original submissions 091 - 100 - whangarei · 2019-06-12 · from: ingrid visser...

1

Mail Room

From: Ingrid Visser [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2016 2:55 p.m.To: Mail RoomSubject: submission regarding propsed changes to papak inga plansAttachments: PC94B-Interactive-Form-5.pdf

please find attached thank you Dr Ingrid N. Visser (PhD). ________________________ Ingrid N. Visser (Ph.D.) [email protected] Orca Research Trust, P.O. Box 402043, Tutukaka, Northland, 0153, New Zealand + 64 (0)9 43 43 043 office + 64 (0)274 727 627 mobile www.orcaresearch.org

NOTICE: This e!mail message and any attachments to it may contain confidential information. The

information contained in this transmission is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entities to

which the e!mail is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible

for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are prohibited from

reviewing, retransmitting, converting to hard copy, copying, disseminating, or otherwise using in any

manner this e!mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the

sender by replying to this message and delete it from your computer.

PC94B-091

!"#$%&'($)'*+,-'.'/0$1)$!&"'+234'.'5&6'7&$8$19':;'+*'3-+'3,++'.'+4++'/<='>5?@'.'+4++'*-,'3A-'.'?;'+*'3-4'BA-,'

/;'666C69DC)E#%C1F'.'G;'H$"8!EEHI69DC)E#%C1F'''

!"#$%$&$'()#*++*!,$!,$-$./-,01$2"!2!+13$4!$4/1$5*+4"*.4$67-,$

'

@JJ"D&'KL&'

'

'

'

'

<ED'><' '

' '

MKNH"%%&!'1E' '

'

MKNH"LL"E1'1E' ''

67-,$8/-,019$ 68:;<$&$6-2-=>*,0-$

?77$.!""1+2!,31,.1$4!$4/1$6!7*.@$512-"4#1,4$$?44,9$A17*++-$A.B"-4/

'()#*++*!,+$#(+4$)1$"1.1*C13$)@9$$ !"#$%&'()'*%&'+,)-

(77$,-#1 '!"#$%# &'()* +"#$'",$

6!+4-7$-33"1++' '

$

$ '

D1712/!,1$,!$ '

E#-*7$ '

'

> !"#$% !"#$% &"'(('')$"1'$1'$9#$1%$)&'"1'%!$9&'DEHO&%"%"E1'%0!EK)0'%0"L'LKNH"LL"E1''

> )* )* &"'(('''''9"!&D%8P'$JJ&D%&9'NP'$1'&JJ&D%'EJ'%0&'LKNQ&D%'H$%%&!'EJ'%0&'LKNH"LL"E1'%0$%';'

$' $9#&!L&8P'$JJ&D%L'%0&'&1#"!E1H&1%R'$19'

N' 9E&L'1E%'!&8$%&'%E'%!$9&'DEHO&%"%"E1'E!'%0&'&JJ&D%L'EJ'%!$9&'DEHO&%"%"E1'

'-- .#"#+* /)#

D/1$+21.*F*.$2"!C*+*!,+$!F$4/1$67-,$8/-,01$4/-4$#@$+()#*++*!,$"17-41+$4!$-"1'

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

'

Ingrid Visser

P.O. Box 402043, Tutukaka, 0153

The apparent lack of regulation for papak inga in relation to the coastal building requirements and coastal

environmental protection

'''''

''

G !"##$%& $##$!' !''( -#1,3#1,4$4!$4/1$+21.*F*.$2"!C*+*!,$7*+413$-)!C1$S0#"#*# 12$*3% )/* $&&"(+$4"#5

A@$+()#*++*!,$*+$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

A@$"1-+!,+$-"1$6$**$+2 $00(*(/)$" &$7#% (8 '#9:('#05$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

'4-41$4/1$31.*+*!,$@!($H*+/$8!(,.*7$4!$#-=1$4!$1,+("1$4/1$*++(1+$@!($"-*+1$.-,$)1$31-74$H*4/$6(;#; 7(<#

&'#+(%# 0#*$("% /8 12$* ,/: 1/:"0 "(=# ()+":0#0 /' 0#"#*#0 8'/> *2# &"$)5'

$

$

$

$

$

$

>'6"L0'%E'N&'0&$!9'"1'LKOOE!%'EJ'HP'LKNH"LL"E1$ 'T&L' '5E'

>J'E%0&!L'H$U&'$'L"H"8$!'LKNH"LL"E1V'>'6"88'DE1L"9&!'O!&L&1%"1)'$'QE"1%'D$L&'6"%0'%0&H'$%'$'0&$!"1)C'

'T&L' '5E'

''

' ' 'M")1$%K!&'EJ'LKNH"%%&!'E!'$K%0E!"L&9'$)&1%' ' <$%&'

W'L")1$%K!&'"L'1E%'!&XK"!&9'"J'PEK'H$U&'PEK!'LKNH"LL"E1'NP'&8&D%!E1"D'H&$1L' '

Note to person making submission - ?8 ,/: $'# >$=()7 $ %:4>(%%(/) */ *2# @)<('/)>#)*$" !'/*#+*(/) A:*2/'(*,B ,/: %2/:"0 :%# 8/'> CDE; ?8 ,/: $'# $ &#'%/) 12/ +/:"0 7$() $) $0<$)*$7# () *'$0# +/>&#*(*(/) *2'/:72 *2# %:4>(%%(/)B ,/:' '(72* */ >$=# $ %:4>(%%(/) >$, 4# "(>(*#0 4, +"$:%# D 6F5 /8 !$'* C /8 .+2#0:"# /8 *2# G#%/:'+# H$)$7#>#)* A+* CIIC;'

a requirement for papak inga to adhere to all coastal building requirements. As currently many of the

building requirements for other land use appear to be wavered or compromised (e.g., height restrictions -

which are clearly not limited appropriately in PKA.5 Permitted Activities (b) (i) 'The construction or alteration

of any building does not exceed a height equal to 3m plus the shortest horizontal distance between that part

of the building and the site boundary' could result in a building that was more than 20m tall, yet situated only

meters from the coast.

