Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report

Transcription

1 Report Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report Prepared for Kaipara District Council (Client) By Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd (Beca) 20 April 2010 Beca 2010 (unless Beca has expressly agreed otherwise with the Client in writing). This report has been prepared by Beca on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance by any person contrary to the above, to which Beca has not given its prior written consent, is at that person's own risk.

2 Revision History Revision Nº Prepared By Description Date 0 Carl Lucca First Draft 17/03/10 1 Carl Lucca Beca Review Comments 23/03/10 2 Carl Lucca / Perri Duffy Further Submissions input 14/04/10 Document Acceptance Action Name Signed Date Prepared by Carl Lucca 20/04/10 Reviewed by Amelia Linzey 20/04/10 Approved by Amelia Linzey 20/04/10 on behalf of Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd Beca // 4 March // NZ

3 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report Table of Contents 1 Introduction Statutory Framework Resource Management Act Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act Background Analysis of Submissions Introduction Submissions Addressed in this Report Submissions on Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy as a whole or in general Analysis and Recommendations Submissions about Issues Analysis and Recommendations Submissions about Objectives and Policies Analysis and Recommendations Submissions about Methods Analysis and Recommendations Submissions about Outcomes Analysis and Recommendations Submissions about Mapping, Zoning and Overlays Analysis and Recommendations Conclusion and Recommendation Chapter Modifications and Consequential Amendments Appendices Appendix 1 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Issues Report Appendix 2 - Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Submitters who wish to be heard Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ

4 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report 1 Introduction This report considers submissions and further submissions that were received by Kaipara District Council (Council) in relation to Chapter 3. Land Use and Development Strategy of the Kaipara District Plan Proposed The Plan was publicly notified on 21 October The closing date for lodging submissions was 18 December The submissions were publicly notified for further submissions on 1 March The closing date for lodging further submissions was 12 March This report recommends whether each submission should be accepted or rejected (in full or in part) and what amendments (if any) should be made to the Plan to address matters raised in submissions. Further submissions are not addressed separately, but rather are dealt with in conjunction with the submissions to which they relate. 1.1 Statutory Framework Resource Management Act 1991 This section of the report briefly sets out the statutory framework within which the Council must consider the submissions. In preparing this report the submissions and in particular, the decisions requested in the submissions have been considered in light of the relevant statutory matters. These matters were summarised by the Environment Court 1, which set out the following measures for evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other methods in District Plans: 1. The objectives of the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they: a. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s32(3)(a)); and b. Assist the Council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and c. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)). 2. The policies, rules, or other methods in the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they: a. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan (s32(3)(b)); and b. Assist the Council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and c. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and d. (If a rule) achieve the objectives and policies of the Plan (s76(1)(b)). The purpose of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, and sustainable management is defined in Section 5(2) as meaning: managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while 1 Eldamos Investments Limited v Gisborne District Council W047/05 Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ

5 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report (a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and (b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and (c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment. Along with Section 5, part 2 of the RMA includes sections 6 (matters of national importance), 7 (other matters) and 8 (Treaty of Waitangi), which set out a range of matters that the council needs to recognise and provide for in achieving the purpose of the RMA. Those matters are also relevant when considering submissions. The Plan must assist the Council to carry out its functions under Section 31 of the RMA. These functions are: (a) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district: (b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of (i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and (ii) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and (iia) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development, subdivision, or use of contaminated land: (iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity: (c) (d) The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise: (e) The control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of water in rivers and lakes. In addition to the matters listed above the following are relevant to considering the submissions on the Proposed District Plan: 1. The Plan must give effect to any national policy statement and any New Zealand coastal policy statement (s75(3)(a) and (b)). 2. The Plan must give effect to the regional policy statement (made operative after 10 August 2005) (s75(3)(c)). 3. The Plan must be not inconsistent with any regional plan (s75(4)). 4. A rule must not be more lenient and can only be more stringent than a national environmental standard if the standard expressly says that a rule may be more stringent than it (s43b(1) and (3)) Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009 As part of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009, changes have been introduced to the way Plan Reviews are undertaken. In summary, these changes concern how often Plans are required to be reviewed, the provision of combined Plans, the further submissions process, decisions on submissions, appeals on Plans and when Plan rules Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ

6 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report take effect 2. Of particular relevance to this part of the Plan Review process is the change to how the further submissions process is undertaken and the process of making decisions on submissions. Further submissions Clause 8 of Schedule 1 now provides that the only persons able to make a further submission are: Persons who are representing a relevant aspect of the public interest; or Persons who have an interest in the proposed policy statement or plan or change that is greater than the interest the general public has; or The local authority. Further submissions must also now be lodged within 10 working days from the day on which public notice is given. Grouping of Submissions Under clause 10 of Schedule 1, a decision is not required on each individual submission, and decisions may address submissions by grouping them (according to the Plan provisions or the matter to which they relate). Decisions must include the reasons for accepting or rejecting submissions, and may include any consequential changes to the Proposed Plan arising from decisions on submissions. This hearing report has been prepared with regard to these amendments to the Act. 1.2 Background Chapter 3 of the Proposed Plan sets out to describe the relevant land use and growth issues facing the District and the Council s objectives, policies, methods to address those issues. In particular, the chapter provides guidance to assist in the clear and planned future urban development of the District that will respond to market expectations while seeking to avoid growth patterns that have the potential to result in adverse effects on the environment and community. The need for this Chapter was identified by Council, particularly in considering how to deliver the outcomes of their Long Term Council Community Plan. The Kaipara District Council has recognised the opportunity and importance of providing a clear and planned provision for current and future urban development - to meet market expectations. In providing the direction of Chapter 3, Council anticipated that the provision of identified Growth Areas would encourage investment and attention to maintain the amenity of these areas. The Chapter identifies the following outcomes from the Plan for land use and development: Managed expansion of residential settlements is provided for. Consolidation of settlements (rather than sporadic sprawl and ad hoc development) that avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse environmental effects. 2 The Ministry for the Environment (2009), Improving Plan Development and Plan Change Processes fact sheet clearly outlines the implications of these amendments with respect to Plan development. Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ

7 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report Well functioning residential and business markets that are able to cater for and respond to demand without generating adverse environmental effects, particularly effects from poor infrastructure supporting these land uses. Progressive implementation of development areas, in line with growth demand and availability of Council resources, as part of both the current and future District Plans. Private initiation of Plan Changes / comprehensive subdivisions (through Management Plan s) within identified development areas, to realise individual economic and development opportunities. Mangawhai is a key area of residential growth in the District. Development of a contained urban area in Mangawhai Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ

8 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report 2 Analysis of Submissions 2.1 Introduction This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy and recommends how the Panel could respond to the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions. The submissions are addressed under subject headings. Where relevant this report draws from the Section 32 Report 3 prepared to document Council s consideration of the District Plan review. While the relevant statutory matters (identified in Section 1.2 of this report) will not necessarily be referred to directly, the discussion and recommendations have given consideration to these as appropriate and any other relevant matters. A list of the submissions considered in this report together with the related further submissions is contained in Appendix 1 in the Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Issues Report. Any amendments to the Plan recommended in response to submissions are identified in this section of the report. For clarity, original submissions received during the first submission period following notification of the Proposed Plan are referred to as submissions throughout the report, where as submission received during the second submission period and made in respect to the original submissions are referred to as further submissions or FS. 2.2 Submissions Addressed in this Report The Issues Report (Appendix 1 to this Report) provides a summary of submissions that were received on this Chapter. A number of submission points related to a number of chapters, and have been responded to in the following Hearings Reports:- Chapter 2 District Wide Issues; Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Chapter 3A - Growth Areas Chapter 3B Mangawhai Growth Area Chapter 10 Network Utilities Chapter 12 Rural Chapter 17 - Heritage Chapter 22 - Financial Contributions A list of those submitters who wished to be heard, whose submissions are reported on in this report, is included in Appendix 2. 3 Section 32 Report, October Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ

9 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report 2.3 Submissions on Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy as a whole or in general The submissions dealt with in this section are outlined in Table 1.1 of Appendix 1. These submissions do not relate to any particular provision but rather relate to the overall chapter or the chapter generally Analysis and Recommendations a. General Submissions Submission 230/6 states that the Proposed Plan is bureaucratic and anti growth. The submitter seeks amendments to promote growth. Similarly, submission 308/11 seeks amendments to relax rules for subdivision, ensure lots of commercial/industrial land are available and increase the number of rateable properties in order to promote growth. The submitter states that the Proposed Plan is too restrictive and does not promote growth. FS 511/29 was received in support of submission 308/11 and the submitter states the relief sought is appropriate, necessary and consistent with the provisions of the RMA. As stated in Section of the Section 32 Report, the District has aspirations for ongoing economic growth and development, many of which cannot be achieved through the District Plan. The District Plan is a mechanism to address resource issues and create an environment that does not restrict these aspirations. Further, the land use strategy contributes to realising the economic aspirations of the Long Term Council Community Plan. The cost/benefit analysis undertaken in regard to the Proposed Plan provisions shows that the Proposed Plan is considered to be neither bureaucratic nor anti growth and that to relax the proposed rules would potentially result in unsustainable future growth within the District. Accordingly, it is recommended that submissions 308/11, 230/6 and FS 511/29 be rejected. Submission 92/1 seeks that the Proposed Plan provide improved provisions to provide a better balance between providing for growth and protection of the environment. The submitter states that the District Plan provisions lack support for existing capital investment and development, and has an unbalanced bias towards environmental issues which do not promote development. As stated within Section 3.1 of the Proposed Plan, the Council has established a strategy that provides direction to enable current and future residential and business development within the Kaipara District, over the period of the Plan and beyond. In addition to this, Council has taken an approach that recognises the current limit of resources to commit to this future development and the uncertainty over when development pressure is likely to require land areas to be available. It is considered that this approach is appropriate in terms of seeking a balance between encouraging future capital investment and development, and achieving the purpose of the Act. Accordingly, it is recommended that the submission be rejected. Submission 117/4 opposes Chapter 3 as the principles on which the chapter is based are inappropriate for Kaipara District. Three further submissions were received in support of submission 117/4. Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ

10 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report FS 478/1 supports submission 117/4 as the additional costs of reviewing and modifying the Proposed Plan are unacceptable and can be avoided by postponing the District Plan process until the regional policy statement has been completed. FS 504/1 supports submission 117/4 as the document ought to have been a draft which was available for further consultation. Individuals and communities need time to understand and the wide ranging changes and effects. FS 511/21 supports submission 117/4, as the relief sought is appropriate, necessary and consistent with the provisions of the RMA. As stated in the Section 32 Report, the issues, objectives, policies and methods outlined in Chapter 3 are the result of the Operative Plan review and an Issues and Options assessment, including Council workshops and community consultation. The principles on which the Chapter are based upon are aligned with the purpose of the Act (i.e. to promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources) and respond appropriately to the growth pressures that Kaipara is likely to continue to face in the future. Accordingly, it is recommended that the submissions 117/4, FS 478/1, FS 504/1 and FS 511/21 be rejected. Submission 81/8 and 81/9 seek more focus within Chapter 3 on appropriate zoning for suitable preestablished industry and improvement of service provisions to businesses and industries, respectively. It is considered that the Proposed Plan, through the objectives and policies set out in Chapter 2 District Wide Resource Management Issues and Chapter 14 Business, provides for adequate focus on zoning and provision of services for industrial activities. Further, it is noted that specific consideration was given to further zoning in the District Plan review (as discussed in the Section 32 Report). It was concluded that the costs to Council and the community to confirm these areas outweighed the benefits, given the uncertainty of timing and nature of growth in the District. Accordingly, it is recommended that the submissions be rejected. Submission 106/1 seeks that self sufficient household water supply should be taken into account when building consents are granted. Within the Proposed Plan, and pursuant to the Act (particularly sections 5 and 7), there is provision for consideration of sustainable resource use such as may be provided for by self sufficient water supplies. twithstanding, self sufficient household water supply is not a requirement of the Proposed Plan and is a matter that will be more specifically considered pursuant to the Building Act. amendments to the Proposed Plan are recommended. Submission 187/8 seeks that only minor amendments be made to the existing Operative Plan. The submitter states that the Proposed Plan is going to have a huge cost to ratepayers and the existing plan only needed to be adjusted and the use of consultants and engineers kept to a minimum. Similarly, Submission 451/1 seeks that the Proposed Plan be withdrawn and the old plan be revised. The submitter states that because of the lack of direction in the Proposed Plan, Mahuta Community Water Supply will be disadvantaged in presenting any future developments they may wish to pursue; the Plan will be a financial burden that could inhibit developments; due to the location of the submitters water supplies and the lack of guidelines in the Proposed Plan, a development would require a raft of paperwork in determining what would be acceptable from the District Council, for the Mahuta Water Community Supply. Three submissions were received in opposition to submission 187/8. Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ

