hearings commissioner agenda for j pita - whangarei · hearings commissioner notice of meeting a...

Hearings Commissioner

Notice of Meeting A meeting of the Hearings Commissioner will be held in the Whangarei Library, May Bain Room, Rust Avenue, Whangarei on:

Thursday

26 February 2015 9.30am

Application by Jennifer Winsome Pita

Commissioner Les Simmons

Index Page No

Authorisation Sheet ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

Environment Planner (Consents) Report ……………………………………………………………………….. 2

Recommendation ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30

Attachment 1 The Scheme Plan …………………………………………………………………………… 33

Attachment 2 The application (as lodged) ………………………………………………………………… 35

Attachment 3 Submissions ……………………………………………………………………………….. 125

Attachment 4 Landscape Assessment by Mike Farrow and Further Information provided ………... 150

Attachment 5 Copies of Council’s Decisions on RC37478 and RC40420 …………………………... 155

Attachment 6 Copies of Maori Land Court on the Land Ownership Status …………………………. 162

Attachment 7 Relevant Sections of the District Plan …………………………………………………... 182

Attachment 8 Engineering Report by Council’s SEEO ………………………………………………… 258

Private Bag 9023 | Whangarei 0148 | New Zealand T: 09 430 4200 | 0800 WDC INFO | 0800 932 463 | F: 09 438 7632

W: www.wdc.govt.nz | E: [email protected]

15/3683 26 February 2015

Report to Hearings’ Commissioner Les Simmons on a Resource Consent Application

This land use consent application was lodged by Mike Elrick of Lands and Survey Ltd on behalf of Jennifer Winsome Pita and was reported on by Council’s Senior Specialist (Consents), Ueli Sasagi.

A proposed subdivision to create an allotment around each of the two existing legal dwellings. Proposed Lot 1 will have an area of 8,971m² while Lot 2 will have an area of 1.4470ha.

4 February 2015

Ueli Sasagi – Senior Specialist (Consents) Date

This report was peer reviewed by the following signatory:

17 February 2015

Alister Hartstone – Resource Consents Manager Date

1

15/3683 26 February 2015

Statement of staff qualification and experience

Ueli Sasagi – Senior Specialist (Consents)

My name is Ueli Sasagi. I hold the qualifications of Master of Regional and Resource Planning, a Bachelor of Science (Forestry) and a Diploma in Agriculture. I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute. I have been working in resource management and planning matters throughout New Zealand since 1996. I am currently employed as a senior specialist planner for the Whangarei District Council, and have worked for the Council since May 2013. I have been working in a wide range of statutory and policy planning functions, including all stages of the resource consent process in Local and Central Governments, the Private Sector and the Environment Court.

Dean Murphy – Council Senior Environmental Engineering Officer

My full name is Dean Murphy. I work as a Senior Environmental Engineering Officer for the Whangarei District Council in the last seven and half years. I hold the qualifications of NZCE (Civil) and graduate member of IPENZ (GIPENZ). I have five years of experience in civil construction site engineering and project management including earthworks, drainage, roading, water treatment plant, sewer scheme & roading maintenance.

The above staff are familiar with the Environment Court’s ‘Code of Conduct’ for expert witnesses and agree to comply with the Code of Conduct in presenting hearing evidence to the Commissioner.

2

15/3683 26 February 2015

Section 42A Hearing Report

Hearing By: Hearings’ Commissioner Les Simmons of a non-complying subdivision proposal by Jennifer Winsome Pita to subdivide the subject property into two new allotments. Proposed Lot 1 will have an area of 8,971m² while Lot 2 will have an area of 1.4470ha The site is located at Punipuni Road, Bland Bay being legally described as Lot 1 DP 144563 (CFR NA85D/236). The total are of the site is 2.3451ha.

Evidence By: Ueli Sasagi, MRRP, BSc (Forestry), Dip (Agr), MNZPI

File Refs: SD1400083, P033899 TRIM15/3683

Dated: 5 February 2015

1.0 The Proposal & Background

1.1 The proposal

1.1.1 The proposal is to subdivide the subject property into two new allotments. Proposed Lot 1 will have an area of 8,971m² while new Lot 2 will have an area of 1.4470ha.

Figure 1: Proposed subdivision plan

1.1.2 The new boundaries are drawn relative to the two existing dwellings already established on the site. Proposed Lot 1 has a fully serviced dwelling, including a driveway from Punipuni Road. Proposed Lot 2 also has a newer fully serviced dwelling. The shape and extent of Lot 2 allows for access from Punipuni Road.

3

15/3683 26 February 2015

1.1.3 The scheme plan is in Attachment 1 while the full application is in Attachment 2.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 The application was lodged as a notified application on 22 August 2014. Included with the application were:

Council’s record of Code of Compliance 106631 issued on 8 August 2008 relating to the newer dwelling constructed on the site in 2008;

Copies of email exchanges between the agent and Mr Bill Edwards of Heritage New Zealand about the burnt down school building built around 1895 on the site;

Copy of a letter by Kathy Pita dated 5 August 2014 to the Ngatiwai Trust Board in opposition to the proposal; and

Copies of written approvals from neighbours and other interested people which are summarised in this report.

These documents are in Attachment 2 together with the original application.

1.2.2 The application was publicly notified on 14 October 2014.

2.0 Site and Surrounds Description

2.1 Zoning, resource areas and other notations

2.1.1 The site is located in the Coastal Countryside Environment of the Whangarei District Council Operative District Plan.

Figure 2: Zone Map

2.1.2 Half of the site to the north is affected by a Flood Susceptible Area; and at the harbour side by Coastal Erosion hazards.

4

15/3683 26 February 2015

Figure 3: Resource Map

2.2 Site Description

2.2.1 The subject property is located at Punipuni Road, Bland Bay, and gaining access from Punipuni Road. It is legally described as Lot 1 DP 144563 and held in Computer Freehold Register (CFR) NA85D/236 with a total area of 2.3451ha.

2.2.2 The legal proprietors of the property listed in the CFR are:

Jennifer Winsome Pita as to a 5/16 share

Ryan Renata Welsh as to a 1/4 share as Executor

Nadene Jennifer Pita as to a 1/16 share

Rulon Hemi Pita as to a 1/16 share

Jarden Robert Pita as to a 1/16 share

Ivy Linda Pita as to a 1/4 share.

2.2.3 It was verbally confirmed by the applicant’s agent that Jennifer Winsome Pita has been given the authority by proprietors to subdivide the subject property.

2.2.4 The property is bounded to the west by Punipuni Road, in the north by Whangarei District Council’s reserve land and a reserve strip adjoining the Whangaruru Harbour to the south.

2.2.5 The property currently contains two residential dwellings, one on each new allotment with outbuildings on proposed Lot 1. On the south-eastern extent of the property are the remains of a historical school site. The property is rectangular in shape. It is relatively flat and is currently grassed.

2.2.6 The site is a result of the subdivision of Sections 4 & 5 Block II Whangaruru SD granted in June 1991. That subdivision created two separate allotments legally described as Lot 1 DP 144563 (2.4351ha) held in CFR NA85D/236 and Lot 2 DP 144563 (0.6303ha) held in CFR NA85D/237.

2.2.7 The subject site (Lot 1 DP 144563) was the subject of a subdivision application (RC37478) for four new allotments lodged with the Whangarei District Council on 30 April 2003. This application was put on hold on 2 May 2003 by the applicant request. In June 2005, the applicant lodged a revised proposal for three lots (Lot 1 of 8970m², Lot 3 of 6630m² and Lot 4 of 7840m²) replacing the original four-lot subdivision. A report was prepared and concluded on

5

15/3683 26 February 2015

13 April 2006 that the application was to be publicly notified. The proposal was subsequently notified on 21 April 2006 with a Council hearing held on 25 July 2006. Council declined the consent for the proposed three-lot subdivision.

2.2.8 The status of the existing dwellings was not clearly established at the hearing of consent RC37478 although references were made in the reports by Council’s planner and the applicant’s agent who stated “Proposed Lots 1 and 3 presently contains buildings that are permanently occupied by members of the Pita whanau”. Whether or not this is sufficient to confirm these buildings as having existing use rights is unclear.

2.2.9 However, on 18 June 2007, Simpson Shaw Surveyors lodged land use consent RC40420 by way of section 139 (Existing Use Certificate) to erect a new dwelling replacing one of the existing dwellings on the site. In that application, the applicant’s agent commented that “Early records show that the subject site was taken for the purpose of a Native School in 1913, as shown in the Gazette notice....The same land not required for the Native School purposes was re-gazetted in 1962 to become General Crown Land. In 1974 a Certificate of Title was issued in the name of Ronald Pita. The buildings were established during the time of the Native School and being Crown Land. It is known that the Crown, at the time, did not require permits to build on Government Land. Any buildings built during this time would be considered to be lawfully established (see Attachment 5)”. Council has confirmed this statement as evidenced by the granting of s139 certificate on 27 November 2007.

