1

In the matter of: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

To: The Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel

Under the Resource Management Act 1991

Submitters: Terra Nova Planning Ltd (S6620 & FS689), Grant Oliff (FS 146), Zakara Investments Ltd (s 6534 - 4,7,8) Alexander Longuet-Higgins (s3791-1) Alan Wiltshire (s 6738 – 2, 3 , 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12; and fs 3097) John Greensmith (fs 2720)

TOPIC 056 & 057 RPS RURAL ISSUES

Statement of Primary Evidence of by Dr Mark Bellingham June 2015

INTRODUCTION

1. My name is Robert Mark Bellingham. I am a Senior Planner and Senior Ecologist with Terra Nova Planning Ltd.

2. I hold a PhD in Planning from Auckland University and I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute. I have been a practicing planning and ecological consultant for over 25 years. I have also lectured in Environmental Planning at Auckland and Massey Universities. I have served on the Ministerial Advisory Committees for the Review of Protected Area Legislation (1989-90) Oceans Policy (2002-4), and as an Auckland Regional Councillor.

TOPIC 056 & 057 & 064 RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham June 2015 2

SCOPE

3. My evidence is in relation to a number of submissions lodged by a number of Submitters and Further Submitters falling under the subtopics;

 056 Rural Objectives and Policies

 057 Rural Activities and controls.

 064 Auckland subdivision objectives and policies

4. In preparing my statement I have had particular regard to the Council’s proposed tracked changes; the relevant RPS objectives and policies; and the Hearing Panel’s Guidance on Rural Subdivision.

CODE OF CONDUCT

5. I have read and agree to comply with the Environment Court’s Expert Witness Code of Conduct (Consolidated Practice Note 2012). This evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on some other evidence. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed.

SUMMARY STATEMENT

6. My statement addresses the primary and further submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (“PAUP”) by:

- Zakara Investments Ltd (s 6534 – 4,7,8)

- Alexander Longuet-Higgins (s3791-1)

- Alan Wiltshire (s 6738 – 2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11,12; and fs 3097)

- Grant Oliff (fs 146)

TOPIC 056 & 057 & 064 RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham June 2015 3

- John Greensmith (fs 2720)

- Terra Nova Planning Ltd (6620 + FS)

7. My evidence addresses a range of subdivision and activity provisions within rural areas on behalf of a number of submitters with the similar or closely related submissions. This evidence is presented within the context of a number of key considerations I consider applicable to many of the rural areas of Auckland. These considerations are that

a. The PAUP district objectives, policies and controls are inconsistent with the rural objectives and outcomes of the Auckland Plan, the Hearings Panel’s guidance on rural subdivision and the changes proposed to section B.2.3.3 of the PAUP RPS objectives and policies proposed by Terra Nova Planning (for TNP and on behalf of a number of our clients).

b. Most of the further changes proposed to the PAUP by Council and its experts, as regards rural subdivision appear to exacerbate the inconsistencies between the rural objectives and outcomes of the Auckland Plan and AUPHP’s guidance.

c. The Auckland Council’s revised rural objectives and policies as amended by further strike-through, would be inconsistent with the Auckland Plan and AUPHP’s guidance, and provide an unsustainable framework for long-term management of rural Auckland.

d. The Auckland Council’s revised rural activities and controls (Attachment 2) as amended by further strike-through, exacerbate the inconsistencies within the revised rural objectives and policies and many are unworkable and would fail to achieve the proposed outcomes of the Auckland Plan and the PAUP.

e. The latest revised Transferable Rural Subdivision Scheme incorporates the main features that have contributed to the failure of the Transferable

TOPIC 056 & 057 & 064 RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham June 2015 4

Development Right schemes currently in Rodney and Franklin.

f. As an alternative, increasing the available donor and receiving areas and broadening the criteria will significantly increase the effective and efficient delivery of the PAUP regional and district objectives and policies through the Transferrable Rural Subdivision scheme.

g. My amended Table 10 to the rural rules (Attachment 1 to my evidence) identifies further TRSS receiving areas in the Countryside Living Zone that are not on the Council’s Table 10 in Mr Moseley’s evidence.

h. Permitting the transfer of development rights out of SEAs, particularly in the Rural Conservation zone (Waitakere Ranges and Kawau Is) will have significant biodiversity benefits for threatened species and 80-500 year old forests.

i. Removing area limits on SEA protection and restoration will promote larger more diverse and resilient SEAs, and a significant increase in SEA area in the region.

j. Additionally many of the zone controls are hypothetical as they are over- ridden by precinct and sub-precinct controls. The extreme case is in the Rural Conservation zone, where the zone covers the Waitakere Ranges, Weiti, and Kawau Island precincts, and three small islands adjoining Kawau. The zone controls only apply to these islands that cover less than 5 hectares in total.

THE PROPOSED AUCKLAND PLAN PROVISONS

8. In my evidence to the 0011 Rural RPS hearing I emphasised the importance of the RPS implementing the goals of the Auckland Plan. Similarly the Auckland Plan’s strategic direction must carry through into the district objectives and policies, and rules and controls and the strategic Direction 9 for Rural Auckland needs to apply to all rural zones.

