AT THAMES-COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL: IN THE MATTER AND IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 of submissions by Pohutukawa Slopes Limited to the Proposed District Plan. STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DONALD ALAN SANGSTER A: INTRODUCTION 1. My name is Donald Alan Sangster. I became a registered surveyor under the Survey Act in 1981 and hold the degree of Bachelor of Surveying (Otago). I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute (Inc) ( NZPI ) and the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors (Inc) ( NZIS ), and the Resource Management Law Association. I had thirteen years of experience from 1985 1998 working for the Wellington City Council and Thames- Coromandel District Council under the Town and Country Planning Act 1977, the Local Government Act 1974 and the Resource Management Act 1991. I have been consulting in surveying, planning and resource management from a sole practice based in Thames since April 1998. During 2014 I completed the Making Good Decisions course run by the Ministry for the Environment and have qualified as an independent commissioner. 2. My area of experience includes preparation of submissions and presentation of evidence at hearings. 3. I am familiar with the provisions of the Proposed District Plan ( PDP ), and other statutory planning instruments which are relevant to the hearing. 4. I attest that the following evidence and expert opinion therein are given from within my area of expertise. For this hearing I have been instructed to give evidence by Pohutukawa Slopes Limited. 1
5. Although this is a hearing at Council, I have read the code of conduct for expert witnesses in the Environment Court of New Zealand Practice Note 2014. I understand my obligations under the Code and agree to comply with it and attest that I have considered all material facts including those that may alter or detract from the opinions that I express in my evidence, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person. 6. All but one of the photographs referred to in this evidence were taken on a Canon 7D camera with a 30 mm F1.4 lens. This is a crop factor camera that with this lens is the equivalent of a 50 mm lens on a full frame camera. One photograph was taken on a full frame Canon 5D with a 50 mm F2.5 lens. 7. I have read the hearing reports and recommendations in relation to two of the submissions (269.2 and 269.3). Submission 269.1 is to be considered during the 24 26 March 2015 hearings 8. Leave was sought and approved, to address matters in relation to the 10 February 2015, 24 February 2015, and 24 26 March 2015 hearings in this evidence. As the officer s report for the March hearing is not yet available, the right is reserved for further evidence addressing the officer report, to be lodged to that hearing by its due date, if considered necessary by the submitter. B: PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF MY EVIDENCE 9. The purpose of my evidence will cover the following matters: A description of the property, history of the site, the aims of its owners, and the work undertaken to date. Submission 269.3: Proposed rule change to PDP Section 38 Rule 8. Submission 269.2: Inclusion of a Site Development Plan in Section 25. Submission 269.1: Rezoning from Rural Zone to Coastal Living Zone on map 24D. The policy and legislative framework into which the relief sought in the submissions sits. The Council officer s reports and recommendations. Further submissions by other parties. My conclusions. 2
C: THE PROPERTY 10. This land is located north of Tairua township. It comprises of two distinct parts. The southern part contains the leg-in access, and some land facing south towards Tairua township. The northern part of the land comprises of an east facing slope that falls to the sea, bounded to the east by Recreation Reserve along the foreshore which comprises of cliffs. The northern part of the site includes a ridgeline with the boundary fence on the ridge. I refer to the panoramic photograph taken by myself on 28 February 2014 that forms part of the submission documents. 11. The site is legally described as Lot 1 DP 386622, and has a land area of 13.2 hectares including the leg-in access. 2.5 hectares of the land has been covenanted to the Council as a conservation area. The address of the land is 42 Ocean Beach Road, Tairua. 12. The land is shown on PDP planning map 24D as Rural Zone. Overlay map 24D identifies that the land is subject to: Partially within the Coastal Environment Overlay. Partially within the Outstanding Landscape Overlay. Partially within the Natural Character Overlay. Partially within the orange zone of the Rule 38.1(c) Table 1 Identification of Priority Areas for Protection, which provides for an additional covenant lot per 4 hectares of area to be placed under covenant: approximately 8.6 hectares, as measured by planimeter, including the 2.5 hectares already under covenant. 13. The parent land and the subject site have been the subject of a number of subdivision applications during the 2000s. The covenant area was created in the subdivision consent that created Lot 1 DP 386622. This consent was viewed by the then owners as Stage One of development of the land; however Stage Two was declined by the Council and subsequently the Environment Court, primarily on landscape grounds. 3