2.2.10 Such confirms that the two existing dwellings on the site were lawfully established.

2.2.11 Regarding the status of the subject land under the Maori ownership, one reason for declining consent RC37478 stated “...the Committee was satisfied that all relevant statutory considerations have been exercised, and because the land is not currently registered as Maori Land, the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 are not regulated or controlled by Te Ture Whenua Maori Act” (see Attachment 5). Therefore, the subject property is not regulated by the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act.

Figure 3: The Site and Environs

2.3 Surrounding Environment

2.3.1 The character of the surrounding area is that of mixed density coastal countryside properties. The areas of properties in the vicinity of the subject site ranges from 0.1734ha to 4.9107ha. Although small in areas, most properties are generally in pasture. Figure 4 and Table 1 below shows properties with their respective areas, and approved Council consents for buildings.

6

15/3683 26 February 2015

Figure 4: Properties with their respective areas

Table 1: Areas of properties in the vicinity of the site

No Situation Legal Description

Area (ha) Building Consent(s)/ Landuse Consent Granted

1 29 Punipuni Road

Lot 2 DP 144563 0.6303 BC0472578 – dwelling

LU0740659 – double garage

2 Punipuni Road MBLK C NONE 2.1388 None

3 Whangaruru North Road

MBLK 1D5 NONE 1.5108 BC9935732 - dwelling


MBLK 1D6B7 NONE

1.0437 None

5 732 Whangaruru North Road

Lot 2 DP125011 0.7745 BC9936741 – garage

BC0695341 – shed

LU0900209 – retrospective consent

LU0639709 – new dwelling


MBLK ID6B Residue

1.7719 None

7 718 Whangaruru North Road

MBLK 1D6B4 NONE

1.3667 None

8 Punipuni Road Lot 4 DP 120472 2.7088 Designation – community use

9 2 Punipuni Road

Lot 2 DP 120472 2.8940 BC0811004 – new dwelling and storage shed

1

2

3

4 5

6

7

8

9

10

0

11

0

12

0

13

0

14

0

15

0

7

15/3683 26 February 2015


10 2 Punipuni Road

Lot 1 DP 120472 2.2417 LU0841216 – new dwelling

BC08110004 – new dwelling

11 16 Punipuni Road

Lot 3 DP 120472 2.7497 BC0152165 – Boatshed/ workshop

SD136420 – Cancel amalgamation

12 Punipuni Road MBLK ICI NONE 4.9107 BP921756 – erect dwelling

BC9932228 – erect dwelling

PM9832201 – erect dwelling

13 38 Punipuni Road

MBLK IA NONE 1.3377 BC0364125 – 3-bay barn



Lot 3 DP 108084 3.1662 BP11371 – erect dwelling

Punipuni Road MBLK B NONE 0.1734 None

2.3.2 Not all properties in the vicinity of the site have dwellings or other buildings erected on them.

3.0 District Plan Assessment

3.1 Reasons for consent

3.1.1 Rule 73.3.1 Allotment Area provides for subdivision to be considered as a Discretionary Activity whereby the minimum average net site area of all proposed allotments is 4.0ha (for the purpose of calculating average net site area, any proposed allotment with a net site area greater than 8.0ha will be deemed to have a net site area of 8.0ha). In this instance, upon application of the averaging provisions of the rule, the minimum average net site area is 1.1720ha, and therefore the proposal requires consideration as a non-complying activity.

3.1.2 Rule 73.3.7 Property Access stipulates that subdivision is a controlled activity if vehicular access to a road is shared where there are 2 or more allotments in the subdivision; and the access complies, in all respects, with the relevant standards in Whangarei District Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 and the relevant provisions in Appendix 9; and no more than 8 allotments or 8 residential units are served by a shared access. In this instance, the access as proposed will not comply with the relevant standards in Whangarei District Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010, and therefore consideration of this aspect of the proposal is required as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. Discretion is restricted to the following matters:

The relevant provisions of the Whangarei District Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010;

The adequacy of the access for the anticipated use; The ability of the access to contain required services; Traffic safety and visibility; The need for acceleration and deceleration lanes; Type, frequency and timing of traffic;

Access design, number and location of vehicle crossings;

Efficiency and safety of roads;

Need for forming or upgrading of roads in the vicinity of the site;

Need for traffic control, including signs, signals and traffic islands;

The additional matters listed in Chapter 70.3.

The need for access to the allotment;

The safe and efficient movement of people, vehicles and goods;

The ability of the road structure to withstand anticipated loads;

The effects of water runoff.

3.1.3 Rule 47.2.11 Engineering Standards stipulates that any activity is permitted if it complies with all the relevant Standards set out in Whangarei District Council’s Environmental Engineering

8

15/3683 26 February 2015

Standards 2010 Edition. Access to the proposed allotments does not comply with the standards and is therefore considered a restricted discretionary activity.

3.1.4 The proposal meets the relevant standards and terms as controlled activities under additional rules of relevance including Rule 73.3.5 Existing Buildings, Rule 73.3.6 Sites of Significance to Maori (none identified), Rule 73.3.8 Vehicle Crossings, Rule 73.3.10 Provision for Extension of Services, Rule 73.3.11 Water Supply, Rule 73.3.12 Stormwater, Rule 73.3.14 Sewage, Rule 73.3.15 Electricity, Rule 73.3.16 Telecommunications and Rule 73.3.17 Earthworks.

3.1.5 Overall, the application is considered to be for a Non-complying Activity.

3.2 Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011

3.2.1 The Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (NES Contaminated Soils) were gazetted on 13

th October 2011 and took effect on 1

st January 2012. Council is required

by law to implement this NES in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The standards are applicable if the land in question is, or has been, or is more likely than not to have been used for a hazardous activity or industry and the applicant proposes to subdivide or change the use of the land, or disturb the soil, or remove or replace a fuel storage system.

3.2.2 The following table assesses the proposal’s compliance with the NES regulations:

Table 2 – Site Assessment for HAIL Activities

Question Answer Comment

Is an activity described on the HAIL currently being undertaken on the piece of land to which this application applies?

No There is no evidence in Council’s records to indicate that an activity described on the HAIL has been undertaken on the subject site. The applicant’s agent provided Council’s NES questionnaire which confirmed that there has been no HAIL activity undertaken on the site.

Has an activity described on the HAIL ever been undertaken on the piece of land to which this application applies?

No Evidence

Is it more likely than not that an activity described on the HAIL is being or has been undertaken on the piece of land to which this application applies?

No Evidence

3.2.3 The applicant provided a Council’s NES questionnaire in support of the application which confirmed that there is no HAIL affecting the site. In view of that it is considered that the activity is not subject to the NES and no further assessment is required.

4.0 Notification, Submissions and Written Approvals

4.1 Notification

4.1.1 The application was publicly notified on 14 October 2014

4.2 Submissions

4.2.1 The period for submissions opened on 14 October 2014 and closed on 12 November 2014. Copies of the application were specifically served upon Ngatiwai Trust Board, Northland

9

15/3683 26 February 2015

Regional Council, Heritage NZ, Department of Conservation, NZ Fire Service and all the adjacent properties owners and occupiers.

4.2.2 The application was also circulated internally to Councils Parks division and Environmental Engineer.

4.2.3 Council received 12 submissions within the timeframe with 3 in support, 6 in opposition, and 1 neutral. The two other submissions were from NZ Fire Service (NZFS) who provided conditional support and Heritage NZ with a standard letter explaining its statutory function under the relevant legislation. NZFS requested to be heard in support of their submission.

4.2.4 The individual submissions are summarised as follows (a full copy of the individual submissions can be viewed in Attachment 3:

Table 3: Submitters and Issues

Name Issues and Relief Sought Wish to be Heard?

Mrs Frances Grey Support, grant consent Yes

Jodie Mitchell on behalf of Heritage NZ

School building dating to 1895 which is defined as an archaeological site under the Heritage NZ Pouhere Taonga Act 2014.

Heritage NZ sought recognition by way of an undertaking to provide a commemorative plaque to tell the story of the letter

1. In addition, the

two remaining physical elements of the school, being the hearth and the chimney, shall be retained.

Not stated, but Heritage NZ wished to work with the applicant in giving effect to the protection of the site.

