before the whangarei district council hearings … › buildingandproperty › resourceconsents ›...

1

BEFORE THE WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL HEARINGS COMMISSIONER

In the Matter

of the Resource Management Act 1991

And

In the Matter

of an application before the WHANGAREI DISTRICT

HEARINGS COMMISSIONER to subdivide

NA50C/1469 into four allotments.

Statement of Evidence of Joseph Brady Henehan on behalf of

Philipp Kartheus

Reyburn & Bryant 1999 Ltd

Box 191

Whangarei

Ph: 09 438 3563 Fax: 09 4380251

[email protected]

2

Qualifications and experience

1. My full name is Joseph Brady Henehan. I am a planning consultant employed

by Reyburn and Bryant in Whangarei. I hold a Bachelor of Environmental

Planning from the University of Waikato specialising in public policy and the

environment. I am an intermediate member of the New Zealand Planning

Institute.

2. I have been practicing in Whangarei since February 2013. I spent one and a

half years processing resource consents at the Whangarei District Council,

and I have spent a further 4 years as a planning consultant in private practice.

My role since working in private practice has typically been to lead project

teams through various resource consent processes, and to provide

environmental and strategic planning advice for these projects. Through my

work with both the Whangarei District Council and in private practice, I am

very familiar with the district, regional and National planning documents that

are relevant to this application.

3. I am familiar with the area to which the subdivision relates. I have visited the

site in the last 6 months. My most recent site visit was undertaken on the 6

July 2018.

4. I have read the Environment Court witness code of conduct 2014 and agree

to be bound by its requirements. Any opinions expressed in this evidence are

my own and are not influenced by the client or their agents. This evidence is

within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the

evidence of another. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to

me that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express.

Scope of evidence

5. My evidence will cover the following matters:

1. Statutory context

2. The existing environment

3. The proposal

4. District Plan assessment

5. Effects on the environment

6. Regional Policy Statement assessment

3

7. New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement assessment

8. Assessment of Part 2 of the RMA

9. General comments in respect to the submissions received

10. Distinguishing characteristics (precedent and District Plan integrity)

11. Summary

Statutory context

Operative District Plan activity status

6. The property is zoned Coastal Countryside Environment in the Whangarei

District Plan. There is a Notable Landscape Area notation affecting a small

area of land along the north-western boundary of the site. The site is also

partially subject to an existing designation identified as DW 125 (airport flight

approach corridor).

7. As the subdivision results in allotments with an overall average net site area

of 4.44ha, the activity is a non-complying activity under Rule 73.3.1

“Allotment Area”.

Proposed District Plan activity status

8. Changes to the Whangarei District Plan were notified on the 10 August 2016.

These Plan Changes propose to rezone this property to a new zone titled the

Rural Countryside Environment (PC85A). The site is also proposed to be

located in the Coastal Area (PC87), and partially in the Outstanding Natural

Landscape and the High Natural Character Area (PC114). The latter two

notations only affect a small area of bush in the west of the site (shown as

Area ‘I’ on the scheme plan).

9. This application was formally received by the WDC on the 16 December

2018, prior to the decision on these plan changes being released.

Consequentially, the application does not obtain an activity status under these

provisions.

10. Nonetheless, an assessment to determine the activity status that this

subdivision would have under the proposed plan provisions has been made.

Overall, the subdivision would be a non-complying activity under the

provisions of PC85A (Rule RCE.3.1.2).

4

Resource Management Act, 1991

11. All resource consent applications are subject to the Part 2 of the RMA. The

proposal will be assessed in terms of the Part 2 matters later in my evidence.

12. Subject to Part 2, Section 104 of the Act sets out the matters that a consent

authority should “have regard to” when considering an application(s) for

resource consent.

104 Consideration of applications

(1) When considering an application for a resource consent and any submissions received,

the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to–

(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:

(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.

(2) When forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a consent authority may

disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if a national environmental

standard or the plan permits an activity with that effect.

13. Section 104B sets out specific requirements for the determination of

discretionary or non-complying activities.

104B Determination of applications for discretionary or non-complying activities

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.

14. The requirements of Section 104(1), most notably the environmental effects

and the provisions of the relevant planning instruments are the focus of

remainder of this evidence.

15. Section 104D of the Act identifies particular restrictions for non-complying

activities. Specifically the consent authority must only grant approval for a

non-complying activity (in this case the subdivision) if it is satisfied that either:

5

(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.

16. The relevant matters under s104D and s104(1) (most notably environmental

effects, and the provisions of relevant planning instruments) are addressed in

the remainder of my evidence.

The existing (surrounding) environment

Address and location

17. The site is located at 333 Whangarei Heads Road, Waikaraka. The site is

comprised of three separate parcels legally described as Allotment 15, 42 and

43 PSH of Owhiwa. These parcels are held under a single certificate of title

referenced NA50C/1469. The site has a total net site area of 18.0692ha.

Topography

18. The site is located within an enclosed valley, which is entirely screened from

neighbouring sites to the north and south. The narrow and steep nature of this

valley is demonstrated on the aerial photograph attached in Exhibit 2 and

contextual plan attached in Exhibit 3.

19. Much of the site is elevated above road level (including the proposed building

sites).

Access

20. Vehicle access to the property is provided via an existing metal crossing

extending directly from Whangarei Heads Road located in the adjacent paper

road to the east. This crossing links with a network of tracks that facilitate

access throughout the property.

21. Vehicle access has already been established to the building site on Lot 1.

6

Archaeological features

22. The Tamaterau Pa is positioned in the northern corner of the site. This pa is

clearly visible from surrounding areas, with terraces and other earthworks

visible on its slopes. This feature is identified on the scheme plan attached in

Exhibit 1.

23. Other archaeological features are present in the site and surrounding area.

Geometria have confirmed that the proposed subdivision will not affect these

features (see their report attached in Appendix 2 of the Council’s s42A

report).

Surrounding environment/cadastral pattern

24. The site is located within a cluster of rural-residential lots located in close

proximity to the small coastal settlement of Waikaraka. The closest dwelling in

Waikaraka is located approximately 200m from the site. The Onerahi

shopping centre is only a 5 minute drive (approx.) west from the site.

25. Dwellings within immediately adjacent properties take advantage of views that

are orientated away from the subject site. The dwelling within the property to

the south west (Allotment 44 PSH of Owhiwa) is entirely screened from the

subject site. The dwelling within the property to the south east (Lot 1 DP

47160) only obtains limited views over the southern part of the site. This

dwelling is orientated to the south across the Whangarei Harbour.

[Refer to the contextual plan – Exhibit 3]

Current ecological values of the site

26. As a result of the steep contour of the land, the site is not conducive to being

used for primary production land use activities. Despite this, the site has

historically been used for production purposes (prior to the commencement of

my clients tenure in 2012), resulting in the ecological values of the site

becoming largely compromised.

27. Furthermore, given the difficult topographical nature of the site, it has not

historically been well maintained. The site contains various weeds and does

not display vegetation patterns similar to those on neighbouring allotments.

7

There is no current requirement to rehabilitate the vegetation on the site, to

restrict grazing, or to undertake active vegetation management.

28. A stream passes though the site at the valley floor. The stream currently

collects sediments eroded from the adjacent steep slopes, and discharges

them into the upper reaches of the Whangarei Harbour. The Northland

Regional Council (NRC) Whangarei Harbour Catchment Management Plan

(WHCMP) identifies this site as being part of an area in the upper Whangarei

Harbour that has a high risk of depositing sediments into the harbour. This

plan also identifies the site as being located within one of three long-term

“mud sinks” east of the Onerahi Peninsula.

[Refer Page 19 of the WHCMP – Exhibit 9]

29. As the stream is not currently fenced, it is also subject to bacterial influx

resulting from ongoing stock access.

30. The applicant has previously had discussions with Lorna Douglas of the NRC

regarding the productive values of the subject site and its effects on soil

conservation and water quality. This correspondence is attached in Exhibit

10.

The proposal

31. The process that has been followed in arriving at the current design and

proposal has involved several adjustments in response to landscape,

engineering and planning advice, and following the receipt of submissions.

[Refer Scheme Plan in Exhibit 1]

32. The key components of the application, including proposed mitigation and

enhancement measures that are not typically required by the rules in the

District Plan, are as follows:

a. There will be four allotments created.

b. A restriction on large scale grazing is proposed. Any grazing will be limited

to small scale grazing for lifestyle purposes only. Grazing will not be

undertaken on the sites for profit.

c. Permanent protection of a clearly defined area around the Tamaterau Pa.

This is proposed in response to consultation that has been undertaken

8

with the local tangata whenua Ngatiwai [consultation attached in Exhibit

8].

d. Simon Cocker Landscape Architecture (SCLA) have recommended that

design controls for future dwellings are imposed on the new titles as

consent notice to ensure that they are well integrated into the surrounding

environment. These design controls are contained in Appendix 2 of the

SCLA report (attached in Appendix 2 of the Council’s s42A report). The

controls include:

i. Restriction on maximum height of buildings of 5m on Lots 1, 2 and 3,

and 7m for Lot 4

ii. Restriction on reflectively of exterior colours of 30% LRV for walls and

20% LRV for roofs.

iii. Restriction on width of eaves to no wider than 600mm.

iv. Restriction on mirrored glazing.

v. Retaining wall height restriction of 1.5m, and a colour restriction.

vi. Driveway and manoeuvring area colour restrictions.

These controls will be registered on the titles in the form of a consent

notice.

e. Restrictive build areas (being areas E – H) are shown on the scheme plan

in Exhibit 1. Buildings on the proposed allotments are proposed to be

restricted to these areas by way of land covenants which will be registered

prior to the issuing of s224(c) certification.

f. SCLA have recommended mitigation planting/managed rehabilitation (to

be initiated pre 224(c)) for the purposes of integrating the future buildings

into the subject environment and to enhance the compromised landscape

patterns within the site. The proposed planting is shown in figures 4b and

4c of the SCLA report.

g. Native vegetation covering approximately 4055m2 which contributes to the

distinctive characteristic of this locality is to be protected and enhanced by

way of a conservation covenant (shown as area ‘I’ on Lot 2).

h. Prohibition of cats and dogs on the site.

9

Submissions received

33. During notification, submissions were subsequently received from the

following parties1:

• Volker Kartheus and Julia Mayenfels – Support/not heard

• Ken and Hala Marsh – Oppose/heard

• Heritage New Zealand – Neutral/not heard

• Northland DHB – Neutral/heard

• Richard and Wendy Borland – Support/not heard

34. The matters raised by the submitters will be addressed later in my evidence.

Key differences between this evidence and Council’s processing planner’s

evidence

35. The Council’s s42A report contends that the subdivision:

a) Will result in effects that are more than minor.

b) Is contrary to the objectives and policies of both the Operative and the

Proposed WDP.

c) Does not display distinguishing features that would ensure that it could not

be replicated on other properties. In particular, Council’s processing

Planner contends that the directly adjacent title (referenced NA93D/165)

displays similar characteristics to the subject site.

36. I disagree with all of these assertions for the reasons outlined in the

remainder of this evidence.

Avoidance and Mitigation of Effects on the Environment

Positive effects

Ecology

37. The site is entirely contained within a narrow gully with very steep contours on

either side of a small stream. Historically, the site has been used for grazing

purposes. This has resulted in adverse ecological effects being generated on

the site and surrounding environment, particularly with respect to water

1 Refer table 2 of Council’s section 42A report.

10

quality and soil conservation. In my view, the proposed subdivision presents

an opportunity to provide for the rehabilitation and betterment of the site,

through the implementation of a suite of mitigation and enhancement

measures.

38. Assuming ongoing implementation and compliance with appropriate

conditions of consent, in my opinion, the proposed subdivision will result in

positive ecological effects.

Historical and Cultural

39. The Ngatiwai Trust Board have been consulted regarding the proposed

subdivision, and they have provided recommendations in a letter which is

attached in Exhibit 6. Ngatiwai have requested that the Tamaterau Pa on the

site is protected by way of a land covenant. Ngatiwai have provided a map

which shows the extent of the Pa. The land covenant shown on the scheme

plan [Exhibit 1] conforms with this recommendation.

40. There are varying views as to the physical extent of the Pa within this

subdivision. Archaeologists Leigh Johnson and Elizabeth Callaghan in their

report from May 2006 defined the Pa in their drawings and commentary as

being limited to the physically visible Pa structure

[refer page 11 in the report – Exhibit 8]

41. This area only covers around 1/3 of the area proposed by Ngatiwai. The

subdivision proposes to protect the larger area (in accordance with what was

proposed by Ngatiwai) and, therefore, would form a unique pillar in the

protection of a historic site.

42. The permanent protection of a clearly defined area around this Pa site will

result in positive effects from an historical/cultural perspective.

Landscape values

43. The landscape and visual effects of the proposed subdivision have been

assessed by Simon Cocker of SCLA. Mr Cocker prepared a report containing

recommendations for mitigation/enhancement measures designed to ensure

that the effects of the subdivision are minimised so that they are less than

minor overall (and positive relative to the existing environment). The proposed

mitigation and enhancement measures will ensure that the additional

11

buildings facilitated by the subdivision will be well integrated into the

surrounding landscape.

44. The subdivision is neither sprawling nor sporadic because it is located within

a discrete and contained landscape contained and defined by strong

geological features. The proposal reinforces and consolidates existing

landscape and development patterns in this locality.

45. The site is located within an enclosed valley, which is screened from

neighbouring sites to the north and south and from Whangarei Heads Road.

The proposed building sites (in particular the sites on Lots 2, 3 and 4) are not

visible from these locations. The narrow and steep nature of this valley is

demonstrated on the attached aerial photograph and contextual plan

[Exhibits 2 and 3].

46. Taking into account the above matters (and the conclusions of Mr Cocker of

SCLA), in my opinion the landscape and visual effects associated with the

proposed subdivision will be less than minor in respect to the facilitation of

additional dwellings, and positive in respect to rehabilitation and betterment.

Potential effects on amenity values

47. In regard to amenity values, the RMA defines them as:

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.

48. Amenity values are inherently subjective, because they involve individual

perceptions and expectations.

49. In my experience, the things that have the greatest impact on a person’s

appreciation of an areas pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and

recreational attributes are those that can be seen (visual effects), and those

that affect privacy.

50. I have considered the proposed subdivision against the aforementioned

characteristics. In my opinion, dwellings within immediately adjacent

properties take advantage of views that are orientated away from the subject

site [as demonstrated on the attached contextual plan in Exhibit 3].

12

51. With respect to the submission received from Ken and Hala Marsh (owners of

Lot 1 DP 47160), this submission raises concerns with respect to privacy,

rural lifestyle, and the general outlook of the property. I consider that these

concerns broadly fall within the umbrella of what can considered to be ‘rural

amenity’.

52. With respect to these concerns, it is noted that the primary focus of views

from the elevated dwelling within Lot 1 DP 47160 is to the south. The roof of

the dwelling within this allotment is visible from the proposed Lot 1 building

site. The dwelling within Lot 1 DP 47160 has the potential to acheive views

from the rear of the dwelling to the future building within Lot 1 at a separation

distance of 200 metres (albeit obscureded by vegetation). Given that this is

not a main focus of views from the primary living areas of the dwelling within

Lot 1 DP 47160, and because the proposed dwelling within Lot 1 will be

approximately 200 metres from this neighbour, the potential adverse visual

and visual amenity effects of the proposal as experienced by this will be less

than minor in my opinion. The design controls, combined with the

rehabilitation planting proposed by SCLA, will further assist in the avoidance

of effects on this party.

53. Mr Cocker states in the landscape assessment report that the site is seen as

part of a coastal landform continuum which forms a backdrop to the Harbour.

Because the site is contained within a narrow gully, the opportunity for direct

views of the entire site from neighbouring or nearby properties is not possible,

and although the southern part of the site (the gully mouth) is more visible, it

is always seen as part of the wider backdrop of hills.

54. In my opinion, the level of rural amenity on this site is lower than the rural

amenity present on other allotments in the vicinity of the site. The land on the

subject site is steep, and largely unsuitable for grazing. The front portion of

the site (as depicted on the scheme plan) is subject to a Whangarei Airport

flight approach path corridor designation (DW125). The rural amenity of land

within this corridor is affected by planes constantly flying over the section at

low levels.

55. In my opinion, the mitigation measures proposed by SCLA and the proposed

bush protection and enhancement planting/managed revegetation will ensure

that the amenity values associated with this significantly modified

13

environment are enhanced, and that the adverse effects on rural amenity are

less than minor.

56. Having considered the opinions of Mr Cocker, and the general rehabilitation

and betterment associated with the proposal, in my opinion, the effects on the

amenity values and the character of the environment will be less than minor.

Cumulative Effects

57. There will not be adverse cumulative effects arising from the subdivision

because the ‘existing environment’ has the capacity to accommodate

(absorb) additional built form, and because the subdivision design will

improve landscape/ecological patterns in the existing environment. As stated

earlier, the site is seen as part of a wider network of hills that form a backdrop

to the Harbour. While the presence of built development on these hills is not

unusual, the location of the site in a narrow gully, presents direct views of the

site. Although the southern part of the site (the narrow gully mouth) is more

widely visible, it is always seen as part of the wider backdrop of hills. The

proposed mitigation and enhancement measures will ensure that the

additional development facilitated by this subdivision will not tip the balance of

development in this area and will not result in cumulative effects.

Overall Effects

58. In my opinion, the effects on the environment will be no more than minor, and

consequently the proposal passes the gateway test in Section 104D(1)(a) of

the Act.

District Plan Assessment

Introduction/plan weighting

59. The application that has been lodged with Council is currently subject to two

versions of the District Plan, being the Operative Whangarei District Plan

(WDP), and the provisions proposed under Plan Changes 85A, 87 and 114.

60. The Operative WDP is an effects based plan. As a result, unlike some other

district plans, the objectives and policies are not zone specific. Rather they

are topic specific (i.e. amenity, subdivision and development, landscape etc).

The Operative WDP was made operative on the 3 May 2007, and therefore it

14

was not prepared under the currently Operative Regional Policy Statement for

Northland (RPS) or the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS).

Consequently, these higher order documents have particular relevance to the

proposed subdivision.

61. As addressed earlier, the WDC are currently progressing a set of rural

environment (PC85A–D, PC86A–B) and landscape area plan changes

(PC87, 102 and 114) through the relevant statutory process set out in the

First Schedule of the RMA. WDC released their decisions on the plan

changes in January 2018, and the appeal period ended on 23 March 2018.

62. The proposed provisions of PC85A and PC87 are more prescriptive than the

Operative WDP, particularly with respect to what is considered to be

appropriate subdivision in rural in coastal areas.

63. Both versions of the Whangarei District Plan contain environmental benefit

provisions. The Operative WDP does not contain incentives for rehabilitation

planting, or archaeological feature protection. While the provisions for PC85A

also do not contain these incentives, the environmental benefit provisions are

currently subject to an appeal lodged by Mr Dennis Scott (Exhibit 7). This

appeal seeks the introduction of a number of provisions which would allow for

environmental benefit subdivisions where the proactive enhancement,

regeneration, rehabilitation and protection of the following features is

proposed:

• Steep, unstable and erosion prone and/or eroding slopes

• Existing indigenous bush patches

• River, stream, estuary and wetland margins

• Wetland recovery areas, and

• Coastal and estuarine margins

• Heritage sites (natural and archaeological sites and areas)

64. As I will cover later in my evidence, this approach aligns with objectives and

policies in the NZCPS, the RPS, and the Operative WDP.

65. The Kartheus application actively seeks to retire this steep, unstable and

erosion prone land from grazing, and to undertake significant rehabilitation

planting and managed revegetation. In doing so, this will inevitably improve

the quality of the stream within the site which currently discharges into the

15

Whangarei Harbour. The application also offers permanent protection for an

important archaeological feature (the Tamaterau Pa). These aspects of the

application generally align with what is sought under Mr Scott’s appeal.

66. If this appeal is successful, the proposed subdivision will directly align with the

objectives, policies and rules of the WDP, the objectives and policies of the

RPS and NZPS that relate to landscape and ecological protection,

rehabilitation and general betterment.

67. In my opinion, the clear policy support for landscape ecological protection,

rehabilitation and betterment in the proposed WDP and RPS mean that the

proposed objectives and policies should be given considerable weight in the

decision making process.

How the proposal aligns with the outcomes sought by the objectives

and policies of the Whangarei District Plan

68. The District Plan has 24 policy chapters. In my opinion, the chapters that

contain objectives and policies of particular relevance to the proposed

subdivision are Chapter 5 ‘Amenity Values’, Chapter 8 ‘Subdivision and

Development’, Chapter 16 ‘Landscapes’ and Chapter 17 ‘Indigenous

Vegetation and Habitat’.

69. Dealing firstly with Chapter 17 ‘Indigenous Vegetation and Habitat’, this

chapter provides for the subdivision of land, in cases where there

enhancement/rehabilitation planting is undertaken:

17.4.3 Enhancement To promote the enhancement of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna that have been, or may be, degraded by inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

70. The above policy seeks rehabilitation and enhancement of areas of significant

indigenous vegetation that have been degraded by inappropriate subdivision

use and development.

71. This particular site is not conducive to primary production land use activities.

Despite this, it has historically been used for productive purposes. This

inappropriate use (not by the current owner) has resulted in a reduction of the

ecological qualities of the site. The application proposes to introduce a suite

of enhancement measures aimed at restoring the ecological qualities of the

site that have previously been compromised through ongoing primary

16

productive land use activities. This proposal therefore directly provides for the

enhancement outcomes sought by this objective.

17.4.4 Effects To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of land use activities on areas of indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, including areas of value to tangata whenua, as determined by Schedule 17A, so as to maintain its ecological values.

72. The subject site has been exposed to inappropriate land use activities in the

form of productive farming, which has (over time) resulted in significant

adverse effects on the site. In my opinion, the subdivision responds directly to

Policy 17.4.4 by proposing to rehabilitate the site and remedy existing

adverse effects resulting from historical land use patterns.

73. With respect to Chapter 16 ‘Landscapes’, the most relevant provision is as

follows:

16.4.11 Rehabilitation To encourage the rehabilitation of landscapes ensuring the remediation of the adverse effects of inappropriate land use activities. Development proposals that provide for the enhancement and rehabilitation of previously compromised landscapes may receive recognition for the positive effects provided.

74. The proposed subdivision directly responds to and achieves the outcomes

sought by this policy. It will result in betterment (positive effects) through the

rehabilitation of a degraded landscape.

75. Within Chapter 5 ‘Amenity’, the key objectives and policies that I consider

relevant to the proposed subdivision are identified as follows:

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

76. In my opinion, because the amenity values of the Coastal Countryside

Environment (zone) vary markedly across the district, assessing this objective

requires a specific analysis of the particular environment in which the site is

located.

77. As I have identified in earlier sections of this evidence, the surrounding area is

a highly modified environment as a result of historic subdivision and land use

patterns. While there are also a number of natural elements, including native

vegetation and landform, these elements are interspersed with residential

units. Some of these buildings are integrated into the landscape, while others

are not.

17

78. Based on the expert opinion of Mr Cocker, the proposed subdivision will

achieve the outcomes sought by this objective because it will maintain the

existing amenity values of the environment in this locality, primarily through

the implementation of mitigation and enhancement measures.

79. Furthermore, the subdivision will result in an overall density and pattern of

development that is consistent with the density and pattern of development in

the vicinity, and (importantly) because the site and the surrounding

environment has the capacity to absorb existing and additional built form.

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.

80. This policy seeks to protect amenity values and the natural character in

Coastal Countryside Environments from subdivision that is sporadic or

otherwise inappropriate in character, intensity, scale or location.

81. In my opinion, the key aspect of this policy is whether the proposed

subdivision will protect the amenity values and the natural character of this

particular part of the Coastal Countryside Environment. For reasons outlined

earlier in this evidence (including the existing character of the area, the visual

absorption capacity of the site and its surrounds, and the intensity of rural

residential development in the area), in my opinion the subdivision will not

compromise (in fact will improve) amenity values in this location. To this end,

it is consistent with the outcomes sought for the Coastal Countryside

Environment.

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.

82. For reasons outlined in other parts of my evidence, when considered in

combination with existing development I consider that the proposed

subdivision will not compromise (and is in fact consistent with) the district plan

objectives and policies, including those relating to reverse sensitivity, the

consolidated and orderly development of land, or the density of development.

To this end, the cumulative effects of the subdivision can be mitigated to the

extent that they do not compromise the objectives and policies of this Plan.

18

8.4.7 Design and Location

To ensure subdivision and development is designed and located so as to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on, and where appropriate, enhance:

• Natural character of the coastal environment, indigenous wetlands, lakes and rivers and their margins;

• Landscape values;

• Ecological values;

• Amenity values and sense of place;

• Archaeological, cultural (including tangata whenua) and heritage features;

• Sites of Significance to Maori;

• Heritage areas of significance to Maori;

• The relationship of tangata whenua and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga;

• Infrastructure, particularly roads and the Airport;

• Water and soil quality;

• Versatile soils;

• Mineral resources;

• Business growth and development opportunities within defined Business Environments;

• Cross boundary coordination;

• Human health and safety.

8.4.23 Design and Location

To ensure that subdivision and development does not detract from, or compromise, identified

landscape features (including the natural character of the feature(s) when viewed from the

sea), or significant ecological features identified in the Plan or through assessment against

Appendix 3 of the Regional Policy Statement.

83. There are two policies that deal with the design and location of subdivision

and development. The first, Policy 8.4.7, seeks to ensure that subdivisions

are designed and located to avoid, remedy or mitigate effects on a range of

matters, the most relevant to the proposed subdivision being natural

character, landscape and amenity values. The second, Policy 8.4.23, refers to

identified landscape features, and features identified for their natural

character or ecological value in either the District Plan or the Regional Policy

Statement.

84. As previously covered elsewhere in this evidence, rehabilitation planting and

managed revegetation planting is proposed. This rehabilitation is proposed to

enhance the previously compromised ecological values of the site and to

further restrict/prevent views of building sites. To this end, the proposed

subdivision is located and designed to achieve the outcomes sought by these

policies.

19

Summary

85. The subdivision is not contrary to the objectives and policies of the District

Plan, and in fact it is entirely consistent with the outcomes sought by these

provisions. The subdivision will ultimately provide for the ‘betterment’ of the

site, and the outcomes of the objectives and policies will be achieved to a

greater extent than if the site were to continue to be used for productive

purposes. Accordingly, the activity passes the second of the ‘gateway test’ in

section 104D(1)(b) of the RMA, 1991.

Relevance and Analysis of Plan Change 85 – Rural Plan Change and

Plan Change 87 Coastal Area

86. Many of the provisions within the RCE chapter proposed under PC85A

generally do not support of rural residential subdivision. However, there is a

body of provisions that encourage subdivision where there is associated

landscape and ecological protection, rehabilitation and betterment. These

provisions are:

[Underlining is my emphasis]

RCE.1.2.5 - Minimise the fragmentation of rural land and promote allotment sizes that facilitate

rural production activities other than to protect significant ecological and biodiversity values.

RCE.1.3.2 - To protect significant ecological and biodiversity values by enabling subdivision

where those values are protected.

RCE.1.3.10 - To locate and design subdivision and associated land development to avoid

urban form and character, maintain rural character and amenity values and protect and

enhance environmental features by:

a. Designing subdivisions to respond to the topography and characteristics of the land being

developed.

b. Identifying building platforms that respond to site topography and environmental

characteristics.

c. Locating access ways, services, utilities and building platforms where these can be provided

without the need for significant earthworks, retaining, benching or site contouring.

d. Locating access ways, services, utilities and building platforms where the location is

sensitive to and responds to environmental features of the site.

e. Ensuring that the subdivision will not create reverse sensitivity effects with respect to existing

lawfully established activities.

RCE.1.3.12 - To design subdivision and development to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse

effects to ensure that subdivision and development is compatible with the Coastal Area.

20

RCE.1.3.12 - To provide for environmental benefit lot subdivisions by considering sites with

significant indigenous vegetation or significant indigenous habitat where the features:

a. Are assessed to be an acceptable quality by a qualified and experienced ecologist;

b. Are predominantly indigenous vegetation;

c. Are a threatened or rare habitat type or contain indigenous or endemic taxa that are

threatened or are rare in Northland;

d. Contribute to ecological connectivity within the District; and

e. Are either:

i. Indigenous vegetation with a minimum size of 1ha and minimum width of 50m; or ii.

Located in a LENZ Acutely or Chronically Threatened Environment; or

iii. An intact and functioning indigenous wetland.

RCE.1.3.13 - To design environmental benefit lot subdivision in a manner that ensures:

a. All of the significant indigenous vegetation or significant indigenous habitat on the site are

protected in perpetuity as part of the subdivision.

b. Subdivision boundaries are laid out in such a way that policy RCE.1.3.10 is clearly met.

87. The proposed subdivision responds directly to these provisions by proposing

to restore this compromised landscape, through the implementation of:

• A restriction on large scale grazing

• Rehabilitation planting

• Managed revegetation

• Formal bush protection (within Lot 2)

• Predator controls (no cats, dogs and mustelids condition)

There is no current restriction on productive activities, meaning that, if the

subdivision is not approved, the site will likely continue to be used for

inappropriate productive land uses, contrary to the outcomes sought by the

above objectives and policies of the Proposed WDP.

88. In my opinion, the proposed subdivision is well supported by the protection,

rehabilitation, and betterment provisions of the Proposed WDP.

89. It is considered that overall, the proposal is not contrary to the provisions of

PC85A, and consequently the proposal passes the gateway test in Section

104D(1)(b) of the Act.

Regional Policy Statement for Northland (RPS)

90. The RPS became operative on the 9 May 2016. The provisions of the

document have overarching, high level relevance to the proposed subdivision.

21

91. Because the RPS is a high level policy document, the provisions are broad in

scope and application. The RPS has a strong focus on encouraging the

protection and rehabilitation of land and enhancing ecological values. The

suite of RPS provisions encouraging land rehabilitation and betterment are as

follows:


Objective 3.4 Indigenous ecosystems and biodiversity

Safeguard Northland’s ecological integrity by:

a) Protecting areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous

fauna;

b) Maintaining the extent and diversity of indigenous ecosystems and habitats in the region;

and

c) Where practicable, enhancing indigenous ecosystems and habitats, particularly where this

contributes to the reduction in the overall threat status of regionally and nationally

threatened species.

Objective 3.15 Active management

Maintain and / or improve;

(a) The natural character of the coastal environment and fresh water bodies and their margins;

(b) Outstanding natural features and outstanding natural landscapes;

(c) Historic heritage;

(d) Areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna

(including those within estuaries and harbours);

(e) Public access to the coast; and

(f) Fresh and coastal water quality by supporting, enabling and positively recognising active

management arising from the efforts of landowners, individuals, iwi, hapū and community

groups.

