% or 400 new homes and Rural Conservation

- 1% or 400 new homes. These are suggested as appropriate figures as it directs 90%

of rural development, or 9% of the total intended development towards the

Countryside living Zone and only 10% of rural development, or 1% of the total

intended development to all other rural zones.

The following is a summary of what is available for the whole of the Auckland

Region under the Current Proposed Rules (Council Version – after Mediation) -

Note: Figures taken from Mosley evidence page 17 – Table 3.

Current Council’s Version

19. Mixed Rural

Minimum Lot size = 40ha, Average Lot size = 50ha, therefore the eligible number of

Parcels = 19

There are 19 parcels currently eligible for subdivision in the Mixed Rural zone. This

equates to 0.05% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.005% of total

new homes to be constructed.

20. Rural Coastal


Parcels = 93

There are 93 parcels currently eligible for subdivision in the Rural Coastal Zone. This

equates to 0.2% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.02% of total new

homes to be constructed.

21. Rural Conservation


Parcels = 13

There are 13 parcels currently eligible for subdivision in the Rural Conservation zone.

This equates to 0.03% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.003% of

total new homes to be constructed.

22. Rural Production

Minimum Lot size = 80ha, Average Lot size = 100ha, therefore the eligible number

of Parcels = 34

There are 34 parcels currently eligible for subdivision in the Rural Production zone.

This equates to 0.09% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.009% of

total new homes to be constructed.

23. The total number of new parcels from these four ‘rural’ zones is 159, or 0.4% of new

homes expected from the rural sector. Therefore the current Council version of the

rules will direct 99.6% of these lots to the Countryside Living zone. No way can

Council say subdivision is ‘provided for’ in ‘other’ rural areas.

24. The potential growth of the total number of parcels within these four rural sectors

over 30 years is 0.55% of the total number using Council version of the proposed

rules.

25. It is easy to see that the current Council version of the rules will only facilitate

subdivision on a very small number of parcels in these rural zones and will nowhere

near achieve the goal of producing the required amount of new homes in the rural

sector. It is also noted that table 3 page 17 of Barry Mosley’s evidence only refers to

parcels of land and no information has been gathered as to type of ownership over

these parcels. There are many parcels in the rural sectors that are held in common

ownership, meaning that the actual number of certificate of titles that would be

eligible for subdivision, would in fact be less.

26. The following is a summary of the minimum rule requirements needed to achieve

the required number of new houses as stated under the Auckland Plan:

27. Mixed Rural

The average Lot size needs to be 5ha to be eligible to create 1045 parcels

1045 parcels are eligible for subdivision in the Mixed Rural zone. This equates to

2.6% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.26% of total new homes to

be constructed.

28. Rural Coastal

The average Lot size needs to be 5ha to be eligible to create 1200 parcels

1200 parcels are eligible for subdivision in the Rural Coastal zone. This equates to

3.0% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.3% of total new homes to be

constructed.


The average Lot size needs to be <5ha to be eligible to create a minimum of 57 land

parcels

57 parcels are eligible for subdivision in the Rural Coastal zone. This equates to 0.1%

of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.01% of total new homes to be

constructed.


The average Lot size needs to be 40ha to be eligible to create 400 land parcels.

If 400 parcels are eligible for subdivision in the Rural Production zone, this would

equate to 1.0% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.1% of total new


Calculated by ratio of eligible lots between 50ha and 100ha sized parent Lots, the

eligible lots at 50ha = 699, the eligible lots at 100ha = 206; by ratio calculate that

400 lots will be eligible with parent lot at 80 hectares so 40ha Average. We believe

that this is the average lot size required to ‘maintain’ the existing productive

potential, character, and amenity.

31. Submitters Proposed Rules

After considering the above figures we request these changes:

32. Mixed Rural

Minimum Lot size = 1ha, Average Lot size = 15ha, therefore eligible number of

Parcels = 302

If 302 parcels are eligible for subdivision in the Mixed Rural zone. This would equate

to 0.8% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.08% of total new homes

to be constructed.