Sarah MacCormick – on behalf of NZ Fire Service

Water supply for fire fighting shall be sufficient and easy access of fire fighting vehicles on to the site in the event of an emergency is provided.

Sought to impose conditions to consent addressing the above issues if the Commissioner is of a mind to grant consent.

Yes

Bobbeana Joan Greenwood

Support the subdivision proposal and the consent be granted.

Yes

Dianne Tito Proposed Lot 1 has no septic tank or effluent disposal;

Beneficiaries of Lot 1 have not been consulted;

Legal boundary around the dwelling is being disputed;

Written approvals provided are dated with some now deceased.

Relief sought is to decline consent.

No

Abraham Tito Opposed the granting of any consent No

1 Story of the ‘letter’ – towards the end of 1895, the school children wrote a letter to the children of the future and

these together with the page from the hymn book used in the dedication service, were put in a bottle and buried under the block of concrete that formed the hearth in the school. It was later recovered and letters were framed and hung on the school wall. In 1956, the school, together with the framed letters, were destroyed by fire.

10

15/3683 26 February 2015

on the proposal. The relief sought is to decline consent.

Joshua Tunoa Karapu Submitted that the subdivision breaches a number of objectives of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.

The submission also claimed that there is historic dispute on the ownership of the subject land.

The relief sought is to refuse the proposal.

No

Rangimarama Alexandra Tahitahi

Opposed the granting of any consent on the proposal. The relief sought is to decline consent.

No

Aphelia Joanne Pita Opposed the granting of any consent on the proposal. The relief sought is to decline consent.

No

Rihi Kathleen Pita Submitted that the subdivision breaches a number of objectives of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.

The submission also claimed that there is historic dispute on the ownership of the subject land.

The relief sought is to refuse the proposal.

Yes

Bella R Thompson Only those in the immediate vicinity are affected. She is neutral about the proposal.

No

Pepuere Dick Pene Support the subdivision proposal and the consent be granted.

Yes

4.2.5 As a procedural matter, the Commissioner should determine as to whether or not the issue of ‘ownership dispute of the subject property’ raised in Dianne Tito, Joshua Tunoa Karapu, and Rihi Kathleen Pita’s submissions is in fact a resource management matter. It is also important to determine as to whether this is the right forum to deal with such matter.

4.2.6 It should be noted that at the hearing of an application for a proposed subdivision of the same site on 27 July 2006 (RC37478), Council’s Resource Consent Committee in declining that proposal commented in the reasons for the decision that:

“That after conferring with the Council’s solicitor, the Committee was satisfied that all relevant statutory considerations have been exercised, and because the land is not currently registered as Maori Land, the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 are regulated or controlled by Te Ture Whenua Maori Act.”

4.2.7 I have researched the matter further and obtained a decision on the subject land from the Maori Land Court under the Te Ture Whenua Act 1993. The Court’s order pursuant to provisions of Section 131 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 that Lots 1 and 2 DP 144563 are ‘General Land’ (see Attachment 6).

4.2.8 On the weight of the above comments, I consider the issue of ‘ownership dispute’ is not a matter that can be addressed in considering this application. However, as General Land, Council is obliged to consider and decide on this application.

4.3 Written Approvals

4.3.1 The following parties have given their written approvals on the proposal (copies are included in Attachment 2).

11

15/3683 26 February 2015

Table 4: Written Approvals Provided

Name Owner/Occupier Address

Lucy Kathleen Pita Occupier 43 Punipuni Road

Frances Grey Owner and occupier 50 Punipuni Road

John and Alison Unthank Owners 38 Punipuni Road

Bobbeana Joan Greenwood

Owner Whangaruru whakaturia P.T 1.C.1

James Stirling Martin Owner and occupier RD4 Hikurangi. Property address not given

C E Watson Owner Whangaruru North Rd

Daphne Gladys Te Aroha Taka

Owner Whangaruru whakaturia P.T 1.C.1

Hine Kukuruzsnyak Owner 735 Whangaruru North Rd

WR & CE Hurst Owners 946 Whangaruru North Rd

RM & LM Melville Owners 748 Whangaruru North Rd

Ken and Dianne Pascoe Owners and occupiers 10 Ngatiwai Place

AK & AJ Lewis Owners and occupiers 3A 2 Block, Martin Road

John August Watene Owners and occupiers 750 Whangaruru North Rd

Paul and Kathy Elwin Owners 6 Ngatiwai Place

Trevor and Serena Turnock

Occupiers 751 Whangaruru North Rd

Philip and Glennis Given Owners and occupiers 730 Whangaruru North Rd

Judith Mitchell Owners and occupiers 3852 Russell Road

4.3.2 Nadene Jennifer Pita, Jennifer Winsome Pita, and Rulon Hemi Pita who are legal proprietors of the subject property have given their written approvals in the prescribed ‘Affected Parties Written Approval’ forms on this proposal.

5.0 Resource Management Act 1991- Statutory Considerations

5.1 Section 104

5.1.1 Section 104 provides the matters, subject to Part 2 of the Act that Council must have regard to when considering and application for resource consent and any submissions received. These matters are:

(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and

[[(b) any relevant provisions of—

(i) a national environmental standard:

(ii) other regulations:

(iii) a national policy statement:

12

15/3683 26 February 2015

(iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement:

(v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:

(vi) a plan or proposed plan; and]]

(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

5.2 Section 104B

5.2.1 Section 104B outlines Council’s powers when making a determination on a discretionary or non-complying activity. Section 104B states that:

After considering an application for a resource consent for a discretionary activity or non-complying activity, a consent authority—

(a) may grant or refuse the application; and

(b) if it grants the application, may impose conditions under Section 108.

5.3 Section 104D

5.3.1 Being a non-complying activity, the proposal is subject to the thresholds outlined in section 104D of the Act, ‘Particular restrictions for non-complying activities’. Section 104D states

(1) Despite any decision made for the purpose of Section 95A(2)(a) in relation to adverse effects, a consent authority may grant a resource consent for a non-complying activity only if it is satisfied that either—

(a) the adverse effects of the activity on the environment (other than any effect to which Section 104(3)(a)(ii) applies) will be minor; or

(b) the application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of—

(i) the relevant plan, if there is a plan but no proposed plan in respect of the activity; or

(ii) the relevant proposed plan, if there is a proposed plan but no relevant plan in respect of the activity; or

(iii) both the relevant plan and the relevant proposed plan, if there is both a plan and a proposed plan in respect of the activity.

(2) To avoid doubt, Section 104(2) applies to the determination of an application for a non-complying activity

6.0 Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment (s104(1)(a)

6.1 Definition of Effect

6.1.1 Section 3 of the Act defines the term ‘effect’ as including –

(a) any positive or adverse effects; and

(b) any temporary or permanent effect; and

(c) any past, present or future effect; and

(d) any cumulative effect which arises over time or in combination with other effects – regardless of the scale, intensity, duration, or frequency of the effect, and also includes-

(e) any potential effect of high probability; and

13

15/3683 26 February 2015

(f) any potential effect of low probability which has a high potential impact.”

6.2 Permitted Baseline

6.2.1 In terms of determining whether the adverse effects of the proposal are more than minor, section 104(2) of the Act provides that Council ‘may’ have regard to the permitted baseline in order for effects on the environment that are permitted under the Plan (or by way of resource consent) to be disregarded.

6.2.2 The application site contains two residential units of which their “Existing Use Rights” status has been established under resource consent reference RC40420 granted on 27 November 2007. The two existing residential activities on the site are therefore deemed to be lawfully established.

6.2.3 There are no permitted forms of subdivision under the Operative Whangarei District Plan, and therefore the standards for land use activities within the Coastal Countryside Environment are relevant to the consideration of this application. Any residential unit requires resource consent in the Coastal Countryside Environment.

6.3 Amenity Values

6.3.1 The District Plan provides an overview of the term amenity values. It identifies amenity values as being the characteristics that influence and enhance people appreciation of a particular area. It also states that amenity values of an area are determined by natural and physical characterises of the area, and the effects of activities.

6.3.2 This is in keeping with Part 1, Section 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) which provides the following definitions:

Amenity Values – “means those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence and cultural and recreational attributes”.

Environment – includes

a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and their communities; and

b) all natural and physical resource; and

c) amenity values; and

d) the social, economic, aesthetic and cultural conditions which affect the matters stated in paragraphs (a) to (c) or which are affected by those matters.

6.3.3 As such, it is ascertained that amenity consists of two components. One component is ‘amenity attributes’ which are tangible matters such as noise, odour, density or shading. The other component to amenity involves ‘perceptions and expectations’ which are more intangible values which individuals and communities hold to their neighbourhoods such as their own perceptions of noise, culture, desires and tolerance.