Policy 4.4.1– Maintaining and protecting significant ecological areas and habitats

(1) In the coastal environment, avoid adverse effects, and outside the coastal environment

avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of subdivision, use and development so they are

no more than minor on:

(a) Indigenous taxa that are listed as threatened or at risk in the New Zealand Threat

Classification System lists;

(b) Areas of indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna, that are significant

using the assessment criteria in Appendix 5;

(c) Areas set aside for full or partial protection of indigenous biodiversity under other

legislation.

(2) In the coastal environment, avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy, or mitigate

other adverse effects of subdivision, use and development on:

(a) Areas of predominantly indigenous vegetation;

22

(b) Habitats of indigenous species that are important for recreational, commercial,

traditional or cultural purposes;

(c) Indigenous ecosystems and habitats that are particularly vulnerable to modification,

including estuaries, lagoons, coastal wetlands, dunelands, intertidal zones, rocky reef

systems, eelgrass, northern wet heathlands, coastal and headwater streams,

floodplains, margins of the coastal marine area and freshwater bodies, spawning and

nursery areas and saltmarsh.

(4) For the purposes of clause (1), (2) and (3), when considering whether there are any

adverse effects and/or any significant adverse effects:

(a) Recognise that a minor or transitory effect may not be an adverse effect;

(b) Recognise that where the effects are or maybe irreversible, then they are likely to be

more than minor;

(c) Recognise that there may be more than minor cumulative effects from minor or

transitory effects

Policy 4.4.2– Supporting restoration and enhancement

Support voluntary efforts of landowners and community groups, iwi and hapū, to achieve

Objective 3.15.

Policy 4.7.1– Promote active management

In plan provisions and the resource consent process, recognise and promote the positive

effects of the following activities that contribute to active management:

a) Pest control, particularly where it will complement an existing pest control project /

programme;

b) Soil conservation / erosion control;

c) Measures to improve water quality in parts of the coastal marine area where it has

deteriorated and is having significant adverse effects, or in freshwater bodies targeted for -

water quality enhancement;

d) Measures to improve flows and / or levels in over allocated freshwater bodies;

e) Re-vegetation with indigenous species, particularly in areas identified for natural character

improvement;

f) Maintenance of historic heritage resources (including sites, buildings and structures);

g) Improvement of public access to and along the coastal marine area or the margins of rivers

or lakes except where this would compromise the conservation of historic heritage or

significant indigenous vegetation and/or significant habitats of indigenous fauna;

h) Exclusion of stock from waterways and areas of significant indigenous vegetation and / or

significant habitats of indigenous fauna;

i) Protection of indigenous biodiversity values identified under Policy 4.4.1, outstanding natural

character, outstanding natural landscapes or outstanding natural features either through

legal means or physical works;

j) Removal of redundant or unwanted structures and / or buildings except where these are of

historic heritage value or where removal reduces public access to and along the coast or

lakes and rivers;

23

k) Restoration or creation of natural habitat and processes, including ecological corridors in

association with indigenous biodiversity values identified under Policy 4.4.1, particularly

wetlands and / or wetland sequences;

l) Restoration of natural processes in marine and freshwater habitats.

Policy 4.7.2 – Supporting landowner and community efforts

Support landowners, iwi, hapū, and community efforts to actively manage or improve key

aspects of the environment especially where there is willing collaboration between participants

and those efforts are directed at one or more of the activities in Policy 4.7.1.

4.7.3 Policy – Improving natural character

Except where in conflict with established uses promote rehabilitation and restoration of natural

character in the manner described in Policy 4.7.1 in the following areas:

(a) Wetlands, rivers, lakes, estuaries, and their margins;

(b) Undeveloped or largely undeveloped natural landforms between settlements, such as

coastal headlands, peninsulas, ridgelines, dune systems;

(c) Areas of high natural character;

(d) Land adjacent to outstanding natural character areas, outstanding natural features, and

outstanding natural landscapes;

(e) Remnants of indigenous coastal vegetation particularly where these are adjacent to water

or can be linked to establish or enhance ecological corridors; and

(f) The areas or values identified in Policy 4.4.1 (protecting significant areas and species).

92. The proposal provides an opportunity to undertake active management and

enhancement of previously compromised ecological patterns and features.

The proposed enhancement measures are considered to be vital for the

betterment of the site and the existing environment. The proposal will

enhance indigenous ecosystems and habitats and will improve the natural

character of the coastal environment and fresh water bodies and their

margins.

93. The proposal promotes rehabilitation and restoration of natural character in

the following areas:

• Wetlands, rivers, lakes, estuaries, and their margins;

• Undeveloped or largely undeveloped natural landforms between

settlements, such as coastal headlands, peninsulas, ridgelines, dune

systems;

• Areas of high natural character;

• Land adjacent to outstanding natural character areas, outstanding natural

features, and outstanding natural landscapes;

24

• Remnants of indigenous coastal vegetation particularly where these are

adjacent to water or can be linked to establish or enhance ecological

corridors.

94. The proposal therefore, directly achieves the outcomes sought by the above

provisions.

95. Policy 3.5 seeks to enable economic wellbeing through the sustainable

management of resources:

3.5 Enabling economic wellbeing

Northland’s natural and physical resources are sustainably managed in a way that is attractive

for business and investment that will improve the economic wellbeing of Northland and its

communities.

96. The proposed subdivision achieves this by proposing to subdivide the site into

allotments of a small enough size that future land owners will not need to rely

on productive activities to cover basic costs.

97. Policy 4.2.1 seeks to improve water quality by reducing contaminants entering

water by promoting active management and enhancement of land, and the

revegetation of riparian margins:

4.2.1 Policy - Improving overall water quality

Improve the overall quality of Northland’s water resources by:

(a) Establishing freshwater objectives and setting region-wide water quality limits in regional

plans that give effect to Objective 3.2 of this regional policy statement.

(b) Reducing loads of sediment, nutrients, and faecal matter to water from the use and

development of land and from poorly treated and untreated discharges of wastewater; and

(c) Promoting and supporting the active management, enhancement and creation of vegetated

riparian margins and wetlands.

98. The proposed subdivision is consistent with this policy for the following

reasons:

• The proposed restriction on ongoing grazing on the site.

• The proposed active management and enhancement of vegetated

patterns within adjacent steep slopes, limiting run-off and dischare into

the harbour.

99. The proposed subdivision will also take place within the Coastal Environment

identified under the RPS. s Policy 5.1.2 relates to development in the coastal

environment and is as follows:

25

5.1.2 Policy – Development in the coastal environment

Enable people and communities to provide for their wellbeing through appropriate subdivision, use, and

development that:

(a) Consolidates urban development within or adjacent to existing coastal settlements and avoids sprawling

or sporadic patterns of development;

(b) Ensures sufficient development setbacks from the coastal marine area to;

(i) maintain and enhance public access, open space, and amenity values; and

(ii) allow for natural functioning of coastal processes and ecosystems;

(c) Takes into account the values of adjoining or adjacent land and established activities (both within the

coastal marine area and on land);

(d) Ensures adequate infrastructure services will be provided for the development; and

(e) Avoids adverse effects on access to, use and enjoyment of surf breaks of national significance for

surfing.

100. The site is located behind a well-established coastal settlement (Waikaraka)

that has a reasonably extensive history of rural residential subdivision. The

subdivision incorporates design controls, mitigation/rehabilitation planting and

build areas to ensure that any potential effects on the nearby coastal

environment are minimised. The subdivision will not obstruct public access to

the coast and will improve the natural functioning of coastal processes and

ecosystems. In my opinion, the proposal is in accordance with the provisions

of the Coastal Environment provided in the RPS.

101. I note that a small portion in the north of the site is located in an Outstanding

Natural Landscape and a High Natural Character Area identified under the

RPS. The portion of land subject to this overlay is occupied by native bush

which connects with neighbouring larger networks of vegetation on

neighbouring allotments. It is therefore proposed to covenant this bush so that

it is protected in perpetuity [shown as area ‘I’ on the scheme plan – Exhibit

1].

102. Overall, in my opinion, the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions

of the Regional Policy Statement for Northland.

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

103. The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (‘NZCPS’) is a national policy

statement prepared under the RMA. The purpose of the NZCPS is to state

policies in order to achieve the purpose of the Act in relation to the coastal

environment of New Zealand. The subject site is located within the Coastal

Environment as identified in the RPS. The NZCPS is therefore a relevant

matter for consideration under s104(1)(b)(iv) of the Act.

26

104. There are 7 objectives and 29 policies in the NZCPS. Those that are most

relevant to the proposed subdivision are as follows:


Objective 2

To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and protect natural features and

landscape values through:

• recognising the characteristics and qualities that contribute to natural character, natural

features and landscape values and their location and distribution;

• identifying those areas where various forms of subdivision, use, and development would be

inappropriate and protecting them from such activities; and encouraging restoration of the

coastal environment.

Objective 6

To enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing

and their health and safety, through subdivision, use, and development, recognising that:

• the protection of the values of the coastal environment does not preclude use and

development in appropriate places and forms, and within appropriate limits;

• some uses and developments which depend upon the use of natural and physical

resources in the coastal environment are important to the social, economic and cultural

wellbeing of people and communities;

• functionally some uses and developments can only be located on the coast or in the coastal

marine area;

• the coastal environment contains renewable energy resources of significant value;

• the protection of habitats of living marine resources contributes to the social, economic and

cultural wellbeing of people and communities;

• the potential to protect, use, and develop natural and physical resources in the coastal

marine area should not be compromised by activities on land;

• the proportion of the coastal marine area under any formal protection is small and therefore

management under the Act is an important means by which the natural

• resources of the coastal marine area can be protected; and

• historic heritage in the coastal environment is extensive but not fully known, and vulnerable

to loss or damage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development.

Policy 6 Activities in the coastal environment

(1) In relation to 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;

(h) consider how adverse visual impacts of development can be avoided in areas sensitive

to such effects, such as headlands and prominent ridgelines, and as far as practicable

and reasonable apply controls or conditions to avoid those effects;

Policy 13 Preservation of natural character

27

(1) To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and to protect it from

inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:

(a) avoid adverse effects of activities on natural character in areas of the coastal

environment with outstanding natural character; and

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

activities on natural character in all other areas of the coastal environment;

including by:

(c) assessing the natural character of the coastal environment of the region or district, by

mapping or otherwise identifying at least areas of high natural character; and

(d) ensuring that regional policy statements, and plans, identify areas where preserving

natural character requires objectives, policies and rules, and include those provisions.

105. The NZCPS recognises that development can be located in the coastal

environment, particularly where it does not compromise natural character and

landscape values, where restoration of the coastal environment is provided

for, and where historic heritage in the coastal environment is protected from

inappropriate use and development. In this respect, the subdivision has been

designed to ensure that its impact on the nearby coastal environment is

minimised through proposed proposed controls in build form (directly

responding to Policy 6(1)(h). The proposed allotments will be consolidated

within an area of existing development, therefore ensuring that there is no

adverse effect on the natural character of the coastal environment or on

ecosystems. The subdivision proposes managed restoration of previously

compromised ecological patterns through the imposition of bush covenant,

predator controls, rehabilitation planting, managed revegetation, and grazing

restrictions (directly responding to objective 2). The subdivision protects the

significant archaeological feature on the site through the proposed land

covenant to be registered over a significant archaeological feature (directly

responding to Objective 2).

106. Overall, in my opinion, the proposal aligns with the relevant objectives and

policies of the NZCPS.

Part 2 of the RMA

107. In making a decision on this subdivision under Section 104(1) of the Act, the

entire assessment is subject to Part 2 of the Act.

108. In my opinion, the proposed subdivision is consistent with s5(2), s6(a), 6(b),

s7(d), and s7(f) of the RMA, primarily because it proposes the enhancement

28

of key landscape and ecological elements, whilst avoiding, remedying, and

mitigating adverse effects on the environment.

109. The proposed mitigation measures (particularly controls on built form) will

ensure that the amenity values of the area are maintained and enhanced.

This is consistent with s7(c).

110. The proposal achieves s6(e), s6(f), 7(a) and s8 through the permanent

protection of a defined area around the Tamaterau Pa which is located on the

subject site.

111. In my opinion, the activity safeguards the wellbeing of future generations

through the facilitation of a more sustainable use of this land.

112. The land is not suitable for productive use. In my opinion, leaving it as it is will

not be sustainable in the long term. As long as the property is held in a single

title, grazing remains the most likely way to cover basic costs associated with

the property. In my opinion, the proposed four lot subdivision is the vehicle to

achieve betterment consistent with Part 2 of the Act.

113. Overall, I consider that the activity is consistent with the purpose of the act.

General comments in respect to the submissions received

114. I will briefly address both of the submissions received:

Ken and Hala Marsh

115. This party opposed the subdivision and requested to be heard.

116. Mr and Mrs Marsh’s concerns with respect to amenity effects of the

subdivision have been addressed in earlier in this evidence.

117. Mr and Mrs Marsh have raised concerns that the application lacked

information with respect to the detail on access to the property, changes to

the gate, letterboxes and the fate of the creek which crosses 335 Whangarei

Heads Road after 333 Whangarei Heads Road.

118. As detailed in the application, the access will be constructed in accordance

with the WDC Engineering Standards 2010. The design of the crossing will be

29

designed as part of the engineering plan process. The location of letterboxes

is not a matter that is relevant to this application for subdivision consent.

119. As I have addressed earlier in this evidence, many steps are being taken to

improve the quality of the existing stream running through the site. These

steps are unlikely to be implemented if the subdivision was to not go ahead.

120. Since notification, the applicant has tried on multiple occasions to engage in

discussions with Mr and Mrs Marsh to address the concerns raised in their

submission. My client remains fully open to amendments to the application

that will alleviate any residual concerns, following consideration of this

evidence.

Richard and Wendy Borland

121. This party supported the subdivision and made no request to be heard.

122. This submission requested consideration of a number of matters, including:

a. The introduction of a new bush covenant to the west of building site E as

shown on the scheme plan.

b. The on-going costs and maintenance of the existing stock fence on the

north western side of proposed Lot 2.

123. In response to the above submission, a new covenant is proposed to protect

the existing area of bush to the west of the building platform ‘E’ (shown as

area ‘I’ on the scheme plan). The proposed covenant is larger than that

requested by Mr and Mrs Borland.

124. With respect to any concerns regarding the shared cost of repair/maintenance

of a common boundary fence, this is a domestic matter that should be dealt

with outside of the subdivision process. No further consideration of this matter

is appropriate in this forum.

Volker Kartheus and Julia Mayenfels

125. This party supported the subdivision and made no request to be heard.

126. This submission supports the application, stating that it will reduce the

isolation of the submitter’s allotment, bringing them closer to other

30

infrastructure. The size and number of allotments will provide a number of

environmental benefits.

Heritage NZ

127. This party is neutral to the subdivision and has made no request to be heard.

128. This submitter has provided a copy of the accidental discovery protocol. As

previously confirmed within the original application lodged with Council, this

will be complied with on an ongoing basis.

Northland District Health Board (NDHB)

129. This party is neutral to the subdivision and has requested to be heard.

130. The comments received from the NDHB relate to water supply and

wastewater disposal.

131. Regarding water supply, NDHB contend that with climate change, drought

conditions (and low rainfall events) are more likely to increase. This could

lead to more landowners seeking to apply for resource consents to access

groundwater through boreholes. NDHB contend that the site should therefore

be connected to Council’s reticulated water supply. In my opinion, any

cumulative effects associated with a hypothetical application for groundwater

extraction should be considered at the time that the relevant resource consent

is applied for. No further consideration of this matter is necessary.

132. Furthermore, NDHB state that “there is no proposal for firefighting water

tanks”. This is incorrect. Section 3.10 of the original report states that “Fire-

fighting water supply will be provided at the building consent stage in

accordance with the New Zealand Fire Service firefighting water supplies

code of practice SNZ PAS 4509:2008”. A consent notice condition is expected

to be registered on each proposed title that will ensure that complience is

acheived at building consent stage.

133. Regarding wastewater disposal, the NDHB raise concernes about cumulative

effects. However, Hawthorn Geddes have confirmed that the proposed

wastewater systems will be designed to comply with the permitted activity

standards in both the Regional Water and Soil Plan, and the Proposed

31

Regional Plan. Neither of these documents require an assessment of

cumulative effects arising from permitted activities.

134. The NDHB also raise the issue of the need for regular maintenance of the

treatment systems, and that the systems be alarmed. To that end, most

modern wastewater systems (particularly secondary systems such as those

required here) are subject to a maintenance contract and they are alarmed.

Distinguishing characteristics (precedent and District Plan integrity)

135. Resource management caselaw has signalled that there is often a need for a

site and application to display distinguishing characteristics in order to justify

the approval of a non-complying activity. To this end, two aspects in particular

stand out:

a) Ecological values (particularly water quality for the Whangarei Harbour

and soil conservation) are best supported by the implementation of the

subdivision which will provide for the betterment of the existing

environment as a whole.

b) The clear definition of the protected area of the Tamaterau Pa.

Further distinguishing features (which have been addressed earlier in my

evidence) include:

c) The site is located within an enclosed valley, which is entirely screened

from neighbouring sites to the north and south.

d) The proposed building sites will be elevated above road level.

e) Dwellings within immediately adjacent properties take advantage of views

that are orientated away from the subject site. Visibility of the proposed

house sites are limited.

f) The site contains low levels of rural amenity and is in need of

rehabilitation.

136. These characteristics could not easily be replicated, both in this locality, and

elsewhere in the District. Accordingly, the proposal displays distinguishing

characteristics that set it apart from the generality of cases. Furthermore, the

ability to mitigate effects on the environment, and enhance compromised

ecological values of the site ensures that the integrity of the effects based

objectives and policies of the District Plan is not compromised.

32

137. As I have addressed earlier in this evidence, Mr Sasagi contends that the

directly adjacent title (referenced NA93D/165) displays similar characteristics

to the subject site. Mr Sasagi claims that the proposed subdivision may

“create a false expectation by the adjacent property owners that they can also

subdivide their land”.

138. Contrary to this, it is my opinion that there are in fact key differences between

these two sites.

• Firstly, the subject site is entirely enclosed within a narrow valley

(approximately 300m at its widest). Views into within this valley from

surrounding areas (and surrounding dwellings) are limited. NA93D/165 is

located on the western face of a much wider valley (approximately 600m at

its widest). Views into this valley are much more readily available from

surrounding areas.

• Secondly, the southern mouth of the wide valley that NA93D/165 is located

in is located at the northern end of the main residential area of Waikaraka.

This results in there being a significantly greater number of parties who

could potentially be affected by the proposal. In effect, the receiving

environment for any subdivision of NA93D/165 would contain greater

numbers of potentially affected parties than any subdivision of

NA50C/1469.

• There is an intensive livestock farming activity occurring on a co-owned

title referenced NA67C/758, which located directly to the south east of

NA93D/165. It is likely that access to allotments created through a

subdivision of NA67C/758 would likely need to be obtained past this

existing activity. This has the potential to result in reverse sensitivity

effects.

139. Notwithstanding the above points, if the commissioner was to agree with Mr

Sasagi’s opinion that the Kartheus subdivision could easily be replicated on

this neighbouring title, consideration should be given to the fact that a similar

subdivision of this title will result in multiple positive effects from an ecological

perspective (similar to those which have been assessed as part of this

application). This will effectively result in the regeneration of a ‘pocket’ of

degraded landscape located amongst a wider network of native vegetation

(which extends north towards Mt Tiger).

[refer aerial photographs in Exhibit 2]

33

Summary

140. Overall, it is my professional opinion that the subdivision passes both

gateway tests of section 104D of the RMA where:

• Effects will be no more than minor.

and;

• The activity is not contrary to the objectives and policies of the Operative

District Plan.

141. While the objectives and policies of Plan Change 85 are not yet operative, the

proposed subdivision achieves the outcomes sought in these provisions

(specifically protection and protection of a degraded landscape).

142. The proposal also displays distinguishing characteristics that set it apart from

the generality of cases. These features justify the approval of this non-

complying activity in this particular case.

143. A set of proposed conditions has been prepared and is included in Exhibit

11.

www.reyburnandbryant.co.nz

EXHIBIT 1

SCHEME PLAN

CFR

CFR

CFR

Pt Allotment 45PSH OF Owhiwa

Allotment 44PSH OF Owhiwa

Allotment 42

PSH OF Owhiwa

PT CFR:NA50C/1469

Allotment 43

PSH OF OwhiwaPT CFR:NA50C/1469

Lot 1



Lot 2DP 165799

Section 4SO 485665

PSH OF Owhiwa

PT CFR:NA50C/1469

Section 1SO 65504


DP 47160

26.3

Allotment 15

53.6(83.2)

33.3

29.5

LEGA

L ROAD

WHANGAREI HEADS ROAD

LEGA

L, UN

FORM

ED, 2

0.12 W

IDE

LEGAL, SEALED, IRREG WIDTH

4.4570 Ha

LOT 1

LOT 3

LOT 2

221.7

162.5

(384.2)

154.

6

163.2

LOT 4

(51.3)

302.

7

W

SS

SS200 AC (WATER MAIN)

250 PE-H (SS MAIN)

0 6060

METRES - 1:3000

132

.9

18.0

34.841.1

10.0

(2.9620 Ha)2.6795 Ha

2.8230 Ha

87.0

74.9

21.9

A

B

44.2

19.6

13.1

22.8

26.7

15.2

10.1

29

.1

16.326.5

17.9

(7.8272 Ha)7.8005Ha

DW 125 - AIRPORT FLIGHT

APPROACH PATH CORRIDOR46.1

(275

.2)

229.

7

45.5

C

H

F

E

G

D X

TAMATERAU PAA

I

NO.

DATE SCALE

Rev.

CLIENT

CAUTION:

TITLE

N

P & V KARTHEUSWHANGAREI HEADS ROAD,

ONERAHI

PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OFALLOTMENTS 15, 42 & 43

PSH OF OWHIWA

1. THIS DRAWING SHOULD NOT BE AMENDED MANUALLY.2. AREAS & DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT

TO FINAL SURVEY.3. THE VENDOR & PURCHASER MUST CONTACT THE SURVEYOR IF SALE

& PURCHASE AGREEMENTS ARE ENTERED INTO USING THIS PLAN.4. SERVICES MUST NOT BE POSITIONED USING THIS PLAN.5. DO NOT SCALE OFF DRAWINGS.6. THIS PLAN IS COPYRIGHT TO REYBURN & BRYANT (1999) LIMITED.7. DESIGNED BY REYBURN & BRYANT - WHANGAREI - NEW ZEALAND8. 04m 2014-2016 RURAL AERIAL SOURCED FROM AERIAL SURVEYS

LTD INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON LINZ DATA SERVICE.

Date Plotted: 6/07/2018 File Path: P:\14000 - 14999\14665 - Philipp Kartheus\Drawings\Scheme Plan\S14665 - Kartheus - E.dwg

JULY 2018 1:3000 @A3

ELOCAL AUTHORITY: WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL

TOTAL AREA: 18.0692 HaCOMPRISED IN: CFR NA50C/1469 (ALL)

DATEREV DESCRIPTION

THIS SITE IS ZONED ' COASTAL COUNTRYSIDE ' AND THE BUILDINGSETBACKS ARE THUS: 8m FROM ROAD BOUNDARIES, 3m FROM ALLOTHER BOUNDARIES.

03.08.17A FIRST ISSUE - CC

S14665 SHEET 1/1

LOW INSTABILITY

MODERATE INSTABILITY

HIGH INSTABILITY

PROPOSED EASEMENT SCHEDULESERV.TENE. DOM.TENE.

LOTS 2 - 4HEREON

LOT 1HEREON

SHOWNPURPOSE

A

LOT 3HEREON

LOT 4HEREON

RIGHT OF WAY B

NOTABLE LANDSCAPEAREA

27.09.17C AMENDMENTS - CC

LOT 2HEREON

LOT 1HEREONC

13.10.17D LAND COVENANTS - CC

PROPOSED LAND COVENANTS

UNDERLYING PARCEL AREASHOWN

LOT 4 HEREON 2.1270 HaD

LOT 2 HEREON 950 m²E

NO BUILD

LOT 3 HEREON 1285 m²F

LOT 1 HEREON 1535 m²H

LOT 4 HEREON 1525 m²G

BUILDING AREA

TOTAL COVENANT AREA = 2.6565 Ha

4.07.18E LAND COVENANT 'I' - JH/PD

PROPOSED CONSERVATION COVENANTS

UNDERLYING PARCEL AREASHOWN

LOT 2 HEREON 4055m²I

PURSUANT TO EITHER SECTION 22 OF THE QEⅡNATIONAL TRUST ACT 1977 OR SECTION 77 OF THE

RESERVES ACT 1977


EXHIBIT 2

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Aerial Photograph Showing Kartheus site, and the neighbouring title referenced NA93D/165

Legend

200 mN

➤➤

N© 2018 Google

© 2018 Google

© 2018 Google

Image © 2018 DigitalGlobe



Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO



Aerial Photograph Legend

100 mN

➤➤

N© 2018 Google

© 2018 Google

© 2018 Google








EXHIBIT 3

CONTEXTUAL PLAN

LEGA

L ROAD

WHANGAREI HEADS ROAD

UNFO

RMED

LOT 1

LOT 3

LOT 2

LOT 4

XTAMATERAUPA SITE

////// / / //////

//////// APPR

OX

IMAT

E ST

REAM

PAT

H

BUILDPLATFORM

BUILDPLATFORM

BUILDPLATFORM

BUILDPLATFORM

VIEW TO

HARBOUR

////////

////////

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 6060

METRES - 1:3000

VIEW TOHARBOUR

VALL

EY

NO.

DATE SCALE

Rev.

CLIENT

CAUTION:

TITLE

N

P & V KARTHEUSWHANGAREI HEADS ROAD,

ONERAHI

PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OFALLOTMENTS 15, 42 & 43 PSH OF

OWHIWA

1. THIS DRAWING SHOULD NOT BE AMENDED MANUALLY.2. AREAS & DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT

TO FINAL SURVEY.3. THE VENDOR & PURCHASER MUST CONTACT THE SURVEYOR IF SALE

& PURCHASE AGREEMENTS ARE ENTERED INTO USING THIS PLAN.4. SERVICES MUST NOT BE POSITIONED USING THIS PLAN.5. DO NOT SCALE OFF DRAWINGS.6. CONTOURS HAVE BEEN7. THIS PLAN IS COPYRIGHT TO REYBURN & BRYANT (1999) LIMITED.8. DESIGNED BY REYBURN & BRYANT - WHANGAREI - NEW ZEALAND9. NORTHLAND 0.4m RURAL AERIAL PHOTOS (2014-16) SOURCED FROM

AERIAL SURVEYS LTD INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON LINZ DATASERVICE.

10. CONTOURS SOURCED FROM QUICKMAP DATABASE AND ARE AT 20mINTERVALS.

Date Plotted: 2/03/2018 File Path: P:\14000 - 14999\14665 - Philipp Kartheus\Drawings\Other\C14665 - Kartheus Contextual - B.dwg

MARCH 2018 1:3000 @A3

BLOCAL AUTHORITY: WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL

TOTAL AREA: 18.0692 HaCOMPRISED IN: CFR NA50C/1469 (ALL)

DATEREV DESCRIPTION

THIS SITE IS ZONED ' COASTAL COUNTRYSIDE ' AND THE BUILDINGSETBACKS ARE THUS: 8m FROM ROAD BOUNDARIES, 3m FROM ALLOTHER BOUNDARIES.

01.03.18A FIRST ISSUE - SB

C14665 SHEET 1/1

LOW CONTOURS:20m - 60m

RIDGE LINE

CONTEXTUAL PLAN

MED CONTOURS:80m - 120m

HIGH CONTOURS:140m - 180m

02.03.18B MINOR AMENDMENT - SB


EXHIBIT 4

CADASTRAL MAP

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

k

k

Waikaraka

Edward Road

Whangarei Heads Road

Whangarei Heads Road

Lot 1DP 191888

1.7700NA121A/988

Lot 3DP 191888

0.2960NA121A/990

Lot 2DP 191888

0.9258NA121A/989

Lot 5DP 471306

9.3030648861

Lot 1DP 53870

0.1831NA10B/1180

Lot 3DP 53870

0.0883NA13A/429

Lot 2DP 53870

0.0986NA13A/428

Lot 2DP 46910

0.3501NA1664/81

Lot 1DP 38143

0.2157NA999/16


NA1826/5


0.0506NA1008/283

Lot 1DP 154361

5.0840NA92B/120

Lot 1DP 125052

0.9224

Lot 1DP 165799

0.5900NA100B/525


0.3288

Lot 1DP 148982

0.2290NA88D/325

Lot 2DP 165799

4.6680NA100B/526


6.7684NA86D/468

Section 4SO 485665

17.8090698522


4.2897NA47A/458


4.4515NA50C/1469


4.6539NA50C/1469

Lot 14DP 44680

0.2909


8.9638NA50C/1469

Lot 1DP 47160

1.8684NA1691/94

Lot 1DP 44680

0.1821NA47A/964

Lot 2DP 44680

0.0809NA1528/92

Lot 3DP 44680

0.0809NA1557/43

Lot 1DP 39450

0.1535NA1109/237

Lot 4DP 44680

0.0809NA1637/83

Lot 5DP 44680

0.0809NA2C/1375

Lot 6DP 44680

0.0809NA1636/34

Lot 2DP 39450

0.2931NA1139/239

Lot 8DP 44680

0.0814NA1634/12

Lot 1DP 205067

0.1055NA133B/619

Lot 2DP 205067

1.8670NA133B/620

Lot 2DP 44080

0.1062NA75C/475

Lot 3DP 44080

0.1062NA75C/476

Lot 1DP 194605

0.1670NA123B/31

Lot 1DP 197019

0.0462NA125B/168

Section 1SO 65504

2.2080NA78D/704

Lot 2DP 197019

1.0203NA125B/168


3.8344NA93D/165


4.1278NA93D/165

Lot 1DP 151498

4.5180NA90B/275


5.2710NA93D/165

Section 1SO 62985

0.4770NA67C/758



3.2122NA93D/165


4.0469NA35A/480

Pt Allotment N E 10PSH OF Owhiwa

62.2641NA50C/1470

Scale 1:5316 Topographical and Cadastral map derived from LINZ data. Printed: 11/10/2017 13:44.

Any person wishing to rely on the information shown on this map must independently verify the information

QuickMapCustom Software Ltd

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650m


EXHIBIT 5

SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL’S

ALIGNMENT WITH PLANNING

INSTRUMENTS

Exhibit 5 – Summary of the Proposal’s Alignment with National, Regional and District Planning Instruments

Planning Instrument Purpose Alignment

Part 2 of the Resource Management Act, 1991 To promote the sustainable management of natural

and physical resources.