Furthermore, coastal environmental protection (e.g., unlimited housing / building / developments as the

papak inga plans do not have any limits outlined) do not protect the coastal environment.

M ori should have the right to maintain and enhance their traditional and cultural relationship with their

ancestral land and this should be fully should be respected, however, other people also live in these areas

and they should not be adversely affected by developments.

More importantly, the natural environments, especially sensitive coastal zones, should be given the highest

levels of protection, regardless of the historic or current owner(s), be they the Crown, private or M ori. We

are all New Zealanders and we all should be involved in protecting our precious land and its flora and fauna

inhabitants, yet these proposed changes do not do this.

PKA.5 Permitted Activities (b) (i) 'The construction or alteration of any building does not exceed a height

equal to 3m plus the shortest horizontal distance between that part of the building and the site boundary'

should be deleted.

The following (or similar) should be added: The natural environments, especially sensitive coastal zones,

should be given the highest levels of protection, regardless of the historic or current owner(s), be they the

Crown, private or M ori and as such any development must be met with restrictions that reflect the highest

levels of protection for flora and fauna and to also protect intrinsic (including visual) value.

31 May 2016

1

Mail Room

From: Fiona Mackenzie [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2016 3:25 p.m.To: Mail RoomSubject: Submission on Plan Change PC94B-PapakaingaAttachments: Submission on Proposed Plan Change PC94B - Papakainga.pdf

Attention Whangarei City Councillors,

My submission is attached for your consideration. Kind regards, Fiona Mackenzie Tel: +9 424‐3314 Mob: +274 978‐839

PC94B-092

1

Mail Room

From: Brian Lessels [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2016 9:17 a.m.To: Mail RoomSubject: Submission on Plan Change 94B attached.Attachments: PC94B-Interactive-Form-5.pdf

PC94B-093

!"#$%&'($)'*+,-'.'/0$1)$!&"'+234'.'5&6'7&$8$19':;'+*'3-+'3,++'.'+4++'/<='>5?@'.'+4++'*-,'3A-'.'?;'+*'3-4'BA-,'


!"#$%$&$'()#*++*!,$!,$-$./-,01$2"!2!+13$4!$4/1$5*+4"*.4$67-,$

'

@JJ"D&'KL&'

'

'

'

'

<ED'><' '

' '

MKNH"%%&!'1E' '

'

MKNH"LL"E1'1E' ''

67-,$8/-,019$ 68:;<$&$6-2-=>*,0-$

?77$.!""1+2!,31,.1$4!$4/1$6!7*.@$512-"4#1,4$$?44,9$A17*++-$A.B"-4/

'()#*++*!,+$#(+4$)1$"1.1*C13$)@9$$ !"#$%&'()'*%&'+,)-

(77$,-#1 '!"#$%# &'()* +"#$'",$

6!+4-7$-33"1++' '

$

$ '

D1712/!,1$,!$ '

E#-*7$ '

'



$' $9#&!L&8P'$JJ&D%L'%0&'&1#"!E1H&1%R'$19'


'-- .#"#+* /)#

D/1$+21.*F*.$2"!C*+*!,+$!F$4/1$67-,$8/-,01$4/-4$#@$+()#*++*!,$"17-41+$4!$-"1'

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

'

Brian Lessels

P O Box 1147Hastings

[email protected]

Allowing one race over all others to do what they want to do without being subject to the stringent rules andregulations that apply to the other races.

'''''

''

G !"##$%& $##$!' !''( -#1,3#1,4$4!$4/1$+21.*F*.$2"!C*+*!,$7*+413$-)!C1$S0#"#*# 12$*3% )/* $&&"(+$4"#5

A@$+()#*++*!,$*+$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

A@$"1-+!,+$-"1$6$**$+2 $00(*(/)$" &$7#% (8 '#9:('#05$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

'4-41$4/1$31.*+*!,$@!($H*+/$8!(,.*7$4!$#-=1$4!$1,+("1$4/1$*++(1+$@!($"-*+1$.-,$)1$31-74$H*4/$6(;#; 7(<#

&'#+(%# 0#*$("% /8 12$* ,/: 1/:"0 "(=# ()+":0#0 /' 0#"#*#0 8'/> *2# &"$)5'

$

$

$

$

$

$



'T&L' '5E'

''

' ' 'M")1$%K!&'EJ'LKNH"%%&!'E!'$K%0E!"L&9'$)&1%' ' <$%&'



We are one democracy where everyone is equal. What is being proposed is the creation of apartheid inreverse.

One set of rules for all.

Drop the proposal.