TOPIC 056 & 057 & 064 RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham June 2015 5

HEARINGS PANEL GUIDANCE ON RURAL SUBDIVISION

9. The key matters of the Panel’s interim guidance in regard to my evidence were:

 Rural subdivision to be provided to a greater extent  Productive potential of elite land protected.  Subdivision to be resilient to natural hazards.  Rural subdivision should enable protection and enhancement of indigenous biodiversity.  Location, scale and density constraints on rural lifestyle subdivision.

REGIONAL AND DISTRICT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

10. I adopt Mr Shane Hartley’s evidence on the Rural District Objectives and Policies. The changes proposed by Council to the subdivision objectives and policies are significant and appear to undermine the RPS biodiversity objectives and policies and the Panel’s Guidance.

11. Although the changes proposed by Council to the rural zones objectives and policies are relatively minor. Mr Hartley has proposed some additional changes to these that I consider appropriate to address the RPS objectives and policies and the Hearings Panel’s guidance.

AUCKLAND WIDE RULES – CHAPTER H: 5 SUBDIVISION

12. The following assessment relates to the amendment of rules to provide for additional rural subdivision opportunities than the PAUP (as proposed in the Council’s strikeout rules) currently provides for.

13. I specifically address the issues of (i) biodiversity protection and enhancement, and

TOPIC 056 & 057 & 064 RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham June 2015 6

(ii) the transferrable development method (Transferrable Rural Site Subdivision).

BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT

PREVENTING THE LOSS OF SIGNIFICANT BIODIVERSITY

14. Preventing the loss of biodiversity is the most effective and efficient method to prevent biodiversity decline, as it retains 80-500 year old forest ecosystems rather than replanting them from scratch. Also the most benefits to the region’s biodiversity come from protecting the largest areas of SEA. The TRSS method provides for the transfer of development and subdivision rights out of SEAs.

15. There are a number of sites throughout the region and particularly in the Rural Conservation zone that are entirely SEA and vacant. Most of these sites could be amalgamated with adjacent sites and the subdivision rights transferred to a receiving area. This would prevent the controlled clearance of SEA vegetation on the donor site (e.g. Waitakere Ranges Bush Living Precinct).

16. This method of TRSS has significant biodiversity benefits and is also the most efficient method to maintain natural carbon assets1 and should be preferred to clearance and then restoration or rehabilitation. These sites have the most benefit in meeting biodiversity and carbon sequestration objectives. I note and agree with Dr Seabrook-Davison’s evidence that SEA gains need to be substantial and permanent (1.5 & 1.6) and his inclusion of threatened species habitat for restoration (1.4).

1 Low Carbon Auckland 2014 Auckland Council. P.65

TOPIC 056 & 057 & 064 RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham June 2015 7

17. Council’s strike-through now prevents transfer of development rights from SEAs by amalgamation and specifically excludes the Rural Conservation zone from these provisions. The following changes need to be made to these provisions:

 Amalgamation of SEA sites greater than 1 hectare (and greater than 1,000m2 in the Rural Conservation Zone) with adjacent sites and transfer to other rural zones.  Donor SEA sites greater than 1 hectare should qualify for the 2:1 bonus provisions that Council have proposed only for the amalgamation and transfer for sites with elite and prime soils (Table 8A Rural subdivision strike- through).  The ratio of sites/area needs to follow Mr Hartley’s amendments to Table 8 which has no maximum number, as the greater the SEA area protected provide than greatest biodiversity gains for the region.

18. Council’s strike-through provides disincentives to the protection of SEA sites larger than 15ha, by limiting the number of transferable or in situ sites for areas protected. I agree with Mr Hartley’s Table 8 as above.

19. The Hearings Panel guidance refers to enhancement or restoration of biodiversity and my evidence to the 011 RPS Rural hearings outlined my support for this and the biodiversity benefits it had brought to the region. Where ecosystem restoration occurs it requires an ecological restoration plan2 (that may include planting, animal and plant pest control details). But some sites will not require planting, if threatened species are being restored to non-significant indigenous vegetation and only animal pest control is required.

2 The future state of restored sites should follow Council’s reports: Indigenous terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems of Auckland 2013 Singers et al.and the accompanying map that details the original ecosystems of Auckland: Spatial extent of Auckland’s indigenous terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems” (2013).

TOPIC 056 & 057 & 064 RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham June 2015 8

20. Council’s strike-through severely constrains the potential regional and national biodiversity benefits from enhancement or restoration of biodiversity sites, by limiting it to areas contiguous with existing SEAs. In my opinion;

 Ecological restoration does not need to be contiguous with existing SEAs;  The restored state of SEAs needs to reflect the Council’s indigenous ecosystems report (2013);  SEAs should not be limited by a maximum area (in terms of subdivision entitlements), as the greatest biodiversity benefits come from the largest SEAs.

RESTORATION SITES CONTIGUOUS WITH EXISTING SEAS.