The proposal achieves the purpose of the act by:

- Proposing the enhancement of key landscape

and ecological elements which will provide for

the betterment of the site.

- Proposing mitigation measures (particularly

controls on built form) to mitigate adverse visual

effects of the four proposed new dwellings.

- Providing for historical/cultural values by

formalising the permanent protection of a

defined area around the Tameterau Pa.

- Providing for economic benefits while also taking

into account environmental responsibilities

required under Part 2 of the act.

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement To achieve the purpose of the Act in relation to the

coastal environment of New Zealand.

The NZCPS recognises that development can be

located in the coastal environment, particularly

where it does not compromise natural character

and landscape values, where restoration of the

coastal environment is provided for, and where

historic heritage in the coastal environment is

protected from inappropriate use and development.

The subdivision achieves each of these matters by

proposing managed restoration of previously

compromised ecological patterns through the

imposition of bush covenant, predator controls,

rehabilitation planting, managed revegetation, and

grazing restrictions. The subdivision protects the

significant archaeological feature on the site

through the proposed land covenant to be

registered over a significant archaeological feature.

RPS for Northland To promote sustainable management of

Northland’s natural and physical resources. It does

this by:

- Providing an overview of the region’s resource

management issues; and

- Setting out policies and methods to achieve

integrated management of Northland's natural

and physical resources.

The RPS has a strong focus on encouraging the

protection and rehabilitation of land and enhancing

ecological values. The proposal achieves this by

proposing managed restoration of previously

compromised ecological patterns through the

imposition of bush covenant, predator controls,

rehabilitation planting, managed revegetation, and

grazing restrictions.

Whangarei District Plan The Operative WDP is an effects based plan. As a

result, unlike some other district plans, the

objectives and policies are not zone specific.

Rather they are topic specific (i.e. amenity,

subdivision and development, landscape etc).

The WDP seeks 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.

Note - The Operative WDP was made operative on

the 3 May 2007, and therefore it was not prepared

under the currently Operative Regional Policy

Statement for Northland (RPS) or the New Zealand

Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS).

The proposed subdivision will achieve the

outcomes sought by the Operative WDP because it

will maintain the existing amenity values of the

environment in this locality, primarily through the

implementation of mitigation and enhancement

measures. The subdivision will also result in an

overall density and pattern of development that is

consistent with the density and pattern of

development in the vicinity, and because the site

and the surrounding environment has the capacity

to absorb existing and additional built form

Plan Changes 85A, 87 and 114 To sustainably manage the natural and physical

resources of the Rural Area in order to sustain,

protect and promote rural production activities as

well as those activities that support rural

communities, and protecting areas of significant

ecological and biodiversity values

While the subdivision does not propose to create

allotments of a size that is suitable for productive

use, the subdivision proposes to restore a

compromised landscape, through the

implementation of:

- A restriction on large scale grazing

- Rehabilitation planting

- Managed revegetation

- Formal bush protection (within Lot 2)

- Predator controls (no cats, dogs and mustelids

condition)

The above mitigation/enhancement measures will

ensure that the site is restricted from inappropriate

land uses in the form of productive activities.


EXHIBIT 6

NGATIWAI TRUST BOARD

CORRESPONDENCE


EXHIBIT 7

DENNIS JOHN SCOTT APPEAL ON

PC85A

1

IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ENV-‐2018-‐AKL-‐ AT AUCKLAND

IN THE MATTER of the Whangarei District Plan and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)

AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal under Clause 14(1) of

Schedule 1 of the RMA AND IN THE MATTER of Plan Changes 85, 85 A – D, 86A &

B, 87, and 114 to the Whangarei District Plan

BETWEEN Dennis John Scott

Appellant AND Whangarei District Council

Respondent

NOTICE OF APPEAL

1st March 2018

2

To: The Registrar Environment Court Auckland

1. I, Dennis John Scott appeal against a decision (or part of a decision) of the Whangarei District Council (the Council) on Plan Changes 85, 85 A – D, 86A & B, 87 and 114 (Plan Changes) to the

Whangarei District Plan.

2. Dennis John Scott made a submission to the plan changes (Submission No: 195).

3. Dennis John Scott is not a trade competitor for the purposes of section 308D of the RMA.

4. Dennis John Scott received notice of the decision on 17 January 2018.

5. The decision was made by the Whangarei District Council.

6. It is noted that this appeal notice has taken the Hearings Panel Recommendation Report(s) as the

“Decision” as adopted by the Whangarei District Council Planning and Development Committee on

Wednesday 13th December 2017 at meeting minute number 4.4: “That the Planning and Development Committee:

a. adopts the report and recommendations of the Hearing Panel dated

23 November 2017 on proposed Plan Changes PC102, PC114, PC87, PC 85 A – D and PC86A & B, in accordance with Clause 10

of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991; and

b. resolves to publicly notify, on 17 January 2018, Council’s decision on PC102, PC114, PC87, PC 85 A – D and PC86A & B, in accordance with Clauses 10 and 11 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the

Resource Management Act 1991.”

7. The decisions that Dennis John Scott appeals are:

I. Decision Report References: i. Part 1 – General Topics

D. Notification Rules F. Use of Management Plan Technique and Comprehensive Development Plan Provisions P. Strategic Direction

ii. Part 7 J. Submission 195 -‐ Dennis Scott – ‘Rural Production’ vs ‘Countryside’

II. Decisions

i. Part 1

D. Notification Rules Paragraph 33. “The Hearings Panel recommend that Council accept submission points 195/8 and 250/18 and 29.” F. Use of Management Plan Technique and Comprehensive Development Plan Provisions

3

Paragraph 57.” The Hearings Panel recommends to Council to reject submission points 24/1, 195/6, 428/2 430/2 and 480/2.” P. Strategic Direction Paragraph 309. “The Hearings Panel recommends to Council to accept in part submissions 80/1 and 2 195/1 – 4, 423/35-‐38 and 431/1 – 6 to the extent that we have recommended a number of changes to the suite of plan changes which go some way to addressing the concerns of these submitters.”

ii. Part 7

J. Submission 195 -‐ Dennis Scott – ‘Rural Production’ vs ‘Countryside’ Paragraph 196. “The Hearings Panel recommends that the Council accept in part submission 195 and that the amendments be made to the plan as set out in the revised plan provisions for PC85A.”

8. I provide the following general overview on the relief sought by this appeal:

• A review of the primary strategic approach of the Plan Change 85A Rural Production

Countryside Environment that promotes and encourages only productive land use

activities and discourages further rural living and other diverse activities to establish.

• A review of the decision version of Plan Change 85A Rules – RPCE.1 Rural Production

Countryside Environment and the re-‐introduction of a reviewed version of the Operative

Whangarei District Plan Environmental Benefit Subdivision Rule – 73.3.2.

• Provision for expanded opportunities for use of the Operative Whangarei District Plan

MPT.1 – Management Plan Technique in Plan Change 85 to the following:

o Plan Change 85A – Rural Production Environment

o Plan Change 85C – Rural Village Environment

o Plan Change 85D – Rural Living Environment

o Plan Change 87 – Coastal Area

o Plan Change 114 – Landscapes

• Review of the Proposed Plan Change 85A Notification Rules

9. I provide the following specific comments:

4

THE RPCE.1 RURAL PRODCUCTION COUNTRYSIDE ENVIRONMENT RULES AND APPEAL RELIEF SOUGHT

10. This section of the appeal notice relates to:

Part 1 P. Strategic Direction Paragraph 309. “The Hearings Panel recommends to Council to accept in part submissions 80/1 and 2 195/1 – 4, 423/35-‐38 and 431/1 – 6 to the extent that we have recommended a number of changes to the suite of plan changes which go some way to addressing the concerns of these submitters.”

And,

Part 7 J. Submission 195 -‐ Dennis Scott – ‘Rural Production’ vs ‘Countryside’ Paragraph 196. “The Hearings Panel recommends that the Council accept in part submission 195 and that the amendments be made to the plan as set out in the revised plan provisions for PC85A.”

11. The specific appeal relief sought is for further review of the primary strategic approach to RPCE.1

including the Description and Expectations, Objective, Policy and Rule formulation as attached at

Appendix 1 – RPCE.1 Rural Production Countryside Environment. (Within the WDC decision

version text it is noted that the Yellow Highlights are where the appeal relief is specifically

identified, where council stricken through text is restored and\or with Council decision version text

underlined and/or stricken through.)

Reasons for appeal:

12. It is considered that any provisions and rules that apply to the Plan Change 85A -‐ Rural Production

Countryside Environment (RPCP.1) have to be supportive of rural production activities only to the

extent that:

• The rural production activities themselves do not create adverse effects on that environment, and

• A balance of rural production, biodiversity and ecosystem services can be achieved, that in turn

• Enhance rural production

13. To achieve this paradigm:

• Recognition of existing complex RPCP settlement and activity pattern arrangements, intensity and diversity and

• Changes to current rural production settlement and activity pattern arrangements, intensity and diversity will need to be

• Promoted and accommodated by way of

5

• Innovative conservation-‐driven use, development and subdivision incentives

14. The above matters in 12 and 13 above are stated in the context of:

• Local and global market forces • Responsible access to those markets • Capability/capacity of the Whangarei District land and environmental resource • Appropriate (and ‘best’) use and management of the land and associated activities • Recognition of current and potential future dynamic economic, social and environmental

realities (RMA part 2 s5)

15. It is noted that the same principles apply to:

• Plan Change 85 -‐ Rural Area (RA.1)

• Plan Change 85C – Rural Village Environment (RVE)

• Plan Change 85D – Rural Living Environment (RLE)

• Plan Change 87 – Coastal Area (CA)

• Plan Change 114 – Landscapes (LAN)

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT RULE (EBR) RESPONSE AND APPEAL RELIEF SOUGHT


Part 1 P. Strategic Direction Paragraph 309. “The Hearings Panel recommends to Council to accept in part submissions 80/1 and 2 195/1 – 4, 423/35-‐38 and 431/1 – 6 to the extent that we have recommended a number of changes to the suite of plan changes which go some way to addressing the concerns of these submitters.”

And,

Part 7 J. Submission 195 -‐ Dennis Scott – ‘Rural Production’ vs ‘Countryside’ Paragraph 196. “The Hearings Panel recommends that the Council accept in part submission 195 and that the amendments be made to the plan as set out in the revised plan provisions for PC85A.”

17. The specific appeal relief sought is for a further review and extension of the Environmental Benefit

Rule (EBR) provisions as attached at Appendix 1 – RPCE.3 Subdivision: RPCE.3.4 and RPCE.3.5.

(Within the WDC decision version text it is noted that the Yellow Highlights are where the appeal

relief is specifically identified, where council stricken through text is restored and\or with Council

decision version text underlined and/or stricken through.)

6

Reasons for appeal:

18. A planning and design methodology is required to prepare a comprehensive ‘Environmental

Benefit’ driven development and/or subdivision programme and/or project. This needs to be

underpinned by a holistic spatial approach to land management and land use allocation.

19. The ecological quality of an existing area of remnant and/or regenerating native bush may not be

the sole reason for the underlying strategy to promote and utilize the EBR. The plan change

decision version Policy RPCE.1.3.12 and Policy RPCE.1.12.13 and Subdivision RPCE.3.4.4 and

Discretionary Activity Information Requirement RCE.3.5.1 are inadequate provisions to achieve the

sustainable management of the RPCE area.

20. Rather, the proactive promotion of:

i. Retirement and/or revegetation of currently degraded and/or marginal productive land

holdings. These may be currently in low producing pastureland or forestry land use

and/or in a partial and/or transitional stage of retirement and reversion to:

• Exotic shrubland

• Mixed exotic and native shrubland

• Native shrubland, and/or

• Various stages of advanced regenerating native bush

ii. Enhancement, regeneration, rehabilitation and protection of:


• Existing indigenous bush patches




• Heritage sites (natural and archeological sites and areas)

iii Multiple-‐functional and diverse land use options (as opposed to mono-‐cultural land

uses). This includes intensive production activities and provision for appropriately

scaled settlement, education, recreational, visitor/tourist facilities and home services and

industries associated with a conservation-‐driven outcome. These land-‐uses can all co-‐

exist to significantly enhance integrated environmental, social and economic community

development and sustainability.

iv. Partial subdivision of larger existing productive holdings to assist the economic and

social viability and continuance of the current land-‐use. The EBR can serve to release

7

capital by way of diversifying land use (e.g. settlement) to support the underlying land

use activity and also retire, regenerate and protect the often degraded critical

environmental features, elements and patterns, that are better retired from productive

to conservation use, as outlined above.

21. The recognition of above (i) – (iv) items and their reimagined management are considered a

significant and valid purpose and reason to promote and encourage innovative settlement pattern

transformation of RPCP areas and the use of the EBR to facilitate this.

22. This appeal requests a broader review and expansion of the specific provisions EBR to include

bonus and incentives for subdivision and development beyond the protection of already existing

high quality indigenous bush patches and/or areas.

23. It is a fundamental land use management issue in the RPCE that marginal and degraded areas and

critical landscape elements such as remnant bush patches, regenerating shrubland areas, steep

erosion prone slopes, river, stream and wetland, estuarine and coastal margins and natural and

cultural heritage features are retired from production, rehabilitated where necessary and

protected in perpetuity. This is the only strategy available to ensure that ecosystem service

delivery functions are woven throughout our productive landscapes. This constructed, yet natural

‘green infrastructure’ in turn enhances the rural productivity of the district.

24. It is considered that the approach and relief sought by this appeal requires urgent attention and

implementation in the coastal catchments, particularly those comprising the east coast Whangarei

District estuarine systems.

25. It is important to note that the EBR has been an incentive subdivision and development provision

(73.3.2) in the Operative Whangarei District Plan for at least a decade. For another decade prior to

becoming included in the operative plan, the evolution of the EBR was also a hard-‐won affair with

weighty public and landowner input.

26. While currently a restricted discretionary activity, this appeal considers the removal of the

provision to be a serious ‘down zoning’ of many properties. Many people have been implementing

noteworthy regenerative programs on properties across the Whangarei District. Some of these

programs are now up to and more than 40 years+ into the process.

8

27. In addition, it is considered that the EBR is an important planning provision to partner the

application of the Management Plan Technique (MPT.1).

MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNIQUE (MPT.1) and APPEAL RELIEF SOUGHT


Part 1 F. Use of Management Plan Technique and Comprehensive Development Plan Provisions Paragraph 57.” The Hearings Panel recommends to Council to reject submission points 24/1, 195/6, 428/2 430/2 and 480/2.”

29. This appeal considers that the Operative Whangarei District Plan MPT.1 (MPT.1) remains as an

important technique. It needs to be extended and applied to all of the zones/environments. This

suite of proposed Plan Changes is the prime opportunity to extend the application of the MPT1. to:

• Plan Change 85A – Rural Production Environment

• Plan Change 85C – Rural Village Environment

• Plan Change 85D – Rural Living Environment

• Plan Change 87 – Coastal Area

• Plan Change 114 – Landscapes

30. The specific relief sought by this appeal is to reintroduce MPT.1 to the decision version of the plan

changes as outlined in Appendix B – REVISED MPT.1

Reasons for Appeal and Relief Sought

31. This appeal considers that MPT.1 technique is a critical component of the Proposed Plan Changes.

If applied as a fundamental process to the facilitation of flexible and innovative development and

subdivision, and used in partnership with the EBR, this combination would go a long way to

providing the solution to liberate the opportunities that the broad proposed plan change

zone/environment strategies are seeking to constrain.

THE RPCE.1 RURAL PRODCUCTION COUNTRYSIDE ENVIRONMENT NOTIFCATION RULES AND

APPEAL RELIEF SOUGHT


Part 1 D. Notification Rules

9

Paragraph 33. “The Hearings Panel recommend that Council accept submission points 195/8 and 250/18 and 29.”

33. The appeal seeks clarification of the above Hearing Panel Recommendation (Decision).

34. The specific appeal relief sought for a review of the decision version Notification Rules is attached

at Appendix 1 – RPCE.1 Rural Production Countryside Environment. (Within the WDC decision

version text it is noted that the Yellow Highlights are where the appeal relief is specifically

identified, where council stricken through text is restored and\or with Council decision version text

underlined and/or stricken through.)

Reasons for appeal:

35. It is considered that any Notification Rule provisions that apply to the Plan Change 85 suite of

amendments and in particular Plan Change 85A -‐ Rural Production Countryside Environment

(RPCP.1) have to be supportive of an accessible process for the residents and ratepayers of the

Whangarei District.

36. The Whangarei District rural communities are the key respondents of any planning provisions and

it is their welfare that needs to dominate the purpose and intent of the proposed suite of Plan

Change 85 provisions. It is through extant community management efforts that wider societal

(environmental and economic) benefits are generated.

37. People/communities need to be supported by council with encouraging compliance processes.

APPEAL AND RELIEF SOUGHT SUMMARY:

38. The relief sought by this appeal is as follows:

• A review of the primary strategic approach of the Plan Change 85A Rural Production

Countryside Environment that promotes and encourages only productive land use

activities and discourages further rural living and other diverse activities to establish.

• A review of the decision version of Plan Change 85A Rules – RPCE.1 Rural Production

Countryside Environment and the re-‐introduction of a reviewed version of the Operative

Whangarei District Plan Environmental Benefit Subdivision Rule – 73.3.2.

10

• Provision for expanded opportunities for use of the Operative Whangarei District Plan

MPT.1 – Management Plan Technique in Plan Change 85 to the following:

o Plan Change 85A – Rural Production Environment

o Plan Change 85C – Rural Village Environment

o Plan Change 85D – Rural Living Environment

o Plan Change 87 – Coastal Area

o Plan Change 114 – Landscapes

• Review of the Proposed Plan Change 85A Notification Rules

39. The relief sought by this appeal is specifically identified in the Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 Yellow

Highlighted decision version text. These are provided on the understanding and basis that similar

outcomes may be able to be reached during negotiated Environment Court Mediation processes

prior to formal Environment Court Hearing fixtures.

40. The decision version plan changes do not represent a sustainable management outcome for the

Whangarei District rural areas.

41. The decision version plan change subject to this appeal fail to implement the purpose of the

Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) particularly Part 2 section 5 and section 6.

42. Absent from the decision version of the plan change is particular regard to the New Zealand

Coastal Policy Statement 2010 and New Zealand Fresh Water Policy Statement 2014 (Amended).

Specifically, this is in respect of the use and development of rural land use in whole catchments

influencing the interactions between land, fresh water, associated ecosystems and the Whangarei

District coastline and associated estuarine environments.

43. The council has failed to provide appropriate s32 reporting for the decisions made by the Hearing

Panel.

44. Accordingly, I respectfully recommend that the decision version plan change be amended in

accordance with the Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 provisions attached to this appeal, subject to any

modifications considered by the Court to be necessary and appropriate.

45. The following documents are attached to this notice:

1. A copy of the original submission 195 (written and extended attached documentation)

11

2. A copy of the Hearing Submission of submission 195 and Attachments and tabled submission

notes.

3. A copy of the Notification of decision on the Plan Change

4. A copy of the decision, including:

a. Whangarei District Council Minute Note 4.4

b. Decision References from the Hearing Recommendation Report(s)

5. A list of the names and addresses of persons to be served with a copy of this notice

Dennis John Scott

______________________

(Signature of appellant (being person authorized to sign on behalf of appellant)

1st March 2018

______________________

Date

Address for service of appellant: Dennis John Scott

PO Box 49

Whitford

Auckland 2149

Telephone: (09) 530 8149 or (027) 492 2855

Email: [email protected]

Contact person: Dennis Scott

12

Appendix A – REVISED PLAN CHANGE 85A

RPCE.1 Rural Production Countryside Environment

13

RCPE.1 Rural Production Countryside Environment INDEX RPCE.1 Rural Production Countryside Environment RCPE.1.1 Description and Expectations RPCE.1.2 Objectives RPCE.1.3 Policies RPCE.1.4 Guidance Note RPCE.2 Landuse RPCE.2.1 Eligibility Rules RPCE.2.2 Notification Rules RPCE.2.3 Discretionary Activities RPCE.3 Subdivision RPCE.3.1 Eligibility Rule RPCE.3.2 Notification Rules RPCE.3.3 Controlled Activities RPCE.3.4 Discretionary Activities RCE.3.5 Discretionary Activity Information Requirement E.1.1 Description and Expectations RPCE.1.1 Description and Expectations The Rural Production Countryside Environment (RPCE) encompasses a large area of the Whangarei District. The Environment hosts a wide range of rural land use activities and a varied array of landforms. The purpose of the RPCE is to sustainably manage the natural and physical resources of the Rural Area in order to sustain, protect and promote rural production activities as well as those activities that support rural communities, and protecting areas of significant ecological and biodiversity values (such as indigenous bush and wetlands). The Environment comprises a varied array of topography, landforms, landscapes, soil types, biodiversity and catchments. It is important that the ecological and landscape values of the RCE are recognised and where possible protected. These values contribute significantly to the rural character and distinctiveness of Whangarei District. Parts of the RPCE are located within the coastal environment. The values of the coastal environment are managed by the District Plan’s Coastal Area provisions as well as the provisions in this section. The interplay of historical land use and values has resulted in the environmental character that exists in the RPCE today. This character is made up of the varied natural landforms and natural features, openness as well as an existing subdivision and development pattern. It The RPE is mostly characterised by a working/living environment, with the noises, odours and visual effects associated with a wide range of farming, horticultural, forestry and mineral extraction activities. There is an expectation that rural production activities will be able to continue to operate without onerous or restrictive intervention in the RPCE. This is only possible where due cognizance and encouragement is given to the implementation of environmental protection and enhancement management practices. This may include the transformation of significant areas by retirement and restoration of marginal land, steep eroding hill country slopes, riparian margins and protection of heritage (archaeological) sites. Rural production activities such as dairy farming, horticulture and forestry are important contributors to the Whangarei and Northland economy. The RPCE includes most of the productive rural land areas of the District. It is important that these areas are not compromised for rural production. It is expected that a diverse range of rural production/productive rural land use activities will continue to operate and new activities will establish in the RPCE. Changing demands for existing produce and new markets establishing mean that the provisions for the RPCE need to be flexible to accommodate current and future production needs together with associated emerging settlement and activity opportunities.

14

The RPCE provides for commercial and industrial activities that have a functional need to service rural production activities and/or rural communities or provide location based recreation or tourist activity. Conflicting land use and reverse sensitivity effects must be carefully managed where the RPCE interfaces with sensitive activities including habitable buildings in other Rural Environments and Living Environments, Tourist Activities and Visitor Accommodation, Educational Facilities and with Business, and Industrial and Home Industry Environments. Where the RPCE is traversed by existing major infrastructure services, land use conflicts must be managed. Parts of the RPE are located within the coastal environment. The values of these areas will be managed by way of the Coastal Area in the District Plan. The coastal areas are considered to now be extremely sensitive to continued broad scale rural production activities. Their future lies in conservation-‐driven settlement patterns, including a range of residential, recreational, tourism and visitor service activities together with a diversity of other associated service activities. Mineral Extraction Quarrying Resource Areas apply over the RPCE and Strategic Rural Industry Environments are surrounded by the RPCE. Providing for mineral extraction activities and strategic rural industries to occur and avoidance of conflicting land use activities is important for their on-‐going operation. A history of varied ad hoc rural living subdivision density and rural living and development has resulted in inconsistent a diversity of allotment size. and a This scattered and ad hoc pattern of development across the Rural Area now reflects the complex environment and variable and limited land use capacity and capability for sustainable productive activities. Many of these areas are marginal productive environments and are in various stages of retirement. The coastal catchments comprising the important estuarine systems of East Coast Whangarei are examples of these landscapes. They are no longer suited to intensive production and are better utilised as mixed living, tourism, education and small scale production/home industrial and service activities. Where the Rural Area abuts Whangarei City RPCE will apply, . areas. Areas for future urban growth, land use and subdivision development is spatially managed by the Rural (Urban Expansion) Environment to maintain options for the continued growth of the City. Where a rural number of rural living clusters have reached significant density and lifestyle character they have been identified as the Rural Living Environment to manage the actual and potential reverse sensitivity effects associated with rural living activities occurring in close proximity to rural production activities. These can be expanded as the district moves and transforms towards the inevitable post-‐colonial rural settlement and activity realities. The RPCE will not is able to support an increased level of clustered rural living development. The RPCE is an essential part of the emerging alternative living and environmental/landscape management strategy. This trend accepts and encourages increased levels of rural living development. However, consistent with a consolidated pattern of development residential, rural residential and rural living activities are directed to should be contained, where possible and in preference within identified rural villages, the Rural (Urban Expansion) Environment or the Rural Living Environment to protect the productivity, biodiversity and rural character of the RPCE. This will assist to protect the productivity, biodiversity and rural character of these areas. In parts of the RPCE urban and rural residential types of development can erode support the viability of rural productivity. and can In other parts, more intensive development may create reverse sensitivity impacts on productive uses through the visual effect of large scale buildings and ancillary structures, increased traffic generation, and loss of amenity including privacy, rural outlook, spaciousness, and quietness, particularly when a new incompatible activity is located near an existing activity, with resulting

15

conflicts. However, future productive systems will also necessarily involve more intensive settlement and built form populating the RPCE. In addition, it is also recognized that the RPCE is such a large and generalized environment that new and alternative patterns of land use and management will emerge and indeed are necessary, if the district is to meet long term environmental management imperatives that also underpin the dynamic adaption realities of changing social and economic needs and preferences. Flexible development incentives are therefore needed to create opportunities where there are areas that can provide for compatible, useful and functional alternatives to intensive production activities in the RPCE. The interplay of historical land use complexity and values has resulted in the environmental character that exists in the RPCE today. It is important that the current ecological and landscape values attributes and the condition and state of the environment of the RPCE are recognised, enhanced and where possible protected. It is critical that every effort is now given to maximizing production capacity on the appropriate land while integrating strong environmental possible protected. protection and enhancement policies and programmes for those degraded and sensitive parts of the rural area. These values Only then can the RPCE be considered to be contributing contribute significantly to the rural character and distinctiveness of Whangarei District. These values contribute significantly to the rural character, and distinctiveness and productive capacity of Whangarei District. R RPCE.1.2 ObjectivesE.1.2 Objectives 1. Identify and protect productive rural land resources for a diverse range of productive rural production land use activities. 2. Provide incentives for settlement and diverse small-‐scale activity development in areas where the primary and urgent need is for permanent conservation, biodiversity and ecosystem service delivery functions. 1.2. 3 Enable a wide range of productive rural production land use activities and provide for the functional commercial and industrial activities that support rural production activities and/or rural communities including conservation-‐driven settlement patterns, recreation and tourist based activities to establish and operate in the RCE to contribute to the District’s economy. 2.3.4 Recognise, maintain and where appropriate protect the rural character and amenity and functional integrity of the RPCE, acknowledging that character is formed through a combination of values attributes. as ecology values, openness, topography ecosystem service delivery and heritage. 3.4.5. Avoid adverse effects on productive rural and land resources from inappropriately located rural living land use ad hoc residential, subdivision and development in the RPCE that does not contribute to enhanced environmental and landscape outcomes. 4.6 Support the range of amenity values attributes associated with the RPCE. 5.7. Minimise the fragmentation Rationalise settlement patterning of rural land and promote allotment sizes to create opportunities that facilitate productive rural production activities and settlement land uses other and than to that encourage associated environmental/landscape enhancement programmes to protect significant ecological and biodiversity values attributes. 6.8. Enable and encourage a wide range of productive rural land use and complementary activities to

16

establish and operate to contribute to the District’s economy. 7.6. 9. Provide for limited rural production activities that are compatible with the Coastal Area and promote the transformation to a residential, recreational, tourism and visitor service dominated environment set within a conservation landscape framework. 1.3 Policies RPCE.1.3 Policies 1. To protect transform rural productive land, rural character and amenity and to encourage consolidation of activities within Whangarei City by:

a. preventing Only providing for the operation of commercial and industrial activities in the RPCE. where it is demonstrated that the activity:

i. Concurrently encourages activities that promote and establish environmental and landscape enhancement i. Has a direct connection with the rural resource and supports rural production activities and/or rural communities, including recreation and tourist based activities. ii. Requires a rural location for its operational function. iii. ll not increase Minimises the potential for reverse sensitivity effects between incompatible land use activities. iv. Will contain and manage adverse effects on-‐site. v. Will contribute positively to the economy of the District. vi. Can meet and fund local infrastructure requirements.

b. Not directly regulating outdoor agricultural and horticultural activities, excluding intensive livestock farming. c. Permitting farming and activities ancillary to farming, forestry or Strategic Rural Industry. d. Requiring larger allotments sizes to retain productive rural options.

2. To create and protect significant ecological and biodiversity values by enabling subdivision where those values are enhanced and protected. 1.3. To manage reverse sensitivity effects a Avoiding reverse sensitivity effects by preventing the establishment of sensitive activities within close proximity to Mineral Extraction Quarrying Resource Areas, sStrategic rRural iIndustries, intensive farming activities intensive livestock farming or other rural production activities that are legally lawfully established and where adverse effects are not to be contained within site boundaries. 2.4. To reduce the potential of exposure to noise, dust and health risks by requiring a minimum separation for residential units from unsealed roads. OPPOSE in PART 3.5. To maintain rural amenity, privacy, openness and rural character by ensuring that all new buildings and rural land uses:

a. Are of a scale and character appropriate to the RPCE. b. Are sited in a location sufficiently setback from site boundaries to enable privacy, the retention of openness and access to sunlight. c. Avoid ribbon development. d. Avoid a Promote clustering of built development at a scale and character compatible to the receiving environment and landscape setting of the RPCE of the Rural Living Environment. e. Recognize emerging and critical land use and environmental/landscape management initiatives.

4.6. To preserve openness, rural character and amenity by limiting the density of residential units promoting design-‐led outcomes for development.

17

5.6. To avoid inappropriate subdivision and development in areas required for future urban growth by identifying ‘setback buffers’ between the RPCE and living environments (Living 1, 2 and 3 Environments, Urban Transition Environment, Rural Urban Interface Environment, Rural Living Environment and Rural Village Residential Sub-‐Environment). 6. To protect enhance the distinctive character and amenity values outcomes of the RPCE including but not limited to:

a. A working rural environment. b. Seasonal activities. c. A low intensity of development, involving a combination of domestic and rural buildings. d. Varying levels of noise associated with seasonal and intermittent rural production activities. e. A high degree of privacy. f. Sufficient access to daylight and sunlight. g. Odours, noise and dust typical of rural activities. h. Generally low levels of vehicle traffic with seasonal fluctuations. a. A working and settled rural environment. b. Encouraging innovative settlement and complementary activities c. Seasonal activities. c. A low intensity of development, involving a combination of domestic, and rural and visitor accommodation buildings. d. Varying levels of noise associated with seasonal and intermittent rural production activities. e. A high degree of privacy. f. Sufficient access to daylight and sunlight. g. Odours, noise and dust typical of rural activities. h. Generally low levels of vehicle traffic with seasonal fluctuations. i. Introducing guidance on rural land use intensification and expected environmental/landscape management practices.