31 May 2016

1

Mail Room

From: Sheena Jones [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2016 3:19 p.m.To: Mail RoomSubject: Papakainga Development Plans

Dear Sir/Madam I have tried to enclose the proper Submission Form on this issue but to no avail. I would like my views put forward if possible though. I think to allow Papakainga to develop on Maori land, without proper resouce consents, makes a mockery of the present Resouce Management Act. The Act is there to protect the environment, so where is the protection then?? Why the " one rule for one and not the other", surely that is rascist. The process is all wrong and I am totally against it. Sheena Jones

PC94B-094

1

Mail Room

From: Ross Jewell [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2016 2:22 p.m.To: Mail RoomSubject: FW: WDC SubmissionAttachments: WDC Submission.pdf

From: Ross Jewell Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2016 2:20 p.m. To: '[email protected]' Subject: FW: WDC Submission

PC94B-095

1

Mail Room

From: Megan Ross [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2016 12:03 p.m.To: Mail RoomCc: Hayden - NMI LtdSubject: Submission - Plan Change 94BAttachments: PC94B-Interactive-Form-5.pdf

Please find my attached submission for plan change 94B Regards, Hayden Ross

PC94B-096

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]

Form 5 - Submission on a change proposed to the District Plan

Office use

Doc ID

Submitter no

Submission no

Plan Change: PC94B - Papakāinga

All correspondence to the Policy Department Attn: Melissa McGrath Submissions must be received by: Tuesday 31 May 2016

Full name Please print clearly

Postal address

Telephone no

Email

I could could not** gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission I am am not** directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of the submission that : a adversely affects the environment; and b does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition ** Select oneThe specific provisions of the Plan Change that my submission relates to are

Hayden Ross

57 Clapham Rd, RD5, Whareora, 0175

0274 222 995

I am an affected party by way of my ancestral land being adjacent to a lot held under joint Maori freehold title. I fervently oppose this change and view it as racist and prejudiced against ordinary Kiwi property owners.

In this age of equality, can something this ridiculous and unfair really be put upon the very ratepayers who finance these planners?

Please forward to me the details of the bright spark who has put their neck out on this one as I would like to discuss with them two points:

1) When did the powers that be decide this sort of racial inequality could be legislated into, or by local government. Do we not live in a democracy?

2) If this ludicrous change goes ahead, will I as a fourth generation heir be able to develop my aforementioned ancestral land in any way I see fit? It is currently held in joint ownership and must be subdivided at huge expense before I can build on a portion of it under the current planning rules. Under plan change 94B will I be able to buld as a permitted activity, all owners willing, even though the land is owned by non-Maori New Zealanders?

I welcome your reply and would appreciate the opportunity to, along with other affected parties meet with you to discuss this further.

Regards,Hayden Ross

I support oppose seek amendment to the specific provision listed above (delete what’s not applicable)

My submission is

My reasons are (attach additional pages if required)

State the decision you wish Council to make to ensure the issues you raise can be dealt with (i.e. give precise details of what you would like included or deleted from the plan)

I wish to be heard in support of my submission Yes No If others make a similar submission, I will consider presenting a joint case with them at a hearing.

Yes No

Signature of submitter or authorised agent Date

A signature is not required if you make your submission by electronic means

Note to person making submission - If you are making a submission to the Environmental Protection Authority, you should use form 16B. If you are a person who could gain an advantage in trade competition through the submission, your right to make a submission may be limited by clause 6 (4) of Part 1 of Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Please see above - I strongly oppose this plan change and would like to see plan change 94B deleted.

Please see above

I would like to see plan change 94B deleted from the plan.

31 May 2016

1

Mail Room

From: Juliane ChethamSent: Tuesday, 31 May 2016 3:16 p.m.To: Mail RoomSubject: PC94 Submission on behalf of Patruharakeke Te Iwi Trust BoardAttachments: PC 94B PKA Submission PTB FINAL.pdf

Tena Koe Please find submission attached. --

Nga Mihi

Juliane Chetham

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office: 09 437 7462 Mobile: 021 169 7162

Address: 120 Abbey Caves Road, Whangarei, New Zealand

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PC94B-097

1

PatuharakekeHapuPatuharakekeTeIwiTrustBoardPOBox557Whangarei0140(Email:c/[email protected])31May2016WhangareiDistrictCouncilPrivateBag9023Whangarei0148To:[email protected]

RE:PC94BPAPAKĀINGAPROVISIONS–SUBMISSION

KoManaiateMaungaKoWhangareiTerengaParaoateMoanaKoPatuharakeketeHapuKoTakahiwaiteMaraeKoTePirihiteTangataINTRODUCTION

1. This submission is from Patuharakeke Te Iwi Trust Board Inc (PTB) on behalf of Patuharakeke

Hapu,tangatawhenuaoftheRoheoPatuharakekewithrespecttomanawhenua,manamoana,manatakutaimoana.PatuharakekeRoheislocatedonthesouthsideoftheWhangareiharbourand includes ourmarae at Takahiwai.Our rohe includes all the lands beginning atOtaika thenwesttoTangihuaranges,includingRuarangiandthensouththroughWaikiekieandontoTaipuhaand then across to Wakatarariki (Bream Tail)... onwards to the northern point of Mangawhaiharbour,thenouttoTeHauturuoToitoAoteaandupthroughtheMokohinau'stoTawhitirahiandAorangi(thePoorKnights)andencompassingMarotiri,NgatuturuandTaranga(theHenandChickens). The boundary runs up the centre of the Whangarei Harbour to the south side upthroughToetoe toOtaika (thepointof commencement)andbackdown theharbour to take inKopuawaiwaha,Mangapai, Totara, Springfield,Mata,Mangawhati,Ngatiti, Takahiwai,OneTreePoint, Poupouwhenua, Ruakaka,Waipu and Langs Beach toWakatarariki (Bream Tail). A visualdepictionofourcurrentroheforthepurposesofcontemporarymanagementisprovidedbelow.