Percentage of Mixed Rural Lots available for subdivision = 5.6%

33. Rural Coastal


Parcels = 382

If 382 parcels are currently eligible for subdivision in Rural Coastal zone. This would



Percentage of Rural Coastal Lots available for subdivision = 8.9%


Minimum Lot size = 1ha, Average Lot size = 5ha, therefore eligible number of Parcels

= 57

If 57 parcels are eligible for subdivision in Rural Conservation zone. This would





Parcels = 206

If 206 parcels are eligible for subdivision in the Rural Production zone. This would



Using the suggested figures above the percentage of Rural Production Lots

available for subdivision = 1.3%

36. The total new parcels from these four ‘rural’ zones = 947 or 2.3% of new homes

expected from the rural sector. Therefore 97.7% to come from the Countryside

Living zone. This projected figure still directs the very large majority of development

to the Countryside Living Zones.

37. Potential growth of total number of parcels of these four sectors over 30 years is

3.3% using our proposed rules.

Summary

38. With Councils proposed rules the total number of new parcels from the four ‘rural’

zones is 159, or 0.4% of new homes expected from the rural sector. Therefore the

current Council version of the rules will direct 99.6% of these lots to the Countryside

Living zone over the plan’s 30 year timeline. With our proposed rules the total new

parcels from the four ‘rural’ zones will be 947, or 2.3% of new homes expected from

the rural sector. Therefore 97.7% will still come from the Countryside Living zone

over the plan’s 30 year timeline. Our position is a small movement towards

‘providing for’ subdivision in ‘other’ rural areas.

TRANSFERABLE RURAL SITE SUBDIVISION

39. The evidence provided by Barry Mosley details the adjustments and amendments

that have been made to the Transferable Rural Site Subdivision rules. Below is a

summary of my opinion on these changes to the rural subdivision rules and the

desired changes for each of these rules.

New Restricted Discretionary Status

40. It is stated in Table 5 that subdivision not complying with the relevant controls of

section 2.3.3 Rural Zones is a non-complying activity. I am not in agreement with the

relevant controls that relate to this subdivision and these need to be changed if any

subdivision is to work properly.

41. The major change from the “Notified” version of the TRSS rules is that the receiver

locations within the Rural Zones have now been limited to specific Countryside Living

Zones and some serviced Villages. This changes to whole dynamics of the title

transfer component of the rural subdivision rules and is very different to those rules

which were publically notified and submitted on. In particular, all rural zones, other

than some country side living zones and some serviced villages, have been excluded

as receiver areas and we note that there appears to be no receiver areas in the

southern region of the District. I do not see this as “Subdivision in rural zones should

be provided for to a greater extent. (AUPIHP Interim Guidance)”

Suggested Changes

42. I am in agreement with restricted discretionary activity for a complying TRSS

subdivision, but not in agreement with the relevant controls relating to these

subdivisions, see below for suggested changes.

Donor Site Criteria

Elite and Prime Soils

43. The requirement for donor sites to contain entirely elite or prime land will not

achieve the intended objective of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan of creating

large productive units of farm land. There are very few sites within the former

Franklin area (or for that matter, the Rodney area) that contain entirely elite or

prime land, with even fewer sites that adjoin lots that also contain 100% elite or

prime soils that can be amalgamated together.

44. Currently under the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) rules, there is

only one “Donor Lot” that is assessed for compliance and no requirement that the

‘buddy’ lot that the donor lot will be amalgamated with, needs to be assessed with

respect to percentage of soil versatility. As a result there have been a number of

situations where we have been able to take a cluster of smaller donor lots that are

adjoining one another and over time have been able to remove all of the

development rights off these properties until there is one large parcel of open

pasture land that can be used for productive purposes, rather than being

fragmented across multiple titles.

45. Council’s version of the rules will prevent this from happening. See Figures 1-4 below

demonstrating this problem.

46. Figure 1 below is an example of 6 adjacent lots with an area of 10ha each all in

common ownership, and Figure 2 illustrates the desired outcome of the

amalgamation of all six lots and transferring five TRSS to complying receiver areas.