14. When the current owners, Pohutukawa Slopes Limited ( PSL ), bought the land in March 2009, it appeared that no work had been undertaken in relation to the covenant area within the land. As described in the evidence of Bryan Travers, a director of PSL, the land and its vegetation was in generally poor condition, and this included the covenant area that had a substantial number of wilding pines, pampas grasses, gorse, woolly nightshade, and other pest species. 15. PSL has spent the last six years rehabilitating the land as described by Mr Travers. I have visited the site on two occasions and can attest to the nature of the work being undertaken, which in my view as a planning practitioner in this district for the last 20 years is unlike any other that I am aware of. In my experience, generally little management is undertaken of this type of land by covenantors, and the active work undertaken at this site is exceptional. The panoramic photograph in the submission that was prepared by Mr H Forsyth in evidence for the Council in 2008 shows the state of the land when purchased by PSL. The 2014 panorama taken from the same location by myself gives a strong indication of the changes wrought, and continuing to be undertaken by PSL. 16. The on-going work has been described by Mr Travers, and this includes continuing weed removal, enrichment plantings, and intensive ridgeline plantings along the western ridge. It is anticipated that approximately 90% of the body of the lot will be in fully maintained indigenous vegetation when this work is completed. 17. Mr Travers has described the proposed use of the land by his family and their future aspirations. He has also described to you the nature of the financial inputs that have been necessary to achieve these goals. 18. This aspiration is to subdivide the land into four lots, two of which would be located below the ridgeline within the northern area, and two of which would be located in southern area as part of the edge of Tairua township integrating with other existing development. The work undertaken by the current owners alleviates all concerns in regard to landscape, as set out in the landscape evidence that will be presented today. 4
19. Relevant maps from TCDC s intramap website follow: Natural Character Overlay Outstanding Landscape Overlay 5
Covenant areas (purple TCDC, blue Queen Elizabeth II National Trust) 6
Coastal Environment Overlay. Part of the site lies within it. All of the Isles Estate lies within it. 7
20. The seaward part of the property lies within Landscape Unit 70 identified in the report entitled Coromandel Peninsula Landscape Assessment, dated September 2011, prepared by Stephen Brown, Landscape Architect. An extract from the map follows, with the property boundaries approximately shown on it. This report identified the area in red as outstanding and is less than that shown in the PDP. The outstanding area in the report appears to be limited to the coastal margin only and not to the upper part of the land and does not include all of the existing covenant or vegetated area. Photomontage prepared by author in Photoshop CS5.1 by matching contour lines and coastline. [Note: A small amount of distortion is likely.] D: SUBMISSION 269.3 21. This submission, which has been reported on to the 10 th February 2015 hearing, sought changes to chapter 38 rule 8 Subdivision Creating One or More Conservation Lots as a restricted discretionary activity. The submission sought that either the reference to previous covenant a a Base map from Quickmap, overlay from Coromandel Peninsula Landscape Assessment, page 150. 8
subdivision be deleted, or reference to covenant subdivision under a previous plan, be deleted (rule 8.1(a)). The submission also changes to sought deletion of the reference in rule 8.3, to rule 8.1(e) as being redundant as a double up. 22. The officer report has recommended that reference to covenant subdivision under previous plans, be deleted in accordance with Option 2 of submission 269.3. This recommendation, reported in paragraph 52 of the officer report, with its recommended changes shown in the screen shot below from the Tracked Changes appendix to the officer report, is acceptable to the submitter. b 23. Under these proposed changes, it appears that PSL could subdivide one further lot from the property, by covenanting a further 4 hectares of native vegetation as identified in orange in the chart, as a restricted discretionary activity, or two lots as a discretionary activity covenanting the additional 6.1 hectares approximately. 24. The submitter also supports the acceptance recommendations in regards to its further submissions to submission 794.24 Surveying Services Ltd (FS269.14), submission 1193.12 Ross Edens and others (FS269.10), and submission 825.6 Whauwhau Environmental Group (FS269.11). b Section 38 tracked changes in report to 10 February 2015 hearing 9