7. To protect the productive function of the RPCE while providing for a range of productive land uses by:

a. Not directly regulating outdoor agricultural and horticultural activities, excluding intensive farming. a. Not directly regulating, but at least providing environmental/landscape management guidance to outdoor agricultural and horticultural activities, excluding intensive farming. b. Regulating extensive farming b. c. Permitting farming and activities ancillary to farming. c.d Discouraging commercial and industrial activities and rural living development. d.a. Requiring larger flexible and appropriate allotments sizes to retain productive rural options and rationalizing those required to accommodate emerging innovative and diverse rural futures.

8. To enable the flexible subdivision of rural land into diverse allotments of 20ha or more less, where the following has been provided for:

a. Efficient and effective on-‐site servicing. b. Avoidance of erosion, subsidence, slippage, flooding or inundation from any source. c. Stability of land and its suitability to provide a foundation for the erection of buildings, vehicle access and parking areas. d. Enhanced biodiversity and ecosystem service delivery.

9. To avoid encourage the subdivision of land into allotments less than 20ha unless where it is demonstrated that all of the following criteria are achieved matters are addressed:

a. It is not for the for the primary purpose of creating a rural residential or rural lifestyle allotment associated with conservation outcomes.

18

a.b. The subdivision of rural land and associated buildings does not inhibit or restrict the productive potential or reasonably anticipated productive potential of rural production activities and is for the purpose of supporting an existing farm, forestry or horticultural enterprise associated with rural production and/or complementary enterprise associated with rural production and conservation initiatives. b.c. The size, shape and arrangement of allotments is a practical size for compatible to associated rural productive and/or complementary land use activities and does not restrict the range of options for the use of production land. c.d. The viability of the existing rural production and/or complementary land use activity is not compromised and the existing rural production activity farm, forestry or horticultural enterprise can continue to operate efficiently at the subdivided scale. d.e. The subdivision and subsequent development will not result in significant adverse effects on the operation and viability of any adjoining farm, forestry or horticultural rural production activity. f. The land and buildings have greater and/or diversified potential for the production of primary products, forestry or crops and/or complementary activities as a result of the subdivision. F g.The subdivision and subsequent development will not require connection to the District’s reticulated sewer or an extension or upgrading of any service or road, except where it is in the economic interest of the District and will not compromise the efficient functioning of the District’s infrastructure network.

10.9. To provide for limited subdivision of rural land creating a new allotment for a surplus existing residential existing residential unit where the balance area of the farm is large and of sufficient dimensions of for the new allotment can accommodate the existing onsite services and provide for efficient access. 11.10. To locate and design subdivision and associated land development to avoid urban form and character, maintain rural character and amenity values and protect and enhance environmental features by:

a. Designing subdivisions to respond to the topography and characteristics of the land being developed. b. Identifying building platforms that respond to site topography and environmental characteristics. c. Locating access ways, services, utilities and building platforms where these can be provided for by way of sensitive without the need for significant earthworks, retaining, benching or site contouring. d. Locating access ways, services, utilities and building platforms where the location is sensitive to and responds to environmental features of the site. e. Ensuring that the subdivision will not create reverse sensitivity effects with respect to existing lawfully established activities.

11. To design subdivision and development to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects to ensure that subdivision and development is compatible with the Coastal Area and promotes tourism, education visitor industry services and high quality living environments and settlement patterns. 12. To provide for environmental benefit lot subdivisions by considering sites:

I. With significant indigenous vegetation or significant indigenous habitat where the features: a. Are assessed to be an acceptable quality by a qualified and experienced ecologist; b. Are predominantly indigenous vegetation; c. Are a threatened or rare habitat type or contain indigenous or endemic taxa that are threatened or are rare in Northland; d. Contribute to ecological connectivity within the District; and e. Are either

i. Indigenous vegetation with a minimum size of 1ha and minimum width of

19

50m; or ii. Located in a LENZ Acutely or Chronically Threatened Environment; or iii. An intact and functioning indigenous wetland.

II. Are marginal and degraded environments in need of land-‐use repair and rehabilitation management and:

a. Are design-‐led proposals. b. Are able to benefit from a significant revegetation programme. c. Comprehensively address the positive and integrated management of critical

landscape elements including: a. Existing remnant bush patches b. Regenerating shrubland c. Steep eroding slopes d. Stream and wetland riparian margins e. Wetland recovery and rehabilitation f. Other natural and cultural heritage features

d. Contribute to ecological connectivity within the District

13. To design environmental benefit lot subdivision in a manner that ensures: a. All of the significant indigenous vegetation or significant indigenous habitat or revegetated areas on the site are protected in perpetuity as part of the subdivision. b. Subdivision boundaries are laid out in such a way that policy RCE 1.3.1011 is clearly met.4

R RCPE.1.4 Guidance Note: 1. The following shall form the basis for resource consent application in the RPCE:

a. The objectives, policies and provisions for the Rural Area in the District Plan. b. The objectives, policies and provisions for Resource Areas in the District Plan. c. The District Wide objectives, policies and provisions in the District Plan. d. The provisions of MPT.1 Management Plan technique (Revised).2.1 Eligibility Rules

PPCE.2 Landuse RPCE.2.1 Eligibility Rules 1. Commercial and industrial activities are non-‐complying activities. 1. More than one minor household unit per allotment is a non complying restricted discretionary activity. 2. Mineral extraction activities within the Mining Area of a Mineral Extraction Quarry Resource Area are exempt from RPE.2.1.3, RPCE.2.3.43 (a) and (b) and will be assessed by applying the Mineral ExtractionQuarry Resource Area Chapter provisions. 3. Mineral extraction activities is a non-‐complying activity if the activity: a. Extracts over 5,000m3 in any 12 month period on the site. b. Undertakes blasting. c. Establishes within 500m of an existing sensitive activity on an adjacent site. 4.3. Intensive livestock farming activities that are closer than within 250m to of the boundary of a separate site containing a sensitive activity are is a non-‐complying activity. 5. Any activity ancillary to farming or plantation forestry that operates within a building with a GFA and/or from an outdoor area larger than 500m2 is a non-‐complying activity Controlled Activity. 6.4. Any other activity not requiring consent as a discretionary or non-‐complying activity is a permitted activity. .2 Notification Rules PPCE.2.2 Notification Rules 1. All land use activities are subject to the notification tests of the RMA. OPPOSE and insert…. All Land use activities are subject to a range of tests. Notification tests of the RMA are avoided where possible and/or used sparingly. 2.3 Discretionary Activities PPCE.2.3 Restricted Discretionary Activities

20

1. Commercial and Industrial activities. 1.2. Any sensitive activity (excluding non-‐habitable buildings):

a. Within 500m of: i. The Mining Area of a Mineral Extraction Quarry Resource Area, ii. A Strategic Rural Industry Environment or a Business Environment.

b. Within 100m 30m of an unsealed metal road. c. Within 30m of an existing plantation forestry on a separate site. d. Within 250m of:

i. An e Existing intensive livestock farming activity on a separate site. ii. An existing activity ancillary to farming, or plantation forestry or Strategic Rural Industry on a separate site.

2.3. Any residential unit resulting in more than 1 7 residential units per 20ha of net site area. It is noted that -‐ More than one dwelling per 20ha is provided for as a restricted discretionary activity provided that one the dwelling and one minor household unit is permitted on an allotment of any size. Any minor household unit. RETAIN 3.4. Any building:

a. That exceeds a maximum height of 10m. b. Within 8m of a site boundary. c. That results in site coverage exceeding 20% of the net site area. d. Within 27m of mean high water springs (excluding bridges, culverts and fences). e. Within 27m of the top of the bank of any river that has a width exceeding 3m (excluding bridges, culverts and fences).

4. The destruction of any indigenous wetland. 5. The destruction or clearance of indigenous vegetation that forms a contiguous area of 1ha or more where the maximum area of destroyed or cleared indigenous vegetation per site exceeds 500m2 in any 24 month period, with the exception of vegetation clearance associated with:an area exceeding 500m2 250m2 of predominately indigenous vegetation that forms a contiguous area of 1ha or more.

a. Routine maintenance within 3m of existing buildings, or b. Operation, maintenance and repair of existing tracks, lawns, gardens, fences, drains and other lawfully established activities, or c. Pest plant removal and biosecurity works, or d. Vegetation removal for customary rights, or e. Conservation planting, including planting for ecological restoration purposes. All PERMITTED (a-‐e)

6. Any activity ancillary to farming, or plantation forestry or Strategic Rural Industry that operates within 250m of an existing sensitive activity on a separate site. 7. Any place of assembly 8. Any building associated with emergency service. 9. Any frost protection fan:

a. That exceeds a maximum height of 20m. b. Within 8m of a site boundary.

10. Any crop support structure or artificial crop protection structure: CONTROLED ACTIVITY a. That exceeds a maximum height of 10m.

b. Within 1m of a site boundary. c. Within 27m of mean high water springs (excluding bridges, culverts and fences). d. Within 27m of the top of the bank of any river that has a width exceeding 3m (excluding bridges, culverts and fences).

11. Any health care facility. 12. Any retirement village. 13. Farm quarry if the activity:

a. Extracts over 5,000m3 in any 12 month period on the site. b. Undertaking blasting. c. Establishes within 500m of an existing sensitive activity on an adjacent site.

21

14. Any activity ancillary to farming, or plantation forestry or Strategic Rural Industry that operates: a. Within buildings with a cumulative GFA exceeding 2000m2per site. b. From an outdoor area (excluding water storage and/or treatment ponds and irrigators) larger than 500m2. CONTROLLED ACTIVITY

15. Any intensive livestock farming activity that operates within buildings with a cumulative GFA exceeding 2000m2 per site. 16. Any commercial or industrial activity that:

a. Exceeds 50m2 GFA. b. Is not ancillary to a lawfully established rural production activity. Any emergency service.

17. Settlement proposals developed as part of the MPT.1 Management Plan Technique 18. Complementary small-‐scale rural commercial and industrial activities 19. Visitor accommodation is a restricted discretionary activity where it promotes positive environmental/landscape outcomes 20. Any activity that promotes significant and permanent environmental/landscape enhancement with corresponding permanent protection of that environmental/landscape feature/system and/or area are restricted discretionary activities. Note: Refer to RA.4.2 for Assessment of Discretionary Activities. RCE.2.4 Discretionary Activity Information Requirement 1. Any application under rule RCE.2.3.2 must include a transport assessment statement which:

a) Establishes the current and predicted transport environments/traffic volumes along the road from which the sensitive activity will be setback. b) Establishes the likelihood of changes to the nature, scale and intensity of land uses and their traffic generating potential within the catchment served by the road.

RPCE.3 Subdivision RPCE.3.1 Eligibility Rule 1. Subdivision of a minor residential unit from a principal residential unit is a prohibited activity restricted discretionary activity 2. Any activity subdivision not requiring consent as a controlled or restricted discretionary activity is a non-‐complying activity. RPCE.3.2 Subdivision Notification Rules .3.2 Notification Rules

1. All land use activities are subject to the notification tests of the RMA. OPPOSE RPCE.3.3 Controlled Activities.3.3 Controlled Activities 1. Subdivision where every proposed allotment:

a. Has a minimum net site area of 20ha. b. Can accommodate a minimum 100m2 building area on which a residential unit can be built so that there is compliance as a permitted activity with the relevant rules in the District Plan. c. Demonstrates that management of water supply, stormwater and wastewater can be achieved within the proposed allotments in accordance with Whangarei District Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010.

22

2. Boundary relocation subdivision of sites which are existing at [Operative Date] that:

a. Results in the same number of allotments sites, except sites held together under section 80 of the Building Act 2004. b. Creates no new allotment/s with a new site area less than 4ha. 2,000m2 c.b. Results in no additional vehicle accesses. d.c. Results in every proposed allotment being able to accommodate a minimum 100m2 building area on which a residential unit can be built so that there is compliance as a permitted activity with the relevant rules in the District Plan. e.d. Demonstrate that management of water supply, stormwater and wastewater can be achieved within the proposed allotments in accordance with Whangarei District Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010. f.e. Results in the ability to construct or locate residential units not exceeding a density of 1 7 residential units per net site area of 20ha. Note: Refer to RA.4.1 for Matters of Control.

RPCE.3.4 Restricted Discretionary Activities.3.4 Discretionary Activities 1. Boundary relocation subdivision that does not comply with any standard in RPCE.3.3.2.

2. Subdivision of existing lawfully established residential units:

a. With a minimum net site area of 2,000m2 or less that are able to accommodate onsite servicing of wastewater disposal in accordance with Whangarei District Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010. b. Resulting in no more than one additional title from the parent title within any 10 year period. DELETE c. Providing a balance allotment equal to or greater than 80ha in net site area. DELETE

3. Subdivision where any proposed allotment is unable to accommodate a minimum 100m2 building area on which a residential unit can be built so that there is compliance as a permitted activity with the relevant rules in this Plan. 4. Subdivision where an environment benefit lot is proposed in-‐situ and where:

a) Additional allotments do not exceed the following: i. 1 allotment for and up to 10ha 4Ha of protected indigenous vegetation, 2 Ha of revegetation or up to 500m2 250m2 of protected indigenous wetland or constructed wetland ii. 2 5 allotments for 10-‐20ha of protected indigenous vegetation and /or 10 Ha of revegetation or over 500m2 250m2 of protected indigenous wetland and/or constructed wetland iii. 3 8 allotments over 20ha of protected indigenous vegetation and/or revegetation

b) All of the following are shown to be met or how they are to be met. i. An existing feature (or features) of high ecological value is present and/or can be created and developed by way of a managed revegetation programme over time. ii. The feature(s) are protected at the time of application or secured by management plan and performance bond. iii. Protection is to be provided in perpetuity on the relevant certificate of title. iv. The full extent of all features located within the site are to be legally protected. v. That secure and permanent stock exclusion is or will be provided (only if stock grazing is retained). vi. That invasive plant pests are or will be eradicated. vii. The animal pests are or will be controlled. viii. Whether domestic pets need to be excluded or controlled.

23

Note: Refer to RA.4.2 for Assessment of Restricted Discretionary Activities. RCE.3.5 Restricted Discretionary Activity Information Requirement

1A. Any application for an ‘SEA quality’ environment benefit subdivision shall be accompanied by a report from a qualified ecologist which addresses (as a minimum):

a. Size and extent of the features b. The ecological quality of the feature(s), including but not limited to:

i. Function ii. Structure iii. Integrity iv. Long term viability

c. The underlying physical characteristics of the features(s), including but not limited to: i. Soil type ii. Topography iii. Aspect iv. LENZ classification v. PNAP classification

d. The effects of the potential development of the feature(s), including but not limited to: i. Building platforms ii. Access iii. Earthworks iv. Services:

1. Storm-‐water 2. Reticulated sewer or septic tanks 3. Reticulated freshwater or water tanks 4. Telecommunications networks 5. Energy (electricity or gas) networks

e. The potential effects of pets on the feature(s). f. The potential effects of farmed animals on the feature(s). g. An on-‐going management plan for the feature(s) including but not limited to:

i. Weed control ii. Pest animal control iii. Pest organism control iv. Pet (including cat and dog) control v. Re-‐vegetation and restoration opportunities vi. Fencing plan

NB. It is noted that this level of natural feature and/or SEA quality feature and/or wetland feature is unlikely to exist on private land in the WDC. Therefore, the existing Operative 73.3.2 wording (and density regime) is offered as an alternative to the above, as follows: 1.B Environmental Benefit Operative 73.3.2 reintroduced)

This rule is an addition to Rule RCE 3.5 and does not need to be complied with for every subdivision. There is no controlled activity subdivision. Notwithstanding the allotment area requirements of Rule 73.3.1 subdivision is a restricted discretionary activity if:

a) In the Rural Countryside Environment:

24

i. A new allotment with a minimum net site area of 4000.0m²2,000m2 is created in accordance with iii below; and

ii. There is a balance area with a minimum net site area of 4.0ha 2.0Ha created for each allotment created under (i); and

iii. iii. An ‘Environmental Benefit’ as specified in c) and d) is obtained;

b) An Environmental Benefit is the permanent protection of a significant natural

feature where i. The feature is currently unprotected and for the purposes of

this rule “unprotected” means that at the time of subdivision the feature is not already permanently protected by means of either the rules of the district Plan or other legal protection such as a covenant, wildlife refuge or reserve registered against the title.

ii. The feature contributes in a significant manner to the natural character of the Whangarei District and/or an appropriately designed revegetation project is proposed: and

iii. The boundaries of all allotments are drawn relative to the feature to be protected to ensure that the whole feature is entirely within one of the allotments produced by the subdivision (preferably the parent Lot); and

iv. The feature shall be protected in perpetuity by means of a covenant, declaration, reservation or other similar instrument registered against the Certificate of Title; and

v. A building area of at least 500.0m2 and vehicular access to the building area is shown on the plan of subdivision for each site to be created. The building and access areas will be shown to not to reduce the significance of the natural feature to be protected; and

vi. The feature to be protected and the proposed allotments to be created as an Environmental Benefit are within the boundaries of the same Certificate of Title or adjoining Certificates of Title, such to be in common ownership;

vii. The extent of the feature to be protected must encompass all of the area assessed to be significant.

For the purposes of this rule, each of the following are considered to be individual types of feature able to be considered individually against the Environmental Benefit Criteria:

• Stands of indigenous vegetation or indigenous fauna habitat, including indigenous wetlands;

• Areas of appropriately designed indigenous re-‐vegetation or enhancement and/or constructed wetlands

d) An application for subdivision submitted under this rule shall be accompanied by all necessary information, to demonstrate to the Council the authenticity and significance (quality) of the feature for protection. This information shall be in the form of a detailed report from a suitably qualified and/or experienced expert and shall assess those matters over which discretion is reserved. A vegetation or habitat feature shall include an assessment against, and be in accordance with best practice horticultural re-‐

25

vegetation programmes and be accompanied by a Revegetation Planting Management Plan (e.g. Refer/see Appendix 16 AUPOiP 2016)

Discretion is restricted to:

i. The size of the feature to be protected; ii. The quality of the feature proposed to be protected; iii. The quality of the revegetation proposal iv. The contribution the feature will make long-‐term to the

enhancement of ecosystem service delivery and thus the support to the rural production area generally

v. The location of the feature and its surrounding environment e.g. whether it forms part of an outstanding landscape or adjoins/buffers an existing protected area or extends connectivity of other features;

vi. The significance of the feature to the natural character of the Whangarei district;

vii. The rarity of the feature; viii. The extent to which the feature proposed for protection has

been modified and the impact this has had on its significance; ix. The type of permanent protection proposed; x. The future management of the feature, once implemented

and protected; xi. The need for any enhancement of the feature, for example, by

revegetation, fencing, weed/pest control or eradication; xii. Identification of any other features on the site and the

contribution (positive or negative) these make to the significance of the feature proposed to be protected;

xiii. The ability of the protected feature to offset and/or complement the effects of the allotment proposed to be subdivided;

xiv. Effects, including reverse sensitivity effects, due to the location and/or size of the allotments proposed to be created;

xv. The need for a bond or covenant, or both, to ensure performance or compliance with any conditions imposed;

xvi. The need for restrictions on future, land use/development within proximity (but still within the boundary of the property prior to the subdivision) of the protected feature, in order to maintain its quality and significance.

OR

c) An Environmental Benefit is the permanent protection of a significant natural feature of

revegetated land area where the following outcomes are promoted and enabled:

i. Retirement and/or revegetation of currently degraded and/or

marginal productive landholdings. These may be currently in low

producing pastureland or forestry land use and/or in a partial and/or

transitional stage of retirement and reversion to:

• Exotic shrubland

• Mixed exotic and native shrubland

26

• Native shrubland, and/or

• Various stages of advanced regenerating native bush

ii. Enhancement, regeneration, rehabilitation and protection of:


• Existing bush patches




• Heritage sites (archeological sites and areas)

iv. Multiple-‐functional and diverse land use options (as opposed to mono-‐

cultural land uses). This includes intensive production activities and

provision for appropriately scaled settlement, education, recreational,

visitor/tourist facilities and home services and industries associated

with a conservation-‐driven outcome. These land-‐uses can all co-‐exist

to significantly enhance integrated environmental, social and economic

community development and sustainability.

v. Partial subdivision of larger existing productive holdings to assist the

economic and social viability and continuance of the current land-‐use.

The EBR can serve to release capital by way of diversifying land use (e.g.

settlement) to support the underlying land use activity and also retire,

regenerate and protect the often degraded critical environmental

features, elements and patterns, that are better retired from productive

to conservation use, as outlined above.

d) Subdivision creating an environmental Benefit under c) above, but which does not meet the standard of a) or b) above (as applicable), including the number and size of lots, is a discretionary activity. The matters that the Council will consider in its assessment of an application for a discretionary activity consent under this rule include, but are not limited to:

• The areas and/or the value of the significant natural or historical feature, or features, to be protected; and

• The matters to which discretion is restricted under the restricted discretionary activity rule above; and

• The effects of the extra environment benefit lots and their subsequent development in terms of visual effect, effects on natural character and effect on sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

e) In addition, retention of the existing Boundary Adjustment Provision

Boundary Adjustment.

27

Note: Any activity that does not comply with a standard for a controlled activity will be assessed against rule xxx

1. Subdivision is a controlled activity if:

a) In the (RPCE)Countryside Environment; i. The boundaries of two or more adjacent allotments are

adjusted; and ii. The minimum net site area of any proposed allotment created

by the boundary adjustment is 4000.0m2; and iii. No additional allotments will be created; and iv. The net site area of any proposed allotment created by the

boundary adjustment is the same as, or does not differ by more than 10.0% of, the net site area of that allotment as it existed prior to the boundary adjustment; or

2. For the purposes of this rule, “existing allotment” is defined as an allotment which:

a) Has a separate Certificate of Title; or b) Is shown on a plan of subdivision which has been certified by the Council pursuant to section 223, and has not elapsed pursuant to section 224 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Control is reserved over: The matters listed in Rule xxxx for controlled activities.

28

Appendix B – REVISED MPT.1

29

MPT.1 Management Plan Technique 26 October 2011

MPT.1 Description and Expectations

The purpose of the Management Plan Technique is to facilitate subdivision and development in a flexible

manner while ensuring the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in an integrated

way. Management Plan Technique is one subdivision and development method available in the District

Plan and is an alternative method to traditional forms.

Site specific design provides the opportunity for integrated subdivision or development which results in

superior outcomes to more traditional forms of subdivision, use or development. When subdivision and

development are designed where the location, form and scale of the proposal complements sustainable

environmental management, consistent with the protection of natural character, landscape, amenity,

heritage, and cultural values, opportunity for subdivision and development is increased.

The management plan technique provides flexibility to create innovative proposals. The degree of

flexibility will be proportional to the level of certainty provided upon resource consent application to

encourage alternative solutions and thinking outside the box. Process of compliance with the District Plan

flexibility, will be available where a management plan achieves desired environmental outcomes.

Provision for management plan development will be provided within Environments and at a scale where

detailed site specific design is appropriate. Environmental outcomes achieved by management plan

development are directly reliant upon prescriptive policy description within the District Plan. Council must

undertake a plan change to make eligibility of the Management Plan Technique available to other areas

in the District. Any such plan change(s) will require consideration of:

a. Eligibility criteria, is Management Plan Technique the best method to achieve sustainable

management under the Resource Management Act or should it be an alternative method;

b. Prescriptive policy within Environment and/or Policy Area provisions to direct environmental

outcomes of management plan development and give effect to MPT.1.3.

c. Matters of assessment or information requirements for applications (MPT2.8 Particular

Matters to be Assessed) utilising the Management Plan Technique to ensure consistency with the

relevant Environment, Policy Area and District Wide provisions;

d. Notification provisions and criteria to ensure transparency of public participation. prevail on a

restricted discretionary and local interest basis only.

30

Rolling review of the District Plan will increase prescriptive policy. The management plan technique will

only be available as and when policy prescription is appropriate. Delete

MPT.1.2 Eligibility Rule

Management plan technique is a type of approach to development design and consent. The content

within this section relates to the technical technique of management plan. Eligibility to use the

management plan technique is strictly controlled.

The Management Plan Technique shall only be considered where provided for in the development

eligibility statement for the relevant Environment and/or Policy Area. The Management Plan Technique is

available in the following Environments and/or Policy Areas:

a. Urban Transition Environment.

b. Rural Area

c. Rural Production Environment (Now Rural Countryside Environment)

d. Rural Village Environment

e. Rural Living Environment

f. Rural (Urban Expansion) Environment

g. Rural (Urban Expansion) Living Environment

h. Coastal Area

i. Landscapes

Use of the Management Plan Technique outside these Environments and/or Policy Areas shall be a non-‐

complying activity.

MPT.1.3 Objectives

1. Opportunities are provided for flexible and innovative subdivision and development to achieve

holistic outcomes.

2. Integrated manage of effects between subdivision and land use to result in superior outcomes

to more traditional forms of subdivision, use and development.

MPT.1.4 Explanation

Management Plan Technique provides direction for the release of the technique and sets out matters for

Council consideration when preparing the relevant Plan Change.

MPT.2 Management Plan Application

31

MPT.2.1 Description and Expectations

The purpose of management plan development is to facilitate subdivision and development in a flexible

manner while ensuring the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in an integrated

way.

To achieve sustainable management of natural and physical resources, and a holistic approach to site

specific design, development shall recognise and avoid incompatible land use. Where appropriate the

potential for reverse sensitivity effects should be avoided, remedied or mitigated. To reduce cumulative or

ad-‐hoc development, the Management Plan Technique should be a one off method for site specific design.

In rural and coastal areas subdivision, use and development shall preserve and where possible enhance,

restore and rehabilitate the character of the applicable Environment (zone) in regard to section 6 matters

of the Resource Management Act 1991, and shall avoid adverse effects as far as practicable by using

techniques including:

a. clustering or grouping development within areas where there is the least impact on natural

character and its elements such as indigenous vegetation, landforms, rivers, streams and

wetlands, and coherent natural patterns;

b. minimising the visual impact of buildings, development, and associated vegetation clearance

and earthworks, particularly as seen from public land and the coastal marine area;

c. providing for, through siting of buildings and development and design of subdivisions, legal

public right of access to and use of the foreshore and any esplanade areas;

d. through siting of buildings and development, design of subdivisions, and provision of access

that recognise and provide for the relationship of Maori with their culture, traditions and taonga

including concepts of mauri, tapu, mana, wehi and karakia and the important contribution Maori

culture makes to the character of the District;

e. providing planting of indigenous vegetation in a way that links existing habitats of indigenous

fauna and provides the opportunity for the extension, enhancement or creation of habitats for

indigenous fauna, including mechanisms to exclude pests;

f. protecting historic heritage through the siting of buildings and development and design of

subdivisions.

g. Introduce a reference to RCE.34 abnd RCE.3.56 and/or the revised Environmental Benefit Rule

73.3.2 (new clause to be established) here (as a Restricted Discretionary Activity)

In urban areas and built environments subdivision, use and development shall avoid adverse effects as far

as practicable by using techniques including:

a. Urban design principles developed in accordance with the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol.

32

b. Planning infrastructure framework incorporating alternative engineering solutions, where

practicable, for:

• Roading;

• Wastewater;

• Stormwater;

• Water;

• Public open space.

Note: Management plans established and implemented under the provisions outlined in this chapter are

different to Mineral Extraction Management Plans as provided for in Chapter 64 of the District Plan.

MPT.2.2 Eligibility Rule

Any resource consent application utilising the Management Plan Technique shall comply with provisions

MPT.2.4 to MPT.2.8.

MPT.2.3 Explanation

Management Plan Application provides direction for the assessment of resource consent applications

utilising the Management Plan Technique and sets out matters for Council consideration.

MPT.2.4 General Policies

1. To avoid physical site constraints when designing subdivision and development on a site

specific basis, where mitigation and remediation will not result in sustainable management.

2. To provide for flexible and innovative, implementation of subdivision and development to

achieve superior outcomes.

3. To ensure that the management plan will provide for the ongoing management of the sites to

achieve sound resource management.

4. To integrate the management of effects between subdivision and land use, via management

plan conditions.

5. To require robust preparation and assessment process of integrated subdivision and

development. 6. To ensure that all matters relating to infrastructure servicing and engineering

shall be designed consistent with the outcomes sought by Environmental Engineering Standards

2010.

7. To recognise, maintain and enhance the unique characteristics and attributes of the

surrounding environment as indicated by way of Overlay and Policy Areas on the Planning Maps.

8. To ensure subdivision and development of land is provided for in such a way as will be

consistent with the District wide provisions and purpose of the various Environments in the Plan.

33

9. To ensure subdivision and development recognise and provide for any relevant structure plan.

10. To ensure subdivision and development has particular regard to adjacent land development

activities.

11. Subdivision and development of land undertaken on a site specific basis shall recognise and

avoid the potential for reverse sensitivity effects.

MPT.2.5 Type of Consent

Management Plan Technique is a type of approach to development design and consent. Resource consent

applications made under the Management Plan Technique provisions shall be considered as a land use

consent, unless combined land use and subdivision consent is expressly requested.

Activity status of any resource consent application made under the Management Plan Technique

provisions shall be determined by the relevant District Wide, Environment and/or Policy Area provisions.

Resource consent granted under the Management Plan Technique shall be considered to be 'given effect

to' when the Council approved management plan is registered against the Certificate of Title of the

subject site. Once a land use consent has been approved by Council under the Management Plan

Technique any future subdivision of the subject site will require separate approval from Council. The

future subdivision shall be considered as a permitted activity subject to Certificate of Compliance

certification in accordance with section 139 of the Resource Management Act 1991 where the subdivision

is in accordance with a Council approved management plan, registered against the Certificate of Title.

Any proposed activity that does not comply with an approved Management Plan that has been given

effect to, is a non-‐complying activity and will require resource consent approval under the relevant District

Wide, Environment and/or Policy Area provisions.

MTP.2.6 Info Requirements

All applications for consent using the management plan technique shall include, in addition to the

standard information required under Schedule 4 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the following

information:

1. Any information required to assess the proposal against relevant development eligibility,

objectives and policies.

2. Draft Management Plan, completed in the Council's prescribed form and manner (to be

finalised in accordance with the conditions of consent) setting out, the extent relevant to the

proposal;

a. The objectives of the proposal (managing expectations);

34

b. The mechanisms to ensure that the management plan applies to and binds future

owners;

c. Proposals for staging of development including, where a subdivision is to be staged,

arrangements for vesting any reserves, access facilities (vehicle and pedestrian) or public

utilities required by the resource consent and located in subsequent stages.