6.3.4 The District Plan goes on to identify the Coastal Countryside Environment as having high amenity values due to special characteristics such as:

Low intensity of development;

Provision of public facilities;

High landscape qualities;

Public places can be exciting and vibrant;

Recreational qualities;

Access to daylight and sunlight;

Limited vehicular traffic.

Attributes of Tuparehuia Bay (within Whangaruru Harbour):

6.3.5 The subject site is better described as more associated with Tuparehuia Bay within the Whangaruru Harbour than Bland Bay which sits on the northern side of the settled strip of land dividing Whangaruru Harbour and Bland Bay. The site sits within an area defined by a small cluster of isolated residential development in the vicinity of the Living 1 Environment which is largely restricted to the eastern side of the site along Whangaruru North Road. This

14

15/3683 26 February 2015

creates a village feel as one enters the residential part of Bland Bay community, backed by a typical Coastal Countryside character.

6.3.6 The amenity of Tuparehuia Bay is not as significant as Bland Bay on the other side. The subject property shares the low-lying, flat terrain that characterises the alluvial neck separating Tuparehuia Bay from the more exposed coast of Bland Bay, and which supports the body of the Bland Bay Settlement.

6.3.7 Punipuni Road is short and runs off Whangaruru North Road. The properties along Punipuni Road are not densely settled compared to the main body of Bland Bay’s housing core within the Living 1 Environment. Punipuni Road has a scattering of buildings that relates to the main Bland Bay settlement. It is an area of mainly grass cover with limited vegetation and one where existing houses and related buildings are a relatively prominent component.

The capacity of the existing character and amenity to accommodate change:

6.3.8 The applicant contended that “the resulting allotments are not dissimilar to the surrounding environment which is characterised by allotments containing lifestyles and rural activities. To the northwest of the site, there are at least 8 lots ranging from 0.3320ha to 1.0410ha, and there are several along the foreshore 1.3152ha and 2.1366ha. The adjoining property to the east is 0.5843ha”.

6.3.9 I concur with the above statement given that the subdivision proposal if approved, will involve drawing boundary lines to separate out two existing residential units and will create allotments that are similar in areas to those existing in the vicinity. Apart from the potential erection of a minor residential unit as a permitted activity on new Lot 2, there will be no physical change to the site and the area as viewed from public vantage points. Therefore it is considered that there is capacity within the existing character and amenity to absorb and accommodate this proposal.

Physical Density:

6.3.10 It is acknowledged that a number of the surrounding countryside properties do not meet the minimum 20ha required in the Coastal Countryside Environment. However, it is noted that of 15 properties identified in the neighbourhood (refer Table 1), only 3 properties have areas of less than 1 hectare and 12 with areas of up to 4 hectares. The question therefore is whether or not the creation of two new separate allotments of 0.8971ha and 1.4480ha generates physical densities that can change the pattern of existing land tenure. The applicant argues that it will not; of which I concur.

Landscape Assessment by Mike Farrow of Littoralis Landscape Architect:

6.3.11 The applicant engaged Mr Mike Farrow of Littoralis Landscape Architect to undertake landscape assessment in support of the proposal. An assessment dated 28 December 2014 is in Attachment 4. The report concluded that:

“A connected but somewhat discrete structure placed to seaward (south) of the existing buildings would bring the potential for a sense of increased settlement and urban density. If, on the other hand, such a minor household unit were to be established on the northern, inland side of the present houses, then the existing home would be the prevailing element and the ancillary structure experienced as a relatively minor “extension” from outside of the site.

In conclusion, I consider that the landscape and coastal amenity/character effects associated with the proposed subdivision are negligible. As a measure to ensure that any potential minor household unit would not lead to an unanticipated adverse impact, I suggest that a condition be incorporated into any consent which requires that ‘any future minor household unit that may be developed on Lot 1 and 2, shall only be located to the north of the northernmost line of the existing houses as they are illustrated on Lands and Survey drawing ref 9239/1/1A dated June 2014’.”

6.3.12 I concur with the landscape effects assessment above.

6.3.13 Overall, based on the above discussions it is considered that the proposal will result in effects on the amenity values that are less than minor.

15

15/3683 26 February 2015

6.4 Cumulative effects

6.4.1 The applicant assessed the cumulative effects of the proposal and considered that the proposal is an appropriate development of the land.

6.4.2 I was mindful of Judge Newhook in J Blampied vs Whangarei District Council decision to be taken as a yardstick for measuring as to whether or not this proposal will create cumulative effects. The judgement stated “there will be an adverse cumulative effect that is more than minor, when analysed and understood as required by the Court of Appeal in Dye. There is clearly an existing enclave of rural residential development of quite some intensity along the western side of Clapham Road. While we share the scepticism of the commissioner as to how that should have come about, it is a current fact. We consider that creating two smaller rural residential blocks each with the potential for a house, where presently there is one, will have an adverse cumulative effect that is more than minor in the visual catchment which we have described, notwithstanding landscape planting in the manner recently proposed.”

6.4.3 Taken in that context, this proposal will result in creating new boundaries around the existing residential dwellings. There will be no further development on the site apart from a minor residential unit which can be erected as of right on new Lot 2 under the rules of the Coastal Countryside Environment.

6.4.4 As such I consider that cumulative effects arising from the proposed subdivision are less than minor.

6.5 Cultural Effects

6.5.1 There is evidence suggesting that consultation was undertaken with local Iwi being the Ngatiwai Trust Board prior to the lodgement of the application. Through the notification process the application was served upon Ngatiwai but no submission was received from the party.

6.5.2 There is evidence provided with the application that Heritage New Zealand was consulted. It identified a school building dating to 1895 which is defined as an archaeological site under the Heritage NZ Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. Heritage NZ sought recognition by way of an undertaking from the applicant to provide a commemorative plaque to tell the story of the letter. In addition, the two remaining physical elements of the school, being the hearth and the chimney, shall be retained.

6.5.3 The applicant has confirmed that they will meet the requirements requested by Heritage NZ’s submission.

6.5.4 Taking the above into account, the effects of the proposal on cultural matters are considered to be less than minor.

6.6 Water supply, Stormwater and Wastewater Treatment and Disposal

6.6.1 Regarding water supply, the Council’s Senior Environmental Engineering Officer (SEEO) has noted that onsite supply will be required as there is no public system available for connection. The existing residential activities have established water supply from rain water harvesting from roof top.

6.6.2 In terms of fire fighting requirements requested by New Zealand Fire Service’s submission, Council’s SEEO considered that because of new Lot 2 being able to erect a minor residential unit as of right, the requirements must be included as condition of any consent. This fully addresses the NZ Fire Service submission.

6.6.3 Regarding wastewater, Council’s SEEO has noted that the existing dwellings on both lots have existing onsite treatment and disposal systems as there is no public reticulation available for connection.

6.6.4 In terms of stormwater, Council’s SEEO also noted that both lots have existing onsite disposal to the well drained sandy soils. No additional disposal requirements will result from this proposal.

16

15/3683 26 February 2015

6.6.5 Council’s SEEO’s comments above have addressed the submission by Dianne Tito who submitted that Lot 1 has no septic tank or effluent disposal.

6.7 Roads and Access

6.7.1 Council’s SEEO reviewed the application and commented as follows:

“Punipuni Road is classified as a local road with a metaled surface in the area of the existing vehicle access with a speed environment of between 40 to 50 km/h requiring sight lines of 30 to 40m.

Lot 1 has an existing unsealed individual vehicle crossing.

Lot 2 gains vehicle access via existing right of way A which has a metalled surface width of approximately 2.5m. No additional users of this right of way will be created; therefore no upgrading is required. I note the this existing formation does not comply with Category E(alt)* of Table 3.7 of Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards; therefore the proposal does not comply with Rule 73.3.7 Property Access.

The existing vehicle crossings have complying sight lines.

The proposed lot sizes and configuration are able to comply with Rule 47.2.1 Parking and Loading including Appendix 6A of the District Plan and Section 3.4.18 of Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010.”

6.7.2 Overall, the road and traffic effects associated with the proposal are considered to be less than minor.

6.8 Summary of Effects Assessment

6.8.1 In conclusion, it is considered overall that the effects of the proposal on the environment will be acceptable taking into account the above assessment. The reasons are summarised as follows:

The surrounding environment with respect to the subject site is characterised by properties of areas ranging from 0.1734ha to 4.9107ha with scattered dwellings and limited vegetation. This neighbourhood adjoins a Living 1 Environment that erodes the rural amenity brought about by low-lying open areas of pasture and limited vegetation. The design of the subdivision will not change this character given that the boundary lines are drawn around the existing residential dwellings.