25. The submitter also supports the recommendation to reject further submission FS268.59 made by Benjamin C. Grubb against submission 239.3. c 26. This recommendation provides a useful baseline, although not a permitted baseline for consideration of the other two submissions by PSL. E: SUBMISSION 269.2 27. This submission which has been reported on to the 24 February hearings, sought the provision of a site development plan for this property. The plan shows four lots, with proposed areas to be placed under covenant. The four lots are as previously described in paragraph 17. 28. The house sites within the two northern lots would be visible out to sea, but not from Tairua township with specific ridgetop planting being undertaken along the boundary fence line. The northern house site within the southern area will be considerably shielded from view by existing plantings within the land and covenanted on other land to the south. The southern-most house site will be just behind the existing development along Ocean Beach Road, and downhill from other approved house lots. This lot will integrate with Tairua itself. 29. It is of importance to note that all of the house sites are outside of the Outstanding Landscape Overlay, the Natural Character Overlay, and the Identified Priority Areas for Protection under section 38 rule 8/1(c). The northern two sites will be within the Coastal Environment Overlay. 30. Representative photographs taken by myself are attached to the landscape evidence of Dennis Scott, Registered Landscape Architect. These show the degree of integration that applies to the proposal. The house locations are identified on the photos, being generally obscured by ridgelines, and foliage. Amongst other things, this matter will be specifically addressed in the evidence of Mr Scott. The photography is single frame normal perspective imagery equivalent to a 50 mm lens on a full-frame 35mm camera. c Attachment A to 10 February 2015 hearing 10
31. The proposed rules in the Site Development Plan ( SDP ) have been set out in the format used elsewhere in section 25 of the PDP. This has been noted in the officer s report to the 24 February hearings at paragraph 14. 32. The proposed rules of the SDP include those for dwellings and subdivision. It is proposed that the defined building areas, subject to geotechnical constraints, will be no more than 2000 m 2 each, that they will have roof lines below the ridgeline that constitutes the western boundary of the main body of the lot, and that the balance of the all of the land apart from the access and house curtilages be vegetated in indigenous vegetation and covenanted. The recommendation for a Land Management Plan in draft rules 1(d) and 2 will be consistent with the work undertaken by PSL over the last six years, and will provide recognition of that work. Reference is made to the map in paragraph 18 to show the extent to which covenanting would increase and add to the ecological corridor. 33. In support of its submission, PSL lodged a further submission FS269.4 in opposition to the TCDC submission 379.31 which as follows: The officer report recommends acceptance of the Council submission and rejection of the PSL further submission. 34. Further submission FS568.58 by Ben and Donna Grubb sought rejection of the PSL submission 269.2. The submission summary with Mr and Mrs Grubb s FS follows: The officer report recommends acceptance of their further submission. The submitters oppose the position taken by Mr and Mrs Grubb. 11
35. The overall recommendation of the officer report in relation to submission 269.2 is that no change be made to the PDP on the basis that consultation is not possible through lodging a submission, and that instead a private plan change or resource consent should be lodged. In the reasons for the recommendation it is stated: 36. Reasons (a) and (b) are relevant to this proposal. The recommendation in the officer report is for submission 397.31 to be adopted, reinforcing the legacy only approach, and accordingly that no Site Development Plans be inserted into the PDP. 37. It is my view that inclusion of additional Site Development Plans is valid. These came from existing structure plans in the Operative District Plan, and Structure Planning is a useful tool for integration of development. Extensive geotechnical, ecological, archaeological, access and servicing information is already available for this property in Council records from previous applications, in particular RMA/2003/555 and SUB/2006/94. The information showed the viability for a higher intensity of development than that proposed by the current owners. The proposed development sites take the existing information into account. 38. Therefore it is my view that PSL submission 269.2 should be accepted, and the TCDC submission 397.31 rejected. 39. Consideration of relevant objectives and policies and other statutory documents is made later in this evidence in relation to all three submissions. 12