3. Any additional information Council may require on aspects of the proposal.

MPT.2.7 General Matters to be Assessed

All applications for consent using the management plan technique shall be assessed against the following

general matters:

1. Adequacy of compliance with the prescribed management plan form.

2. Adequacy of the management plan including and not limited to the:

• On-‐going compliance provisions prescribed within the management plan;

• Method of registration proposed to give effect to the management plan;

• Extent to which physical site constraints have been taken into account;

• Development proposal and consent timing and/or staging;

• Method of compliance provisions prescribed within the management plan to meet

requirements of sections, 108, 220, 223 and 224 of the Resource Management Act,

where future subdivision is considered.

• Clarification of development flexibility within the realm of the management plan

(triggers to alternative consent requirements).

3. Compliance with the management plan development eligibility requirement for the relevant

Environment and/or Policy Area.

4. Fulfillment of the development standards for the relevant Environment and/or Policy Area and

District Wide Rules.

5. Fulfilment of any relevant District Wide, Environment and/or Policy Area objectives and

policies.

6. Consideration of the provisions of any relevant structure plan that has been prepared for the

locality.

7. Consideration of and cognizance with provisions and proposals of other management plan on

an adjoining property.

8. Whether bonds are necessary to assist in achieving the management plan.

9. The extent to which information and proposed management measures are provided by suitably

qualified persons.

10. The extent to which reverse sensitivity effects on existing environment are avoided, remedied

or mitigated.

35

11. Consideration of designations, including where applicable, written approvals pursuant to

section 176 of the Resource Management Act.

MPT.2.8 Particular Matters

All applications for consent using the management plan technique shall be assessed against the

following particular matters:

1. Urban Transition Environment:

a. Appropriateness of UTE.2.1 Discretionary Activities;

b. Appropriateness of commercial or industrial activities.

c. The effects of the development on existing local roads and State highways,

including intersections, by way of a Traffic Impact Assessment.

2. Any other Environment that is deemed to be appropriately included as a result of the

current suite of PC 85,86,87 & 114 procedures

3. Any other particular and relevant matters that emerge out of the application of the

MPT.1 Management Plan Technique to the Identified current 2016 suite of WDC Rural

Plan Change matters and provisions

MPT 2.9 Notification Rules

1. All land use activities and subdivision are a Restricted Discretionary Activity under

the Management Plan Technique

TheDecision:a. WhangareiDistrictCouncilMinuteNote4.4b. DecisionReferencesfromtheHearingRecommendationReport(s)

1

Planning and Development Committee Meeting Minutes

Date:

Time:

Location:

Wednesday, 13 December, 2017

9:00 a.m.

Council Chamber

Forum North, Rust Avenue

Whangarei

In Attendance Cr Greg Innes (Chairperson)

Her Worship the Mayor Sheryl Mai

Cr Crichton Christie

Cr Vince Cocurullo

Cr Tricia Cutforth

Cr Shelley Deeming

Cr Sue Glen

Cr Phil Halse

Cr Cherry Hermon

Cr Greg Martin

Cr Sharon Morgan

Cr Anna Murphy

Gavin Benney

Not in Attendance Cr Stu Bell

___________________________________________________________________

1. Declarations of Interest

Item 4.4 – Minerals, Landscape, Coast and Rural Plan Change Decision

2. Apology

Cr Stu Bell

Moved By Cr Greg InnesSeconded By Cr Greg Martin

That the apology be sustained.Carried

4.4 Minerals, Landscape, Coast and Rural Plan Change Decision

Moved By Cr Greg Innes Seconded By Her Worship the Mayor Sheryl Mai

That the Planning and Development Committee:

a. adopts the report and recommendations of the Hearing Panel dated23 November 2017 on proposed Plan Changes PC102, PC114,PC87, PC 85 A – D and PC86A & B, in accordance with Clause 10of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991;and

b. resolves to publicly notify, on 17 January 2018, Council’s decisionon PC102, PC114, PC87, PC 85 A – D and PC86A & B, inaccordance with Clauses 10 and 11 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of theResource Management Act 1991.

Carried

Cr Deeming declared a conflict of interest and withdrew from the table

taking no part in discussions or voting on Item 4.4.

Cr Halse declared an interest and withdrew from voting on Item 4.4.

DecisionReferencesPart1–GeneralTopics

D.NotificationRulesF.UseofManagementPlanTechniqueandComprehensiveDevelopmentPlanProvisionsP.StrategicDirection

Part7

J.Submission195-DennisScott–‘RuralProduction’vs‘Countryside’Decisions

D.NotificationRulesParagraph33.“TheHearingsPanelrecommendthatCouncilacceptsubmissionpoints195/8and250/18and29”.F.UseofManagementPlanTechniqueandComprehensiveDevelopmentPlanProvisionsParagraph57.“TheHearingsPanelrecommendstoCounciltorejectsubmissionpoints24/1,195/6,428/2430/2and480/2”.P.StrategicDirectionParagraph309.“TheHearingsPanelrecommendstoCounciltoacceptinpartsubmissions80/1and2195/1–4,423/35-38and431/1–6totheextentthatwehaverecommendedanumberofchangestothesuiteofplanchangeswhichgosomewaytoaddressingtheconcernsofthesesubmitters.”

Part7

J.Submission195-DennisScott–‘RuralProduction’vs‘Countryside’Paragraph196.‘TheHearingsPanelrecommendsthattheCouncilacceptinpartsubmission195andthattheamendmentsbemadetotheplanassetoutintherevisedplanprovisionsforPC85A”.

Hearings Panel Reports – “Decision” Extracts D. Notification Rules Submission Information 27. Dennis Scott1 has requested that the notification requirements for all plan changes be reviewed with no reasons stated. 28. GBC8 requested the deletion of all notification rules in the SRIE and RUEE, seeking that the Council adopt the notification provisions in s95A of the RMA. 1195/8

29. Ms Clarke on behalf of GBC and others highlighted the risk of rules proposed not achieving outcomes sought particularly with RMA changes. Ms Clarke preferred to rely upon the notification provisions of the RMA. Discussion 30. The use of notification rules as proposed were explained and evaluated within the s32 Report9. WDC, in the notified version of the plan changes has taken a deliberate approach to the rolling review of the District Plan to create a stronger policy driven plan. This approach includes the use of notification rules. 31. The Hearings Panel was persuaded by the evidence that the Plan Changes should rely on notification 'tests' in the RMA. Those tests enable each case to be considered on its merits, to determine if the effects on the environment are more than minor or not. The notified provisions would also not enable consideration of whether "limited notification" was more appropriate, where it could be assessed that only identified persons are adversely affected. In some cases the notified plan stated that any non-complying activity must be publicly notified, or if a building is over a certain height. As is sometimes the case, applications become ‘technically' non-complying, or may due to typographical issue become over height, but that additional height has no impact beyond the site or only affects the adjoining site. In these circumstances it is appropriate to provide discretion whether an application needs to be publicly notified, or notified only to affected persons. 32. In section 32 and 32AA terms we find, based on the evidence presented to us that the cost and associated time delay of requiring notification is neither efficient nor effective. We have recommended throughout the plan changes that all consent applications be subject to the RMA notification tests. Recommendation 33. The Hearings Panel recommend that Council accept submission points 195/8 and 250/18 and 29. F. Use of Management Plan Technique and Comprehensive Development Plan Provisions Submission Information 50. Dennis Scott2, André & Robin LaBonté3

and WFH Properties Ltd4 requested the provision for the

use of Management Plan Technique (MPT) and Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) be included within the proposed plan change rules within the RCE and RLE to allow for flexible subdivision. 51. Mr Scott presented a statement about the usability of the MPT, in his opinion the WDP provisions are a useful tool that could be used with some careful amendments. Mr Scott described his preference to provide for case by case assessment of site capacity and constraints to determine development opportunities. Mr Scott highlighted his previous experience with MPT provisions in other district plans such as the Far North District Plan. 52. Bruce Weir5 sought the inclusion of a Comprehensive Development Rule that allows more intensive residential development with a minimum lot size of 250m2 as a limited discretionary activity. 53. Kakariki Ltd6

requested that the RCE be amended to include a provision that the MPT be a discretionary option to accommodate appropriate dwellings on multiple owned land.

2195/63 430/2

4 480/25 24/16428/2

54. Further submissions supported in part, stating that benefits to natural values arise from the use of environmental benefit and management plan provisions, however, such provisions must be carefully designed, stating the submissions lack detail to ensure such results would be achieved. 1 Discussion 55. MPT and CDP are methods existing within the WDP that allow for site specific design of development outside the standard provisions of the underlying Environment. Use of MPT was considered in the s32 Evaluation Report23 with the option being rejected. Recent Environment Court decisions and declarations24 indicate that methods such as MPT and CDP are not vires where activity status attaches to a management plan rather than a specified activity or effect. Ms McGrath for the Council confirmed that WDC is required to review the MPT and CDP provisions as part of the WDP rolling review, and for the reasons in the s32 and the s42A report has adopted the approach of not including them. 56. The Hearings Panel finds that due to the uncertainty and potential vires issues associated with the implementation of the WDP MPT and CDP provisions, it is not appropriate to extend the use of these methods to the RCE and RLE. While this is our finding, we note we have recommended a suite of changes to the plan provisions, in particular to the Rural Production Environment (re- named Rural Countryside Environment) to be more enabling in terms of the activities and subdivisions provided for. This should go some way to addressing the concerns of these submitters. Recommendation 57. The Hearings Panel recommends to Council to reject submission points 24/1, 195/6, 428/2 430/2 and 480/2.

P. Strategic Direction Submission Information 290. Landowners Coalition7 and Dennis Scott8 sought a complete review of the strategic direction of the rural plan changes. Mr Scott opposed PC85A requesting that Council reconsider the merge of Countryside and Countryside Living Environments into a single RCE as he considered that this would adversely impact already existing and established appropriate land-use management regimes and how current and future generations will live and work in the rural areas. He considered that the plan as notified would not achieve the purpose of the RMA. 291. Hort NZ124 supported in part the relief sought, seeking that Council reassess the zoning framework based on work undertaken as part of the Rural Plan Changes. The submitter sought that some RLE areas be reviewed to ensure that high value production is not located in RLE. 292. FFNZ125 opposed the relief sought by Hort NZ, considering that the framework generally strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the RCE and providing for future urban expansion. 7 122431/1 – 6 123195/1 – 4 124X408 125X622 126X546 12780/1 and 2 128253/27 129423/35 - 38 8

293. DoC126 opposed the relief sought by Hort NZ, considering that it is not sound resource management practice to include rural production and rural lifestyle activities into one zone. 294. Te Reo Hau127 requested that Council change policy to enable subdivision where land is identified by hapu as a significant area to enable the return of land to hapu control. There are areas of significance to hapu within rural farm land. The intent of this policy makes it difficult for the return of these areas to hapu where an agreement is made between farm owners and hapu. 295. FFNZ128 would like to see RPS policy 5.1.1(f) requiring that plan changes and subdivision in primary production zones do not materially reduce the potential for soils based primary production on land with highly versatile soils, specifically recognised and addressed in the WDP. 296. Hort NZ129 requested alteration to policies within WDP chapter 6 Built Form and Development on the basis that there is benefit in taking into account rural matters. Hort NZ supported the identification and protection of the district’s highly productive and versatile soils. Relief sought includes:

• Amend WDP policy 6.4.1 future growth to include ‘rural production activities’. • Retention of WDP policy 6.4.10 or inclusion of a new policy in RA. • Retain WDP policy 6.4.2 iii. • Retain WDP Chapter 6, Anticipated Environmental Results bullet point 5. •

297. Mr Day, Mr Trewin and Mr Payne presented evidence on behalf of NRC. We sought their expert opinion with regard to the identification and protection of high class soils in the proposed plan changes and the direction in the RPS. Mr Payne confirmed that the RPS does not contain specific provisions that require explicit identification and protection, stating in his opinion soils are too variable. 298. Mr Newman presented evidence on behalf of the Landowners Coalition. He reiterated their request for the plan changes to be reviewed striking a more balanced approach with respect to private property rights, with the removal of what he considered to be a significant number of draconian and unnecessary provisions. He considered that the Council's approach was over-regulatory and confusing. 299. Ms Hicks spoke to her submission and presented a written statement. Ms Hicks expanded upon her original submission raising concern in relation to the lack of consideration of climate change and the necessity to review the Ruakaka structure plan and zoning of land. 300. Mr Scott had provided a very extensive and detailed submission about why he considered the Council's approach was too narrow, prescriptive and did not reflect the reality of the rural areas of Whangarei (in that much of the land was not "productive" as set out in the Rural Production Environment). It was his view that the Plan needed to recognise that the rural area was a place where a significant number of people lived, that much of the land was not 'production land' as described in the RCE, and that the plan needed to be more enabling of 'lifestyle' and other forms of production and living to both support rural and coastal communities but also to rehabilitate past poor land management practices. He presented a statement of evidence setting out his concerns regarding the structure of the rural Environments in support of his submission opposing the strategic direction. Discussion 301. These submitters, in various ways, have opposed the broader strategic direction and approach to the rural plan changes. In terms of the Council's s32 approach, it has sought to give effect to the strategic direction of 30/50 and the Rural Development Strategy, and the options for zoning had emerged from that process. 302. The Hearings Panel acknowledges that there are many differing approaches that can be adopted to sustainably manage the rural and coastal resources of the District. The Council has 'justified' its approach based on its strategic planning documents, and addressed this through the required section 32 process 303. A number of submitters, as set out above, have sought a very different approach to the

management of this area. If the approach suggested by Mr Scott and Mr Newman, in particular, were to be accepted, the amendments sought would considerably change the outcomes of the proposed plan changes; would likely be unrecognisable from the notified plan changes, and in our view would require a complete re-write and re-notification of the plan changes. We do not find that this is justified by the submissions or evidence. Notwithstanding this, in light of these submissions, and a large number of others who presented to us, we do find, and recommend, that some significant changes need to be made to make the plan more enabling (where appropriate) and to better reflect the reality of the rural environment. 304. The detail and explanation of these recommended changes are addressed in the other recommendation reports, and in the redrafted plan provisions. However, an overview of some of these changes to the RA policy direction include:

• Refocusing the RCE to one recognising that rural production is not the sole function; that much of the land is not productive in the way expressed in the zone, that a significant number of people live and work in this environment (often on small blocks); and that it has areas of significant ecological values. As part of this 're-focus' the name has been changed to Rural Countryside Environment (RCE) to better reflect its purpose (i.e. not necessarily production. Also a number of the objectives and policies have changed, or have been added and deleted to reflect the re-focused RCE. • Re-introducing Environmental Benefit Lot subdivisions, where (mainly) indigenous bush and wetlands can be protected and subdivided from the parent lot, ad including an objectives and policies to ‘support’ this activity. • Providing for industrial and commercial activities in RCE (and other zones) where they support or are ancillary to rural productive activities and/or support rural communities. This includes recreation and tourism based activities. • Permitting minor dwelling units and home occupations (with some conditions) in RCE (and other zones). • Providing additional areas to be re-zoned Rural Village and Rural Living Environment - where we were persuaded by submitters it was appropriate to do so based on the established inclusion/exclusion criteria. • Changing the notification requirements so that the 'standard tests' of the RMA apply rather than mandatory public notification with its inherent time and cost delays.

305. It is the Panel's view that in section 32AA terms, the combined effect of the all the recommended changes will better provide for the sustainable management of the rural and coastal areas. The 'package' of controls recommended, we think address, to at least some degree, the concerns raised by a number of submitters including Mr Scott and Mr Newman. As mentioned the detail of all of the changes are set out in the other recommendation reports and the redrafted plan provisions. 306. With respect to the Te Reo Hau submission, Ms McGrath confirmed that WDC is working with hapu to review the WDP provisions including the identification of Sites of Significance to Māori as draft Plan Change 100 (PC100). There will be an opportunity in PC100 to consider the incentivisation of subdivision to protect a Site of Significance. The Hearings Panel finds that the plan changes provide sufficient provision for consideration of subdivision enabling the protection of Sites of Significance to Māori, noting that district wide policy of Chapters 7 and 8 of the WDP also apply. 307. FFNZ has requested that the plan changes recognise and address RPS Policy 5.1.1(f). The Hearings Panel finds that the package of plan changes appropriately recognise and address RPS Policy 5.1.1(f). The proposed rural Environments direct lifestyle and residential development to locations within the RLE, RUEE and RVE where productive potential has already been materially compromised. The RCE has very limited ability to subdivide and intensify residential density limiting the future compromise of soil based production, combined with very strong policy direction in the RCE and RA. 308. Hort NZ requested specific amendments to the WDP - district wide Chapter 6 Built Form and Development. Amendments to Chapter 6 were considered in the s32 report. Given the officers' opinions in the section 42A report and their reply and the evidence heard we do not support the relief sought as set out below, other than acknowledging that a number of changes have been recommended in the RCE provisions to address the concerns of Hort NZ and a number of other submitters:

• Policy 6.4.1 Future Growth is limited to the urban area “to zone land within urban areas”. Urban and rural areas have been defined through these plan changes. The Hearings Panel finds that it is not necessary to include reference to ‘rural production activities’ within a policy limited to urban areas.

• Policy 6.4.10 Productive Soils consistent with discussion above the plan changes work together to protect productive land. The Hearings Panel finds that the rural plan changes, with the changes we have recommended, provide sufficient policy direction.

• Policy 6.4.2.iii Consolidated Development, is seeking to consolidate urban development, the Hearings Panel finds that the rural plan changes provide strong direction with regard to the direction of urban development.

Hearings Recommendation 309. The Hearings Panel recommends to Council to accept in part submissions 80/1 and 2 195/1 – 4, 423/35-38 and 431/1 – 6 to the extent that we have recommended a number of changes to the suite of plan changes which go some way to addressing the concerns of these submitters. J. Submission 195 - Dennis Scott – ‘Rural Production’ vs ‘Countryside’ Submission Information 187. Dennis Scott has written a comprehensive submission opposing the architecture and strategic direction of the proposed rural plan changes72. This submission fundamentally opposed the introduction of the RPE and sought amendments to completely rework the proposed provisions. Key reasoning can be summarised as: 72Section 42A, Topic P

• Generalised approach

• Specifically promoting a production dominant environment is an out-moded colonial perception of the world.

• Underlying reality is that much of the existing CE is inappropriate for production activities.

• Mosaics of class V, VI, VII and VIII soils dominate this environment and landscape.

• Significant areas of the countryside have already been retired from production activities. 188. Relief sought: • Review of PC85 in particular PC85A to reconsider the split of Countryside and Countryside Living Environments into a single RCE and their associated plan change identity(s) as a single Environment. • A review of the primary strategic approach of the RCE that promotes and encourages only productive land use activities and discourages further rural living activities.

• A complete review of the range of proposed Environments and their appropriate identification and mapping in terms of dynamics of land use realities.

• A reintroduction of the Environmental Benefit Lot Rule.

• Provisions for expanded opportunities for the use of the WDP Management Plan Technique.

• Review of all proposed plan change notification requirements.

189. A significant number of submitters presented evidence seeking rezoning from RCE to RVE, RLE, RUEE or Living Environment raising concerns that the RCE is too strongly oriented towards production, claiming that their land is not productive. 190. Mr Newman on behalf of Landowners Coalition presented evidence expressing his opinion that the RCE was not appropriate to apply to the coastal environment, where land is non-productive. 191. Mr Scott presented evidence to expand upon his written submission. He highlighted that there is a lot in a name, expressing in his opinion that Countryside Environment was a more appropriate name for RCE due to the variable landscapes and catchments. Mr Scott supports a more positive and encouraging approach, identifying that conservation and preservation are important. 192. Dr Bellingham presented evidence on behalf of the Hazel Tynan Trust, considering that PC85A does not consider the CE area at Landowners Lane and that the area no longer fits with the objectives and policies of the new RCE. 193. Ms Miller presented evidence on behalf of Witten-Hannah supporting the rezoning of a site from RCE to RVE highlighting the strong RCE policy direction, and raising concern that the provisions do not provide for alternative land uses as permitted or controlled activities. Discussion 194. We find that many of the concerns raised by Mr Scott and Mr Newman in particular and others are valid and have been addressed, in part at least, by our recommended changes to PC85 and 85A. These changes include:

• Refocusing the Rural Production Environment to one recognising that rural production is not the sole function; that much of the land is not productive in the way expressed in the zone, that a significant number of people live and work in this environment (often on small blocks); and that it has areas of significant ecological values. As part of this 're-focus' the name has been changed to Rural Countryside Environment (RCE) to better reflect its purpose (i.e. not necessarily production). Also a number of the objectives and policies have changed, or have been added and deleted to reflect the re-focused RCE. • Re-introducing Environmental Benefit Lot subdivisions, with a graduated scale for the number of lots able to be created, where (mainly) indigenous bush and wetlands can be protected and subdivided from the parent lot. As part of this objectives and policies have been added to ‘support’ this subdivision provision. • Providing for appropriate industrial and commercial activities in RCE (and other zones) where they support or are ancillary to rural productive activities and/or support rural communities. This includes recreation and tourism based activities. • Permitting minor dwelling units and home occupations (with some conditions) in RCE (and other zones).

195. It is the Panel's view that in section 32AA terms, the combined effect of all the recommended changes will better provide for the sustainable management of the rural and coastal areas. The 'package' of controls recommended, we think address, to at least some degree, the concerns raised by a number of submitters including Mr Scott and Mr Newman. As mentioned the detail of all of the changes are set out in the other recommendation reports and the redrafted plan provisions. Recommendation 196. The Hearings Panel recommends that the Council accept in part submission 195 and that the amendments be made to the plan as set out in the revised plan provisions for PC85A.

Dept of Conservation [email protected] Federated Farmers of NZ [email protected]

[email protected] HortNZ [email protected]


EXHIBIT 8

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

NORTHERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION, ALLOTMENTS 15, 42, 43 PARISH OF OWHIWA, AND PART ALLOTMENTS 39, 40

AND 41 PARISH OF OWHIWA, WHANGAREI HEADS ROAD, WAIKARAKA,

WHANGAREI.

Prepared for C. Spence Whangarei

Northern Archaeological Research

67 Church Street, Devonport, Auckland 9

May 2006

NORTHERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION, ALLOTMENTS 15, 42, 43 PARISH OF OWHIWA, AND PART ALLOTMENTS 39, 40 AND 41

PARISH OF OWHIWA, WHANGAREI HEADS ROAD, WAIKARAKA,

WHANGAREI.

By Leigh Johnson and Elisabeth Callaghan

CONTENTS

Introduction

1

Location

1

Proposed Activity

2

Survey Method

4

Archaeological and Historical Background

4

Survey Results

8

Archaeological Significance

16

Assessment of Effects 18 Conclusion 19 References 19 Recommendations 20 Appendix

FIGURES

Figure 1.

Location of the proposed subdivision at Waikaraka (Q07)

1

Figure 2 The area of the proposed subdivision at Waikaraka

2

Figure 3.

Preliminary scheme plan of the proposed subdivision showing roading and lots and area of Pa Q07/62 (hatched).

3

Figure 4. Part SO 768 dated c.1867. The area of the proposed subdivision marked in red, the Pa outlined in blue.

6

Figure 5. Part of SO 3995 dated 1887, showing area of proposed subdivision (red) and area of ‘Old Pah’ (blue).

7

Figure 6. Part SO 21070 dated 1918, showing the northern area of the proposed subdivision and the ‘Old Pa’

8

Figure 7. The profiles of test pits 1-32 15

PLATES

Plate 1.

The area of the proposed subdivision showing the location of the archaeological sites and test pits.

9

Plate 2. The terrace at site Q07/679.

10

Plate 3. The Pa at site Q07/62 looking south.

12

Plate 4. The flight of terraces extending south-west from the Pa E Q07/62

12

Plate 5. The area of midden site Q07/1255 13

Cover. Pa Q07/62.

APPENDIX

New Zealand Archaeological Site Record and

Additional Information Forms

1

Introduction C. Spence proposes to subdivide part of a property on the Whangarei Heads Rd, Waikaraka, outside and to the east of Whangarei. Northern Archaeological Research were commissioned by C. Spence to undertake an archaeological survey and assessment of the affected part of the property. The survey and assessment was undertaken to record archaeological sites on the property and advise the owner as his obligations under the Historic Places Act, 1993, in respect of any affected archaeological sites. The survey was undertaken by Leigh Johnson and Elisabeth Callaghan on the 25th of May 2006. This report outlines the results. The archaeological survey of the area was conducted specifically to locate and record existing archaeological remains. The survey and report do not necessarily include the location of wahi-tapu and/or sites of cultural or spiritual significance to the local Maori community, who should be approached independently for any information or concerns they may have. Location The affected part of the property (Allotments 15, 42, 43 Parish of Owhiwa, and Parts Allotments 39, 40 and 41 Parish of Owhiwa) is located on the Whangarei Heads Rd, at Waikaraka, on the north side of the Whangarei Harbour, some 2km east of Onerahi (Figure 1). The property covers an area of approximately 15-20ha and largely comprises a single steep catchment discharging to the harbour with a small area of the top west side of

FIGURE 1. THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT WAIKARAKA (Q07).

2

FIGURE 2. THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT WAIKARAKA.

the steep catchment immediately adjacent to the east. The area is largely under pasture with small regenerating or remnant patches of the native bush. Soils of the area comprise grey-brown loam over yellow clay and weathered mud stone (Markham 1981).

Proposed activity C. Spence proposes to subdivide the affected part of the property, presently under a purchase agreement, into 21 Lots, with the balance of the property encompassing the area of the Pa to be surveyed out of the subdivision (Figures 2 and 3). At present the preliminary subdivision and roading scheme plan is limited to an aerial photograph with the areas of the proposed lots, three house sites and the Pa marked. Three potential house sites have been identified for Lots 19, 20 and 21. No house sites have been identified for the remaining Lots however a number of potential house site areas have been indicated by the owner in a preliminary walkover of the eastern ridge. Access to the property is

3

FIGURE 3. PRELIMINARY SCHEME PLAN OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION SHOWING ROADING AND LOTS AND AREA OF PA Q07/62 (HATCHED).

currently from Whangarei Heads Road, with a formed grass farm-track located along part of the eastern ridgeline. Access to the individual Lots will be from roads that will follow existing formed farm-tracks. No indication for the provision of services and utilities has been supplied. It is anticipated that these will follow the route of the accessways.

4

Survey method Background research into the archaeology and subsequent history of the property included the examination of late 19th and early 20th century land plans and survey reports held by Land Information NZ, Auckland. New Zealand Archaeological Association site record forms were checked for previously recorded archaeological sites, and a review of regional archaeological publications relating to the area was undertaken. The archaeological assessment primarily involved a detailed surface and subsurface assessment of the areas of the property likely to be affected by residential housing. This mainly comprised the two leading ridges either side of the enclosed gully. Also considered in detail was the end of the level section of the south–east ridge, the slopes both to the east and west of the south-east ridge, the elevated apex of the two main ridge systems, the mid-slope area below the ridge apex and pa, Q07/62, at the stream bank in the gully itself. All other areas were considered in slightly less, detail including the routes of the new access roading that largely follows and incorporates existing farm tracks. The survey was undertaken to locate any surviving archaeological remains in these areas; present a statement of archaeological site condition and significance; and outline advice in respect of the locations of the affected known archaeological sites. The planning for the proposed development is ongoing and this report has been formulated to facilitate this process. This report has not been formulated as an assessment of effects which will be compiled in due course. The survey was undertaken on foot and involved the surface examination of all affected areas. All adjacent subsoil exposures were examined and test pits were dug and a hand held probe was used where subsurface archaeological remains could be reasonably anticipated. The likelihood of undetected subsurface archaeological remains was also considered. Survey conditions in most areas were good. Archaeological and historical background Two archaeological sites have been recorded on the affected part of the Spence property. All relate to pre and/or post-contact Maori settlement and related activities. The principal site, Q07/62 reported and mapped by the ‘Northland Archaeological Site Recorders’ in 1979 (a group of amateur archaeologists organized by the NZAA Filekeeper at that time to record sites in the Whangarei Region), is a medium sized though prominent pa located on a knoll towards the back of the catchment on the east side. G Nevin also later mapped the Pa in 1983 as part of the wider Whangarei Harbour Board Study. In addition to the main Pa the Northland Archaeological Site Recorders recorded an extensive midden on the approach to the Pa. During an archaeological survey of the northern harbour region in 1983 G. Nevin recorded a single archaeological site consisting of shell midden, terrace and burial site, Q07/679, on the end of the level section of the ridge extending south-east from the pa. At this time Nevin also re-mapped pa Q07/62.

5

There is very little written material available recording the proto-contact period of the Waikaraka area. It would appear from the archaeological record and what was observed in the early 19th century that prior to 1815 the area once supported a sizable population. The land was fertile and there were abundant harbour resources. However, between 1815 and 1820 Ngapuhi made continuous forays into the Whangarei Harbour area with devastating effect (Mc Manaway 1983; Vallance 1964). The earliest recorded references to the Waikaraka-Tamatarau area are in the period between 1815 and 1820 with regard to Marsden recording small settlements in the wider Whangarei Harbour area which appear to have been subject to war parties from the North ... “Everywhere they saw evidence of the ravages of war…villages deserted and burned, crops of

wheat in rich land abandoned and uncared for…” (Vallance 1964:23). In a later journey c.1820, Marsden records the district as being ‘thickly populated’. Even so the chief Wehi wehi warned him against travelling further inland as Ngapuhi were raiding the area.

The Rev. Samuel Leigh in 1823 recorded a few scattered inhabitants and villages burned and in ruins (Vallance 1964:29). Dumont D’Urville in 1827 expresses surprise that such a fertile area should be so deserted, and records discovering the remains of huts. Colenso also records in 1838 a visit in the area “climbing to the top of the ancient stronghold which in the days before the advent of the musket would have provided the people with an impregnable defence. As far as the eye could see there was no sign of human habitation. The whole countryside

was depopulated or deserted.” (Bagnell 1948:100) Although people had begun to return to the area in the 1830s, it is unclear whether Waikaraka itself was re-settled, although it seems unlikely. Colenso records a visit to a village at Tametarau, an area he returned to several times over the years between 1836 to 1841. Vallance records that around 1838 “the largest Maori settlement on the upper harbour was at Tamaterau, whose chief was Tipene Hoara. This settlement extended along the foreshore of the Whangarei Harbour from Waikaraka to Tamaterau and under Stephen Hoara’s capable direction extensive cropping was carried out on the rich flats along the foreshore- kumara, and from the white mans seed, pumpkin and marrows, maize, potatoes, and peaches and grapes flourished in the warm climate and the genial soil. A few years later Gilbert Mair was able to send his ten-ton schooner to the settlement and to have it completely filled with maize.” (Vallance1964: 37). It is known that by 1845 the area once again was deserted by Maori and settlers as a result of Ngapuhi moving south after Kororareka. It was some time before settlers were able to return, and they appear to concentrate around Whangarei or the Whangarei Heads rather than the Waikaraka area. Resettlement did not begin again until the mid 1850s. A search of the Land Information NZ files revealed only little in the way of historic information regarding the land use on the block. The earliest referenced land plan (SO3995) was a Lands and Survey Department plan entitled “Survey Map of Onerahi-Waikaraka, Serial No.66” dated 1855. However NAR were unable to locate a copy of this plan.