Moreover, the principle reasons for the ‘Allotment Area’ rule states that “Subdivision that does not comply with a standard for a controlled or discretionary activity is a non-complying activity. Consequently, for any such proposal to be assessed as acceptable, the applicant would first need to show that the proposed subdivision would have no more than minor effects on the overall level of density appropriate to the Environment in question, and/or was consistent with the density of development in the immediate area surrounding the proposal. In other words, the proposed subdivision would need to be in keeping with the surrounding allotment sizes already in existence and should not increase the existing density of development by producing smaller allotment sizes”.

The proposal will not offend the amenity values of the area because the landscape and coastal character effects associated with the proposed subdivision are negligible. The proposal will see those existing buildings set upon discrete titles but will not generate any direct tangible effects in itself.

The cumulative effects of the proposal are less than minor.

Services for the new allotments exist given that the residential dwellings have been established and fully functioned for a long time.

17

15/3683 26 February 2015

7.0 Relevant Policy Statements, Plans or Proposed Plans (s104 (1)(b))

7.1 Statutory Gateway Test

7.1.1 Section 104D(b) directs that Council consider whether the proposed activity will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plans.

7.1.2 The meaning of ‘contrary’ was considered in the decision of Monowai Properties Ltd V Rodney District Council (A215/03) where it was established:

“A non-complying activity will rarely, if ever, find direct support in the objectives and policies of a Plan but an absence of support does not equate to the activity being contrary to those provisions. Contrary to in this context means... repugnant to... or opposed to... the objectives and policies considered as a whole”.

7.1.3 The following sections assess whether the proposal will be contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the relevant plans for the subject site- being the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, Northland Regional Policy Statement (both the operative and proposed) and the Regional Water and Soil Plan for Northland and the Operative Whangarei District Plan.

7.2 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

7.2.1 The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS 2010) replaces the NZCPS 1994. It contains Government’s high level policies to achieve the purpose of the RMA—to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources—in relation to New Zealand’s coastal environment.

7.2.2 Local authorities are required by the RMA to give effect to the NZCPS 2010 through their plans and policy statements. Resource consent decision-makers must also have regard to relevant NZCPS 2010 policies. The implementation of the NZCPS 2010 requires “a consent authority, when considering an application for a resource consent and any submissions received, must, subject to Part 2 of the Act, have regard to, amongst other things, any relevant provisions of this NZCPS (section 104(1)(b)(iv)refers).”

7.2.3 The relevant policies are assessed below:

Table 7: Assessment of the proposal against relevant policies of the NCPS

Policies Comment

Policy 6 - Activities in the coastal environment

c) encourage the consolidation of existing coastal settlements and urban areas where this will contribute to the avoidance or mitigation of sprawling or sporadic patterns of settlement and urban growth;

The proposal demonstrates compliance with Policy 6(c) on the basis that the subdivision of the site in the manner proposed confines built form to one area of the site, in close proximity to the existing dwelling. The density of the development proposed is not considered to be inappropriate in this location given that the existing dwellings were lawfully established. The proposed subdivision will see the two existing buildings set upon discrete titles but will not generate any direct tangible effects in itself.

(e) consider where and how built development on land should be controlled so that it does not compromise activities of national or regional importance that have a functional need to locate and operate in the coastal marine area;

This is a unique case whereby due to historical use of the subject property for a special Native School, it resulted in two residential dwelling being constructed. As such, it is considered that the land was used for the benefit of the local Maori community settled in the vicinity of the site. It is also important to note that the Maori community has been dependent on ‘kaimoana’ for consumption; therefore by being

18

15/3683 26 February 2015

closer to the sea gave them the convenience of access.

Policy 11 Indigenous biological diversity (biodiversity)

To protect indigenous biological diversity in the coastal environment:

(a) avoid adverse effects of activities on:

i. indigenous ... and

(b) avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects of activities on:

i. areas of predominantly indigenous vegetation in the coastal environment;

ii. ..... biological values identified under this policy.

The use of the site for residential activities existed for many years. In addition the site was also used for a special Native School in the past. Therefore, the developments on the site were not new and have gradually become part of the character of the neighbourhood. The built form is also setback a reasonable distance from mean high water spring mark. Any adverse effects of the proposal on the indigenous biological diversity in the coastal environment will be less than minor. Therefore the proposal is not contrary to this policy.

Policy 15 Natural features and natural landscapes

To protect the natural features and natural landscapes (including seascapes) of the coastal environment from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:

a) avoid adverse effects of activities on outstanding natural features and outstanding natural landscapes in the coastal environment; and

b) avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy, or mitigate other adverse effects of activities on other natural features and natural landscapes in the coastal environment; including by:

identifying and assessing the natural features and natural landscapes of the coastal environment of the region or district, at minimum by land typing, soil characterisation and landscape characterisation...

The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Plan provisions, specifically the objectives and policies of the Plan, in that the development as proposed does not compromise the amenity of the surrounding coastal marine area. The values associated with the coastal marine environment have been considered in the preparation and assessment of the application. It is considered that the existence of the dwellings for a long time has been recognised and contributing the current character. The creation of the boundary lines around each dwelling will discretely create separate titles. There will be no physical and visual change to the site and the neighbourhood. The overall effects of the development are assessed and considered less than minor. Therefore, the proposal will not be contrary to the overall NZ Coastal Policy Statement.

7.2.4 It can be concluded overall that the proposed subdivision is not contrary to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. Altogether with comments in 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 below, it is fully satisfied that the second gateway test in section 104D(b) is met.

7.2.5 The above assessment also addresses submissions by Joshua Tunoa Karapu and Rihi Kathleen Pita who contended that the proposed subdivision breaches a number of objectives of the NZ Coastal Policy Statement.

7.3 Operative and Proposed Regional Policy Statement for Northland (RPS and PRPS)

7.3.1 The Regional Policy Statement for Northland (RPS) was made operative in July 2002; however in October 2012, a new Proposed Regional Policy Statement for Northland (PRPS) was publicly notified, which will (in its final form) supersede the 2002 document. These documents contain high level policy guidance for the development of lower order statutory documents, including the Regional Soil and Water Plan, and the District Plan. The Resource Management Act 1991 requires that district plans must “give effect to” the regional policy statement of a region and must “not be inconsistent” with regional plans.

19

15/3683 26 February 2015

7.3.2 The RPS sets out the objectives and policies in relation to issues of main concern to Northland. It is considered that the proposed activities will not have any impact on these issues of concern, and as such the proposal is not deemed to be inconsistent with the RPS.

7.3.3 On 17 September 2013 the Northland Regional Council formally adopted the independent Hearings Commissioners' recommendations on provisions and matters raised in submissions on the Proposed RPS as a decision. The document has not been declared as operative at this point in time as appeals are still pending. So, full weighting cannot be given to the provisions at this time. However, the PRPS is considered to reflect more accurately the current issues relating to regional form than the RPS which was prepared in 2002. Therefore, in terms of controlling the effects of the proposal before us, the following comments are provided with regard relevant objectives and policies:

Table 5: Assessment of Relevant Regional Objectives and Policies of the PRPS

Objectives Comments

3.11 Regional Form

Northland has sustainable built environments that effectively integrate infrastructure with subdivision, use and development, and have a sense of place, identity and a range of lifestyle, employment and transport choices.

The proposal is considered consistent with this objective, based on the comments below.

Policies Comments

5.1.1 Policy – Planned and Co-ordinated

development

Subdivision, use and development should be located, designed and built in a planned and co-ordinated manner which:

(a) Is guided by the ‘Regional Form and Development Guidelines’ in Appendix 2;

(b) Is guided by the ‘Regional Urban Design Guidelines’ in Appendix 2 when it is urban in nature;

(c) Recognises and addresses potential cumulative effects of subdivision, use, and development, and is based on sufficient information to allow assessment of the potential long-term effects;

(d) Is integrated with the development, funding, implementation, and operation of transport, energy, water, waste, and other infrastructure;

(e) Should not result in incompatible land uses in close proximity and avoids the potential for reverse sensitivity;

(f) Ensures that plan changes and subdivision to / in a primary production zone, do not materially reduce the potential for soil-based primary production on land with highly versatile soils9, or if they do, the net public benefit exceeds the reduced potential for soil-based primary production activities; and

(g) Maintains or enhances the sense of place and character of the surrounding environment except where changes are anticipated by approved regional or district council growth strategies and / or district or regional plan provisions.