F: SUBMISSION 269.1 40. This submission which is to be reported on to the 24 26 March hearings, sought the provision of a change of zone from Rural to Coastal Living for this property, to be shown on map 24D. This is the same zoning as the Isles Estate and other land at the end of Pumpkin Hill Road to the north. This will have the effect of extending this zone southwards, with the southern part of the land adjoining the existing Tairua Residential lots along Ocean Beach Road. Overall, there an area zoned Rural would remain between the body of the subject site and Ocean Beach Road. The majority of that land is under covenant and unlikely to be further subdivided. The map in paragraph 18 above shows the existing covenant areas. 41. Other land in the vicinity zoned Coastal Living is one block in the Sailors Grave area. By reference to the photomontage in paragraph 19 above, the Coromandel Peninsula Landscape Assessment ( CPLA ) shows that much of the land in the Isles Estate and most of the land in the subject site is similar, ie is not an outstanding landscape, although the PDP layer shows the subject site as being such leaving the Isles Estate largely undefined as such. 42. Reference to photography such as the panorama taken by myself indicates the similarity in the two blocks, supported by the CPLA report and map. Notwithstanding this, it is the intention of the owners to place all of the land identified as outstanding landscape into covenant, as this is the area in which rehabilitation has been undertaken. 13
43. The CPLA states: d 44. Any development of this site creating new lots will be outside of the area identified by Mr Brown, or the Outstanding Landscape Overlay in the PDP. Of particular note is that houses facing Tairua will have little impact due to their context within existing development, and house sites to the east of the ridge will only be visible to the local boating fraternity and even then well out to sea, and outside of the outstanding areas. 45. Subdivision in the Coastal Living Zone is provided for in section 38 of the PDP, with notified minimum lot areas of 1000 m 2 for a site not connected by public wastewater. It is acknowledged that subdivision to this degree is not what is sought by the submitters in their submission, simply to provide a zoning that would meet their needs. d Stephen Brown, Coromandel Peninsula Landscape Assessment, 2011, page 150 14
46. It is further acknowledged that section 41 rule 14 as notified, provides for one house per lot as a permitted activity in the Coastal Living Zone, as long as the bulk and location standards of table 5 are met, and that these would likely be easily met for all of the four possible lots. 47. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to rezone the southern-most block in the land, being that shown as 4 on the SDP map, as Residential, due to it adjoining land of this zoning and already being fully serviced with wastewater and stormwater reticulation. It is considered possible to take this approach within the scope of the submission as the outcome will be similar. 48. Rezoning will be an effective way to manage this land if there is a restriction to four lots being allowed within the land. Such a restriction would be acceptable to the submitters. 49. Mr and Mrs Grubb also filed a further submission in opposition to the submission 269.1. The submitter seeks that the further submission be rejected. The FS number is not known, but will be indexed in the Council report when released. 50. As set out earlier, this part of the evidence is prepared without the benefit of knowing the Council staff recommendation in respect to this submission. Further evidence may be needed for the 24 26 March hearings. This would be presented in written form only if deemed necessary. G: STATUTORY MATTERS 51. Relevant objectives and policies of the PDP, the Regional Policy Statement ( RPS ), the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 ( NZCPS ) and Part II of the Resource Management Act 1991 ( Part II ), are considered as follows. Note: A listing of relevant statutory provisions from the RMA, NZCPS and RPS were included in the submission, and it is not necessary to reproduce those provisions in this evidence, although commentary will be undertaken. A listing of the relevant objectives and policies of the PDP form part of the appendices to this evidence Appendix A. 15