The resultant newly amalgamated lot is illustrated in Figure 2 with a total area of

60ha.

Figure 1 - Donor lot example 1

Figure 2 - Donor example 2

47. Figure 3 illustrates the allowed amalgamations without using the newly

amalgamated lots, therefore restricting the ability to fully amalgamate all lots and

achieve the desired outcome as shown in Figure 2 above. A further variation is

illustrated in Figure 4 where by original Lots 2 and 3 have a minor watercourse and

overland flow path that reduces soil versatility below 100%. Therefore the

amalgamation of any further lots other than lots 5 and 6 is not permitted.

48. With respect to the donor lot restrictions, if the desired outcome is as shown in

Figure 2, this means that the less restrictions there are the higher chance there will

be of achieving the desired result of a large rural lot that can be used for productive

purposes.



49. To illustrate further my point that having restrictions on donor sites will not allow us

to achieve the goal of amalgamating smaller titles into larger farms, thus addressing

the fragmentation issue as outlined in the Hazledene evidence.

50. Appendix A is an actual example that will illustrate this point. This dairy farm

property is located in Pakington in the coastal Glenbrook area and consists of 135

certificate of titles with a total area in excess of 100 hectares. Utilising the current

donor restrictions detailed in PC14 – Operative Rules – Part22, we have managed to

amalgamate these titles into 43 “Rural Lots”. A rural lot has a definition under Rule

50 and is a qualification for a “Donor Lot”. The LUC versatility of the 43 lots range

from 19% to 100% of versatile soils (either Class 2 or 3).

51. Appendix A shows the external lot boundaries of the large rural property at Wymer

Road, Glenbrook that is comprised of a number of titles that make up the old

historical Pakington Town. Appendix B shows the property with the existing title

structures and individual lot boundaries as sourced from the Auckland GIS viewer.

Appendix E Shows the end result of this property after 40 donor sites have been

amalgamated and removed from the property (which is possible under the current

Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) rules. This property can now

continue to be operated as a large dairy farm.

52. Appendix D shows an approved subdivision consent for 43 lots with the majority of

the lots located to the north in the coastal environment. This consent is still “live”

and is the result that may have happened if the ability to sell these donor sites for

Transferable Rural Site Subdivision and amalgamate the donor lots together was not

available to my client. This would be the only option under the current PAUP rules

as our client would not be able to use any of the donor lots for TRSS.

53. Appendix F illustrates the location of lots that are 100% prime soils. There are 6 lots

that fall within this category, of those 6 lots only 2 are adjoining. It is easy to see that

if the restrictions are as prescribed in the Councils version of the PAUP rural

subdivision rules, then only one title transfer can occur as there is only one pair of

lots that are 100% versatile soils that are adjoining one another. However it should

also be noted that these lots were created after November 2010, meaning that they

are not eligible as a donor lot, meaning that there are in-fact zero lots that can be

used. Therefore this property would be left in a patch work quilt of titles, all over

the place and the owner would have been forced to make the commercial decision

to subdivide the property in the manner depicted in his approved subdivision

consent Appendix D. I believe the best outcome is illustrated in Appendix E.

54. My conclusion from this real example is the restrictions on donor lots as proposed

by the Council is a fatal flaw in the whole TRSS regime that they are offering. In other

words it is a complete waste of time.

55. These examples have also have proven that a very good environmental outcome can

still be achieved by amalgamating areas of productive farm land regardless of

whether or not they entirely consist of elite or prime land or say consist of a large

proportion of elite and prime land. In-fact, restricting the right for donor lots to be

entirely elite or prime soils will likely prevent amalgamation from happening.

56. Furthermore the current property market within the Franklin area (which is within

the Incentivised Land Amalgamation Area) is so valuable that property owners will

be extremely unlikely to sell off (the building right) on a site containing entirely elite

or prime land as a donor site when they could get much more value for this site by

selling it outright.

Size of Donor Lot

57. I do not agree with the requirement for donor lots to be between 1ha and 10ha in

area.