Insofar as the Regional form and development guidelines in Appendix 2 of the PRPS relate to rural development, the proposal is considered generally in line with the guidelines, is not thought to have potential for reverse sensitivity issues, will not create adverse cumulative effects that are more than minor over and above those that already exist, and will maintain the character of the surrounding environment.

20

15/3683 26 February 2015

5.1.3 Policy – Avoiding the adverse effects of new use(s) and development

Avoid the adverse effects, including reverse sensitivity effects of new subdivision, use and development, particularly residential development on the following:

(a) Primary production activities in primary production zones (including within the coastal marine area);

(b) Commercial and industrial activities in commercial and industrial zones;

(c) The operation, maintenance or upgrading of existing or planned regionally significant infrastructure; and

(d) The use and development of regionally significant mineral resources.

Given the application is for creating boundary lines around the existing residential buildings, therefore effects of existing residential activities, if any, on the development and primary production are already known. Effects from the proposed subdivision are considered to be less than minor.

7.4 Regional Soil and Water Plan for Northland

7.4.1 The Regional Water and Soil Plan for Northland (RWSP), which is administered by the Northland Regional Council, covers the land and water resources of the Northland region, it controls discharges and land disturbance activities. The Plan aims to prevent activities occurring which can result in unacceptable adverse effects.

7.4.2 Council’s Senior Environmental Engineering Officer, has considered matters relating to site servicing. Given that the existing residential units have been satisfactorily functioned for many years, Mr Murphy is satisfied that allowing the subdivision will not create adverse effects on servicing the existing residential units which thus achieves the environmental results anticipated by the RWSP.

7.5 Operative Whangarei District Plan

7.5.1 Those objectives and policies of relevance to the proposal are in, Chapter 5 ‘Amenity Values’, Chapter 6 Built Form and Development, and Chapter 8 ‘Subdivision and Development’. A full copy of these chapters is included in Attachment 5.

7.5.2 The following table assesses the proposed subdivision against the relevant objectives and policies within these Chapters:

Table 6 – Assessment of Relevant Objectives and Policies within the District Plan

Chapter 5 – Amenity Values

Objective Comment

5.3.1 The characteristic amenity values of each Environment are maintained and, where appropriate enhanced.

The characteristic amenity value of the Coastal Countryside Environment (i.e. low intensity of development; provision of public facilities; high landscape qualities; public places can be exciting and vibrant; recreational qualities; access to daylight and

sunlight; limited vehicular traffic) in this neighbourhood is

marginally depleted due to historic settlements and uses

of the properties which have resulted in relatively smaller size allotments from the 20ha anticipated in this

Environment. As such, the real anticipated characteristic amenity values expected in the Coastal Countryside

Environment cannot be sustained in this neighbourhood. It raises a question as to whether or not Council will

continue to allow the splitting of existing small lots to

even smaller lots.

In my opinion it is difficult to achieve the sustainable management of the identified characteristic amenities

for the Coastal Countryside Environment because of historical events and other natural processes that

changes the character and appearance of specific areas

5.3.5 The actual or potential effects of subdivision use and development is appropriately controlled and those activities located and designed, are to be compatible with existing and identified future patterns of development and levels of amenity in the surrounding environment.

21

15/3683 26 February 2015

over time. Therefore, we need to assess this application

on its merits. Objective 5.3.5 seeks subdivisions and developments to be compatible with existing and

identified future patterns of subdivision and development and the level of amenity in the surrounding

environment. In addition, the principle reason for

developing rules in the Coastal Countryside Environment provides guidance for the assessment of non-complying

subdivision that the proposed subdivision would need to be in keeping with the surrounding allotment sizes

already in existence and should not increase the existing density of development by producing smaller allotment

sizes.

Detailed assessments of the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the character and visual amenity including cumulative effects have concluded that they are less than minor. As such, I am satisfied that the proposal is consistent, and will not detract from, the characteristic amenity values found within this area.

Policy Comment

5.4. 4 – Coastal Countryside Environments - To encourage development in the Coastal-Countryside Environment not to have adverse effects on the amenity values of the environment. The visual amenity and natural character, in particular, has to be protected from subdivisions, use or development that is sporadic or otherwise inappropriate in character, intensity, scale or location.

I consider the proposed subdivision and any associated residential use is not inappropriate in character, intensity and scale in the immediate neighbourhood. The land fragmentation and historical development of rural residential nature has changed the characteristic amenity of the immediate neighbourhood. Therefore, the resultant allotment (shapes and sizes) will not detract from the pattern and design of existing allotments in the neighbourhood. Furthermore, the subdivision will create boundary lines around the existing residential dwellings. It is therefore considered that the proposed subdivision is not contrary to this policy.

Chapter 6 – Built Form and Development

Objective Comment

6.3.2 Subdivision and development that ensures consolidated development in appropriate locations and avoids sprawling or sporadic subdivision and ribbon development patterns in the coastal and rural environment.

The consistency of the proposal with the immediate neighbourhood character ensures the proposal reflects an appropriate development pattern that is not sprawling or sporadic in nature. The assessment of effects also concludes that the proposed subdivision can be absorbed and integrated into the capacity of the character and characteristic amenity values of the area without any adverse effects. Therefore, the proposed subdivision is not contrary to this policy.

Policy Comment

6.4.2 Consolidated Development

To consolidate urban development by:

i. Further develop within

The application indicates the site is appropriate for the density and layout of subdivision proposed, recognising the proximity of the site to the urban settlement of Bland Bay in the adjoining properties, the existing receiving environment and the character of the immediate neighbourhood as an ideal area for rural residential

22

15/3683 26 February 2015

existing built up areas, so as to avoid sporadic or sprawling subdivision and ribbon development patterns, particularly in rural areas and along the coast.

ii. Directing rural lifestyle and rural-residential development to appropriate locations adjacent to existing settlements, rather than allowing sporadic development throughout rural and coastal areas.

activities. As such, I am satisfied the proposal does not represent a form of subdivision that is sprawling or sporadic in nature.

6.4.10 Policy – Productive Soils

i. To identify and protect the district’s highly productive and versatile soils for their productive capacity.

ii. To recognise the value of productive soils and economic farming units to the District’s economy.

The property is currently occupied by two separate dwellings with well established and full functional residential activities. The site is not currently used for any productive use. The removal of the properties for residential activities as a result of this proposal will not adversely impact on the ability of the site to be farmed cattle or sheep on a domestic scale. The proposal will therefore not contrary to this policy.

Chapter 8 – Subdivision and Development

This chapter provides a policy framework to address the effects of subdivision and development on the environment, and acknowledges that subdivision and development can have both positive and negative effects.

Objective Comment

8.3.1 Subdivision and development that achieves the sustainable management of natural and physical resources whilst avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment.

I have assessed the effects of the proposed subdivision on the environment to be less than minor and I am satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the purpose and principles of sustainable management, and subject to recommended conditions of consent, will incorporate sufficient and appropriate means to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment.

8.3.2 Subdivision and development that does not detract from the character of the locality and avoids conflicts between incompatible land use activities.

As previously discussed based on the expert landscape reports, I am satisfied that the proposal will not detract from the character of the locality, and no conflicts between incompatible land use activities have been identified.

8.3.7 Subdivision and development that provides for comprehensive development of land with a range of

It is evident that the proposal reflects a density and layout of subdivision which is consistent with the immediate neighbourhood character. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed subdivision is appropriate to the character of

23

15/3683 26 February 2015

allotment sizes and is appropriate to the character of the Environment in which it is located.

this part of the Coastal Countryside Environment.

Policy Comment

8.4.3 Density of Development To ensure that subdivision and development results in a pattern and density of land use which reflects flexibility in allotment size, and is of a density appropriate to the locality.

The proposal is of a density appropriate to the locality, given the rural land fragmentation that occurred incrementally which results in the existing character of the immediate neighbourhood. The development will produce a rural residential outlook that compliments other existing developments in the immediate neighbourhood. Therefore the proposed subdivision is not contrary to this policy.

8.4.4 Cumulative Effects To ensure that the cumulative effects of on-going subdivision and development do not compromise the objectives and policies of this Plan, in particular those objectives and policies relating to reducing conflicts between incompatible landuse activities, the consolidated and orderly development of land and the density of development.

The proposal represents the consolidated development of an area of land located within the Coastal Countryside Environment that has changed character over time. The site and locality has sufficient capacity to accommodate the density of development proposed, and the proposal is considered to be compatible with adjacent land use activities. No cumulative effect has been identified in the effects assessment. Therefore the proposal is not contrary to this policy.