Objectives and Policies of the Proposed District Plan 52. It is recognised that the objectives and policies may change as a result of hearings of submissions. This assessment is based on the objectives and policies as notified. Relevant provisions in regard to biodiversity, the coastal environment, landscape and natural character, settlement development and growth, and subdivision, are considered. 53. Biodiversity: The enhancement works being undertaken both within the existing covenant area, and also within other land with the outstanding landscape and natural character overlays, is consistent with objective 1, all relevant parts of policy 1a, particular a), b), c), e), f) and g). No particular land use activities that require buffers under d) are indicated. 54. Clearance of indigenous vegetation has not and will not occur, thus policy 1b is met. 55. Restoration and enhancement is continuously being undertaken. From existing reporting including that by M J Johnston in 2003, the site was seen as of particular importance and worthy of preservation. It appears likely that all parts of policy 1c are relevant and supported. In particular, subdivision under section 38 rule 8 with the proposed modifications, provides a likelihood that some subdivision can be undertaken under the PDP, providing a type of baseline for assessing the overall requests. 56. It is unknown at this stage if any of the matters raised in policy 1e apply to the land. However, the development with its enhancement works, and with proposed house sites outside of the indigenous areas or defined overlays, will not be contrary to policy 1e. 57. Coastal Environment: The issue in section 7.2 states that the values and characteristics of the Coastal Environment need to be carefully balanced with meeting people s interest in using it. This proposal does precisely that as described to you in the evidence of Mr Travers. 58. All relevant parts of objective 1 that can be supported by the proposal, are, ie bullet points 1, 2, 3, and 6. The separation of the land from the Coastal Marine Area by an existing reserve effectively supports bullet points 4 and 5. 16
59. Landscape and Natural Character: The proposed development, in whichever parts of the submissions are acceptable to the Council, appropriately addresses all of the issues raised in section 9.2. The proposed house sites are not within the Outstanding Landscape Overlay. Notwithstanding this, house design is intended to be unobtrusive, down from the ridgeline for the northern two houses, and generally integrating with existing development in the case of the southern two house sites. With this approach, the proposal is consistent with the intention of all of the relevant objectives and policies including policy 1d. Note: the ridgeline itself is not within the Outstanding Landscape Overlay. 60. Settlement Development and Growth: The northern two house sites / lots, cannot be regarded as part of the Tairua township. However, it is reasonable to regard those lots subdivided in the past and now built on, and the proposed two southern sites / lots as being part of the township, whether they stay in the Rural Zone with a Site Development Plan, or are rezoned as Coastal Living as requested. The northern two lots are geographically disconnected from Tairua township although would be connected via an existing access to Ocean Beach Road. 61. The southern-most lot is within reach of existing reticulation for wastewater and stormwater as shown on as-built drawings prepared by Dunwoodie and Green Surveyors in September 2004. e [Appendix B]. The following image shows the location of public water supply reticulation that is accessible to the southern-most lot. e Dunwoodie and Green Surveyors Ltd, As Built Services Plan, Southern Men Trust, Stormwater/Sewer, drawing 4701 sheet 14, Sept 2004, held in TCDC records for RMA/2003/555 17
f 62. All other lots will be fully serviced on site, or it is possible that the reticulation may be extended to serve the second southern lot. The policies in respect to servicing can be met, ie Objective 1, policy 1a, 1b, 1e and 1f. As relevant, the water supply policies of the RPS are supported. In addition the following extract from TCDC s rating database shows that the property is serviceable for water supply; this was confirmed with Council s customer services. f TCDC Intramaps 18