6

FIGURE 4. PART SO 768 DATED c 1867. THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION MARKED IN RED, THE PA OUTLINED IN BLUE.

A land plan dating from the 1860s (SO 768) entitled ‘Tamaterau Suburban Allotments’ shows the property in question as encompassing Lots 15, 42, 43, and parts Lot 39, 40 and 41 (Figure 4). The ‘Pah’ is clearly marked in Lot 15. A legal ‘paper’ road is marked on the plan (SO 768) in the area of the existing formed grass farm-track on the east ridge. What appears to be a stream is also marked south of the ‘Pa’ running to the coast. The surveyor has written that the land is ‘Very good soil well wooded and very much broken’. No further cultural or historic information is shown for the property. A later land plan (SO 3995) by C. Martin in 1887 “Plan of Township and Suburban Sections of Tamaterau Block XIV Whangarei District Parish of Owhiwa” shows the boundaries of the property in question clearly, except for the northern extremity of the property in question (Figure 5). The area of the Pa is clearly marked on the plan as ‘Old Pa’. The legal ‘paper’ road is marked on the plan in the area of the formed grass farm-track on the east ridge. The stream is shown bisecting almost the entire length of the property in question. Other than a note that the land is in ‘Mixed Bush and Puriri’ no further cultural or historic information is shown for the property.

7

FIGURE 5. PART S0 3995 DATED 1887, SHOWING AREA OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (RED) AND AREA OF ‘OLD PAH’ (BLUE).

A later land plan by G. Purchas, SO20170 dated 1918, of the “Suburbs of Grahamtown Parish of Owhiwa” (Figure 6) shows an ‘Impracticable Undefined Road in use only as a bridle track’ being located to the north and rear edge of the property forming a small section of the boundary of the area proposed to be subdivided. In addition the ‘Old Pa’ is clearly shown located west of the ‘paper’ road and to the south of the ‘bridle road’. The property to the north is described as ‘Broken Hilly Country’.

From the 1880s until the present it appears that the property has been farmed. The country comprising the area of the subdivision is very steep and is unlikely to have sustained any other activity other pastoral development since European settlement. Pastoral

8

development of the part of the property in focus involved the creation of a considerable network of farm tracks through most parts of the area proposed for development.

FIGURE 6. PART SO 21070 DATED 1918, SHOWING THE NORTHERN AREA OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND THE ‘OLD PA’.

It is also to be noted that in discussion with S. Bartlett (NZAA File Keeper-Whangarei) that the area now known as Waikaraka was in fact known as ‘Tamaterau’ and that ‘Waikaraka’ was located closer to Whangarei Heads. Over time ‘Waikaraka’ has been used to encompass the bay and the area surveyed (Bartlett pers com). Survey Results Two previously recorded archaeological sites were relocated, Q0762 and Q07/679, and three new sites were found, Q07/1253-5. New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Record Forms were completed for the new sites and Additional Information forms were completed for the previously recorded sites. These are appendicised in the report (see Plate 1 for location of sites and test pits. Q07/679 (N20/475). Terrace and midden. GPS E 2636756 N 6600338. Additional information. As outlined in the SRF, the site is located on the main ridge extending south south-east of pa, Q07/62, and occurs at the point where the main ridge divides into two subsidiary ridges approximately 400m the northern end of the terrace and an old farm track occurs on the subsidiary ridge to the east up onto the main ridge, some 4m east of the fence. A

9

small number of native trees occur on the end of the ridge on and in the vicinity of the site. These include two kahikatea on the terrace itself. A patch of native bush occurs on

10

PLATE 1. THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION SHOWING THE LOCATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND TEST PITS.

the slope below and directly to the south of the site. The site occurs at a prominent elevated point on the ridge over looking much of the upper Whangarei Harbour. The site is approximately 120m above sea level. Again, as reported a single large terrace, 14m x 10m, occurs on the end of the ridge facing south with a 0.5m high scarp at the back (Plate 2). No other terraces are visible on the surface and two test pits dug some 15m below the terrace on the west side to determine the status of an area of amorphous surface undulations revealed no structural evidence but included fragments of charcoal in the 35-40cm deep topsoil overlying a sterile orange-yellow clay subsoil. The shell midden reported in 1983 is now evident some 15m below and to the south of the terrace under regenerating native trees. The midden has been exposed by cattle and is spread sparsely across the surface over an area of approximately 10m x 10m. Contents appeared entirely cockle (Austrovenus stutchburyi). No archaeological remains were evident in the side of the adjacent farm track though other subsurface remains on the ridge in the immediate vicinity of the site are likely. The reported "long bones" (human ?) in the original SRF, reportedly found by a previous owner under a rock overhang and allegedly marked on a map with an X that should have accompanied the original SRF cannot be relocated in either the NZAA regional or central the site files. A full 200m radius around the site was checked in detail and no rock overhang could be found within this area.

11

PLATE 2. THE TERRACE AT SITE Q07/679.

Q07/ 1253, Midden. GPS E 2636769 N 6603461. The site is located on the Sironco property (Sir Ron Barnett) at Waikaraka on the north side of the Whangarei Harbour. The site occurs on the main ridge that extends to the south south-east of pa Q07/62 and is approximately 250m south along the ridge from the pa. The site occurs on a knoll in open pasture with a farm track and fence along the ridge immediately on the east side of the knoll. The site is approximately 130m above sea level. No visible archaeological features occurred on the surface of the small knoll. To assess the potential for subsurface remains, a series of three test pits were dug across the top of the knoll. The third test pit on the west side of the knoll revealed a shell midden in the top soil at a depth of 20 cm overlying a sterile orange -yellow clay subsoil (GPS E 2636765 N 3459142). Contents were entirely whole and fragmentary cockle (Austrovenus stutchburyi) with fragments of charcoal. Sub surface archaeological remains in other parts of the knoll are likely. Q07/62 (N20/122) Pa. GPS E 2636759 N 6603704. Additional information The pa appears as mapped on the three separate occasions, with little other details noted during our assessment. The pa appears to have been cut into soft weathered rock on the knoll and apart from the old bulldozed track damage; the pa has remained in excellent condition (Plates 3 and 4). The shell midden in which it appears human remains were found by a previous owner (Mr Garnet) (see original SRF) is now covered by long grass and no trace of the shell can be seen in the area shown on the SRF or exposed in cattle tracks on the slope below or at the base of a Puriri and Totara growing in the vicinity. A series of test pits were dug around the lower edges of the pa on the south and west and north-west sides to determine the extent of the site. These all revealed a simple profile of topsoil over yellow clay and outline that the extent of the pa is largely limited to that which can be seen. Despite a series of further test pits down the ridge to the south between the pa and Q07/1253, with similar results to that above, a small range of subsurface archaeological remains associated with the pa such as fire scoops and shell scatters will occur at points along the ridge. Q07/ 1254. Pit and terraces. GPS E 2636799 N 6603805. The site is located on the Sironco property (Sir Ron Barnett) at Waikaraka on the north side of the Whangarei Harbour. The site occurs on the main ridge that extends to the north-west of pa Q07/62 and is approximately 100m north-west along the ridge from the pa. The site occurs on a small knoll in open pasture with a farm track and fence along the

12

ridge either side of the knoll on the west side with a further fence running east. The junction of the two fences occurs with a gate on the knoll. Bush occurs on the slope immediately below to the south east. The site is approximately 165 m above sea level.

PLATE 3. THE PA AT SITE Q07/62. LOOKING SOUTH.

13

PLATE 4. THE FLIGHT OF TERRACES EXTENDING SOUTH-WEST FROM THE PA E Q07/62.

A very poorly preserved pit, 3m x 2m x 0..3m deep, occurs on the top of the knoll on the east side. A small terrace, 6m x 3m, occurs some 5m to the south-east and a further terrace is evident on the north-west side of the knoll a short distance below the gate to the north -west. The old farm track appears to pass over it. There is no clear evidence of settlement on the top of the knoll but is likely to have been leveled to form a small terrace of irregular outline. Some 30m down the ridge to the east north-east is a further small terrace or filled pit 3m x 2m. Further undetected subsurface archaeological features are likely. The site is almost certainly a small outlying settlement associated with, and immediately outside the defences of, pa, Q07/62. Q07/ 1255. Midden. GPS E 2636533 N 6603521. The site is located on the Sironco property (Sir Ron Barnett) at Waikaraka on the north side of the Whangarei Harbour. The site occurs on the main ridge that extends down the west side of the catchment with pa, Q07/62, towards its head. The site occurs on the east side of a narrow section of the ridge, adjacent to and under a large totara growing on the east side (Plate 5). A fence passes down the ridge 4m to the west and native bush occurs on the other side of the fence. The site occurs just above the intersection of old tracks along the ridge and up the slope to the east. The site is approximately 140 m above sea level. A surface scatter of shell midden has been exposed by stock over an area of 20m x 10m. Contents are entirely whole and fragmentary cockle (Austrovenus stutchburyi) shell

14

midden. No other archaeological remains were visible on the surface of the ridge under bush above to the west for a considerable distance either side. However, undetected subsurface archaeological remains on the ridge are likely.

PLATE 5. THE AREA OF MIDDEN SITE Q07/1255.

Test pit results A considerable number of test pits, TP 1-32, were dug in a series of select areas to test for subsurface archaeological remains either adjacent to visible archaeological remains or in areas where archaeological remains could reasonably have been anticipated (see Plate 1 for locations and Figure 7 for profiles).

Test pits 1-2 were dug in an area immediately below and to the west of site Q07/679 in proposed Lot 21. No archaeological remains were visible in the farm track cutting immediately to the north east. Midden was evident eroding down slope to the south of the single terrace and a small number of surface irregularities were noted to the west in the area where one of proposed roads was to be located. The two test pits were located to investigate whether these features were archaeological in origin. Both test pits revealed between 35-40cm of brown puggy topsoil over a sterile yellow/orange clay. The topsoil contained one or two small residual fragments of charcoal as could be anticipated so close to the site but no evidence of archaeological features or remains.

Test pits 3-5 were located to test for subsurface evidence on a knoll on the main ridge a short distance to the north-west of site Q07/679 in proposed Lots 19 and 13. The three test pits revealed between 15-25cm of brown topsoil with charcoal fragments over a sterile yellow/orange clay. Test pit 5 on the west side of the knoll contained a thin 5cm lens of cockle shell midden in the topsoil. On this basis the knoll has been given the site number Q07/1253.

15

Test pits 6 and 7, in proposed Lots 13 and 14 respectively, were located on small possible terraces on subsidiary ridges below the main ridge to the west in the enclosed gully to test for subsurface archaeological remains. Both revealed 15cm of brown topsoil over a sterile yellow/orange clay. There was no archaeological evidence in either test pit and the features appeared natural in origin.

Test pits 8-11, in the area of the proposed main access road, were located a short distance to the south-east of Pa, Q07/62, to test for subsurface archaeological remains. Test pits 8-10 revealed between 5-20cm of brown topsoil over a sterile yellow clay. Test pit 11 revealed 20cm of puggy fill with rare fragments of residual charcoal over orange/yellow clay. There was no readily identifiable archaeological evidence in any of the test pits.

Test pits 12-15, in proposed Lot 15, were located on a further prominent knoll on the main ridge, a short distance to the south-east of Pa, Q07/62, to test for subsurface archaeological remains. All revealed between 10-30 cm of brown topsoil over a sterile yellow clay. There was no archaeological evidence in any of the test pits.

Test pits 16-19 were located on the lower flank below and to the west of the south-west flight of pits terraces extending from Pa, Q07/62. The test pits were located to test for subsurface archaeological remains in several areas on the west flank and determine the status of some amorphous surface features. All revealed between 10-20cm of brown topsoil over a sterile yellow clay. Again, there was no archaeological evidence in any of the test pits.

16

FIGURE 7. THE PROFILES OF TEST PITS 1-32.

Test pits 20-21, in SW 10, were located on the highest knoll at the back or north side of the gully well above and overlooking Q07/1254 and Pa Q07/62. Both were located to test for subsurface archaeological remains. Both revealed 10cm of dark brown topsoil over a

17

sterile light brown clay subsoil. There was no archaeological evidence in any of the test pits. Test pits 22-25 and test pits 26 -29 in proposed Lot 17 were located on large upper and lower natural flat areas respectively immediately below and to the west of Pa Q07/62.The test pits were located to test for subsurface archaeological remains to determine whether the two natural flat areas had been used for settlement or related activities. All revealed between 20-35cm of brown topsoil over a sterile yellow clay subsoil. One or two residual charcoal fragments occurred in the topsoil in TP 25. No archaeological remains or evidence occurred in any of the test pits. Test pits 30-31, in proposed Lot 5, were located immediately on the east side of the ridge adjacent to a small spur on the ridge. The two test pits were located to test for subsurface archaeological remains on the knoll to determine whether the knoll had been used for settlement or related activities associated with Pa Q07/62. Both revealed 10cm of brown topsoil over a sterile weathered rock. No archaeological remains or evidence occurred in either test pit. Test pit 32, in proposed Lot 10 was located on a level section of the main ridge immediately to the east of the gully at this point. The test pit was located to test for subsurface archaeological remains on the level section of the ridge in order to be able to determine whether the knoll had been used for settlement or related activities associated with Pa Q07/62. The test pit revealed 35cm of brown puggy topsoil over a sterile white-yellow clay. No archaeological remains or evidence occurred in the test pit. Archaeological significance All the archaeological sites found on the relevant section of the wider property relate to late pre or immediate post contact Maori settlement in this section of the upper Whangarei Harbour. The enclosed archaeological landscape is dominated by the small but elevated and well preserved transverse ditch pa, Q07/62. As outlined, the pa is largely cut into soft weathered rock and as such has not sustained significant damage from natural erosion. The central platform is still well defined as are the lateral terraces and descending flights of terraces containing individual or pairs of storage pits. If it had not been for the construction of a farm track around the eastern and north sides of the lower flanks of the pa and the cutting of a path for a fence over the pa in the same quadrant the site would have survived in excellent condition and as one of the better examples in the region. The pa itself is comparatively small and appears to be one of a number situated on elevated high points overlooking the upper harbour on the north side. The pa appears typical of those of late pre-contact and its good condition may also indicate that it is not of great antiquity. The reported findings of a musket and sword on or about the pa suggest that the unusual small raised internal banks might be gun warfare adaptations and that the site relates to the period immediately following sustained European contact. If this is the case, the site may relate to the period of Ngapuhi raids in the area in the early 1820s.

18

The shell midden reported containing human remains on the approach to the pa on the North West side cannot be seen and appears covered by humus and lengthy ungrazed pasture. Apart from the old farm track, this area does not appear to have been greatly disturbed and appears is in much the same condition as initially reported in March 1979. The four remaining sites, Q07/679, and Q071253-5, all appear likely to be ancillary settlements to the pa. Q07/679, the terrace and midden site on the spur at the end of the ridge above harbour is a typical small terrace site with associated shellfish processing waste and one of any number that could be expected to occur with any pa. The unusual element of the site is that a range of artefacts (unspecified) has been found here including possibly a curved sword (or from the pa). The reported cleft burial “long limb bones” under a rock overhang in association with the site could not be confirmed. A 200m radius around the site was searched in detail for rock overhang and no feature matching this was found. The NZAA site record form compiled for the site by G. Nevin in August 1983 stated that the location was marked by an X on some unspecified appendix to the site record form. Despite a search of both the central files in Wellington and the regional files in Whangarei no such appendix, plan or map containing an X could be found and does not appear to have been submitted with the form in 1983. G Nevin is no longer resident in New Zealand and no further information relating to the location of the rock overhang and probable burial site can be obtained. It appears to us that the rock overhang does not occur in the area presently proposed for development and is either at some point in the valley to the east or below and outside the property to the south. Sites Q07/1253 and Q07/1255 comprise comparatively small surface or subsurface shell middens and are likely to represent a small number of further archaeological features of this nature existing subsurface on the ridge system extending to the south-east and southwest of the head of the valley. These shellfish middens, like the other middens recorded at Q07/679 and associated with the pa Q07/62, have almost certainly resulted from shellfish gathering on the intertidal flats of the upper Whangarei Harbour, immediately below. The pit and terrace site Q07/1254 is a small ancillary settlement on a knoll immediately outside and to the north-west of the ditch defenses of the pa. The site is small and not in particularly condition through represented the type of features that may have originally existed with the ridge top midden sites Q07/1253 and Q07/1255. In relation to historical sites there was no sign of the “bridle path” in the north-west corner of the area under focus and appears to have occurred in the route of a subsequent farm track along the ridge in this location. This path is not shown on SO 3995 in 1887 and appears likely to postdate the AD 1900 cut off point for archaeological sites in the Historic Places Act, 1993. As a general comment, while the pa is in comparatively good condition the overall archaeological landscape enclosed is only typical of most coastal areas in Northland. However, the site may have significance as a surviving component of the locally important historic Tamaterau Maori settlement.

19

Assessment of effects It is the owner’s intention to leave the pa Q07/62 unmodified within the proposed subdivision of the property. This will include the midden reported to have contained human remains on the ridge immediately below the pa to the south-east. The close proximity of the small ancillary site Q07/1255, immediately to the northwest of the pa is such that this site should also be able to be included within the area of the pa to be left unmodified within the development. To do this the perimeter of the site including a buffer zone will need to be marked out by a qualified archaeologist with wooden battens within which no development should occur. The single terrace and midden site situated at the end of the elevated section of the ridge that descends from the pa to the south-east appears to lie just outside one of the proposed internal access roads though may occur at the site of a proposed residential dwelling. Given that this is possibly the second most intact site on the property and the general intention to avoid archaeological sites if possible, we would advise that the road should be designed to avoid the site and that the area of the site is not built on as part of the subdivision proposal. To effectively achieve this, the site should also be marked out by a qualified archaeologist with wooden battens to prevent damage to the site. In relation to the two remaining midden sites, Q07/1253 and Q07/1255, both appear only as small shell midden deposits with other possible remains now modified through farming and/or erosion. Both occur on or in the vicinity of proposed residential housing in Lots 13 and 4 respectively. The sites are now of little archaeological value and appear of little historical significance. The site Q07/1253 does not appear to be directly affected by the present farm track along the ridge that will form the basis of the proposed road in this area but could be affected if the road were to be upgraded. Similarly, the midden Q07/1255 on the ridge to the west is also not affected by the present track but could be if the present track below was upgraded or extended into this area. We are reasonably relaxed about these sites. If it is possible to avoid them in either road construction or residential development then the sites should be left intact. However, the sites do not warrant preservation on their own. However, any earthworks associated with roading or establishment of building platforms on either site will require the written authority of the New Zealand Historic Places. Given the limited extent, nature and significance of the sites, we would advise the Trust to grant such authority with standard monitoring conditions. Despite the test pitting we have undertaken, there appears a reasonable likelihood that further small archaeological features (such as earth ovens or shell midden) occurring undetected subsurface on the two ridges either side of the enclosed valley, and possibly on subsidiary ridges that might be affected by development of the proposed subdivision, we would advise that prior to any earthworks in development of the subdivision a general authority under Section 12 of the Historic Places Act, 1993, be sought from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust prior to the start of any work. Again we would advise the trust to grant such authority with standard monitoring conditions.

20

Finally, when subdivision plans are completed and before any application is made to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, a copy of the detailed scheme plan should be forwarded to Northern Archaeological Research so that the plan can be more accurately reviewed for any potential effect on the enclosed archaeological landscape and to advise accordingly. Conclusion Northern Archaeological Research was commissioned by C. Spence to undertake an archaeological survey and assessment of a proposed subdivision at Waikaraka (Allotments 15, 42, 43 Parish of Owhiwa, and Parts Allotments 39, 40 and 41 Parish of Owhiwa), Whangarei Heads. Two previously recorded archaeological sites were re-located and three unrecorded archaeological sites were recorded on the property. Recommendations are made in relation to these sites and to any likely subsurface archaeological remains in the immediate vicinity. References Bagnell, A. 1948. William Colenso, printer, missionary, botanist, explorer, politician : his life and journeys. Wellington: A.H. & A.W. Reed, 1948. Bartlett, S. 2006. Personal Communication. Telephone re: Tamaterau-Waikaraka area. 24.05.06. McManaway, D. 1983. Whangarei Heads, 125 years. Whangarei, Whangarei Heads School. Martin, G. A . 1887. SO 3995. Plan of Township and Suburban Sections of Tamatarau. Parish of Owhiwa. Purchas, G.H. 1918. SO 20170. Suburbs of Grahamstown. Plan of Sections 1 & NE7 Parish of Owhiwa. Vallance, D. 1964 The Story of Whangarei. Auckland, Observer Unknown. 1867. SO 768 Tamaterau Suburban Allotments.

Recommendations

21

1. Pa Q07/62, along with adjacent site Q07/1254, should be left unmodified within the proposed subdivision. The boundary of the sites including a suitable buffer should be marked out with wooden battens by a qualified archaeologist prior to any earthworks undertaken in development of the subdivision.

2. The access road currently proposed to extend across the edge of site Q07/679

should be relocated slightly further to the west to avoid the site and the site should be avoided in selection of house sites. This site should be left unmodified within the proposed subdivision. The boundary of the site including a suitable buffer should be marked out with wooden battens by a qualified archaeologist prior to any earthworks undertaken in development of the subdivision.

3. Any proposal to modify sites Q07/1253 and Q07/1255 will require the written

authority of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Prior to any application to the Trust, a copy of the final scheme plan should be forwarded to Northern Archaeological Research so that the plan can be more accurately reviewed for any potential effect on the two sites and to advise accordingly.

4. Given that there is the probability that further small archaeological features (such

as earth ovens or shell midden) will occur undetected subsurface on the two ridges either side of the enclosed valley, and possibly on subsidiary ridges that could be affected by development of the proposed subdivision, we would advise that prior to any earthworks in development of the subdivision a general authority under Section 12 of the Historic Places Act, 1993, be sought from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust prior to the start of any work. Again we would advise the trust to grant such authority with standard monitoring conditions.


EXHIBIT 9

WHANGAREI HARBOUR

CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN

[Type here]

ITEM 3.2: Attachment Four

April

Whangārei Harbour Catchment Management Plan August 2017



1

Table of contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2

Catchment description ....................................................................................................... 3 Fresh water quantity – freshwater management units and current state ............................ 5 Fresh water quality – freshwater management units and current state .............................. 9 Coastal water quality – zones and current state .............................................................. 15 Sedimentation in the Whangārei Harbour ........................................................................ 19

Uses and values ................................................................................................................. 23 Attributes ............................................................................................................................. 24 The issues/problems ........................................................................................................... 25

Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 27 High level objectives ........................................................................................................ 27 Attribute level objectives .................................................................................................. 29

Implementation ................................................................................................................... 32 Regulatory (included in regional plan as needed) ................................................................ 32 Non-regulatory actions ........................................................................................................ 38 Appendix 1: relationship diagram between attributes and actions ....................................... 41 Appendix 2: mapped fish passage barriers in the Whangārei Harbour catchment ............... 42 Appendix 3: freshwater swimming sites above which stock are to be excluded ................... 43 Appendix 4: farm dairy effluent regimes in the Whangārei Harbour catchment .................... 44 Appendix 5: High sediment yielding land (>250 tonnes/km2/yr) .......................................... 45 Appendix 6: list of major wastewater capital works undertaken by Whangarei District Council ................................................................................................................................ 46 Glossary.............................................................................................................................. 48 References ......................................................................................................................... 50

[Type here]


2

Introduction

The purpose of the Whangārei Harbour Catchment Plan (catchment plan) is to identify measures to maintain and/or improve fresh and coastal water quality over time. The catchment plan involves the setting of catchment-specific objectives and associated methods to manage water quality and quantity based on the uses and values identified by a collaborative stakeholder group, which has been supported by staff from Northland Regional Council and Whangārei District Council. The catchment plan has been developed alongside the new Regional Plan for Northland. These documents should be read together, as the new Regional Plan sets out the region-wide objectives, policies and rules for fresh and coastal water management (among other things), while the catchment plan provides a catchment specific approach using both regulatory (rules) and non-regulatory methods. Once finalised, the regulatory methods in the catchment plan are recommended for inclusion in a section of the new Regional Plan specific to the Whangārei Harbour catchment. Following this introductory section, which provides information about the freshwater management units and the current state of water quantity and quality in the catchment, the plan is divided into three sections: · The first section identifies the uses

and values associated with freshwater and harbour water, and highlights the key issues that need to be managed to support these uses and values.

· The second section describes high level objectives for the catchment, and in turn specific objectives for the attributes that need to be managed to achieve these objectives.

· The final section outlines the methods that will be used to achieve these objectives. These are separated into regulatory and non-regulatory methods. Regulatory methods can be implemented through the new Regional Plan for Northland, Whangārei District Plan or through consent conditions. Non-regulatory methods will be implemented through a variety of means following development of an implementation plan.

[Type here]


3

Catchment description

The Whangārei Harbour catchment is located on the south-east coast of Northland. It has an area of approximately 300km2; contains much of Whangārei city urban area; and has a population of around 52,000 people.

The catchment has heterogeneous geology and soils, and has a wide range of land uses, including pastoral farming, plantation forestry, native bush and urban environments (Figure 1).

The catchment is made up of a number of smaller sub-catchments (Figure 2). The three main sub-catchments are formed around the three larger systems – the Hātea River, the Otaika/Puwera streams and the Waiarohia/Raumanga streams.

The catchment flows to a drowned river valley/large estuarine harbour of approximately 105km2, with an average high tide depth of just 4.4 metres, due to extensive intertidal flats. The harbour can be understood in three distinct areas: upper harbour (west of Matakohe/Limestone Island), middle harbour, and lower harbour (east of Manganese Point).

34%

25%

10%

10%

9%

7%

2% 3% Sheep and beef

Native

Dairy

Pine

Urban

Scrub

Horticulture

Other

Figure 1 Land use in the Whangārei Harbour catchment.

[Type here]


4

Figure 2: Whangārei Harbour catchment showing main rivers and land cover.

[Type here]


5

Fresh water quantity – freshwater management units and current state

A freshwater management unit (FMU) is defined as a water body, multiple water bodies or any part of a water body determined by the council as the appropriate spatial scale for setting freshwater objectives and limits and for freshwater accounting and management purposes. Northland Regional Council has grouped rivers in the region into four different FMUs for managing river water quantity based on their uses, values and sensitivity to extraction: · Coastal rivers; · Small inland rivers; · Large rivers; and · Outstanding rivers.

Each FMU is subject to different limits on the taking of water – how much water should remain in rivers (minimum flow) and the total amount that can be extracted (allocation limit). These limits will be included in the new Regional Plan and serve to protect aquatic habitat values and reliability of supply for water users. The limits are expressed as a percentage of the river’s Mean Annual Low Flow (MALF). Under the regional approach, all the rivers in the Whangārei Harbour catchment are designated as being a coastal river FMU (Figure 3). Coastal rivers have the highest diversity in native fish as many native fish move between fresh and coastal waters as part of their lifecycle. These rivers are sensitive to water takes given their typically small flow, which also means they have the lowest natural reliability for users. Coastal rivers have the most restrictive default allocation limits

of the four – having the highest minimum flow (90% MALF) and lowest allocation (30% MALF) limits. Figure 4 shows the current level of water allocation compared to the regional default allocation limits for coastal rivers (30% MALF) in the Whangārei Harbour sub-catchments (note allocation can change as a result of consents issued or surrendered). Most sub-catchments have either a low or moderate level of allocation (dark and light green coloured areas). However, two sub-catchments, Hātea and Otaika, have a level of allocation above the regional default allocation limit (orange areas). These sub-catchments are fully allocated and therefore ‘capped’ – i.e. it would be difficult to argue for more water to be allocated. Table 1 provides water allocation details for these two sub-catchments, showing MALF, default minimum flow and allocation volumes, and the current allocation levels and uses. The current level of allocation in both these sub-catchments are dominated by one or two large takes: Whangārei District Council water takes for public water supply on both the Hātea and Otaika, and a take at the bottom of the Otaika providing water for the Golden Bay cement works at Portland. The remaining consents in these two catchments are for horticultural irrigation. It should be noted that in some cases the actual volume of water used and the volume of water allocated through consents can be quite different and full allocation does not necessarily equate to impacts on these rivers.

[Type here]


6

Figure 3: proposed water quantity FMUs in the Whangārei Harbour catchment and consented surface water takes.


7

Figure 4: current state of surface water allocation in the Whangārei Harbour catchment.

[Type here]


8

Table 1: water allocation in the Hātea and Otaika sub-catchments.

Sub-catchment

7-day MALF1

Default minimum flow at bottom of

the catchment2

Default allocation at

bottom of the catchment3

Current level of allocation4

– instant-aneous rate

Current level of allocation

– 24 hour average daily

allocation

Key consents Non-consented takes

Stock drinking

Dairy wash-down

Hātea at Whareora

Rd

122L/s 109L/s

(90% MALF)

37L/s

(30% MALF)

123L/s

(100% MALF – high)

110L/s

(90% MALF)

Whangarei District Council Max take rate 115L/s Min flow 114L/s (93% MALF at reach)

1L/s

(<1% MALF)

Not applicable

Otaika 135 L/s 121.5L/s

(90% MALF)

40.5L/s

(30% MALF)

160L/s

(118% MALF – high)

61L/s

(45% MALF)

Golden Bay Cement Max take rate 100L/s Min flow 36L/s (26% MALF at bottom of catchment) Whangarei District Council Max take rate 31L/s Min flow not applicable

4.1L/s

(3% MALF)

1.7L/s

(1% MALF)

Notes: 1. 7-day Mean Annual Low Flow (MALF) is commonly used for setting minimum flow and allocation limits because it is a measure of water availability during dry periods. MALF also standardises minimum flow and allocation by the size of the river. 2. Minimum flows are set to protect in-stream values, aquatic ecosystems in particular. For reference, the regional default minimum flow limit for small river FMUs is 80% MALF, for example, 98L/s for Hātea. 3. Allocation limits are set to cap the amount of water that can be taken from a water body above a minimum flow. For reference, the regional default allocation limit for small river FMUs is 40% MALF, for example, 49L/s for Hātea. 4. Current level of allocation includes both consented takes and an estimate of non-consented takes.