2

Figure1:PatuharakekeRoheforContemporaryManagementPurposes

3

PATUHARAKEKEHAPUENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENTPLAN2014:

2. Section5.2 of our HEMP is titled “Marae and Kainga” and is relevant to the PKA planchange. It states: “development of papakainga allows our whanau the opportunity toestablish affordable housing. Papakainga cannot be compared to subdivision or housingdevelopmentongeneraltitleland”.Issuesidentifiedareasfollows:

Issues

a) OurTakahiwaimaraeistheculturalheartofourhapu.

b) Our kainga, those that remain in Maori ownership, are the obvious sites for the re-establishmentofhapucommunities.

c) Therighttoresideon,useanddevelopMaorilandisconstrainedbylandzoningrules,housingdensityrules,provisionofinfrastructureandservices,andmultipleownership.

d) Returning settlement assets will provide future opportunity for re-establishment ofkaingaandmaraeonthatland.

Objectivesa) Ourmaraeisthevitallivingcentreofavibranthapucommunity.b) Whanauareabletoreturnandliveontheirwhenua.

Policies

b) Papakainga developments initiated by whanau will be supported to facilitate the

resettlementandre-associationof tangataandwhenua.Councilcontrolofpapakaingashould be confined to matters of health and safety and should not require ‘reservecontributions’ofland.

Methods

a) PTBwilladvocatethatagenciesrecogniseandprovideforthepoliciesinthissection.b) PTBwillsupportandassistthemaraecommitteeandwhanauwithinourrohetofurther

developourmaraeandkaingaonasustainablebasis.Inparticularsupportwillbegivento themarae to develop as a cultural centre of our people and tikanga. Any futuredevelopment of the marae and papakainga should consider energy efficient buildingdesign, methods andmaterials, environmentally sustainable energy, sewerage, wasteandwatersystems.

SUBMISSION3.TheproposedPapakāinga (PKA)provisionsandaccompanyingcomment fromPTBaresetout inthetableandnarrativebelow:

(‘PKA’)Section CommentTitle PTBsupportchangeoftitlefromPapakāingaHousingto

Papakāinga. We agree with analysis provided in theSection 32 Report of the Resource Management Act

4

Report (‘S32 Report’) ie. acknowledgement that as atermpapakāingameansmorethanjusthousingandmayalso include activities such as community facilities,education,recreationandenterprise.

PKA1.1Description&Expectations

Thissectionhasbeenpareddownandwhilewedonotobjecttotheremovaloftheexplanatorynotes,thereisa lack of context around the challenges to developingMāori land. PTB supports including the backgroundprovided in the issues section (section 2.5) of theOperativeRegionalPolicyStatement forconsistency.Ataminimum paragraph 27 of the S32 Report should beinserted to ensure at least issues around multipleownershiparereferenced.WeareunsureoftherelevanceofthecommentsaroundIndependent Commissioners having expertise in bothtikanga Māori and resource management ie. allindependent commissioners including Māori have toundergo accreditation. We are unsure therefore whytheywouldnotbefamiliarwithRMArequirements.Thisseems unnecessary and appears to be a doublestandard.

PKA2.1Eligibility PKA2.1isopposed.'TheDistrictWideandResourceAreaobjectives,policiesand rules in theDistrict Plan shall apply to papakāingadevelopments under the papakāinga provisions below.'Thiseffectivelycontradictstheintentofthepolicy.WDCwas singled out as a council looking to provideappropriate flexibility in the auditor general's 2011report on Maori housing -this follow-up report from2014 highlights some of Auckland Councils approachhttp://www.oag.govt.nz/2014/housing-on-maori-landRelief sought: Amend to read 'The District Wide andResourceAreaobjectives,policiesandrulesintheDistrictPlanshallnotapplytopapakāingadevelopmentsunderthepapakāingaprovisionsbelow”PKA2.2issupported.

PKA3Objectives TheObjectivesarenotbeingamendedsoarenotwithinthe scope of the plan change but PTB continue tosupporttheobjectivesforPKA.

PKA4Policies The Policies are not being amended so are not withinthescopeof theplanchange, regardlessPTB remain insupportofthepoliciesforPKA.• We take this opportunity to note the following

5

however,Referenceto1993TeTureWhenuaMaoriAct (‘TTWMA’)maybe redundant – ie.AmendmenttotheActlikelyinthenearfuture.

• We would like clarification on the definition of'surroundingenvironment' ie.Does this just literallyrepresent the surrounding environment or is it aplanningtermsuchas“existingenvironment”and ifso,howisitinterpreted?

PKA5.1PermittedActivities PKA 5.1.a - The requirement for a PapakāingaDevelopment Plan and the stipulated contents of theplanaresupported.PKA 5.1b - At a general level the controls required forpermittedactivity status seem tocontradict the intentofthepolicies,thatis;• To require the maximum intensity and scale of

papakāinga development to be determined by thesustainable servicing capacity of the land and thesurroundingenvironment.

• To require the location and extent of builtdevelopment to be determined by the physicalcharacteristicsofthelandandtikangaMāori.

• To provide for non-residential activities of a scale,character,andintensitythatarecompatiblewiththevaluesofMāoritanga, characterof theenvironmentandthesustainableservicingcapacityofthelocality.