63. Other relevant objectives and policies integrate with those for biodiversity, landscape and amenity. For the reasons set out earlier, the proposal is also consistent with the following relevant policies: Policy 3c a), b), d), e), f), g), j), and k). The other sub-policies of policy 3 are either not relevant or the topography means that consideration is not needed. 64. All of the submissions are consistent with Policies 5a, 5b, 5c and all parts of 5d. 65. Objective 6 is addresses issues of character, biodiversity, and landscape. To the extent that the southern two lots could be regarded as settlement growth, they have no adverse effects on these matters, and are thus consistent with policies 6a and 6b. 66. Objective 10 considers the context of Tairua as beach-village built form as expressed in policy 10o. The proposal is consistent with this policy. 67. Subdivision: This proposal will not adversely affect the character and amenity of surrounding built and natural environment. House sites on the southern part of the land would form part of the existing character, whilst house sites in the northern part are away from the outstanding landscape overlay area and will have no effect on land based viewing locations. Thus policy 1a is met. Open space characteristics apply to this land, most of which is either under indigenous vegetation or will be. The house sites will integrate with that, being consistent with policy 1e. Policy 1f is met in that if the land is rezoned, the southern houses will consolidate with existing development. 68. The link to Ocean Beach Road has been examined in the past by Traffic Design Group.g The entrance was found to be safe and therefore the proposal is consistent with objective 4 and its policies 4a and 4b. g Traffic Design Group, The Southern Men Trust Ocean Beach Road Access Assessment, Tairua, 14 July 2003, file 6605, held in TCDC records for application RMA/2003/555 19
69. Some minor contouring works will be needed for completion of access and house sites. These are generally away from matters of concern in policy 5a, although an authority may be required for work within the vicinity of midden T11/907. It is intended that extensions to access will follow the topography of the land and to the extent possible policies 5b and 5c are to be met. 70. Objective 6 addresses biodiversity. As set out above, restoration and enhancement work has been on-going, and the proposal is consistent with all relevant policies in section 6. 71. Objective 9 addresses infrastructure needs. The proposal will not cause adverse demand on infrastructure. The stormwater reticulation and a connection for wastewater for the southern most site, has already been constructed and approved by Council. Thus policy 9a is met. The northern sites will be of appropriate size to easily accommodate complying on-site wastewater systems meeting policy 9b. 72. As a body the suite of objectives and policies are supported. To quote from the Environment Court case Te Whakaruru Limited v TCDC W086/2008, Environment Judge Dwyer stated when considering section 104D RMA gateway tests for a non-complying activity, in relation to Operative District Plan objectives and policies at paragraphs 155-156: 20
73. In general, the proposal in the submissions is supported by the objectives and policies as notified, and may only be contrary to that regarding the midden site. A house and its access can be constructed anywhere within the property, outside of the covenant area or outstanding landscape overlay, as of right under PDP section 56 rule 12 as notified. This would likely require the access over the midden site also with an authority being needed from Heritage New Zealand (Historic Places Trust). Accordingly, in the manner expressed by the Environment Court, this proposal would easily meet the gateway test for objectives and policies if needed. The objectives and policies are broadly effects based, as they are in the Operative Plan also, and therefore the other gateway test of adverse environmental effects is likely to be passed. 74. Accordingly, it is my view that the proposal is in keeping with the thrust of the PDP and should be adopted in one or more of the forms listed in the submissions. Waikato Regional Policy Statement (as per list in submission) 75. Policy 6.2 of the RPS sets out matters of importance for development in the coastal environment ( CE ). These particularly apply to that area identified on the PDP map as being within the CE. The proposal is consistent with all of the matters listed in policy 6.2. 21
76. Policy 12.3 sets out matters in regard to landscape, natural character and amenity. Policy a) refers to no loss of natural character in outstanding areas. Policy b) refers to maintenance and enhancement of natural character by development. The proposal is consistent with these policies. 77. In addition the water supply requirements of policy 6.1.7(j) of the RPS Decisions Version will be met as per the following extracts: New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (2010) (as per list in submission) 78. The enhancement works in the proposal are consistent with and support objective 1 bullet points 1 and 2. The natural character of the CE will not be adversely affected by appropriate development below the ridgeline which may be visibly distantly at sea. Substantial restoration of the CE has been undertaken; thus objective 2 is supported. 