58. I understand that Council wish to deal with fragmentation of rural land but the

overall positive environmental outcome of transferring a development right from a

large open area of productive soils, to an area with a much smaller area that contains

less elite or prime soils is still achieved when utilising donor lots larger than 10 ha. In

fact the benefits of amalgamating say 2 x 30 ha productive units resulting in a single

60 ha farm far outweighs the benefits of amalgamating say 12 x 5ha blocks that

result in 6 x 10ha farms that are spread sporadically all over the district.

Requirement for Donor lot to have existed prior to 1st November 2010

59. This rule will severely limit the potential for eligible donor lots. A cluster of donor

lots will not be able to be amalgamated together over time through multiple TRSS

applications because once a single amalgamation has been completed the resultant

lot will no longer be eligible for amalgamation, meaning that other adjoining lots

cannot be amalgamated with this lot. (one big handbrake)

Suggested Changes

60. Change the requirement for a donor lot to have entirely elite or prime soils.

61. Remove the requirement for a donor lot to be between 1ha and 10ha in area.

62. Remove the requirement for a donor lot to have been either: in existence; or shown

on an approved scheme plan of subdivision which would, if given effect to , create

sites that could be used under these rules as at or before 1st November 2010.

63. The donor lots (including consented lots that have not yet proceeded to title issue)

should be able to come from anywhere in the region, with the only requirement that

the same number of building rights exist before and after subdivision.

Receiver Site Criteria

Elite or Prime Soils

64. I do not believe that it is necessary that the entire receiver site is comprised of non-

elite or non-prime land (Class 1, 2 and 3 soils). The definition of Class 4 soils with

respect to slope, classify Class 4 land as being steeper than 15 degrees of slope

(approximately 1 in 4)

65. This will make it extremely difficult to provide for a safe and stable building platform

and effluent disposal areas on the un-serviced receiver site without having to

undertake significant earthworks, which will come as a great cost to prospective

purchasers of these lots and will create adverse effects on the environment. It is

considered that there should be at least some allowance for flatter land to make up

the component of the receiver lot such that earthworks are kept to a moderate level.

This is one reason to utilise the suggested method of having the donor lot comprise

a greater area or % of elite and prime land that the resulting receiver lot. This is one

method to ensure there is a benefit from preserving soils.

Qualifying Receiver Site Zones

66. I do not agree that the transfer of residential development rights should only be from

rural areas to Countryside Living Zones and serviced Villages.

67. The rural zoning as proposed in the PAUP does not reflect the actual land use and

development within the rural environment and there are in-fact a number of land

use patterns that countryside living and small size rural lifestyle blocks that are

capable of assimilating new transferred rural lots. Nick Williamson has provided in

his evidence an example of a mapped overlay receiver area for rural infill subdivision

that is accurately based on current land use patterns.

68. Furthermore, the recent changes to Table 10 within the Proposed Auckland Unitary

Plan rules only allows for transferable rural site subdivision to land within the

Countryside Living Areas of Wellsford, Kaukapakapa and Helensville, Warkworth,

Puhoi, Parakai – Helensville and South Rodney. These are all areas that are located

north of the Auckland Harbour Bridge, meaning that there is no opportunity for

Transferable Rural Site Subdivision within southern area of the region in the CSLZ.

Further, there are no serviced Villages in the southern region that have CSLZ

attached to them and therefore no ability to absorb receiver lots. The southern area

is now been left as a donor area only. I don’t think Council’s intention was to move

vacant capacity from south to north of the Harbour bridge. The TDR regime relies

on marketplace relationships and a commercial contract – it works well local to local,

but is unlikely to occur between different parts of the region. This TRSS regime would

be completely untested.

69. The only opportunity for RURAL subdivision within the former Franklin District Area

will be through in situ subdivision, either as of right or through protection of SEA. As

detailed in this evidence, the opportunity of this is in-fact very minimal and has a

definite finite number that will be reached far before the Unitary Plans expected 30-

40 year timeline.

70. The lack of TRSS opportunity in the southern Region is outrageous considering that

there is such a high demand for housing within the southern areas of the Auckland

Region. There are a number of settlements within the southern rural area of

Auckland that could be classified as Countryside Living Areas and a number of Rural

Infill that have been investigated by the evidence that Nick Williamson has provided.