[Type here]


9

Fresh water quality – freshwater management units and current state

The new regional plan proposes identifying Lowland and Hill Country areas for the purpose of livestock exclusion rules. Lowland is land below an average150 slope, while Hill Country is land above an average 150 slope. Figure 5 shows the Lowland and Hill Country areas as they relate to the Whangārei Harbour catchment. Figure 5 also identifies the 12 sites in the Whangārei Harbour catchment that are monitored by Northland Regional Council for fresh water quality. Three of these sites (Hātea at Mair Park, Waiarohia at Second Avenue and Otaika at Otaika Valley Road) have been monitored over a longer period of time as part of Northland Regional Council’s River Water Quality Monitoring Network (RWQMN). The other nine sites were established in July 2014 to assist in monitoring the catchment. Tables 2 and 3 summarise the current state of fresh water quality in the Whangārei Harbour based on monthly sampling at these 12 monitoring sites during the 24-month period June 2014 to July 2016 for a number of different measures. The Puwera at Bennett’s site is no longer considered suitable as a water quality sampling site as it ephemeral with low flows generally. This site is being relocated to an area with higher flows nearby on the Puwera. Table 2 provides the results as they relate to the “National Objective Framework (NOF)” attributes which are compulsory. In its current form the NOF does not address all the water quality issues of concern in Northland. For this reason other guidelines/indicators are used to give a more complete picture

of water quality (Table 3). While the NOF and guidelines such as the Australian New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC) 2000 Guidelines are quite different and are not directly comparable, it is useful to provide results for both to give an overall indication of water quality throughout the catchment. For example, the ANZECC (2000) guidelines outline trigger values for water quality aspects that put stress on river and stream health. This specifies a level below which there is a low risk that adverse biological effects will occur. Council also monitors stream macroinvertebrates (MCI) and stream habitat as indicators of water quality and stream health. Results for the river water quality monitoring site on the Mangere River in the Pukenui Forest provide a reference site to allow for comparison with a native forested sub-catchment. Information on flow is available for three sites, and is summarised below.

Water quality monitoring site

Flow (L/s) 7 day MALF

Mean Flow

Median Flow

Hātea at Mair Park

122 1094 539

Waiarohia at Second Avenue

64 362 150

Raumanga at Bernard St

88 355 196

[Type here]


10

Figure 5: Water quality monitoring sites and Lowland areas (land <150 slope) and Hill Country areas (land >150 slope) in the Whangārei Harbour catchment.

[Type here]


11

Water quality monitoring site

National Objective Framework (NOF) attributes

Nitrate nitrogen toxicity (mg/L) Ammoniacal nitrogen toxicity (mg/L) Escherichia coli (E. coli/100mL)

Periphyton exceeds no more than

8% of samples1

(Chl-a mg/m2) FMU Annual median

A ≤1 B >1≤2.4

C >2.4≤6.9 D >6.9

95th percentile A ≤1.5

B >1.5 ≤3.5 C >3.5≤9.8

D >9.8

Annual median A ≤0.03

B .0.3≤0.24 C .0.24≤1.3

D.1.3

Annual maximum A ≤0.05

B >.05≤0.4 C >0.4≤2.2

D >2.2

Annual median A ≤260

B >260≤540 C >540≤1000

D >1000

Annual 95th percentile A ≤260

B >260≤540 D >540

Chlorophyll-a A ≤50

B >50≤120 C >120≤200

D >200

Mangere at Pukenui Forest LL A A A A A A ND

Mangakino at Mangakino Lane HC A A A A A D C

Mangakino U/S Waitaua confluence

LL A A A B C D ND

Waitaua at Vinegar Hill Road LL A A B B B D ND

Hātea at Whangārei Falls LL A A A B B D ND

Hātea at Mair Park HC A A A B A D C

Waiarohia at Whau Valley LL A A A B B D B

Waiarohia at Second Avenue No A A A B B D C

Raumanga at Bernard Street No A A A A C D B

Otaika at Cemetery Road LL B B A B C D ND

Otakaranga at Otaika Valley Road LL A A A B A D ND

Otaika at Otaika Valley Road LL A B B B B D D

Puwera at Bennett’s LL A A B D B D B

A Similar to reference conditions B Slightly impacted

C Moderately impacted (lower/upper national bottom line)

National bottom line

Table 2: freshwater quality in the Whangārei Harbour catchment using NOF attributes.

Notes: ND = No Data: water quality monitoring site is not suitable for Periphyton chlorophyll-a sampling due to not having a stony substrate. 1. It is too early to make a definite judgement regarding the current status of Periphyton chlorophyll-a. The results provided are based on one year’s worth of sampling. The NPS-FW indicates three years of sampling. Source: Northland Regional Council (2016), Whangārei Harbour Catchment: Water Quality Update.

Table 2 legend


12

D Degraded/unacceptable (must be managed to C or better)


13

Table 3: freshwater quality in the Whangārei Harbour catchment using national guideline/trigger values.

ANZECC guidelines RMA 1991 Ecological indicators Water quality monitoring site Nitrate,

nitrite, nitrogen (mg/L)

Ammoniacal nitrogen

(mg/L)

Total nitrogen (mg/L)

Dissolved reactive

phosphorus (mg/L)

Total phosphoro

us (mg/L)

Turbidity

(NTU)1

Dissolved oxygen

(% saturation

)

Macro-invertebrates

2

Stream habitat3

ANZECC 2000 trigger Annual median

<0.444

Annual median

<0.021

Annual median

<0.614

Annual median

<0.01

Annual median

<0.033

Annual median

<5.6

Annual median

≥80

MCI score % rating compare

d with reference

site

Mangere at Pukenui Forest Below Below Below Above Below Below Above 127 100

Mangakino at Mangakino Lane Below Below Below Below Below Above Above 129 90

Mangakino U/S Waitaua confluence Below Above Below Above Below Above Above 99 37

Waitaua at Vinegar Hill Road Above Above Above Above Below Below Below 71 34

Hātea at Whangārei Falls Above Above Below Below Below Below Above ND ND

Hātea at Mair Park Below Above Below Above Below Below Above 109 76

Waiarohia at Whau Valley Above Above Below Above Below Below Above 115 78

Waiarohia at Second Avenue Below Above Below Above Below Below Above 98 48

Raumanga at Bernard Street Above Below Above Above Below Below Above 106 45

Otaika at Cemetery Road Above Above Above Above Above Above Above 88 36

Otakaranga at Otaika Valley Road Below Above Below Below Below Above Below 69 43

Otaika at Otaika Valley Road Above Above Above Above Above Below Above 129 81

Puwera at Bennett’s Below Above Above Above Above Below Above 89 36

A Similar to reference conditions B Slightly impacted


14

C Moderately impacted D Degraded/unacceptable

Notes: ND = No Data as monitoring has not been done at this site. 1. Turbidity national trigger/guideline value: ≤ 5.6 NTU. This is an upper limit indicative of unmodified or slightly disturbed ecosystems in New Zealand lowland rivers. 2. Macroinvertebrate Condition Index (MCI) scoring index: Poor < 80; 80 ≤ Fair < 100; 100 ≤ Good < 120; 120 ≤ Excellent. 3. Stream habitat score: above or below 50% of reference condition. Source: Northland Regional Council (2016), Whangārei Harbour Catchment: Water Quality Update.

Table 3 legend

15

Coastal water quality – zones and current state

Northland Regional Council is proposing in the new Regional Plan to classify the region’s coastal waters into four zones for managing aquatic eco-system health: open coast, estuarine (the main bodies of estuaries and harbours), tidal creeks (shallow, narrow sediment depositional areas in the upper harbour reaches of estuaries) and Hātea River. Each zone will have different water quality standards in acknowledgement that water quality differs between the zones. Water quality standards for recreation will apply to open coast and estuarine zones, and the standards for aquaculture and shellfish consumption will apply to aquaculture sites and popular shellfish gathering sites identified by council. The proposed coastal water quality zones as they relate to the Whangārei Harbour catchment are shown in Figure 6. Table 4 summarises the current state of coastal water quality in the Whangārei Harbour based on bi-monthly sampling at 16 monitoring sites covering the five-year period January 2010 to December 2014. Water quality in sites tested in the outer harbour is good. Sites tested in the Hātea arm and tidal creek areas could be improved.

16

Figure 6: proposed coastal water quality zones in the Whangārei Harbour catchment.

17

Table 4: coastal water quality in the Whangārei Harbour.

Prop

osed

zon

e

Site name

Nitrate-nitrite nitrogen

Ammon-ium

Chlorophyll-a

Enterococci (Primary contact

guidelines)

Faecal coliform

(Shellfish guideline)

Dissolved reactive

phosphorus

Turbidity Dissolved oxygen

Water quality index

NNNmg/l NH4mg/l mg/l MPN/100ml MPN/100ml DRP mg/l NTU % saturation Index

Median Median Median 95th percentile Median Median Median Median

ANZECC 2000 trigger1 0.0150 0.0150 0.00400 40 14 0.0050 10.0 80%<X<110% NA

Hāt

ea

Town Basin 0.4100 0.0660 0.00250 393 149 0.0650 4.3 87.8 15.0

Upper Hātea River 0.4450 0.0745 0.00280 369 79 0.0735 4.5 84.8 13.8

Waiarohia Canal 0.5750 0.0790 0.00200 362 76 0.0885 4.3 87.6 13.6

Limeburners Creek 0.4400 0.0835 0.00175 724 100 0.0900 6.2 85.7 11.7

Kissing Point 0.2100 0.0650 0.00200 401 27 0.0585 5.7 87.5 16.6

Lower Hātea River 0.1035 0.0340 0.00250 361 16 0.0380 5.2 87.4 27.0

Tida

l C

reek

Otaika Creek 0.3000 0.0445 0.00220 109 111 0.0080 9.1 85.9 25.9

Mangapai River 0.0079 0.0160 0.00190 59 6 0.0145 8.5 79.4 33.2

Portland 0.0091 0.0140 0.00225 16 1 0.0140 6.2 91.2 35.8

Est

uarin

e

Kaiwaka Point 0.0430 0.0215 0.00175 337 1 0.0200 5.0 90.9 36.6

Onerahi 0.0100 0.0053 0.00175 36 1 0.0135 5.0 96.7 51.2

Tamaterau 0.0075 0.0095 0.00140 16 1 0.0100 2.7 96.5 53.8

One Tree Point 0.0032 0.0025 0.00140 6 1 0.0075 0.9 98.5 72.6

Snake Bank 0.0035 0.0025 0.00130 46 1 0.0080 0.9 98.7 65.1

Blacksmith Creek 0.0024 0.0025 0.00083 10 1 0.0070 0.7 98.8 64.2

Marsden Point 0.0030 0.0025 0.00115 8 1 0.0070 0.7 99.0 73.1

Mair Bank 0.0028 0.0025 0.00115 36 1 0.0070 0.6 99.0 64.8

Notes: 1. Default trigger values for south-east Australia for slightly disturbed estuary ecosystems. This specifies a level below which there is a low risk that adverse biological effects will occur. The median faecal coliform bacterial concentration should not exceed 14 MPN/100mL, with no more than 10% of the samples exceeding 43 MPN/100 mL Source: Northland Regional Council (2016), Coastal Water Quality Monitoring: 2010-2014 results.

18

Council also monitors coastal water quality for recreational bathing during the summer (end of November to end of February) to assess the risk of contamination. There are two permanent sites in the Whangārei Harbour catchment: Onerahi and Taurikura Bay. Three additional sites at McLeod Bay, Urquharts Bay and One Tree Point were monitored during the 2015/16 season. All samples taken from

all five sites during the 2015/16 season – which were each sampled 14 times – were below the trigger level indicating that the water quality was suitable for swimming on all sampling occasions. Recent end-of-season grading for the two permanent monitoring sites are presented in Table 5.

Table 5: results for coastal permanent monitoring swimming sites in the Whangārei Harbour 2007/08 to 2015/16. Site name 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Onerahi playground 100 100 100 89 100 94 100 93 100

Taurikura Bay 92 75 100 89 100 100 100 100 100

95-100% samples within guidelines (no ‘Action’ result) 90-94% samples within guidelines 75-89% samples within guidelines <75% samples within guidelines

In addition to assessing sites for their suitability for swimming, results from sites also popular for shellfish gathering are compared to the Ministry for the Environment and Ministry for Health microbiological guidelines. These samples are collected over the

summer months rather than the entire shellfish gathering season, which, excluding scallops, is all year round in Northland. Various sites within the Whangārei Harbour are assessed. Results for the last six seasons are presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Results for recreational shellfish gathering sites coastal permanent monitoring sites 2010/11 – 2015/16 % of sample exceeding MPN of 43/100ml Site Name 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 One Tree Point at Intertidal Beach ND 13% 12% 13% 7% 7% Onerahi playground ND 47% 18% 13% 14% ND Taurikura Bay 18% 19% 6% 6% 29% ND Urquharts Bay 18% ND ND ND ND 0%

1. Guideline value is that no more than 10 percent of samples should exceed an MPN of 43/100ml.

19

Sedimentation in the Whangārei Harbour

Using sediment cores taken from eight intertidal and one sub-tidal site, NIWA (2013b) found that the upper harbour has substantially infilled with eroded catchment soils. Mud is exported from the upper to the lower harbour where it has been accumulating in the bays and inlets that indent the northern shoreline. The study identified three areas in the upper Whangārei Harbour that deposit catchment sediments and three long-term “mud sinks” east of Onerahi Peninsula (Figure 7). These are: · Upper harbour mangrove habitats, which are assumed to be

accreting at a rate that is equal to the long-term rate of relative sea-level rise (1.5 mm/y at the Ports of Auckland).

· Upper harbour saltmarsh habitats, also assumed to be accreting at a rate that is equal to the long-term rate of relative sea-level rise (1.5 mm/y at the Ports of Auckland).

· Upper harbour unvegetated intertidal flats, accreting at a spatially-averaged rate of 4 mm/y.

· Parua Bay, in the lower harbour, where rapid vertical accretion of the intertidal flats occurred until the early 1950s when reduced tidal inundation lowered sediment delivery. Today, the intertidal flat is accumulating sediment (2.9mm/year) at a similar rate to the central subtidal basin (2.2mm/year).

1 SedNetNZ is a model used to identify types of erosion processes and their relative yield to total sediment load

· Munro Bay, in the lower harbour, where mud from rivers discharging to the upper harbour has been depositing from the mid-1950s, burying the previous shell-rich sands.

· Along the northern shore from Onerahi Peninsula east to Jacksons Bay, in the middle harbour.

The study estimated that the average sediment accumulation rate (SAR) in the Whangārei Harbour is 3.4mm/year, within the range observed in other North Island estuaries (1.9-6.7mm/year) over the last century. The long-term sediment yield from the upper harbour catchment has been estimated from sedimentation data as 30,400 ±6040 tons per year over the last 50 years (1962-2012). However, this period includes the time when Portland Cement discharged large quantities of sediment to the harbour (1958-82), which will have had an effect on the 3.4mm/year figure. Sediment modelling using SedNetNZ1 estimated a total erosion based sediment yield of 24,000 tons per year for the upper harbour catchment and 31,500 tons per year for the whole Whangārei Harbour catchment (Figure 8). Pastoral land use accounts for 43% of total erosion sediment. While land based erosion processes currently account for about 85% of total erosion in the catchment, stream bank erosion varies considerably by sub-catchment. SedNetNZ models fine sediment generated through natural erosion processes (e.g. landslide, earthflow, gully and surficial erosion). It does not account for sediment generated from activities such as earthworks.

20

Figure 7: summary of recent sedimentation in Whangārei Harbour based on core sampling data.

21

35%

16%14%

22%

13%

Source of total erosion sediment yield by sub-

catchments

Otaika sub-catchment

Waiarohia sub-catchment

Hātea sub-catchment

Other northern sub-catchments

Other southern sub-catchments

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Source of total erosion sediment yield by type

Landmass Stream bank

43%

28%

13%

8%5%

3%

Source of total erosion sediment yield by land-use

Pasture Native forest

Plantation forest Scrub

Urban Other

22

The charts above show total erosion by sub-catchment and average annual total erosion rate (T/ha/yr) by land use. Plantation forestry, native forest and scrub tend to have higher erosion rates because they are typically located on the steepest, most highly erodible soil in the catchment. If pasture production was taking place on these areas of the catchment then the erosion rate would be much higher and conversely if plantation forestry was taking place on land in pasture, then annual erosion rates from these areas would be lower. The Whangārei Harbour Catchment Plan recommends targeting high sediment yielding land for intervention to address erosion processes (i.e. a requirement for pastoral land use on these areas to develop an Erosion Control Plan by 2025). In the Whangārei Harbour catchment high sediment yielding land is land that is estimated to generate 250 tonnes of sediment/KM2 per annum or more (refer to Appendix 5 for a map of these areas). Full implementation of the erosion control plans is modelled to reduce hill slope erosion by 23%.

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0

Otaika sub-catchment

Waiarohia sub-catchment

Hātea sub-catchment

Other northernsub-catchments

Other southernsub-catchments

T/ha/yrAverage annual total erosion rate by

sub-catchments

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Pasture Native forest Plantationforest

Scrub Urban Other

T/ha/yrAverage annual total erosion rate by

land-use

Figure 8: SedNetNZ erosion modelling results for Whangārei Harbour catchment.

23

Uses and values

A key step in the process used to develop this catchment plan was identification of uses and values – this identifies the matters of primary concern in the catchment. The following table lists the specific uses and values for fresh and coastal water identified by the Whangārei Harbour catchment group. These have been organised by the group into five broad categories of uses and values for determining issues and objectives for the catchment. Table 7: uses and values for fresh and coastal water

Broad uses and values categories

Ecosystem health Natural form and

character Cultural health Recreation

Socio-economic

Potable water supply

Other water supply Navigation

Biodiversity and habitat. Instream values – macro invertebrate biodiversity. Contribution to maintaining natural clean environment. Essence of quality of well-being. Well-being – able to sustain life. Waste dilution/filtration. Education. Linked ecosystems from mountain to sea.

Sense of place/well-being. Natural character/landscape. Great karma/help keep sanity/aesthetics/sense of peace.

Kaitiakitanga (obligation of tangata whenua includes knowledge and guardianship). Tikanga (traditional practices in relation to everything). Mauri (protection of life force of water bodies and all within them). Mahinga kai/mataitai (fishing, shellfish gathering, tuna, koura, watercress, etc.). Wai tapu (healing waters, sites of significance associated with waterways). Cultural identity (awa, harbour named in pepeha, whakapapa, etc, important to cultural/spiritual well-being). Mātauranga Māori/Wai tukiato (gift of knowledge and resources for future generations, our own "science" practices, etc. in relation to catchment management).

Swimming Diving Kayaking Sailing Rowing Waka ama Hiking

Domestic drinking (public and private). Clean drinking water is a basic human right. Respect of mokopuna.

Irrigation. Stock drinking. Cowshed/plant cleaning and cooling. Forestry. Small industry. Firefighting.

Access historical use. Navigation. Tauranga waka. Access for boating. Anchorage. He ara haere. Port (Marsden and inner city).

24

Attributes

Once uses and values have been identified, the second step is to determine the factors (attributes) that affect or support those uses and values (E.g. recreational use is affected by the attributes E.coli and visual clarity). This in turn can be used to set attribute specific objectives to protect or improve a given value (E.g. an objective to reduce E.coli and improve visual clarity for the purposes of recreational use). The Table below sets out the relationship between attributes and uses and values identified by the catchment group - the greater the shaded area, the more important that attribute is determined to be in relation to supporting that use/value. Table 8: uses and values associated with attributes

Note: the top four (shaded) attributes are compulsory under the NPS Freshwater 2014

Nitrate nitrogen (toxicity)Ammonia (toxicity)Periphyton (trophic state) Escherichia coli (E.Coli) - [faecal indicator bacteria]Enterococci (Ent.) - [faecal indicator bacteria]NutrientsClaritySediment (deposited)Dissolved Oxygen (below point source)Heavy metals and petrochemical compoundsGross pollutants (inorganic solid waste)Obstructions (including fish passage barriers)Riparian coverFlow Level of modificationWater temperatureAgrichemicalsOdour/TasteSight - scum, film etc

Uses and values

Ecosystem Health RecreationNatural form and

character Other water supplyPotable water

supply NavigationAttributes

Socio-economic

Cultural Health

25

The issues/problems

This section outlines the key issues associated with managing water quality and quantity in the Whangārei Harbour catchment. These are arranged under the five broad categories of uses and values. Under each of the broad categories, the catchment group has identified some specific uses and values. Resolving issues that relate to one use or value may impact on other uses and values (E.g. a reduction in sediment may address ecosystem health, cultural and recreational values). Table 9: issues relating to identified uses and values

Uses/values Issue (specific and/or generic)

Ecosystem health 1. Habitat for native fish species is impacted by lack of connectivity and riparian cover, flow/abstraction, sediment, and dissolved oxygen levels.

2. All streams surveyed to date have had man-made fish passage barriers identified (Appendix 4). 3. The upper harbour has substantially infilled. Mud travels from the upper to lower harbour where it has been

accumulating in the bays and inlets that indent the northern shoreline. Sub-soils that come from streambank erosion, gullying and slips and land disturbance from subdivisions/earthworks, etc., are major sources of new sediment deposited in stream beds and at river deltas in the upper harbour since the mid-1980s. Pre-1980s sediment discharges from the Portland cement factory are still redistributing through the harbour.

4. The upper harbour scores poorly in terms of overall water quality: a. Stormwater discharge and run-off from the urban environment contains contaminants including heavy

metals, petrochemical compounds and other particulate matter. b. Wastewater treatment plants contribute nutrients into the marine environment while heavy rainfall-related

flows from the network are a source of faecal pathogens. c. Industrial discharges from activities such as boat yards and factories contribute suspended sediments

and particulate and dissolved matters into the marine environment. d. Leaching from landfills is a potential source of contaminants into the marine environment.

5. Stock access to waterways and associated discharge/disturbance to bed/stream bank/habitats. 6. Variable flow – if it is too low ecosystem health is affected, particularly during prolonged natural periods of low

flows. 7. Lack of catchment-wide knowledge on the status of ecosystem health and impacts on it, for example inanga

spawning sites.

26

Uses/values Issue (specific and/or generic)

8. There are cumulative effects of land use and development activity on water quality within the catchment.

Natural form and character

1. A low level of native riparian cover reduces natural character in some sub-catchments. 2. Stream channelization, culverting and piping reduce natural form. 3. Water extraction impacts on natural flow levels, and can prolong periods of low flow. 4. Gross pollutants/scum/poor clarity can have a negative impact visually on the natural character of water bodies.

Cultural health 1. The Mauri of water is in decline and needs enhancing and protection. 2. Water is perceived as a public utility and infinite resource rather than a taonga tuku iho. 3. Mahinga kai and mātaitai resources are increasingly limited due to reduced habitat/water quality. Subsequently,

cultural values including, but not limited to, mana, manaakitanga, mātauranga, kaitiakitanga are impacted. 4. Mana Whenua are increasingly unable to carry out cultural and traditional activities on, within and around water

resources. 5. Wāhi tapu/cultural sites of significance can be impacted by works in and next to waterways. 6. Loss of ability to practice kaitiakitanga and associated mātauranga.

Recreation 1. In-stream recreational use, in particular primary contact, is limited by pathogens across the catchment including popular swimming sites at Whangārei Falls and Raumanga Stream.

2. Marine recreational use (swimming in particular) can be restricted in the upper harbour by pathogens, particularly during or after heavy rainfall events.

3. Lack of knowledge on causes of health issues related to recreational water use due to non-reporting. 4. Visible rubbish, litter and weeds reduce amenity values.

Socio-economic 1. Two sub-catchments (Hātea and Otaika) are highly allocated for water quantity, limiting potential for economic development.

2. Large priority water takes for reticulated water supply for Whangārei and connected villages limit availability for other water takes.

3. High demand and limited availability during low flows can limit economic potential. 4. Commercial harvest of fish/shellfish is limited by water quality and sedimentation.

27

Objectives

This part outlines the objectives for the Whangārei Harbour catchment. These are divided into two levels. First there are high level objectives that set the broad aspirational outcomes. Below this are more detailed objectives that are set for specific attributes or other variables identified by the group that contribute to the achievement of the high level objectives. High level objectives

The following table lists the high level objectives for the Whangārei Harbour catchment. For each objective, the uses and values that it supports are noted. The objectives take into account the fact that improvements in water quality will take time and that there are often delays in the time it takes for the ecosystem to respond. Table 10: uses and values associated with high level objectives

High level objectives

Uses and values supported by the objective

Eco-system health


Cultural health

Recrea-tion

Socio-economic

Coastal Within 10 years, faecal pathogen, turbidity, sedimentation rates, heavy metals and nutrient levels have reduced in the Hātea zone of the upper harbour, and within 30 years they have significantly reduced, so that it becomes more accessible to a wide range of water-related activities and its impact on the ecological condition of the rest of the harbour is reduced.

ü ü ü ü

Within 10 years faecal pathogen and sedimentation rates have reduced in the tidal creek zones, and within 30 years they have significantly reduced, so that they become more accessible to a wide range of water-related activities and their impact on the ecological condition of the rest of the harbour is reduced.

ü ü

28

Good water quality in the estuarine zone is maintained and where practical improved for its ecological condition and high recreational, cultural, and economic uses and values.

ü ü ü ü

High level objectives

Uses and values supported by the objective

Eco-system health


Cultural health

Recrea-tion

Socio-economic

Freshwater Maintain and enhance habitat to support indigenous fish species by improving connectivity and riparian cover.

ü ü

Maintain and enhance water quality to ensure sustainable mahinga kai. ü ü ü

Maintain and enhance water quality for secondary contact recreation in rivers and streams.

ü

Improve water quality to primary contact recreation levels during the summer bathing season in regionally significant swimming sites within 10 years, and at additional sites within 30 years.

ü ü

Minimise adverse effects of abstractions on the ecosystem health, natural character and mauri of rivers and streams.

ü ü ü ü

Maximise the availability and reliability of water supply. ü

29

Attribute level objectives

The following table lists the detailed objectives for the Whangārei Harbour catchment. Objectives are set for each of the attributes identified by the group as being important to manage in order to support the high-level objectives set above and in turn the various

uses and values identified by the catchment group. The first four are the relevant compulsory NOF attributes set under the national freshwater policy statement.

Table 11: objectives for each attribute Attribute Current state in Whangārei Harbour catchment Catchment group objective

Nitrate toxicity Freshwater: all results for nitrate toxicity fall into the ‘A’ or ‘B’ NOF grade band indicating that nitrate toxicity is not a problem. Coastal: the highest median concentration of NNN was found at Waiarohia Canal. The other five sites in the Hātea and Otaika also have higher median concentrations than the ANZECC trigger value.

Defer to new Regional Plan

Ammonia toxicity Freshwater: results indicate that ammonia levels generally meet toxicity guidelines, with the maximum falling into the ‘A’ or ‘B’ NOF grade bands at all sites except Puwera at Bennett’s Farm where the maximum falls into the ‘D’ band, exceeding the NOF bottom line. There is uncertainty around the quality of the data at this site due to its ephemeral nature. This site is no longer considered suitable as a water quality site and has been relocated nearby. Coastal: the highest median concentration of NH4 was found at Limeburners Creek – the immediate receiving environment for discharges from the Whangārei wastewater treatment plant. The other five sites in the Hātea River and at Otaika Creek in Whangārei also had high median concentrations.

Defer to new Regional Plan with the exception of Puwera where it needs to be improved to a B attribute state.

30

Attribute Current state in Whangārei Harbour catchment Catchment group objective

Periphyton (trophic state)

Freshwater: the appropriate length of time series data (three years) is currently unavailable but Otaika has been flagged as a potential issue. Coastal: sites in the lower harbour have low median chlorophyll a concentrations.

Defer to new Regional Plan but very likely need to review once an appropriate time series data is available.

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

Freshwater: Median E. coli levels at all sites are suitable for secondary contact (E.g. E.coli <1000/100mL as an annual median). However, no sites are suitable for full immersion (swimming) – that is more than 5% of samples at all sites exceed 540 E.coli/100mL.

Defer to new Regional Plan for secondary contact, with the addition of the following objective for primary contact: Improve E.coli levels so there is a less than 5% risk of infection for primary contact (E.coli levels of <540/100mL - 95th percentile) at the Hātea Falls and Raumanga swimming sites during the period covered by regional council’s Recreational Swimming Water Quality Programme (end of November until end of February each year) excluding heavy rainfall events.

Enterococci Coastal: the highest median enterococci concentrations are recorded at sites in the Hātea and Otaika. Enterococci concentrations are low in the harbour outside of tidal creek zones.

Improve the water quality in the Hātea coastal zone for swimming during the period covered by regional council’s Recreational Swimming Water Quality Programme, excluding heavy rainfall events.

Phosphorous Freshwater: dissolved reactive phosphorous (DRP) levels are elevated with many sites well above the ANZECC 2000 guideline value for lowland rivers, in particular Otaika at Cemetery Road, Otaika at Otaika Valley Road and Puwera at Bennett’s Farm. Coastal: the highest median DRP concentrations were recorded at the six sites in the Hātea River.

Defer to new Regional Plan.

31


Turbidity (suspended sediment)

Freshwater: of the 11 sites monitored, four have turbidity levels above the ANZECC 2000 guidelines for lowland rivers: two in the Hātea catchment and two within the Otaika catchment. Coastal: the lowest median turbidity was recorded at sites close to the entrance of the Whangārei Harbour. The highest medians were recorded at Otaika and Mangapai. None exceeded ANZECC guidelines.

No numeric objectives have been set but note High level objective for reduced sedimentation.

Sediment (deposited)

Freshwater: no data available. Coastal: the average Sediment Accumulation Rate (SAR) in the Whangārei Harbour is 3.4mm/year, which is the mid-range for other North Island estuaries for which data is available.

No numeric objectives have been set but note High level objective for reduced sedimentation.

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

Freshwater: DO levels are mainly within guideline with all but two of the medians (Waitaua at Vinegar Hill Road and Otakaranga at Otaika Valley Road) above RMA guidelines (80% saturation) Coastal: lowest medians recorded in tidal creek environments: Mangapai, Hātea, Limeburners and Otaika, although only Mangapai had a median below guidelines.


Heavy metals and industrial compounds

Coastal: concentrations of copper, zinc and lead exceed trigger values in the upper Hātea and Waiarohia Canal sites. Concentrations of copper also exceed trigger values at Kissing Point and lower Hātea River sites. Concentrations are below trigger values downstream of the Hātea. Sampling is taken from sediment and not the water column.

Improve our understanding of effects of heavy metals/industrial contaminants, and identify opportunities to improve on status quo and not rely on dilution.

Gross pollutants (inorganic solid waste)

Coastal: Sea Cleaners removed 67,350 litres of rubbish from the Whangārei Harbour over two months in November-December 2015, following 40,000 litres in one month, in late 2014.