The‘impermeablesurfacerequirement’isanexampleofthis - conflicting with the main assessment method ofthe papakāīnga provisions ie. what the whenua cansustain. This requirement is opposed by PTB andmorediscussionisneeded.Similarly, some parcels of Māori land in Takahiwai arelikely to be within 500m of Mineral Extraction Areas,howeverthequarriesareeitheronwhanauownedlandoranexistingrelationshipexistswiththequarryownersand operators and more flexible solutions could beagreed to between whanau and the quarry owner/operators based on tikanga for example that thisprovisiondoesnottakeintoaccount.The vegetation clearance requirements also seem tocontradicttheintentofthePKApolices,ie.IfPapakāinga

6

developments are carried out according toMāoritangavalues and tikanga māori this control would almostcertainly not be triggered, kaitaikitanga would prevail.But again, in some circumstances, this may not bepossiblebut stillmay fitwithin theparametersofwhatthe whenua is able to sustain. It also needs to beacknowledged that Māori land provides a significantcontribution to the remaining areas of indigenousvegetation in the district and the amenity values andecosystemservicesthisprovides.Encouragingretentionof such vegetation without essentially saddling Māoriwithanotherplanningburdeniswhatisneeded.Aboveallelseallof thesecontrolsnegatetheflexibilityenvisaged in the policies. We do not believe this willallowustomeettheobjectivesandpoliciesofourownHEMP, ie. to enable whanau to return to live on theirwhenua.

PKA6.1DiscretionaryActivities In general PKA 6.1 is supported. However, this sectionrequires further definition of General Land owned byMaori, i.e.; Maori Land changed to general title bystatute. Ideally this type of land would be consideredunder permitted activities. This discretionary statusshould be retained primarily for other lands, e.g. landreturned through Treaty settlement into tribalownershiporlandpurchasedwherethereisrecordthatitwasalienatedfromMaori.

PKA7.1Non-ComplyingActivities PTBdonotobjecttoPKA7.1.PKA8.1TransferofPowers PTB Support this provision.Wenotehowever, that the

MāoriLandCourtfirstdefinedallMāorilandasbeinginhapū ownership. We therefore consider the intentionshould be to transfer powers to hapū associated withthe lands, as opposed to Iwi Boards. This correspondswiththeconclusionsoflegalopinionsoughtbyWDCandthefindingsoftheS32Report.

PKA9.1DecisionMaking PTB Support this provision. We note once again thereference to Independent Comissioner(s) “withknowledge and experience of tikanga andMataurangaMāori and resource management”. As mentionedpreviously all comissioners are required (under s39 oftheRMA)toacquireaccreditation.ThisrequiresthemtohavepassedtheMinistryfortheEnvironment’s“MakingGood Decisions” course and necessitates a robustknowledge of Planning. – so we are unsure what thepurposeofthereferencetoplanningis.Wedosupporthowever, that Independent Commissioners involved inPKA decision making have requisite expertise in

7

MataurangaMaori.PKA10. Theadviceclauseisusefulandsupported.

4. PROPOSEDLANDSCAPESCHAPTEROFTHEDISTRICTPLAN

MāorilandwillbedisproportionatelyaffectedbytheproposedOutstandingNaturalLandscapes(ONL),OutstandingNaturalFeatures(ONF)andCoastaloverlays,becausethelandhasremainedundevelopedwhile surrounding land has been cleared and built on. In addition,much of thedistrict’sMāori land is in coastal areas, and is subject to further conditions. Theprovisionsofthese overlays will conflict with the desire to develop Māori land and in our view willsubstantiallylimit(ifnotrendercompletelyredundant)theefficacyofthePKAprovisions.While we understand that district plans must give effect to the Regional Policy Statement(‘RPS’),itmustberememberedthattheRPSalsocontainspolicyonMāorilandandPapakāingathatalsomustbegiveneffectto.PolicyinSection8.3.2states:“Theregionalanddistrictcouncilsshallrecognisethehistorical,cultural,andsocial importanceof marae and papa kāinga, and enable their ongoing use and development in regional anddistrictplans”.Themethodinsection8.3.4statesthat:“The regional and district councils shall, as soon as practicable after the Regional PolicyStatementbecomesoperative,initiateajointreviewofregionalanddistrictplanstoidentifyandimplementagreedopportunitiestoimprovetheabilityoftangatawhenuatodevelopmaraeandpapakāinga,andachievegreaterconsistencyinmanagementapproaches”PTB contend that the landscape provisions should not pre-empt this joint review exerciseoccurring.However, if thereliefweseekregardingtheeligibilitycriteria isaccepted ie.TheDistrictWideandResourceAreaobjectives,policiesandrules intheDistrictPlanno longerapply-thenthelandscapeprovisionswouldnotrenderthePKAprovisionsinoperable.If council is determined to maintain The District Wide and Resource Area provisions as thehigher order provisions they should considermaking activitieswhich are permitted onMāorilandarestricteddiscretionaryactivitywithinONL’s,ONF’sandCoastaloverlays.Theassessmentofeffectsshouldthenbelimitedtotheeffectsofexceedingthepermittedactivitystandard.Thiswouldatleastrelievewhanauoftheburdenandcostsassociatedwithnotification.

WeconsidertheproposedlandscapeprovisionsconstituteabreachofArticleIIoftheTreatyofWaitangi.WhilethissubmissionisfocusedonPC94B,PTBconsiderthisissuehasamomentousbearing on PC94B andmust be raised now, in conjunction with the Papakāinga consultationprocess.

8

5. POTENTIALSOLUTIONSFORADDRESSINGOTHERBARRIERSTOPAPAKĀINGADEVELOPMENT

To fully meet their commitment to providing for papakāinga developments as stated in theDescriptionsandExpectationssectionofthedocument,WDCshouldconsiderthefollowing:

• Beinganactivefacilitatorofpapakāingadevelopments(asopposedtopassivereceiversof applications) as a service to mana whenua recognising Treaty of Waitangiresponsibilitiesandhistoricalbreachesaswellas theholisticbenefitsofqualityMāorihousingsolutionsbothforhapūandforthewidercommunity.