71. I suggest that there is a requirement that at least 50% of the Receiver Site is

comprised of non-elite or prime land, except where the receiver site is within a Rural

Infill Area. I’m suggesting that prime land should not even be a factor where the

receiver area has already tipped into predominantly lifestyle uses. I agree that elite

areas should not contain any Rural Infill Areas.

72. Allow for Transferable Rural Site Subdivision to be transferred from rural zoning to

rural zoning but into special mapped overlay areas only. In addition to this, there

should be an amendment to Table 10 so that there are classified Countryside Living

Zones within the former Franklin, Manukau and Papakura Districts, in the southern

section of the Auckland Region. This will create opportunities for transferable rural

site subdivisions to be located within the southern section of the Auckland Region.

Summary of Suggested Transferable Rural Site Subdivision Rules

73. The TRSS receiver areas form an overlay area over the (newly mapped) existing

zones. Subdivision is enabled within these areas to a prescribed density, only as a

result of a TDR proposal. I suggest that the donor lots can come from anywhere in

the region, with the only requirement that the same number of building rights exist

before and after subdivision. The donor lots may be sourced from existing latent

titles, or from approved environmental lots. Overall it is considered that the rules

and assessment matters need to be greatly improved for better workability and so

that the results of potential subdivision will in-fact give effect to the desired

outcomes sought by the Objectives and Policies of the Proposed Auckland Unitary

Plan. The land use controls as per the underlying zone will still apply.

SUBDIVISION THROUGH PROTECTING OR RESTORING SEA

74. As explained in the evidence provided by Barry Mosley for the Auckland Council on

this topic, a new Rule 2.3.3.7 has been inserted into the Rural Subdivision Rules of

the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan that introduces the possibility for in situ

subdivision for rural lifestyle living as a restricted discretionary activity where a

significant area of identified SEA is being protected or a significant area of identified

SEA is being restored.

Newly inserted Table 8b within the subdivision rules reads as follows:

Table 8b: Maximum number of new sites from protection and restoration of SEA (indigenous

vegetation)

In situ (non-transferable) Subdivision Protecting or Restoring SEA

A (in ha) B

1. Total minimum area of existing SEA (indigenous vegetation) required to be legally protected; or 2. Total area of restoration planting to be added to an existing SEA consisting of indigenous vegetation.

Maximum number of new sites that can be created in accordance with column A.

5ha 1

10 to 15ha 2

Greater than 15ha 3

75. This rule must have been designed solely around the existing significant ecological

areas with the northern areas of the Auckland Region (e.g. Rodney) as this is the only

area within Auckland that will have any possibility of creating any new lots through

these performance standards. There are much larger areas of significant bush within

the Rodney area compared to the southern areas including the Franklin area.

76. The Franklin area, particularly Karaka, is a rural area within Auckland that is largely

characterised as having land used for small to medium scale countryside living, with

the titles either being relatively small at under 1 ha up to 4 ha or larger lots between

30 ha to 75 ha, with very few lots that are larger than this. These larger lots are

mainly comprised of pasture land that is used for either dry stock grazing or dairy

farming with some cropping on the open areas.

77. In order to gain a sense for the number of existing SEA’s that are available for

qualification for both TRSS donor sites as well as in-situ SEA protection lots, I have

taken a sample of 100 SEA’s from both the southern area in the Franklin District and

a second sample of 100 from the central Rodney area. These two locations are

shown in Figure 5 and 6 attached.

Figure 5 - Franklin Sample Area

78. Franklin Sample: This area is between Waiuku, Pukekohe and Karaka South. There

are 72 SEA’s already under covenant and 32 Sea’s that are available for protection

and resulting in subdivision rights. Of those that are available, only 1 is greater than

5.0 ha, 12 greater than 2.0 ha and 17 greater than 1.00 ha. The number of SEA

generated subdivision rights in this sample area is one. This fact alone makes that

rule almost unworkable within the southern area of the Auckland Region.