Record a downward trend in litter accumulations in and around harbour by 2020.

Obstructions (including fish passage barriers)

Freshwater: five rivers/streams were surveyed over the summer 2014/15, concentrating on the Waiarohia, Otaika and Raumanga catchments. A total survey length of 24.3km. In total, 26 barriers were observed, ranging in severity from small rock dams to large concrete structures.

Remove or remediate barriers to fish migration along the Waiarohia, Otaika, and Raumanga streams by 2020.

32


Riparian cover

Approximately one-third of total catchment stream length is located within land covered with indigenous forest, exotic forest or scrub. Low cover over the remaining.

Increase riparian cover throughout the catchment.

Implementation

This section identifies current and future actions that will be undertaken for the purposes of achieving the objectives set out in section 2. These actions are divided into two tables. The first lists those to be implemented through the new regional plan as regulations, and the second lists non-regulatory actions. Appendix 3 shows the relationship between the attributes for which objectives

have been set and the various actions. The diagram shows that attribute objectives will be achieved through a number of actions, and that an action can have an impact on more than one attribute. Cost-benefit efficiencies need to be considered during implementation.

Regulatory (included in regional plan as needed)

Table 12: actions to be implemented by regulatory methods

Actions Current management approach and situation Whangārei Harbour-specific Minimum flow limits

Regional rules in the Operative Water and Soil Plan currently apply a minimum flow (the lowest level rivers can be reduced as a result of extraction) typically around 80% of MALF.

Defer to new Regional Plan rules

Primary water allocation limit

Allocation limits are not provided for in the Operative Water and Soil Plan Defer to new Regional Plan rules

33

Actions Current management approach and situation Whangārei Harbour-specific Stock exclusion There are currently no regional rules in the Operative Water and Soil Plan

requiring stock to be excluded from rivers and streams. Dairy farmers have largely excluded livestock from streams wider than 1m and deeper than 30cm through industry good practice and supplier contracts. Approximately 430km of river/streams flow through pasture in the Whangārei Harbour catchment: 57% through Lowland and 63% Hill Country. 518kms of stream bank need fencing to exclude stock – of which 313kms (64%) are in Lowland areas and 187kms (36%) are in Hill Country. At a cost of $8 per metre, this equates to $4.1 million in expenditure. Assuming that stock exclusion can reduce E.coli loads by up to 60%, modelling suggests that exclusion could lower E.coli concentrations at swimming sites by more than 50%.

Support new Regional Plan rules with the addition that dairy cows, pigs, beef cattle, dairy support cattle and deer are excluded within two years after the new Regional Plan becomes operative from all river types upstream of the swimming sites mapped on the Hātea and Raumanga (see map in Appendix 3).

Farm dairy effluent (FDE)

Regional rules in the Operative Water and Soil Plan currently provide for dairy effluent discharges to land as a permitted activity, subject to conditions such as allowing no discharge to surface freshwater, no land discharge within 20m of waterbody, etc. Where farms cannot meet the permitted rules, resource consents are required. There are 19 FDE regimes in the catchment, of which two are inactive (see map in Appendix 6). Of the 17 active, four are operating as a permitted activity. Of the remaining 13, four have resource consent to discharge treated effluent directly to water via a pond system without land application. Most consented farm dairy effluent regimes dispose to land unless weather and other conditions make this in breach of the permitted activity conditions, in which case they directly discharge treated effluent from the pond system to surface water. During the monitoring of all Whangārei Harbour catchment FDE regimes in Aug-Nov 2015, 44% were found to be fully compliant, 31% non-compliant and 25% significantly non-compliant.


34

Hill slope erosion from pasture

The current approach to managing hill slope erosion is to work with land owners on a voluntary basis through Farm Water Quality Improvement Plans (FWQIPs) with some financial assistance provided (for example, for poplars). There are currently 28 FWQIPs in the catchment, mainly on lifestyle blocks but also seven dairy farms (see map in Appendix 7). These are not necessarily farms where hill slope erosion is located. Consequently, modelling suggests that current farm plans have very little impact on reducing sediment loads but are dealing with other issues.

Require Erosion Control Plans from 1 January 2025 for pastoral land use on high sediment yielding land to target active gully, earthflow and landslide erosion (see map in Appendix 5). Controlled activity – Pastoral land use on High sediment yielding land after 1 January 2025 is a controlled activity if an Erosion Control Plan has not been developed for the land. Matters of control:

1. the effectiveness of measures to control or mitigate sediment from areas of gully, landslide and earthflow erosion, and

2. the location, timing and prioritisation of measures to control or mitigate sediment from areas of gully, landslide and earthflow erosion.

3. information and monitoring requirements

See Appendix 5 for map Meaning of words: “Pastoral land use means: effective grazing area and includes all contiguous land areas in herbaceous species including isolated trees. It excludes those forested areas which achieve 100% canopy closure or other

35

woody vegetation which prevents pastoral growth. “Erosion Control Plan means: a plan developed by a suitably qualified professional which specifically identifies areas of gully, landslide, and earthflow erosion and measures to mitigate sediment yield from these areas. The Erosion Control Plan must be approved by Northland Regional Council". “High sediment yielding land”– land in the Whangārei Harbour catchment with estimated sediment yield of 250 tonnes/km2 per year or more.

36

Earthworks The current thresholds in the Operative Water and Soil Plan are as follows: · Outside the riparian management zone2, the maximum volume of

moved or disturbed earth must not exceed 5000m2 in any 12-month period where the activity is not undertaken on erosion-prone land;

· Outside the riparian management zone, the volume moved or disturbed must be less than 1000m3 in any 12-month period and the surface area of the soil exposed must be less than 1000m2 where the activity is undertaken on erosion-prone land; and

· Within the riparian management zone, the maximum area of exposed soil must be less than 200m2 and the volume moved must be less than 50m3. Currently permitted if less than 1000m3 in any 12-month period on highly erodible land and 5000m3 in any 12-month period elsewhere per site. Otherwise discretionary activity.

The catchment group supports a move to an area based approach to earthworks control

Vegetation clearance The Operative Water and Soil Plan includes rules for vegetation clearance as follows: Vegetation clearance on erosion prone land that is not in the Riparian Management Zone is a permitted activity, provided: the area of vegetation clearance is less than five hectares in any 12 month period, unless the clearance is plantation forestry; vegetation clearance by burning does not take place on peat soils; nor any contiguous area in excess of five hectares on other soils; and the site of the activity is re-established in woody vegetation within 24 months from the start of the vegetation clearance operation. Otherwise discretionary activity.


2 The Regional Water and Soil Plan defines the riparian management zone as the land between the bed of a river, lake, or indigenous wetland, or the coastal marine area and a distance measured inland from the bank of the water body or from the top of the bank adjacent to the coastal marine area of: (a) 5m where the dominant slope is less than 8 degrees, (b) 10m where the dominant slope is between 8-15 degrees, and (c) 20m where the dominant slope is greater than 15 degrees.

37

Public stormwater network discharges

Stormwater can contain a range of contaminants, such as organic and inorganic matter, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and faecal microbes. Generally speaking, contaminant levels in stormwater are not normally high enough to cause acute adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems. The more common situation is the build-up (accumulation) of persistent contaminants such as heavy metals in receiving environments, which can cause chronic adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems. Heavy metal concentrations in sediments at almost all estuarine monitoring sites in Northland (the main receiving environment for urban stormwater) are below guidelines levels. The Hātea River arm of the Whangārei Harbour is the only area where some heavy metals (copper and zinc) in the river bed are above recommended guideline levels. Stormwater is also a source of gross pollutants.


Public wastewater network discharges

The Regional Water and Soil Plan and Regional Coastal Plan regulate discharges of wastewater from municipal wastewater treatment plants, reticulation networks, and domestic on-site treatment systems. On the whole, the rules and associated policies are robust and do not require any major changes. Whangarei District Council has undertaken substantial investment in upgrading its wastewater treatment and network over the past six years (Appendix 6).

Defer to Regional Plan

38

Non-regulatory actions Table 13: actions to be implemented by non-regulatory methods

Action areas Specific recommendation

Farm water quality improvement

· Where land doesn’t fall under the Erosion Control Plan “rule”, farm water quality improvement plans should still be encouraged and promoted to improve water quality.

· Northland Regional Council to work in partnership with industry to reduce rate of non-compliance and increase land application of farm dairy effluent.

Stormwater network · Whangarei District Council investigates investing in more stormwater filtration devices/gross pollutant traps.3 · Stormwater catchment management plans to include provisions for stormwater filtration/gross pollutants

where required. · Identify the location of all pipes within the Whangārei urban stormwater network and their current state.

Obstructions · Remove or remediate fish passage barriers within the Otaika, Raumanga and Waiarohia catchments by 20204 in conjunction with tangata whenua and stakeholders.

· Northland Regional Council to set aside funding for this restoration work.

Gross pollutants · Northland Regional Council to continue funding Sea Cleaners beyond the current three-year commitment (which ends in 2017/18).

· Undertake a project with NorthTec to carry out an annual rubbish collection and count at 4-5 sites in the upper and lower harbour.

3 District Council installed a Vortcapture Gross Pollutant Trap at Banff St in 2015 as a trial. 4 The fish barrier identified at the bottom of the Waiarohia Stream was removed in January 2016.

39

Cultural sites · Support restoration of freshwater/harbour cultural sites that have been damaged by: · Working in partnership with tangata whenua and other interested parties in the development of

software regarding sites of significance – history, meaning, etc. · Encouraging recognition of cultural sites that have been damaged (as a positive in a consent

condition) through actions such as restoration planting, fencing off, cultural interpretation or markers.

Monitoring and research · Continue monitoring all current freshwater monitoring sites for at least five years to obtain an appropriate baseline from which long-term trends in water quality can be assessed.

· Investigate the extent of health issues related to recreational use in the upper harbour in conjunction with the Northland District Health Board.

· Investigate the environmental impacts of current allocation levels in the Hātea and Otaika sub-catchments to determine if there are environmental effects associated with current level of allocation.

· Research into risk of microbeads/household compounds from wastewater system – perhaps look at ecological impacts at Limeburners.

· Ongoing monitoring of nutrients as part of ongoing regional council monitoring in the harbour. · Investigate cause of high nitrates in Otaika. · Establish a funding pool to carry out source-tracking/one-off water quality investigations. · Promote/encourage cultural health monitoring of waterways by tangata whenua. · Continue to monitor wildfowl contribution to E.coli as new technology comes available. · Monitor stormwater discharges for sediment/heavy metals and other contaminants. · Investigate sedimentation rates for urban area.

Education/raising awareness

· Whangarei District Council to continue to finance public education programmes such as “Drains to Harbour”. · Publicise the 0800 number (pollution hotline) more widely and encourage community to report incidents

when they happen so that issues can be resolved. · Raise awareness of wildfowl pollution issue – that is, do not feed the ducks at Whangārei Falls. · Whangarei District Council to encourage private green developments and support the use of green

infrastructure.

40

Resourcing · Ensure staffing levels are sufficient to respond to incidents in the catchment and appropriate follow-up/investigation is taken to identify the underlying source.

· Ensure Northland Regional Council’s Environment Fund is sufficiently funded and supported to achieve objectives.

Revegetation · Northland Regional Council’s Environment Fund is accessible for wetland creation and encouraged to be used for this purpose.

· Encourage riparian restoration by landowners and community groups. · Whangarei District Council to continue to fund community planting sites.

Water allocation · Establish and maintain sub-catchment water user groups for highly allocated catchments.

Wastewater · Continue improvements to the wastewater network. · Septic tank monitoring regime and compliance to be investigated.

41

Appendix 1: relationship diagram between attributes and actions

42

Appendix 2: mapped fish passage barriers in the Whangārei Harbour catchment

43

Appendix 3: freshwater swimming sites above which stock are to be excluded

44

Appendix 4: farm dairy effluent regimes in the Whangārei Harbour catchment

45

Appendix 5: High sediment yielding land (>250 tonnes/km2/yr)

46

Appendix 6: list of major wastewater capital works undertaken by Whangarei District Council

Year Item Outcome Approximate cost

2009 - 2015 Sewer network modelling and master plan development.

Computer simulation of sewer performance developed and calibrated. Used to develop works programme to address public health risk from sewage spills in Whangārei.

$1.0M+

2010 – 2016

General improvement works. Telemetry system upgraded and remote pump stations and sites connected. WWTP equipment upgraded/replaced. Failed sewer lines replaced.

Pump station reliability greatly improved. Pump station fault response time reduced to 30 mins (city) 60 mins (rural). Sewer spills due to faulty lines reduced. Equipment reliability and safety improved.

$5.0M

2011 Okara Park pump station upgrade. This station pumps around 70% of the city’s wastewater.

Bigger pumps put in and redundancy added. Pump capacity exceeds inflow rate – no more spills. $2.5M

2011 New 750mm pipe between Okara station and treatment plant.

Provides redundancy and allows more flow to be pumped to treatment plant. Pump capacity around 1100 litres per second.

$1.5M

2012 Hatea wastewater storage and treatment system installed on Whareora Rd.

Stores most wastewater except for big events. During big events water treated and disinfected before being discharged to Hātea River. Reduces risk of spills at Hātea station and from downstream network.

$5.0M

2013

Whangārei wastewater plant reconfigured to treat all incoming flows plus allowance for growth to 2041. Storm flow disinfection system installed. Replacement consent issued.

All flow that enters plant is treated and disinfected to meet resource consent standards. Treatment capacity 1600L/s. $2.5M

2014 Ruakaka south sewer system. Approximately 460 properties and the Ruakaka campground connected to sewer system with waste pumped to Ruakaka wastewater treatment plant. Septic tanks abandoned.

$9.7M

47

Year Item Outcome Approximate cost

2014 Hikurangi wetland replacement. Replaced subsurface wetland with floating wetland to improve quality of effluent going into membrane. Approx. 50% improvement occurred.

$0.35M

2014 New Whangārei WWTP consent, new pipe to wetlands, subsurface wetland replaced with floating system.

Consent modified so that all water leaving treatment plant passes through wetland. Water quality at discharge point improved.

$2.0M

2015 Sewer lines – new pipes, upgrades and renewals.

Sewer lines renewed under Kamo Rd and Denby Crescent. New bypass line constructed down Lupton Ave. New connection made from Kensington sewer system to pipeline adjacent to Whareora Rd. New line built under SH1/SH14 intersection to provide for future growth. Reduced risk of spills.

$3.0M

2015 Rising main from Onerahi main pump station upgraded.

Pipeline replaced and upsized. Premature failure as a result of cyclic fatigue. $1.0M

2015/16 Waipū renewals and growth related upgrades.

New screens at treatment plant, desludging of main pond, replacement of subsurface wetland with floating system. New rising main from Waipū township to plant and upgrade of other pipes in town.

$2.5M

2016/18 Tarewa Park storage and treatment system.

Similar system to Hātea to be built in Tarewa Park. Will eliminate risk of storm related spills around I- Site, reduce other local spills, and reduce risk of spills further down in sewer network.

$4.5M

2016-18 Proposed Hikurangi sewer network renewal.

Address stormwater related spills in Hikurangi and high flows to treatment plant. $3.8M (2016)

48

Glossary

Ammonia A highly soluble nitrogen compound, chemical formula NH3, characteristically found in manure, sewage and anaerobic

conditions.

ANZECC (Australian New Zealand Environment Conservation Council) 2000 Guidelines

The ANZECC (2000) guidelines outline trigger values for water quality aspects that put stress on river and stream health. These specify a level below which there is a low risk that adverse biological effects will occur. The trigger values are not designed to be used as threshold values at which an environmental problem is inferred if they are exceeded. Rather they are designed to be used in conjunction with professional judgement to provide an assessment of the state of a water body.

Chlorophyll a A green pigment found in plants that is used to absorb sunlight during photosynthesis. Chlorophyll a concentrations are an indicator of phytoplankton abundance and biomass in water.

Contact recreation Primary contact recreation refers to swimming and bathing; secondary contact recreation refers to activities such as boating, fishing and wading.

Dissolved oxygen A measure of the quantity of oxygen in the water column. Oxygen is required by freshwater and marine organisms, with some species being more sensitive to low oxygen levels than others.

DRP (Dissolved reactive phosphorus) The fraction of phosphorus that consists largely of inorganic orthophosphate (PO4) form of phosphorus that can be directly taken up by algae. The amount of dissolved reactive phosphorus therefore indicates the amount of phosphorus that is immediately available for algal growth

E. coli (Escherichia coli) () A common form of faecal bacteria that live in the guts of mammals and birds. Although usually harmless themselves, high levels of E. coli indicate that other pathogens – invisible microbes such as bacteria, viruses, and so on that cause disease – are present.

FDE (Farm dairy effluent)

FDE systems are divided into consented or non-consented (permitted) types. Non-consented systems are visually inspected and graded depending on compliance with the criteria for “permitted activities” in the Regional Water and Soil Plan. All Northland dairy farms are inspected at least once per season. Follow-up inspections are also made to all farms found to have significantly non-compliant discharges.

FMU (Freshwater management unit) A water body, multiple water bodies or any part of a water body determined by the council as the appropriate spatial scale.

Heavy rainfall event 50mm within six hours or greater than 100mm rain in 24 hours.

Kaitiakitanga Guardianship, protection or preservation. Environmental management based on the traditional Māori world-view.

L/s (litres per second) A unit of measure of river volume flow rate, that is, the number of litres of water which passes that point per second.

49

Mahinga kai Food and other resources, and the areas they are sourced from.

Mahinga mātaitai Customary seafood gathering site, shellfish bed.

Mana Prestige, authority, control, power, influence

Manaakitanga Hospitality, kindness.

Mana whenua Those who have customary authority.

Mātauranga Knowledge, body of knowledge.

Mauri The essential life force of all things; spiritual essence.

MALF (Mean annual low flow) A 7-day MALF is commonly used for setting minimum flow and allocation limits because it is a measure of water availability during dry periods. MALF also standardises minimum flow and allocation by the size of the river.

MCI (Macroinvertebrate community index)

An index where macroinvertebrates are used for monitoring and reporting on stream health in New Zealand. The MCI assigns a score to each species or taxon (from one to 10), based on its tolerance or sensitivity to organic pollution, then calculates the average score of all taxa present at a site.

MPN (Most probable number) Method used to enumerate the number of bacteria in a sample.

Nitrate A highly soluble compound of nitrogen and oxygen with the chemical formula NO3.

NOF (National objective framework) Established in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014, providing a number of grades as well as “national bottom lines” – thresholds of water quality attributes that good management should prevent our waterways from reaching in a consistent way across the country.

NTU (Nephelometric turbidity units) A measure of turbidity in water being the propensity of particles to scatter a light beam.

Periphyton Slime and algae community growing on river and stream beds. As the primary producer in stream ecosystems, it is an important indicator of ecosystem health.

Taonga tuku iho Treasure(s) handed down.

Turbidity Measure of water clarity, the cloudiness or haziness of water. A measure of the degree to which light is scattered in water by particles, such as sediment and algae.

Wāhi tapu Places and things that are sacred.

50

References

Ministry for Primary Industries (forthcoming), Managing Sediment and E.coli in the Whangārei Harbour catchment.

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research [NIWA] (2013a), Quantifying contaminant sources in the Upper Whangārei Harbour Catchment.

NIWA (2013b), Whangārei Harbour sedimentation: Sediment accumulation rates and present-day sediment sources.

Northland Regional Council and Whangarei District Council (2012), Whangārei Harbour Water Quality Improvement Strategy.

Northland Regional Council (2015), Fish Barrier Survey: Whangārei Harbour and Mangere Priority Catchments.

Northland Regional Council (2016a), Whangārei Harbour Catchment: Water Quality Update.

Northland Regional Council (2016b), Coastal Water Quality Monitoring: 2010-2014 Results.

Northland Regional Council (2016c), State of the Environment Report (forthcoming).

Northland Regional Council (2016d), Recreational Swimming Water Quality in Northland.

Sea Cleaners (2015), Northland Trial Report 2014.

Sea Cleaners (2016), Northland Report 2015.


EXHIBIT 10

NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL

CORRESPONDENCE


EXHIBIT 11

PROPOSED DRAFT CONDITIONS

Exhibit 11

PHILIPP KARTHEUS – PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF CONSENT 1. Prior to the survey plan being approved under Section 223 of the RMA:

a. The survey plan submitted for approval shall be in general accordance with the subdivision consent obtained and the plan of subdivision prepared by Reyburn and Bryant (reference 14665 Revision E dated July 2018), with the inclusion of land covenant D as a ‘no-build area’, and land covenants E, F, G and H as ‘build areas’.

b. The consent holder shall submit a detailed set of engineering plans prepared in general accordance with the Whangarei District Council Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 edition. Designs may only be carried out by an Independently Qualified Person (IQP) or Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng) working within the bounds of their assessed competencies. IQPs must have been assessed by Council and hold current registration to submit engineering design work. All work needing design/certification by a Council approved IQP/CPEng will require the submission of a producer statement (design) on form EES-PS1 (or similar approved) to the satisfaction of the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer. Plans are to include: Design details of the construction of right of way A in accordance with Table 3.7 on sheet 9

for a rural privateway (4 lots) of Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 Edition, including a typical cross section, long section, culverts, drainage flow paths and overland flow.

Design details of the construction of rights of way B and C in accordance with Table 3.7 on sheet 9 for a rural privateway (2 lots) of Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 Edition, including a typical cross section, long section, culverts, drainage flow paths and overland flow.

Design details of the upgrade of the existing vehicle crossing Type 1A in accordance with sheet 21 of Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 Edition. Entrance crossings are to be designed and constructed in such a manner that will control stormwater run-off entering a property from the road, and that likewise prevent stormwater and detritus, including gravel, dirt and other materials, migrating onto the road reserve from a property

c. The consent holder shall provide written confirmation from power utility service operator of their consent conditions in accordance with Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 Edition and show necessary easements on the survey plan to the approval of the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer or delegated representative.

d. The consent holder shall provide written confirmation from the telecommunications utility service operator of their consent conditions in accordance with Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 Edition and show necessary easements on the survey plan to the approval of the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer or delegated representative. Or the consent holder is to confirm that telecommunication connections are not proposed in which case consent notice will be

Exhibit 11

registered on the titles of proposed Lots prior to the issue of the Section 224(c) certificate alerting future owners of this situation.

e. The consent holder must create easements over services to the approval of the Senior

Environmental Engineering Officer or delegated representative.

f. The consent holder shall prepare, to the satisfaction of the Resource Consents Manager or delegated representative, a comprehensive Landscape Management Plan. This plan shall be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape architect and shall be prepared generally in accordance with the proposed mitigation regeneration shown on Figures 4a-4c and detailed in Appendix 3 of the Simon Cocker Landscape Architecture Assessment titled ‘P and V Kartheus, Whangarei Heads Road, Onerahi Proposed Subdivision of Allotments 15, 42 and 43 PSH of Owhiwa’ and dated September 2017. Specifically, the plan shall detail:

i. Areas of existing native vegetation to be retained

ii. The areas to be subject to revegetation planting

iii. The areas subject to managed revegetation.

iv. The areas to be retained in pasture/building curtilage.

v. The methodology and programme to achieve the proposed rehabilitation of the site, including methods proposed for plant and animal pest control.

vi. Specific restrictions on grazing, noting that each site will be restricted from large scale productive grazing.

The plan shall list species to be planted, specify the grades of plants, planting distance and numbers. All plants shall be eco-sourced from the southern Whangaruru Ecological District where possible, or otherwise from the western Manaia, or eastern Whangarei Ecological Districts.

g. The consent holder shall provide a Weed and Pest Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist, relating to the covenant area on Lot 2 (Area ‘I’). The plan shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person and shall be submitted to Council and approved to the satisfaction of the Resource Consents Manager.

2. Prior to the issue of a Section 224(c) certificate:

a. The consent holder is to submit a Corridor Access Request application to Council’s Road Corridor Co-ordinator and receive written approval for all works to be carried out within Council’s Road Reserve in accordance with Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 to the satisfaction of the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer or delegated representative (refer to the advisory clause below for the definition of a Corridor Access Request).

b. All work on the approved engineering plans in Condition 1(b) is to be carried out to the approval to the approval of the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer.

Compliance with this condition shall be determined by site inspections undertaken and by provision and approval of supporting documentation provided by the developers representative/s in support of the constructed works – EES PS4 and producer statements including supporting evidence of inspections by those persons, works acceptance certificate, statement of compliance of as built works and as built plans, RAMM data, management plans, operation and maintenance

Exhibit 11

plans and all other test certificates and statements and supporting information required to confirm compliance of the works as required by the Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010.

No construction works are to commence onsite until the engineering plans required in condition 1(b) have been approved and all associated plan inspection fees have been paid.

c. No construction works are to commence onsite until the engineering plans required in condition

1(b) have been approved and all associated plan inspection fees have been paid.

d. The consent holder shall notify Council, in writing, of their intention to begin works, a minimum of seven days prior to commencing works. Such notification shall be sent to the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer and include the following details:

i. Name and telephone number of the project manager/ IQP.

ii. Site address to which the consent relates.

iii. Activities to which the consent relates.

iv. Expected duration of works.

A copy of the approved engineering plans and a copy of the resource consent conditions, approved corridor access request and the above letter are to be held onsite at all times during construction. All personnel working on the site shall be made aware of, and have access to, the resource consent and accompanying documentation.

e. The consent holder shall submit written confirmation from the telecommunication utility services

operator that their conditions for this development have been satisfied in accordance with Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 Edition to the approval of the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer or their delegated representative. Or if the consent holder has confirmed that telecommunication connections are not proposed as per condition 1(d) then the consent notice condition 2(n)(ii) is applicable.

f. The consent holder shall submit written confirmation from power utility services operators that their conditions for this development have been satisfied in accordance with Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 Edition to the approval of the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer or their delegated representative.

g. The consent holder shall ensure that spoil from the site must not be tracked out onto Council or State Highway Road formations to the satisfaction of the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer or delegated representative.

h. Dust nuisance must be controlled onsite (by use of a water cart or similar) by the applicant so as not to cause "offensive or objectionable" dust at or beyond the boundary of the development of the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer or delegated representative.

i. The consent holder must provide written confirmation from a Licensed Cadastral Surveyor that all services and accesses are located within the appropriate easement boundaries to the satisfaction of the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer or delegated representative.

j. Any damage to Council’s road berms, road carriageway formation and stormwater channels associated with the subdivision development works must be reinstated by consent holder similar

Exhibit 11

to surrounding environment in accordance with Section 3 of Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 Edition to the satisfaction of the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer or delegated representative.

k. Prior to the commencement of earthworks for the purposes of constructing the proposed

accessway, the consent holder shall invite the Ngati Wai Resource Management Unit to be on site for cultural monitoring prior to and during earthworks as a precautionary measure.

l. The consent holder shall implement, to the approval of the Resource Consents Manager or delegated representative, the revegetation planting, and provide written confirmation from a suitably qualified landscape architect or ecologist that the rehabilitation planting and managed revegetation required under the landscape plan prepared under condition 1(f) has been initiated.

m. A conservation covenant (in accordance with Section 77 of the Reserves Act 19977) or alternative instrument of similar effect to the approval of Council’s Resource Consents Manager shall be prepared for registration for Lot 2, at the consent holder’s expense, against the Titles of the land depicted on the survey plan as being subject to land covenants (area ‘I’,– conservation purposes). The covenants shall require in respect of the covenanted area, but not limited to: i. Pest and weed control measures to be undertaken by the landowner should the need arise,

including the removal of fauna and/or flora recognised as pests or weeds by the Whangarei District Council’s Parks Department.

ii. The contents of the integrated weed and pest management and monitoring plan approved under condition 1(f) that is to be given effect to on an on-going basis in perpetuity.

n. 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 proposed Lots 1-4 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. Any development shall comply with the restrictions and recommendations identified in the

Hawthorn Geddes Engineers and Architects Ltd engineering suitability report reference 11058 dated 29/09/17 unless an alternative engineering report prepared by a suitably experienced Chartered Professional Engineer is approved in writing by Council.

ii. (Refer to conditions 1(d) & 2(e) to determine if this condition is applicable) Future owners of the site are advised that there is no telecommunications connection provided Whangarei District Council will not be responsible for ensuring nor providing telecommunication connections to the proposed lots, upon future development of the site, or at the time of further subdivision.

iii. Upon construction of any habitable dwelling, sufficient water supply for firefighting 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 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 written approval from the NZ Fire service will be required.

iv. At the time of lodging a building consent for Lots 1-4, the owner(s) shall comply with the design controls outlined in Appendix 2 of the Simon Cocker Landscape Architecture

Exhibit 11

Assessment titled ‘P and V Kartheus, Whangarei Heads Road, Onerahi Proposed Subdivision of Allotments 15, 42 and 43 PSH of Owhiwa’ and dated September 2017.

v. No cats, dogs or mustelids shall be kept, or permitted to be kept on the property at any time. The owner of the site shall ensure any visitor to the site is made aware of, and complies with the above requirements.

vi. The revegetation planting, and managed rehabilitation undertaken and initiated on Lots 1-4 in accordance with the Landscape Management Plan prepared under condition 1(f) shall be maintained in perpetuity as per the Landscape Management Plan.

vii. Stock grazing on Lots 1-4 shall be limited to the restrictions stipulated in the landscape plan prepared under condition 1(f).

viii. (Lot 4 only) No new or relocated structures shall be located within the area identified as a ‘no-build’ land covenant area ‘D’ on Lot 4.

ix. All new or relocated structures shall be located within the areas identified as a ‘building areas’ E, F, G and H.

x. Prior to the commencement of earthworks for the purposes of constructing a building platform on each allotment, the land owner shall invite the Ngati Wai Resource Management Unit to be on site for cultural monitoring prior to and during earthworks as a precautionary measure.

Advice notes: 1. The consent holder and future owners of the sites are to be advised that all archaeological sites are

protected under the provisions of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. It is an offence under that act to modify, damage or destroy any archaeological site, whether the site is recorded or not. Application must be made to Heritage New Zealand for an authority to modify, damage or destroy an archaeological site(s) where avoidance of effect cannot be practised. All applications to Heritage New Zealand to modify damage or destroy a site shall be jointly worked through with Ngatiwai and will be concurrent with the application being processed.

2. Should any archaeological or cultural sites be uncovered during the duration of this consent activity, Works should cease immediately. The Ngatiwai Trust Board shall be notified of any accidental discovery of any archaeological or cultural sites, and works shall remain halted until the site is marked off and the Ngatiwai Trustboard have given their approval for works to commence.

3. Should tuturu taonga such as adzes, sinkers or carvings be discovered within Ngatiwai territory, they must be passed to the Ngatiwai Trust Board as a registered collector of artefacts under the Antiquities Act 1975.

before the whangarei district council hearings … › buildingandproperty › resourceconsents ›...

Documents