• Providing relief from financial contributions for applicants to assist and encouragePapakāingadevelopments.

• Developingastrategyapproachtoprovidingand/orfundingspecialistadvicetoassistinPapakāingadevelopments (geotechnical investigations, surveying infrastructuredesignetc..).

6. HEARING

TheWriter is authorised tomake this submission on behalf of PTB. Wewish to be heard insupportofoursubmission.If othersmake a similar submission, wewill consider presenting a joint case with them at ahearing.

Heoianora

ForPatuharakekeTeIwiTrustboard

1

Mail Room

From: Ian McAlley [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2016 12:00 p.m.To: Mail RoomSubject: Submission to PC 94BAttachments: NDHB Submission to PC94B.pdf

Hi,

Please find attached a submission made on behalf of the Northland District Health Board to Plan Change 94B

Papakainga.

Regards

Ian McAlley

Director

McAlley Consulting Group

ph: 027 221 2141

This message may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended

recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you have received

this message in error, please delete it and inform the sender immediately. Your cooperation is appreciated.

PC94B-098

!"#$%&'($)'*+,-'.'/0$1)$!&"'+234'.'5&6'7&$8$19':;'+*'3-+'3,++'.'+4++'/<='>5?@'.'+4++'*-,'3A-'.'?;'+*'3-4'BA-,'


!"#$%$&$'()#*++*!,$!,$-$./-,01$2"!2!+13$4!$4/1$5*+4"*.4$67-,$

'

@JJ"D&'KL&'

'

'

'

'

<ED'><' '

' '

MKNH"%%&!'1E' '

'

MKNH"LL"E1'1E' ''

67-,$8/-,019$ 68:;<$&$6-2-=>*,0-$

?77$.!""1+2!,31,.1$4!$4/1$6!7*.@$512-"4#1,4$$?44,9$A17*++-$A.B"-4/

'()#*++*!,+$#(+4$)1$"1.1*C13$)@9$$ !"#$%&'()'*%&'+,)-

(77$,-#1 '!"#$%# &'()* +"#$'",$

6!+4-7$-33"1++' '

$

$ '

D1712/!,1$,!$ '

E#-*7$ '

'



$' $9#&!L&8P'$JJ&D%L'%0&'&1#"!E1H&1%R'$19'


'-- .#"#+* /)#

D/1$+21.*F*.$2"!C*+*!,+$!F$4/1$67-,$8/-,01$4/-4$#@$+()#*++*!,$"17-41+$4!$-"1'

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

'

Northland District Health Board

c/- McAlley Consulting Group6 Baxter Michael CrescentSt Kilda, Cambridge 3434

0272212141

[email protected]

The rules PKA.1.2 Eligibility and PKA.1.5 Permitted Activities

'''''

''

G !"##$%& $##$!' !''( -#1,3#1,4$4!$4/1$+21.*F*.$2"!C*+*!,$7*+413$-)!C1$S0#"#*# 12$*3% )/* $&&"(+$4"#5

A@$+()#*++*!,$*+$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

A@$"1-+!,+$-"1$6$**$+2 $00(*(/)$" &$7#% (8 '#9:('#05$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

'4-41$4/1$31.*+*!,$@!($H*+/$8!(,.*7$4!$#-=1$4!$1,+("1$4/1$*++(1+$@!($"-*+1$.-,$)1$31-74$H*4/$6(;#; 7(<#

&'#+(%# 0#*$("% /8 12$* ,/: 1/:"0 "(=# ()+":0#0 /' 0#"#*#0 8'/> *2# &"$)5'

$

$

$

$

$

$



'T&L' '5E'

''

' ' 'M")1$%K!&'EJ'LKNH"%%&!'E!'$K%0E!"L&9'$)&1%' ' <$%&'



That the application of the rules must ensure that the quality of the development undertaken does not resultin sub standard housing or services being developed that could result in negative health outcomes for theinhabitants.

See attached

Ensure that rule PKA.1.2 Eligibility and rule PKA.1.5 Permitted Activities are clear in their interpretation andapplication.

Ian McAlley for NDHB 30 May 2016

of 3

Northland District Health Board Submission to Proposed Plan Change 94B of the Whangarei District

Plan – Papakainga

Northland DHB (NDHB) is the principal funder of health services in Northland and is also a major

provider of services. The vision mission and values for the NDHB are as follows:

Our Vision

A Healthier Northland

He Hauora Mo Te Tai Tokerau

Our Mission

Our mission is to work together with Northlanders in partnership under the Treaty of Waitangi to:

Improve population health and reduce inequities

Improve patient experience

Live within its means

Our Values

In undertaking its Mission Northland DHB is guided by the following values:

People First - Taangata i te tuatahi - People are central to all that we do

Respect - Whakaute (tuku mana) - We treat others as we would like to be treated

Caring - Manaaki - We nurture those around us, and treat all with dignity and compassion

Communication - Whakawhitiwhiti korero - We communicate openly, safely and with respect to promote clear

understanding

Excellence - Taumata teitei (hiranga) - Our attitude of excellence inspires success, competence, confidence

and innovation

NDHB has taken an interest in Plan Change 94B for the following reasons:

1. NDHB supports methods that would assist in Northland Maori being able to improve the

quality of their housing

2. NDHB seeks that there be greater certainty with respect to the application of the rules

proposed in Plan Change 94B

Discussion

Northland has one of the most deprived populations in the country. While 20% of New Zealand’s

population is in the lowest quintile of the deprivation index, the equivalent measure for Northland is

35%.