Figure 6 - Rodney Sample Area

79. Rodney Sample: This area is bounded by Kaipara Harbour, SHW1, and Kaipara Flats

and Kaukapakapa. From a sample of 100 within the red boundaries in Figure 6 above,

there are 49 SEA already under covenant and 51 SEA that are available for protection

and subdivision rights. Of those that are available, only 30 are greater than 5.0 ha,

43 greater than 2.0 ha and 47 greater than 1.00 ha. The number of SEA generating

subdivision rights in this sample area is considerably larger than the Franklin sample.

80. My conclusion is that the availability of subdivision rights generated by the

protection of existing SEA’s in Franklin is somewhat less than in Rodney and the

numbers are very small. The benefits from protection of significant features will be

insignificant, particularly in Franklin. Perhaps the thresholds have been set far too

high.

81. The above Table 8b also states that to create a new non-transferable lot on a

property, a minimum of 5ha or restoration planting must be added to an existing

SEA consisting of indigenous vegetation if a maximum of one new site is to be

created. This means that if a property were to contain 4.5ha of existing SEA (just 0.5

ha less than the 5ha of SEA required to create a new site through legal protection)

one would still need to plant an additional 5ha (of grass paddock) of restoration

planting to the existing 4.5ha of SEA on the property to gain the right to create one

new lot through in situ (non-transferable) subdivision.

82. This may simply be a poor explanation of the rule or improper wording, but to me

this situation would mean that you would need to have a total of 9.5ha of land

comprising of a combination of existing SEA (indigenous vegetation) and new

restoration planting to be added to the existing SEA to gain the right to create one

new lot through in situ (non-transferable) subdivision.

83. A much more practical requirement would be to allow for 0.5ha of additional

restoration planting to be added to the 4.5ha of existing land so that there is now a

total of 5ha of protected indigenous vegetation protected, and therefore allowing

for the creation of one new (non-transferable) in-situ site to be created on the site.

84. It seems ridiculous that this is not the case considering that this right would already

be allowed for if there was an additional 0.5ha of existing SEA on the property. The

current method means that almost 5ha of productive farm land could potentially be

lost to being replaced with restoration planting due to needing to gain the right to

create one new site through this rule, rather than simply adding additional planting

to the existing SEA to create 5ha of indigenous vegetation.

85. The current rules are unworkable and will allow for very little lots to be created

through this provision. This is going against the intention of the Proposed Auckland

Unitary Plan to provide for approximately 40,000 new dwellings within the rural

environment.

86. As an example, since the Operative date of PC14 of (October 2013) of the Auckland

Council District Plan (Franklin Section) and using a threshold of 2.00ha of protected

feature within the EEOA, Tripp Andrews Surveyors has not made one application for

an Environmental Lot, whereas we would have made approximately 10 to 12

applications per year when the thresholds were smaller at 1.00ha for the protected

feature. We see the threshold of 5.00ha as a hurdle too high for 99% of farmers,

particularly within the southern region. We suggest that in this area that the

minimum area of the protected feature be reduced to 2.0ha, albeit 1.0 ha is more

appropriate.

Suggested Change

87. It is considered that the minimum area of SEA to be protected to create a new site

should be reduced. As mentioned above, the Table 8b may appear to be workable

when considering the Auckland Region from a holistic perspective, but in reality

these requirements are far too restrictive and not practical within the Franklin Area.

It is likely very that few new subdivisions, if any, will be created through this rule in

the southern rural area of Auckland, resulting in very few areas of significant

ecological importance being permanently protected.

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS

88. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan states that a boundary adjustment as a

controlled activity must not allow for a site to change by more than 10 per cent in

net site area is meaningless. When asked the justification for the 10% rule at

mediation, Council’s response was that it is left over from legacy provisions and

offered no real reason for the figure but have failed to remove it.

89. Furthermore, the requirement that all sites comply with the applicable minimum site

area and minimum average site area for the Countryside Living, Rural Conservation,

Rural Coastal, Mixed Rural, or Rural Production zones will not work. This is because

in most cases the existing lots will not comply with the proposed minimum lot sizes

in the first place, and a restriction of 10% change to the minimum site area will not

allow sites to be large enough to meet these requirements. This is a basis for the

1.0ha minimum lot size proposed earlier in this evidence.

90. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan also states that only sites comprised of a

Certificates of Title that existed on the date of notification of this Unitary Plan (30

September 2013) will be subject to compliance with the Boundary Adjustment

Performance Standards. There does not seem to be any reasonable explanation for

imposing this date. Farmers should be given the flexibility to adjust the boundaries

of their land resource to suit the individual circumstances and obtain the maximum

benefits from the land. This restriction will limit the potential for future lots to be

better suited to make the most productive use of the land available, therefore

potentially creating a negative effect on the land and soil resources within the rural

environment.

Suggested Change

91. I submit that the only limitation on boundary adjustments needs to be that

adjustment of common boundary between adjoining parcels does not create

additional permitted building rights. (Unless the additional building right is a

permitted activity on the new lot(s)). This will ensure that no new development

rights are created through the use of common boundary adjustments, which is a

much more appropriate way to control boundary adjustments than restricting the

change in net size area to 10%.

INTENSIVE RURAL LOTS

92. I comment here on the requirement for provisions to be in place within the Proposed

Auckland Unitary Plan for the creation of lots for Intensive Rural Activities. The use

of this rule is vital for allowing the balance of lots that contain intensive rural

activities to be used for appropriate rural activates.

93. For example a landowner may operate an intensive rural activity on a 10ha property

but will only operate this activity within 2ha of the land parcel, as an intensive rural

activity requires that it is operated on a small lot. Therefore this additional 8ha could

be separated from the adjoining land through subdivision and used for a more

productive rural purpose. This illustrates that the benefits of undertaking this

subdivision relate to business rather than lifestyle.

94. A provision for this was introduced within the Environment Court decision for Plan

Change 14 of the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) and inserted as

Rule 22B.10 LOTS FOR EXISTING INTENSIVE RURAL ACTIVITIES – RURAL ZONE. A

provision in the PAUP should closely follow the wording and design of this rule. This

was contested in the Environment Court and has now been incorporated into the

rules as it was considered an important issue considering the changing practices for

how horticulture is undertaken, which is only going to continue in this trend in the

future.

95. A land owner should be able to create new lots through a provision of intensive rural

activity if the activity can demonstrate that it is viable, sustainable and permanent

and the benefits will be derived from the subdivision of the activity.

HAMLET SUBDIVISION

96. I simply comment here that I support the submission from Terra Nova Planning Ltd.

I have attached a plan (Appendix G) that provides a very good example of how this

mechanism can work well within the Franklin / Karaka area.

97. This rule as suggested by Terra Nova Planning Ltd will allow for high quality smaller

scale more dense subdivision in appropriate rural locations that can achieve the

objectives and policies of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan relating to rural

amenity, servicing etc.

98. See Appendix G for an example of how this Hamlet Subdivision provision would work

well on a property at 435 Batty Road, Karaka. This subdivision will achieve clusters

of medium sized residential lots that are surrounded by a mature hedgeline that will

completely screen built elements from the public view. The property is surrounded

by rural production to the west, and rural lifestyle living to the east. The features on

the site include a polo field, golf course, and watercourses.

99. This property is appropriate for this form of development given its size, location, site

features and existing amenity.

CONCLUSION

100. I do not support a number of Council’s proposals on the matters of Topics 056 and

057.

101. Clear and unambiguous regulatory methods need to be provided. I have highlighted

a number of flaws that are fatal to the practical implementation to the plan.

102. Nick Williamson in his evidence has provided a framework for a new set of regulatory

methods and I have suggested some issues that need to be addressed when

formulating those rules.

103. Having due regard to the directions given by the Hearings Panel, we have outlined

an alternative subdivision framework that gives effect to the objectives and policies

of the plan. It will take some further work by all parties for the framework to be built

into a complete suite of provisions, but unless time is taken to do this, we request

that the operative provisions remain in place.

Peter Nicholls

28 May 2015

before the hearings panel for auckland council

Documents