8.4.12 Services and Infrastructure

To ensure that all subdivision and development is capable of being provided, by the subdivider or developer, with adequate services and infrastructure having regard to Whangarei District Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 (except where the subdivision or development is for specific protection purposes), including:

Vehicle access, including emergency service vehicle access;

Water supply, (including for fire fighting purposes), storm water and sewage disposal;

Energy and telecommunication connections;

Useable open space in urban areas;

During the design and construction of the

No constraints in terms of the on-site servicing arrangements proposed have been identified, and suitable conditions of consent pursuant to Sections 108 and 220 of the Resource Management Act 1991 have been recommended to ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with Whangarei District Council Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 Edition and the relevant standards of utility providers. Moreover, the residential use of the site has been established for many years which will continue. Likewise, services have been established to support such developments which were satisfactorily functioned for many years. As such, the proposal is considered not contrary to this policy.

24

15/3683 26 February 2015

subdivision, measures to reduce storm water run off.

Chapter 10 – The Coast.

Objective Comment

10.3.1 Preservation and protection of the natural character of the coastal environment from inappropriate subdivision, use or development.

It is acknowledged that the character of that coastal environment in this neighbourhood has incrementally changed over time due to historical use of the land. The current built form on the site is lawful and the proposed subdivision will allow these two dwellings to be separated into their own discrete legal title. Therefore, there will be no visual change to the character of the area. Further, it is also acknowledged that since the built form has existed in the neighbourhood for many years, it has now form part of the character of this neighbourhood. As such, the proposal is not contrary to these objectives.

10.3.2 The maintenance or, where appropriate, enhancement of the amenity, landscape, cultural, intrinsic and ecological values of the coastal environment by taking account of the cumulative effects of subdivision development.

Policy Comment

10.4.1 and 10.4.2 – Natural Character: To ensure that subdivision, use and development is managed in a manner that seeks to preserve, enhance and restore (where appropriate) the natural character of the coastal environment. Particular consideration should be given to:

Landscapes, seascapes and landforms;

Significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna;

Intrinsic values of ecosystems;

Sites of Significance to Maori;

Significant places or areas of historic or cultural significance;

Heritage values, including cultural, historical, spiritual and intrinsic values;

Amenity values.

As discussed above, the character of the neighbourhood has been modified over time due to the historical use of the land. The site with associated built form has contributed to the existing character. Without any visual change to the drawing of boundary lines around the existing dwellings, it is considered that the proposed subdivision will be carried out in a manner that will preserve, enhance and restore the natural character of the coastal environment in this neighbourhood as it exists.

Furthermore Mike Farrow concluded in his assessment of the effects of the proposal on the landscape that:

“In conclusion, I consider that the landscape and coastal amenity/character effects associated with the proposed subdivision are negligible.”

It is therefore considered that the proposal is not contrary to these policies.

10.4.9 – Tangata Whenua: To ensure that the relationship of tangata

The applicant has undertaken consultation with the local iwi through Clive Stone of Ngatiwai. A copy of the full application was also served to the Ngatiwai Trust Board.

25

15/3683 26 February 2015

whenua and their cultural and tradition with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga is recognised and provided for when undertaking subdivision, use and development in the coastal environment

The applicant has also provided a copy of a letter by Ms Kathy Pita served on the Ngatiwai Trust Board about her opposition to the proposal. Despite these, Ngatiwai is silent and have not provided a response.

It is noted there isn’t any recorded site of significance to Maori affecting the subject site or in the vicinity of the site.

Chapter 22 – Road Transport.

Objective Comment

22.3.3 Protect the road transport network from the adverse effects of adjacent land use, development or subdivision.

Access off and onto Punipuni Road has taken place for many years. There will be no additional user to have access onto and off Punipuni Road as a result of this subdivision because the residential activities on the site exist. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed development will not create adverse effects on the road transport network that are considered to be more than minor. As such, the proposal is not contrary to this objective.

7.5.3 Therefore for the assessments discussed in the tables above it is concluded that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the overarching intent of the aforementioned relevant objectives and policies of the Proposed and Operative Regional Policy Statements and Operative District Plan and therefore partly satisfied the second gateway test in section 104D(b).

8.0 Other Matters

8.1 Whangarei Coastal Management Strategy

8.1.1 The Whangarei Coastal Management Strategy (CMS) was adopted in September 2002 with a view to ‘establish a strategic, integrated framework for managing the protection, use and development of the coastal environment within the Whangarei District’. As such, it outlines a vision of what the coastal environment should be like in the future having particular regard to four areas: ‘live’, ‘work’, ‘play’ and ‘protect’.

8.1.2 The document acknowledges the high demand for rural-residential or lifestyle development within the coastal areas of the District, but emphasises the adverse impacts such development can have on rural productive activities both in regard to job opportunities and reverse sensitivity issues. The Strategy’s policies seek to sustain a viable farming community by carefully managing the interface between rural areas and adjacent residential or rural-residential areas and directing rural lifestyle development to appropriate locations adjacent to existing settlements.

8.1.3 In relation to this application, although the proposal site is not situated adjacent to an existing settlement, in this instance, it cannot be said to be sporadic, such that it would adversely affect rural production, given its location among properties of similar type development.

8.1.4 In addition, the site location and the resultant allotment will not impinge on public access to the reserve strip and the beach along Tuparehuia Bay.

8.2 Rural Plan Change

8.2.1 Whangarei District Council publicly advertised the draft provisions of Rural Plan Change 85A-D based upon direction from the Rural Draft Strategy. Feedback on these will be considered and a proposed plan change will be presented for formal submissions in mid 2015.

8.2.2 It is noted that the site is not affected by the draft rural plan change.

26

15/3683 26 February 2015

8.3 Precedent

8.3.1 Case law has established that the precedent of granting resource consent is a relevant factor for a consent authority in considering whether to grant non-complying resource consent. A precedent effect is likely to arise in situations where consent is granted to a non-complying activity that lacks the evident unique, unusual or distinguishing qualities that serve to take the application outside of the generality of cases or similar sites in the vicinity.

8.3.2 In this instance, it is considered that the precedent effect has already been set through past historical subdivisions and land tenure status of the subject site and properties in the vicinity. The proposal and application site do present with a number of matters which, in combination, make for a set of circumstances that can be considered to take the proposal outside of the generality of cases. The matters involved are as follows:

The two existing dwelling have been assessed as being lawfully established and have been fully functioning onsite for many years.

Setting each of these dwellings into its discrete title will not result in any tangible or physical change or effect to surrounding area as property design and their respective areas are similar.

The survey of properties in the neighbourhood confirmed that the surrounding properties are either containing one legal residential unit or none which do not resemble this site with two lawfully established dwellings.

8.3.3 Together, the matters above represent some form of unique combination which is unlikely to be replicated elsewhere within the locality. As such, it is considered the proposal will not set a precedent for the subdivision of other sites within this area that are zoned Coastal Countryside Environment.

9.0 Part 2 Matters

9.1 Section 5 – Purpose

9.1.1 Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 details the overarching purpose and principles of the Act. Part 2 of the Act requires that the proposed activity must meet the purpose of the Act set out in section 5 which is “to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.” As outlined in section 5(2), “sustainable management” means:

“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 well being and for their health and safety while -

(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.”

9.1.2 Based on the conclusions reached in the foregoing assessment, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the purpose of the Act.

9.2 Section 6 – Matters of National Importance

9.2.1 Section 6 identifies seven matters of national importance that must be recognised and provided for. In summary, these relate to the preservation of the rivers and their margins from inappropriate use and development, the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes and areas of significant indigenous vegetation and habits; the maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along rivers; the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions, and the protection of historic heritage.

9.2.2 The proposal will not affect the reserve strip adjoining the site on the seaward side which is administered by Council’s Park and Recreation, and the conservation area adjacent to the site in the east which is currently administered by the Department of Conservation.

27

15/3683 26 February 2015

9.3 Section 7 – Other Matters

9.3.1 Section 7 of the Act identifies eleven other matters to be had regard to in achieving the purposes of the Act. The following are considered to be of particular relevance to the proposal;

Kaitiakitanga;

The ethic of stewardship;

The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources;

The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values;

Intrinsic values of ecosystems;

Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment;

9.3.2 Kaitiakitanga, being the exercise of guardianship by the tangata whenua of an area in accordance with tikanga Maori in relation to natural and physical resources; includes the ethic of stewardship. It is recognised the Ngatiwai have mana whenua over the application site, and a copy of the proposal was subsequently forwarded to them.