Maori experience low levels of health status across a whole range of health and socioeconomic

statistics. They comprise 30% of Northland’s population, but 52% of the child and youth population, a

key group for achieving long-term gains. Maori experience early onset of long term conditions like

cardiovascular disease and diabetes, presenting to hospital services on average about 15 years

younger than non-Maori.

of 3

Population density is a key factor influencing patterns of health service delivery, access and population

health outcomes in Northland. The majority of Northland is very sparsely populated with overall 49%

of the population living in areas defined as ‘rural’, compared with 14% for New Zealand as a whole.1

With regard to the purpose of PC 94B to provide opportunities for Maori landowners to develop and

live on their ancestral lands, it is noted that “virtually all of this land is situated outside of urban areas,

with concentrations in the western fringes of the District, and along the eastern coastline of the

District.”2 Therefore, notwithstanding the potential financial benefits associated with being able to

build on ancestral land, due to the location of the majority of this land, this proposal could in-part

result in a further shift of Maori to rural areas, reducing ready access to health services, which when

coupled with an existing ‘low health status’ for Maori could exacerbate existing negative health trends

within this population.

However, as a counter to this issue it is noted the report of the Auditor General ‘Government Planning

and Support for Housing on Maori Land’ identifies that Maori are disproportionately represented on

state housing waiting lists, are more likely to live in substandard housing and are less likely to own

their own house when compared to non-Maori.3 Housing conditions have a direct impact on health

and are also strongly associated with socioeconomic conditions, therefore population health

outcomes.

Many Northlanders live in substandard housing, with this often being a long-term situation.

!"#$%&'%(')*+!#,&-),#).,/0.1)$+)"0)-(0%$0(),&)23+(,)%&')(!(%.)4+55!&,$,0#6)7+()08%59.0:),&);<<=),$)

was estimated that there were approximately 2,000 substandard houses in Northland/Te Tai Tokerau.

Housing cost affordability is also an issue given Northland’s low median earnings/income rates.

Demand for state housing is high and access to affordable housing is not equal for all Northlanders.4

NDHB therefore is neutral in terms of their support overall for this proposal. The specific concern

NDHB has is that promoting the location of an at risk group potentially further from health resources

could exacerbate existing negative health trends within the group. However, if provision of housing

on ancestral Maori land removes some of the financial barriers to Maori being able to access better

quality living accommodation, then this could result in health benefits.

Such benefits are evidenced by programs such as the health referral programme ‘Healthy Homes Tai

Tokerau’ which was initiated in 2012, with the intent to reduce the number of admissions for children

into GP Practices and Hospital. Two years after commencement, the programme had supported over

1000 houses to become insulated, with a 10% reduction of children presenting to hospital with

respiratory related health conditions.

It is highlighted at paragraph 27 of the section 32 evaluation report that barriers exist to the

development of Papakainga, in particular the financial costs, identifying those related to the

construction of sewage, stormwater, power and phone connections in isolated rural areas.

1 Northland District Health Board Strategic Plan 2012 – 2017, pg. 23 2 Section 32 Evaluation Report, Plan Change 94B – Phase II Papakainga Provisions, para. 17 3 Section 32 Evaluation Report, Plan Change 94B – Phase II Papakainga Provisions, para. 21 4 Northland District Health Board Strategic Plan 2012 – 2017, pg. 24

of 3

This financial barrier potentially could be alleviated through the proposed plan change whereby

consenting and compliance costs are reduced through the establishment of appropriate rules and

systems to better enable the development of Papakainga. However, NDHB does not wish to see that

the desire to enable housing development could potentially result in poor quality houses being

developed and/or poor quality services being provided to those houses.

In order for a development to be a permitted activity, rule PKA.1.5.1(a)(vi) requires that a Papakainga

Development Plan be accompanied by a “statement from a suitably qualified and experienced

professional stating that the land can be sufficiently serviced in terms of access, water, wastewater

and stormwater in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Engineering

Standards.” It is considered there is ambiguity in the statement as to what ‘suitably qualified and

experienced’ would be and what ‘sufficiently serviced’ would be. It is considered these statements

need to be better clarified in order that there can be certainty with respect to the provision of

information and the success of any application. It is further considered that this certainty needs to be

developed should the transfer of powers occur under section 33 of the Resource Management Act.

It is noted that the O">04$,?0)@AB)C6C)#$%$0#D)EB..+F)5%8,5!5)G.08,",.,$1)G+()23+(,)$+)'0?0.+9)$*0,()

ancestral lands, while ensuring appropriate health, safety and amenity standards are met” (emphasis

added). The requirement within the objective to ‘ensure’ the identified standards are met is a very

high hurdle and therefore, ambiguity within any permitted activity standards raises concern with

respect to the ability to achieve the objective.

In addition to the matters raised above and whilst outside of the influence of the Resource

Management Act, it would be considered useful for completeness to demonstrate how the provisions

of the Building Act and the building consent process would play a part in “ensuring” that the process

proposed will achieve the desired outcomes.

Whilst the Section 32 analysis may have concluded that the proposed option is the “most efficient and

effective method to achieve the existing Papakainga Objectives and Policies of PC 94B” concerns are

raised as to whether too much focus has been placed on the desire to remove perceived consenting

hurdles with the risk that longer term outcomes have been overlooked and/or not provided for.