11 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report FS 509/5 and FS 510/5 oppose submission 187/8 as the relief sought would not achieve the purpose and principles of the RMA. The submitters state the Council is required to review its District Plan under and in accordance with the RMA. FS 465/42 opposes submission 187/8 as the Council needed to replace the operative Plan as it is outdated and no longer achieves the purpose of the RMA and does not give effect to national or regional policy statements. The Proposed Plan has been prepared to meet the Council s obligations under the Act and constitutes what are considered to be the most appropriate methods of achieving the purpose of the Act and responding to the current and likely issues to face the District in the future (as discussed in the Section 32 Report. Accordingly, it is recommended that submissions 187/8 and 451/1 be rejected and submissions FS 509/5, FS 510/5 and FS 465/42 be accepted. Submission 319/10 conditionally supports Chapters 3 and 3A and Appendix A subject to amendments to enable a sustainable supply of business land and allow flexibility to appropriately locate new business activities. It is considered that the provisions of the Proposed Plan will allow flexibility to appropriately locate new business activities, while also ensuring that potential adverse effects on the environment will be no more than minor. The intent the submission is considered to be fulfilled by the Plan and no amendments are considered necessary. Submission 92/4 seeks that where holiday parks and similar activities are located within the District, the zoning should be replaced with a specific zone providing for existing and similar activities. The submitter states that the Plan should include statements that recognise the different and unique requirements of holiday parks and similar activities and should be supportive of these activities in the coastal environment. The decision requested is that the Council should include specific zoning provisions for these activities. Where existing holiday parks and similar activities have been legally established, these will retain existing use rights as provided for by Part 3 of the Act. Where similar additional activities are sought alongside existing activities, these are provided for by the Proposed Plan subject to meeting the relevant performance standards and/or obtaining resource consent. Accordingly, it is considered unnecessary to provide for an additional zoning and it is recommended that the submission be rejected. Submission 335/8 supports the recognition that private plan changes are an appropriate alternative to Council-initiated plan change or structure plan processes. decision is requested and no amendments are considered necessary. Submission 424/5 seeks that that where the economic effect of the Plan is to reduce the value of existing properties due to extended contributions and/or increased uncertainty and/increased complexity the Council provide a statement either in the Plan or in transitional provisions as to how that burden is to be borne fairly by ratepayers. FS 511/32 supports submission 424/5 as the relief sought is appropriate, necessary and consistent with the provisions of the RMA. Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ

12 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report There is no mechanism under the RMA to provide financial compensation to private landowners. The consideration of individual property values is a subjective matter and is not considered a matter to address under the Act. Furthermore, consideration of costs to landowners collectively was considered in the cost benefit considerations of the Section 32 Report (balancing these with the social, cultural, environmental and other economic costs and benefits). On this basis, it is recommended that submission 424/5 and FS 511/32 be rejected. Submission 298/4 seeks that Council improve the Chapter with some encouragement for activities which are emerging in the Council LONG TERM COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLAN e.g. encouragement of cooperative community activities that foster care for the land (community gardens). The Proposed Plan provides for a wide range of activities within the Rural zone. These activities, which may include cooperative community activities that foster care for the land and other activities identified in the LONG TERM COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLAN, may be provided for so long as they meet the relevant performance standards outlined in Chapter 12 or otherwise evidencing that the potential adverse effects will be no more than minor. It is considered unnecessary to amend the Proposed Plan and it is therefore recommended that the submission be rejected. Submission 14/19 seeks that Chapter 3 be expanded to include a strategy statement about future land use especially related to protecting against the impact of Climate Change on the land use in the District. Section 7(i) of the Act specifically requires that all persons exercising functions and powers under the Act in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard to the effects of climate change. Overall, while it is considered that the intent of the objectives, policies and methods outlined within the Proposed Plan will assist in giving effect to the Section 7(i), it will be helpful to outline the Council s intention within the explanation section of Chapter 3. Accordingly, it is recommended that the submission be accepted in part and that the following wording be added to paragraph three in section 3.1 of the Proposed Plan: The outcomes described above have the potential to generate both adverse environmental and amenity effects and result in an increase in conflicts between incompatible activities (e.g. reverse sensitivity impacts). In addition, it is recognised that sustainable land use and development has a role to play in reducing adverse effects that have the potential to result in climate change, such as may be associated with emissions from road transport; heating homes; energy generation; and commercial buildings. It is the intention of the Council that sustainable growth, through deliberate planning and design of future urban and rural areas, reduce effects that may contribute to global warming. b. Section 3.1 Introduction / Resource Description Submission 207/44 requests that the terminology used in Section 3.1 paragraph 2 be amended. In particular, the submitter states that the term considered is weak and should be amended. The relevant sentence currently reads: Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ

13 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report If land use and economic growth is not considered, the following outcomes may occur: Increased fragmentation and development of urban activities on versatile and productive soils (a finite resource) or to sensitive environments (harbour and coast); Stifled growth and development opportunities; and Ineffective and inefficient provision of infrastructure servicing for economic development. There were two further submissions in opposition to submission 207/44 and one further submission in support of it. FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 oppose submission 207/44 as the relief sought would not achieve the principles and purpose of the RMA. The submitters state the Council is required to review its District Plan under and in accordance with the RMA; the provisions of Chapters 3 and 3A achieve the purpose and principles of the RMA whilst providing a mechanism to ensure the adequate and timely supply of business and residential land. It is appropriate for Council to identify areas for future growth and financial contributions are an appropriate method for funding the costs of development within Kaipara. FS 494/1 supports submission 207/44 because they have the best interests of the ratepayers at heart. The submitter states that the submissions are well written and researched. It is agreed that the terminology has the potential to be strengthened. Considered has the potential to result in a passive outcome (i.e. the matter was considered but no action was taken). Accordingly, it is recommended that submissions 207/44 and FS 494/1 be accepted and submissions FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 be rejected, and relevant sentence be amended to read: If land use and economic growth is not considered responded to, the following outcomes may occur. Submission 207/45 requests the provision of overlay areas which restrict subdivision and land use on versatile and productive soils. The submitter states that land fragmentation is an important issue, particularly where versatile and productive soils will be compromised. There were three further submissions in opposition to submission 207/45 and one further submission in support of it. FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 oppose submission 207/45 as the relief sought would not achieve the principles and purpose of the RMA. The submitters state the Council is required to review its District Plan under and in accordance with the RMA; the provisions of Chapters 3 and 3A achieve the purpose and principles of the RMA whilst providing a mechanism to ensure the adequate and timely supply of business and residential land. It is appropriate for Council to identify areas for future growth and financial contributions are an appropriate method for funding the costs of development within Kaipara. FS 466/21 opposes submission 207/45 as the versatile and productive soils are part of rural production activities and do not need to be specifically identified. FS 494/1 supports submission 207/45 because they have the best interests of the ratepayers at heart. The submitter states that the submissions are well written and researched. It is agreed that that land fragmentation is an important issue, particularly where versatile and productive soils will be compromised. However, specific objectives, policies and rules have been Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ

14 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report provided within the Proposed Plan (refer specifically Chapters 2 District Wide Resource Management Issues and 12 Rural) to assist in reducing adverse effects on the soil resource. In addition, the overlays are specifically concerned with addressing natural environments that have been identified for their sensitivity and value. Accordingly, it is recommended that submissions 207/45 and FS 494/1 be rejected and submissions FS 509/6, FS 510/6 and FS 466/21 be accepted. Submission 207/46 requests Section 3.1, paragraph 2 be amended to acknowledge more sensitive environments. The submitter does not believe that the harbour and coast is a sensitive environment which in turn cannot be developed and suggests there are other sensitive environments within the District which may be more sensitive to development than the coastal margins. There were two further submissions in opposition to submission 207/46 and one further submission in support of it. FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 oppose submission 207/46 as the relief sought would not achieve the principles and purpose of the RMA. The submitters state the Council is required to review its District Plan under and in accordance with the RMA; the provisions of Chapters 3 and 3A achieve the purpose and principles of the RMA whilst providing a mechanism to ensure the adequate and timely supply of business and residential land. It is appropriate for Council to identify areas for future growth and financial contributions are an appropriate method for funding the costs of development within Kaipara. FS 494/1 supports submission 207/46 because they have the best interests of the ratepayers at heart. The submitter states that the submissions are well written and researched. The reference to harbour and coast environments within Section 3.1, paragraph 2 is appropriate to identify examples of sensitive landscapes. These examples align with the overlays, which represent natural environments that have been identified for their sensitivity and value. As outlined in Chapter 4 of the Proposed Plan, many of the coastal areas are considered to be sensitive natural landscapes with high ecological, historical, environmental and cultural values. Identification of this environment is considered consistent with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2004 and the rthland Regional Policy Statement. Accordingly, it is recommended that submissions 207/46 and FS 494/1 be rejected and submissions FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 be accepted. Submission 135/15 seeks the following outcome be added to the three outcomes identified in the second paragraph of Section 3.1, as shown below: If land use and economic growth is not considered, the following outcomes may occur: Increased fragmentation and development of urban activities on versatile and productive soils (a finite resource) or to sensitive environments (harbour and coast); Stifled growth and development opportunities; and Ineffective and inefficient provision of infrastructure servicing for economic development. The amenity, heritage, landscape, ecological and natural values of the District can be reduced. The submitter states that the introduction does not identify important adverse environmental outcomes that can result from poorly managed growth, especially in the vicinity of existing settlements. Identifying and acknowledging these potential adverse environmental outcomes provides a starting point for the development of a comprehensive and robust policy response. Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ

15 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report It is appropriate to ensure that the values identified by the submitter are adequately protected from adverse effects and that such potential effects be acknowledged as an issue early in the Plan provisions. Accordingly, it is recommended that the submission be accepted and that Section 3.1 be amended as shown below (the recommended amendments are summarised within Appendix 2 to this report): The amenity, heritage, landscape, ecological and natural values of the District can be reduced. Submission 105/4 seeks the following outcome be added to the three outcomes identified in the second paragraph of Section 3.1: If land use and economic growth is not considered, the following outcomes may occur: Increased fragmentation and development of urban activities on versatile and productive soils (a finite resource) or to sensitive environments (harbour and coast); Stifled growth and development opportunities; and Ineffective and inefficient provision of infrastructure servicing for economic development. The inability to enable extraction of aggregate resources which are necessary to provide important resources to the District, where these resources are utilised to provide for the communities economic and social well-being". FS 511/16 supports submission 105/4 as the relief sought is appropriate, necessary and consistent with the provisions of the RMA. It is considered that the above point is out of context with those matters identified within Section 3.1 which relates to the impacts of uncontrolled land use and development on the wider environment. The issue raised by the submitter is adequately dealt with through the District Wide provisions in Chapter 2 of the Proposed Plan. It is also noted that recommendations to submissions 105/1, 105/2 and 105/3 have suggested appropriate changes to Chapter 2 to provide for aggregate and mineral extraction where such activities are able to demonstrate benefits to the wider community. Accordingly, no amendments are considered necessary and it is recommended that submission 105/4 and FS 511/16 be rejected. Submission 135/16 seeks that the ninth paragraph of Section 3.1 be amended to state that the Council will also monitor development of rural land within and in the vicinity of the identified growth areas. The submitter states that given the desire to avoid ad hoc development, any monitoring needs to include the development of the rural zoned land included within and adjacent to the growth areas. Paragraph 9 of Section 3.1 reads: The Council is keen to ensure that ad hoc land use development is avoided. Council will monitor the development of both residential and business land during the District Plan period, and proposes to initiate Structure Plans for the Growth Areas as demand arises. In addition, Council provides the opportunity for such investigations to be initiated privately, where this will enable individual economic opportunities in these areas to be realised. It is considered appropriate that the Council also monitor growth and growth related pressures on rural lands within and around proposed growth areas. Such an approach will assist Council to be Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ

16 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report well placed to respond to demand as it occurs. Accordingly, it is recommended that the submission be accepted and that the following paragraph 9 of section 3.1 be amended as follows: The Council is keen to ensure that ad hoc land use development is avoided. Council will monitor the development of both residential and business residential, business and surrounding rural land during the District Plan period, and proposes to initiate Structure Plans for the Growth Areas as demand arises. In addition, Council provides the opportunity for such investigations to be initiated privately, where this will enable individual economic opportunities in these areas to be realised. Submission 117/39 requests that all references to "fragmentation of land", and to "productive soils" and to "versatile soils" be removed from Section 3.1 of the Proposed Plan. Four further submissions were received in support of submission 117/39. FS 466/20 supports submission 117/39 as the versatile and productive soils are part of rural production activities and do not need to be specifically identified. FS 478/1 supports submission 117/39 as the additional costs of reviewing and modifying the Proposed Plan are unacceptable and can be avoided by postponing the District Plan process until the regional policy statement has been completed. FS 504/1 supports submission 117/39 as the document ought to have been a draft which was available for further consultation. Individuals and communities need time to understand and the wide ranging changes and effects. FS 511/21 supports submission 117/39, as the relief sought is appropriate, necessary and consistent with the provisions of the RMA. It is considered that the terminology referred to by the submitter is appropriate. Ongoing fragmentation of rural lands has the potential to result in numerous adverse economic, cultural and environmental effects if not managed appropriately. As has been evidenced in many districts of New Zealand, the fragmentation of land containing productive and/or versatile soils into lifestyle and rural residential living plots has the potential to greatly reduce the productivity and workability of land and hence would be contrary to the purpose of the Act which includes safeguarding the lifesupporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems. It should be noted that the Proposed Plan does not set out to prohibit subdivision or non-rural activities within rural areas but rather manage it in a sustainable manner. Having regard to the above discussion, it is recommended that submissions 117/39, FS 466/20, FS478/1, FS504/1 and FS511/21 be rejected. Submission 207/49 requests that Section 3.1, paragraph 9 be reviewed and amended to remove reference to define 'ad hoc' development. The submitter states that paragraph 9 makes reference to ad hoc development but what does this mean and where are examples within the District? Paragraph 9 of Section 3.1 reads: The Council is keen to ensure that ad hoc land use development is avoided. Council will monitor the development of both residential and business land during the District Plan period, and proposes to initiate Structure Plans for the Growth Areas as demand arises. In addition, Council provides the opportunity for such investigations to be initiated privately, where this will enable individual economic opportunities in these areas to be realised. Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ

17 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report There were two further submissions in opposition to submission 207/49 and one further submission in support of it. FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 oppose submission 207/49 as the relief sought would not achieve the principles and purpose of the RMA. The submitters state the Council is required to review its District Plan under and in accordance with the RMA; the provisions of Chapters 3 and 3A achieve the purpose and principles of the RMA whilst providing a mechanism to ensure the adequate and timely supply of business and residential land. It is appropriate for Council to identify areas for future growth and financial contributions are an appropriate method for funding the costs of development within Kaipara. FS 494/1 supports submission 207/49 because they have the best interests of the ratepayers at heart. The submitter states that the submissions are well written and researched. Ad hoc development refers to development undertaken with no regard to wider planning or growth strategies. Ad hoc development is often piecemeal and such sporadic and unplanned changes to land use have resulted in development patterns that create challenges in the subsequent development and implementation of infrastructure servicing. As expectations for environmental standards increase, particularly with respect to discharges to sensitive receiving environments, and as growth and development continue, it is expected that issues associated with ad hoc development will become increasingly significant. It is considered inappropriate to remove reference to ad hoc development, however, it may be useful to include definition of the terms as described above. Accordingly, it is recommended that submissions 207/49 and FS 494/1 be accepted in part, and submissions FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 be rejected, such that the Section 3.1, paragraph 9 be amended as follows: The Council is keen to ensure that ad hoc land use development is avoided. Ad hoc development refers to development undertaken with no regard to wider planning or growth strategies. Ad hoc development is often piecemeal and such sporadic and unplanned changes to land use have resulted in development patterns that create challenges in the subsequent development and implementation of infrastructure servicing. Council will monitor the development of both residential and business land during the District Plan period, and proposes to initiate Structure Plans for the Growth Areas as demand arises. In addition, Council provides the opportunity for such investigations to be initiated privately, where this will enable individual economic opportunities in these areas to be realised. Submissions 417/1, 426/1, 428/1 and 429/1 conversely to the Submission above, support the comment in 3.1 that "direction is required to avoid ad hoc expansion of settlements" and the Council's keenness "to ensure that ad hoc land use development is avoided". decision is requested and therefore no amendments are considered necessary. Submissions 417/2, 426/2, 428/2 and 429/2 support the identification in 3.1 of Growth Areas. One further submission was received in opposition to submission 417/2, two were received in support. Two further submissions were received in support of submissions 426/2, 428/2 and 429/2. FS 477/1 opposes submission 417/2. The submitter opposes the extent and scope of the growth area as proposed. Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ

18 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report FS 509/7 and FS 510/7 support submissions 417/2, 426/2, 428/2 and 429/2 as the provisions achieve the purpose and principles of the RMA. The submitters state they provide a mechanism to ensure the adequate and timely supply of business and residential land and it is appropriate for Council to identify areas for future growth. It is recommended that the submissions 417/2, 426/2, 428/2, 429/2 FS 509/7 and FS 510/7 be accepted, and submission FS 477/1 be rejected. amendments to the Proposed Plan are considered necessary. Submission 99/7 requests that paragraph 7, Section 3.1 be deleted. The submitter states that the assertion that making people reside in specific isolated small town areas and then commute to work will contribute to protecting rural economic opportunities, contributing to the social and economic well-being of the rural heartland is unsubstantiated and incorrect. Paragraph 7 of Section 3.1 reads: It is anticipated that the provision of identified Growth Areas, will encourage investment and attention to maintain the amenity of these areas. The provision of Growth Areas will also work to limit urban development in other areas, and will assist in protecting the values of these areas, including their amenity and character. This approach will assist in protecting rural economic opportunities, contributing to the social and economic well-being of the rural heartland. Two further submissions were received on submission 99/7, both in support. FS 472/1 supports submission 99/7 as it is a comprehensive and well thought analysis of the Draft Plan. The point is relevant to further submitter s situation as a ratepayer. FS 511/14 supports submission 99/7 as there is no clear explanation in the section 32 analysis as to why the rural subdivision provisions have been adopted. The submitter states the immediate application of the Engineering standards is technically incorrect as these replace standards with full weighting in the Operative District Plan. The submitter considers growth and overlay areas have not been appropriately investigate and the financial obligations to ratepayers have not been identified and does not support the introduction of any rule which compromises the activity of farming where resource consents are required for everyday activities. As has been evidenced within the Kaipara District and throughout New Zealand, uncontrolled urban growth has the potential to lead to a range of issues including those identified in Section 3.3 of the Proposed Plan: Future land use patterns unreasonably constraining rural land; Potential adverse effects of ad hoc residential and business development on natural and physical resources; and Potential to result in unsustainable and costly service provision to residential and business developments. Having regard to the above discussion, it is recommended that submissions 99/7, FS 472/1 and FS 511/14 be rejected. Submission 99/27 seeks that the reference to minimum size standards be deleted from Policy The submitter states that the subdivision of land should create sites which are of an appropriate size to achieve the scale, density and type of development which is provided for by the Objectives, Policies and Methods for each zone and that the standards should be used as guidelines not as inflexible minimum standards. Policy reads: Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ

19 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report By establishing standards for minimum site sizes, for each Zone in the District. Three further submissions were received on submission 99/27, one in opposition and two in support. FS 508/2 opposes submission 99/27 as it is considered that the Engineering Standards are necessary to manage the effects of development on the roading network including state highways. The submitter opposes the removal of road vesting for accessways and considers that the retention of the provision assists in ensuring that the effects of traffic generated by standards can be properly managed by the provision of appropriate roading facilities. FS 472/1 supports submission 99/27 as it is a comprehensive and well thought analysis of the Draft Plan. The point is relevant to further submitter s situation as a ratepayer. FS 511/14 supports submission 99/27 as there is no clear explanation in the section 32 analysis as to why the rural subdivision provisions have been adopted. The submitter states the immediate application of the Engineering standards is technically incorrect as these replace standards with full weighting in the Operative District Plan. The submitter considers growth and overlay areas have not been appropriately investigate and the financial obligations to ratepayers have not been identified and does not support the introduction of any rule which compromises the activity of farming where resource consents are required for everyday activities. The Proposed Plan establishes minimum site size standards which assist to achieve the objectives, policies and methods for the respective zones within the Plan, while still providing certainty for landowners and the community, and sufficient flexibility to establish sites to suit their particular needs. The use of fully discretionary regimes with no minimum lot sizes has been used within other districts and has been found to result in low certainty in regard to outcomes and high costs for Council and applicants. The Section 32 Report, particularly as it relates to Chapter 12 Rural and Chapter 13 Residential has undertaken a cost benefit analysis in relation to various approaches to subdivision, including lot sizes. In particular, when considering no minimum lot sizes for integrated development subdivision within rural areas, the following costs where stated: Risks to rural amenity open space. Limited direction on outcomes being sought may result in higher processing and application costs, cost to ratepayers generally and landowners. Risk of inconsistent decision making, given the broad scope of the rule. Having regard to the above, it is recommended that submission 99/27, FS 472/1 and FS 511/14 be rejected and submission FS 508/2 be accepted. Submission 103/7 seeks that the following sentence to be added to the end of the 9th paragraph of Clause 3.1 as follows: The Council is keen to ensure that ad hoc land use development is avoided. Council will monitor the development of both residential and business land during the District Plan period, and proposes to initiate Structure Plans for the Growth Areas as demand arises. In addition, Council provides the opportunity for such investigations to be initiated privately, where this will enable individual economic opportunities in these areas to be realised. The Council will require a Structure Plan to be completed either before or at the same time any Plan Change proposed for land within a Growth Area. FS 465/3 supports submission 103/7 because it is appropriate and necessary that structure planning preceded the development of identified growth areas if ad-hoc development is to be Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ

20 Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Strategy Hearing Report avoided. The submitter states that growth areas give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (Policy 1.1.1). The submitter considers that plan provisions which allow for subdivision and development within Growth Areas in advance of the formulation of Structure Plans for these areas are not consistent with sound resource management and will not achieve the outcomes sought by clause of the Proposed Plan. Accordingly, the submitter considers that Chapter 3 should be amended to indicate that structure plans for all Growth Areas should be developed either before or concurrently with subdivision and development proposals to ensure integrated planning of land use and transportation. The intention of the submission is considered to be appropriate. To achieve a sustainable balance between current and future generations, Council has sought to provide direction on future development and to establish, through monitoring of demand, a programme for future structure planning of identified Growth Areas. twithstanding this, there may be instances where a Proposed Plan change does not require a structure plan (e.g. the land use proposed or the scale of development may not warrant a structure plan). Having regard to the above, it is recommended that submissions 103/7 and FS 465/3 be accepted in part and that the additional wording requested be provided for as follows: The Council is keen to ensure that ad hoc land use development is avoided. Council will monitor the development of both residential and business land during the District Plan period, and proposes to initiate Structure Plans for the Growth Areas as demand arises. In addition, Council provides the opportunity for such investigations to be initiated privately, where this will enable individual economic opportunities in these areas to be realised. Unless shown to be otherwise unnecessary, the Council will require a Structure Plan to be completed either before or at the same time as any Plan Change proposed for land within a Growth Area. c. Growth Areas and Structure Plans Submission 207/48, 207/50 and 207/51 seek that all identified growth areas are deleted from the Plan. The submitter does not agree with this approach as some areas are not suffering from growth pressure and further states that the identification of Growth Areas within the Plan is contrary to the underpinnings of the Plan which seeks to encourage growth and development in the District. The submitter states that growth areas do not need to be included in the Plan for future structure planning exercises to be undertaken. There were three further submissions in opposition to submissions 207/48 and 207/50 and one further submission in support of them. There were two further submissions in opposition to submission 207/51 and one further submission in support of it. FS 509/6 and FS 510/6 oppose submissions 207/48, 207/50 and 207/51 as the relief sought would not achieve the principles and purpose of the RMA. The submitters state the Council is required to review its District Plan under and in accordance with the RMA; the provisions of Chapters 3 and 3A achieve the purpose and principles of the RMA whilst providing a mechanism to ensure the adequate and timely supply of business and residential land. It is appropriate for Beca // 20 April 2010 // Page // NZ