79. The ability to financially support the restoration work by limited development is supported by objective 6 with its reference to the social, economic and cultural well-being of people and communities. This objective is consistent with section 5 of the RMA. 80. Policy 1 is supported by the proposals. Part of the land only is within the CE. Restoration work and limited development outside of the area identified as Outstanding Landscape is consistent with this policy. 81. Policy 13 addresses natural character. The policy seeks to avoid adverse effects of activities on natural character. The proposed development area is outside of natural character areas as mapped in the PDP (see paragraph 18 above) consistent with Policy 13(1). Building below the ridgeline and outside of the rehabilitation area is consistent with the matters raised in Policy 13(2). 22
82. Policy 14 addresses restoration of natural character. The submitters have been undertaking this for six years, with many more years planned. The proposal is supported by policy 14. 83. Policy 15 addresses natural features and natural landscapes. The natural landscape at this site was severely degraded as witnesses by the historical photography. The mapping of it as a Natural Character area in the PDP did not really note this. However, the restoration work that has been undertaken and continuing is consistent with the outcomes anticipated in Policy 15. The site does not have any particular outstanding natural features. The development area is outside of the natural (intervened) landscape. The proposal is consistent with the policy. Part II Resource Management Act 1991 84. Section 5 of the Act sets out its purpose. This is the highest order provision in the law with the subsequent sections 6 8 subservient to and supporting it. Section 5 provides for sustainable management of resources... in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and their communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while: (a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources... 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. 85. The relief sought in the submissions is supported by Section 5. The work undertaken by the submitters has enormous public benefit, creating a haven of natural character and indigenous values. The work undertaken is an example to the community at large. To remain financially viable, limited development of the some of the land is proposed. 23
86. The proposed alteration to the subdivision section 38 rule 8 goes some way towards a resource consent application being favourably viewed. However, the proposed Site Development Plan goes further and provides the certainty about the outcome. Rezoning is another tool which could be used if the SDP is not seen as applicable in the light of Section 5 and all relevant policy documents. 87. Section 6(a), (b) and (c) of the Act are of particular importance. Subsections (a) and (b) are being addressed substantially in the evidence of Mr Scott. The PDP in section 38 rule 8.1(c) has noted this site as having indigenous vegetation of internationally to regionally significant of medium high or medium priority. The large scale restoration work undertaken by the submitters supports section 6(c) of the Act where it refers to the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation. 88. In conclusion the submissions are supported by Part II of the Act. H: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 89. The Council s recommendation for changes to section 38 rule 8 of the PDP is supported by the submitters, and meets the outcome anticipated in the submission. Accordingly adoption of the Council s recommendation is sought by the submitters in accordance with submission 269.3. 90. The implementation of a Site Development Plan is supported by the objectives and policies of the PDP. Adoption of submission 269.3 gives a baseline for consideration as to whether the SDP is appropriate. It is my view that the SDP will give certainty, and there is enough information in Council records for the property to support the sustainability of this approach. Accordingly, the adoption of submission 269.2 is sought by the submitters, with the rejection of submission 379.31. 91. Submission 269.1 sought rezoning to Coastal Living Zone as an alternative to the Site Development Plan approach in submission 269.2. Re-zoning would be best undertaken with a limitation as to lot numbers. The forthcoming staff recommendation will be reviewed by way of a future addendum to this evidence. 24
92. The submissions are consistent with all relevant policy documents from Part II of the Act, to the NZCPS, the RPS and the PDP. In my opinion they should be adopted into the Plan as consistent with and supportive of the aims of the Plan. 17 February 2015 25
APPENDIX A: OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES FROM NOTIFIED PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
APPENDIX B: Dunwoodie and Green Plan 4701 sheet 14 34