1

Mail Room

From: Kate Wood [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2016 1:13 p.m.To: Mail RoomSubject: Attn: Melissa McGrathAttachments: img058.pdf; img059.pdf

Hi Melissa, Please find attached, a submission on PC94B from Ben and Jan Wood. Kind regards, Ben

PC94B-099

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

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

Form 5 - Submission on a change proposed to tine District Plan office use

Plan Change: PC94B - Papakainga

All correspondence to the Policy Department Attn: Melissa McGrath

Submissions must be received by: 4:00pm Tuesday, 31 May 2016

Please print clearly

Postal address I H ^ V < J < ^ v r » . ' - >

^ ^ ;„ Submitterno

tOUe -NQ^ - ^e ( Telephone no U-? , ' l7 4 Z O Submission no

Email <SiX'yo OOc^S»^@5/5<-V''fx \CXD^y~<__'2.

I eaaW/could not **gain an advantage in trade competi t ion through this submiss ion

I *^^am not** directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of the submiss ion tha t :

a adverse ly affects the environment; and

b does not relate to trade competit ion or the effects of trade competi t ion

Delete the entire paragraph if you could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission

" Select one

The specific provisions of the Plan Change that my submission relates to are

^//^ ^.-o w ; s o J c / Rc "^f ^

TRIM No. 16/21718

jppo^ /seek amendment to the specific provision listed above, (delete what's not applicable)

My submission is

C>c/jc>/^ ^ ' ' ^ ^ c:>/c/1--' ^

My reasons are (attach additional pages if required)

State the decision you wish Council to make to ensure the issues you raise can be dealt with f/ e g/Ve

precise details of what you would like included or deleted from the plan)

.-e;7>,<C!'-~i,'=^''V^,

/o.^ o o .-1 cr-^j „ ^ .

I wish to be heard in support of my submiss ion Y e s • No

If others make a similar submiss ion , I will cons ider presenting a joint c a s e with them at a hear ing.

[ ^ Y e s • No

Signature of submitter or author ised agent A signature is not required if you make your submission by electronic means

Date

Note to person making submission - If you are making a submission to the Environmental Protection Authority, you should use form 16B. If you are a person who could gain an advantage in trade competition through the submission, your right to make a submission may be limited by clause 6 (4) of Part 1 of Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

TRIM No. 16/21718

1

Mail Room

From: Brian Wheeler [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2016 10:23 a.m.To: Mail RoomSubject: Emailing - PC94B-Interactive-Form-5 WHANgarei council.pdfAttachments: PC94B-Interactive-Form-5 WHANgarei council.pdf

We attach our objection to the proposed plan change.

Brian & Judith Wheeler

PC94B-100

!"#$%&'($)'*+,-'.'/0$1)$!&"'+234'.'5&6'7&$8$19':;'+*'3-+'3,++'.'+4++'/<='>5?@'.'+4++'*-,'3A-'.'?;'+*'3-4'BA-,'


!"#$%$&$'()#*++*!,$!,$-$./-,01$2"!2!+13$4!$4/1$5*+4"*.4$67-,$

'

@JJ"D&'KL&'

'

'

'

'

<ED'><' '

' '

MKNH"%%&!'1E' '

'

MKNH"LL"E1'1E' ''

67-,$8/-,019$ 68:;<$&$6-2-=>*,0-$

?77$.!""1+2!,31,.1$4!$4/1$6!7*.@$512-"4#1,4$$?44,9$A17*++-$A.B"-4/

'()#*++*!,+$#(+4$)1$"1.1*C13$)@9$$ !"#$%&'()'*%&'+,)-

(77$,-#1 '!"#$%# &'()* +"#$'",$

6!+4-7$-33"1++' '

$

$ '

D1712/!,1$,!$ '

E#-*7$ '

'



$' $9#&!L&8P'$JJ&D%L'%0&'&1#"!E1H&1%R'$19'


'-- .#"#+* /)#

D/1$+21.*F*.$2"!C*+*!,+$!F$4/1$67-,$8/-,01$4/-4$#@$+()#*++*!,$"17-41+$4!$-"1'

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

'

Brian & Judith Wheeler

14 Awanui Dve, Waikanae

04 2931129

[email protected]

We are totally against any change to the current district plan as set out in Plan change PC94B -Papakainga.

'''''

''

G !"##$%& $##$!' !''( -#1,3#1,4$4!$4/1$+21.*F*.$2"!C*+*!,$7*+413$-)!C1$S0#"#*# 12$*3% )/* $&&"(+$4"#5

A@$+()#*++*!,$*+$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

A@$"1-+!,+$-"1$6$**$+2 $00(*(/)$" &$7#% (8 '#9:('#05$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

'4-41$4/1$31.*+*!,$@!($H*+/$8!(,.*7$4!$#-=1$4!$1,+("1$4/1$*++(1+$@!($"-*+1$.-,$)1$31-74$H*4/$6(;#; 7(<#

&'#+(%# 0#*$("% /8 12$* ,/: 1/:"0 "(=# ()+":0#0 /' 0#"#*#0 8'/> *2# &"$)5'

$

$

$

$

$

$



'T&L' '5E'

''

' ' 'M")1$%K!&'EJ'LKNH"%%&!'E!'$K%0E!"L&9'$)&1%' ' <$%&'



We consider that there should be 1 law for all and not based on racial preferences.This is a dangerous move and highly divisive.If approved it would mean that the Maori party could cause usage problems to adjoining neighbors againstwhich there would be no redress.The issue of conflict of interest is a vital area and this is contrary to natural justice,

Delete the proposed plan change and do not proceed with it

B & J Wheeler 31/05/2016

original submissions 091 - 100 - whangarei · 2019-06-12 · from: ingrid visser...

Documents