9.3.3 Overall, I am satisfied the overall intensity, scale and location of the proposal will maintain the character and amenity values of the locality, and there is no evidence to suggest the proposal will compromise the quality of the environment. As such, it is considered the proposal upholds the matters outlined under Section 7.

9.4 Section 8 – Treaty of Waitangi

9.4.1 Section 8 requires that decision makers take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) in managing the use development and protection of natural and physical resources. The principles of the Treaty do not supersede the Treaty itself; rather they derive from the Treaty and assist the practical application of it. In this regard, the Court of Appeal has defined relevant principles as reflecting the purpose and intent of the Treaty in the management of natural and physical resources; including the Principles of Kawanatanga; Rangatiratanga, Partnership; Active Protection and Hapu and Iwi Resource Development.

9.4.2 With respect to the current proposal, Ngatiwai was identified as a local iwi affected by the proposal. A copy of the proposal was subsequently sent to them for review and to obtain an indication as to whether or not they are affected. Ngatiwai Trust Board did not respond.

10.0 Conclusion & Recommendation

10.1 Conclusion

10.1.1 Having considered the application against the relevant provisions of the Act, and in particular the gateway tests under s104D, it is recommended that this application be granted, subject to conditions which will avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of the activity on the environment.

10.1.2 The proposed subdivision has been assessed to consider the effects on the environment. It was considered that the effects are no more than minor for the following reasons:


The principle reasons for the ‘Allotment Area’ rule states that “Subdivision that does not comply with a standard for a controlled or discretionary activity is a non-complying activity. Consequently, for any such proposal to be assessed as acceptable, the applicant would first need to show that the proposed subdivision would have no more than minor effects on the overall level of density appropriate to the Environment in question, and/or was consistent with the density of development in the immediate area surrounding the proposal. In other words, the proposed subdivision would need to be in

28

15/3683 26 February 2015

keeping with the surrounding allotment sizes already in existence and should not increase the existing density of development by producing smaller allotment sizes”.

Careful consideration of the proposed subdivision design confirms that it will be able to be absorbed and integrated into the capacity of the neighbourhood character and amenity.

The proposal will not offend the characteristic amenity values of the area because the landscape and coastal character effects associated with the proposed subdivision are negligible. The proposal will see those existing buildings set upon discrete titles but will not generate any direct tangible effects in itself.


Services for the new allotments exist given that the residential dwellings have been established for a long time and been fully functioned.

10.1.3 The proposal is considered consistent with the objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan, the Proposed and Operative Regional Policy Statements, and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement on the basis that the lots sizes are considered to be in keeping with the surrounding existing development and the proposal is not demonstrative of ribbon development, sporadic development, or development in an area currently undeveloped.

10.1.4 The proposal represents a unique combination which is unlikely to be replicated elsewhere within the locality. As such, it is considered the proposal will not set a precedent for the subdivision of other sites within this area that are zoned Coastal Countryside Environment.

29

15/3683 26 February 2015

10.2 Recommendation

THAT pursuant to sections 104, 104B and 104D, 108 and 220 of the Resource Management Act 1991, it is recommended that consent be granted to Jennifer Winsome Pita (SD1400083) for the subdivision of Lot 1 DP 144563 (CFR NA85D/236) with a total area of 2.3451ha into proposed Lot 1 of 8,971m² and Lot 2 of 1.4470ha. The subdivision shall be undertaken in general accordance with Lands & Survey Limited’s scheme plan reference 9239/1/1/A Sheets 1 of 1 dated June 2014 and details provided in the application by Lands & Survey Limited reference 9239, Landscape Assessment by Littoralis Landscape Architecture date 28 December 2014 and further information provided on 12 January except where modified by any specific conditions below.

The proposed subdivision is a Non-complying activity as it does not meet the Operative District Plan rules of the Countryside Environment.

Recommended Conditions

1 Prior to issue of a Section 223 certificate

a The survey plan shall show all necessary easements over services and rights of ways.

2 Prior to issue of a section 224 (c) certificate;

a The consent holder must provide written confirmation from a Licensed Cadastral Surveyor that the existing effluent disposal fields for lots 1 and 2 are contained within the allotment boundaries. Written confirmation is also required from a registered drain layer to confirm compliance with Section 15.1 - Permitted Activities for Sewage discharges of the Northland Regional Council Regional Water and Soil Plan for Northland noting the required separation distances to boundaries and surface water.

b The consent holder shall provide written confirmation from a Licensed Cadastral Surveyor that all services and accesses are located within the appropriate easement boundaries.

c Pursuant to Section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991, a consent notice must be prepared and be registered on the Computer Freehold Register of Lot 2 at the consent holder’s expense, containing the following conditions which are to be complied with on a continuing basis by the subdividing owner and subsequent owners:

i Upon construction of any additional habitable dwelling such as minor residential unit, sufficient water supply for fire fighting purposes is to be provided by way of tank storage or other approved means, and that this water supply be accessible by fire fighting appliances in accordance with Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 Edition and more particularly with the ‘NZFS Fire Fighting Code of Practice SNZ PAS 4509:2008’. Demonstration of achievement of an alternative means of compliance with this standard will be considered to satisfy this requirement but note that written approval from the NZ Fire service is required.

ii Any minor residential unit that is proposed on this lot shall only be located to the north of the northernmost line of the existing house.

d The consent holder shall provide evidence that a commemorative plaque to tell the story of the letter and the retention on site of the two remaining physical elements of the school, being the hearth and the chimney, have been erected on Lot 2 to the satisfaction of the Team Leader Compliance.

Reasons for the Recommendation:

That pursuant to section 113 of the Resource Management Act 1991 the reasons for this decision are as follows:

1. The proposed subdivision has been assessed to consider the effects on the environment. It was considered that the effects are no more than minor for the following reasons:


30

15/3683 26 February 2015

The principle reasons for the ‘Allotment Area’ rule states that “Subdivision that does not comply with a standard for a controlled or discretionary activity is a non-complying activity. Consequently, for any such proposal to be assessed as acceptable, the applicant would first need to show that the proposed subdivision would have no more than minor effects on the overall level of density appropriate to the Environment in question, and/or was consistent with the density of development in the immediate area surrounding the proposal. In other words, the proposed subdivision would need to be in keeping with the surrounding allotment sizes already in existence and should not increase the existing density of development by producing smaller allotment sizes”. Careful consideration of the proposed subdivision design confirms that it will be able to be absorbed and integrated into the capacity of the neighbourhood character and amenity.

The proposal will not offend the characteristic amenity values of the area because the landscape and coastal character effects associated with the proposed subdivision are negligible. The proposal will see those existing buildings set upon discrete titles but will not generate any direct tangible effects in itself.


Services for the new allotments exist given that the residential dwellings have been established for a long time and been fully functioned.

2. The proposal is considered consistent with the objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan, the Proposed and Operative Regional Policy Statements, and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement on the basis that the lots sizes are considered to be in keeping the with surrounding existing development and the proposal is not demonstrative of ribbon development, sporadic development, or development in an area currently undeveloped.

3. The proposal represents some form of unique combination which is unlikely to be replicated elsewhere within the locality. As such, it is considered the proposal will not set a precedent for the subdivision of other sites within this area that are zoned Coastal Countryside Environment.

Advice Notes

1 The Consent Holder shall pay all charges set by Council under Section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991, including any administration, monitoring, inspection and supervision charges relating to the conditions of this resource consent. The applicant will be advised of the charges as they fall.

2 Pursuant to Section 102 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Whangarei District Council has prepared and adopted a Development Contributions Policy. Under this Policy, the activity to which this consent relates is subject to Development Contributions. You will be advised of the assessment of the Development Contributions payable under separate cover in the near future. It is important to note that the Development Contributions must be paid prior to commencement of the work or activity to which this consent relates or, in the case of a subdivision, prior to the issue at a Section 224(c) Certificate. Further information regarding Councils Development Contributions Policy may be obtained from the Long Term Community Consultation Plan (LTCCP) or Councils web page at www.wdc.govt.nz.

31

15/3683 26 February 2015

11.0 Attachments

1.0 The Scheme Plan

2.0 The application (as lodged)

3.0 Submissions

4.0 Landscape Assessment by Mike Farrow and Further Information provided

5.0 Copies of Council’s Decisions on RC37478 and RC40420

6.0 Copies of Maori Land Court on the Land Ownership Status

7.0 Relevant Sections of the District Plan

8.0 Engineering Report by Council’s SEEO

32

hearings commissioner agenda for j pita - whangarei · hearings commissioner notice of meeting a...

Documents