21. I note that Mr Moseley and Dr Seabrook-Davison both propose that any biodiversity enhancement/restoration/rehabilitation must be contiguous with an existing SEA. There is some benefit in adding to an existing SEA, as the condition of the overall habitat will benefit and can recover more quickly, but connection to an SEA should not be mandatory. Landowners could meet SEA quality for restored areas sooner and at lower cost, so this natural advantage does not need to be regulated and restoration constrained to existing SEAs.

RESTORATION SITES NOT CONTIGUOUS WITH EXISTING SEAS

22. I agree with Mr Hartley’s regional assessment on the need to expand the Plan’s capacity to provide for additional biodiversity restoration to reverse biodiversity decline and achieve Low Carbon targets. That cannot be achieved by limiting restoration only to land contiguous with SEAs and is not consistent with RPS objective, Part 1 Chapter B.4.3.4- Biodiversity:

TOPIC 056 & 057 & 064 RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham June 2015 9

2. Indigenous biodiversity is maintained through protection and restoration in areas where ecological values are degraded, or where development is occurring

23. From my experience, ecological restoration needs to include restoration of non- significant indigenous vegetation, pasture and other exotic vegetation, including areas not contiguous with a SEA. I think there are few habitats in the Auckland landscape that are completely unconnected with other nearby terrestrial or aquatic habitats for most indigenous biota. Only flightless invertebrates, reptiles and some plants with limited wind dispersal cannot get to isolated habitats, but these species can be translocated or planted at sites. If there is to be consideration of threatened species habitats, then provision needs to be made for restoration of indigenous vegetation by animal pest control and/or the translocation of threatened animals and plants.

24. The restoration of threatened seabird nesting habitat principally requires an open site that can be fenced to exclude predators, within the flying range of these birds, and possibly some minimal planting that doesn’t inhibit their flying in and out under the cover of darkness. New nesting sites for Cooks petrel for instance, could be at any number of locations across Auckland, as they fly nightly between the Tasman Sea and Hauturu, and they nested on the mainland prior to the arrival of large rats, cats, mustelids and dogs. There could be significant advantages in these sites having to be contiguous with a SEA.

MAXIMUM AREA FOR PROTECTION AND RESTORATION SITES

25. I consider the provisions that limit the maximum number of sites generated from SEA protection or enhancement/restoration/rehabilitation is contrary to the Auckland Plan, RPS objectives and policies, and Council’s Biodiversity Strategy and good science. The biodiversity benefits of protecting and

TOPIC 056 & 057 & 064 RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham June 2015 10

enhancing large areas are proportionally higher than small areas, yet the maximum area yields are a disincentive to protecting large areas. There is no credible scientific evidence that shows that biodiversity values suddenly stop increasing when areas reach 15ha. My research shows that the number native bird species present increases with the area in New Zealand forests, for instance and this follows similar research overseas in many ecosystem types.

26. I support Mr Hartley’s evidence that has proposed a base size for qualification of SEAs for forest, wetland and threatened species habitat, and an unlimited step-wise increase based on area. By incentivising small restoration areas, that is what will inevitably result. I predict that by having no maximum area for enhancement/restoration larger, more significant, biodiversity restoration projects are likely to eventuate with significantly higher biodiversity gains for the region, with associated benefits for a Low Carbon Auckland and diversified rural business and employment.

TRANSFERABLE RURAL SUBDIVISION RULES

TRANSFER OF SITES HISTORY

27. I have reviewed the current Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) schemes in Auckland, other districts in New Zealand and overseas. This planning tool can meet a number of PAUP planning objectives and policies where subdivisional rights are transferred to meet the objectives of the Plan at minimal cost to the Council and with significant public benefit.

28. Territorial authorities in New Zealand have used TDRs to move development rights from rural areas with particular productive capability, landscape, ecological values or adjacent state highways, airports or mineral extraction areas (donor sites) to environments (receiver sites) either as scattered elements and/or to support particular growth management objectives in defined areas.

TOPIC 056 & 057 & 064 RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham June 2015 11

29. Reviews of TDR schemes in the US, for land protection have common

requirements in order to succeed3:

 An ample supply of rights to be transferred.  An ample recipient area(s)  TDR programmes need to coordinate with planning efforts that preclude easy re-zoning requests  TDR market has low transaction costs, transparent, expedient and information-rich.

30. The TTR/TRSS programme in Rodney has had an under-supply of recipient areas. The Rodney programme took some years to start and there was a reasonable flow of TTRs from the late 1990s, but the movement of TTRs had almost run out by 2001. The notification of the 2001 Proposed Rodney District Plan brought some minor changes to the transfer rules and the recipient areas. But within 5 years, the movement of transfers had virtually stopped again as the supply of willing recipient landowners and available sites in the designated Countryside Living Town zone was exhausted. From my experience, theoretical recipient sites were available, but recipient site topography problems and landowners’ unwillingness to participate appear to have been significant factors.

31. In Franklin District, the TTR programme that was part of Plan Change 14 to the District Plan was based on the transfer of titles out of lands with Class 1-3 soils to promote continuing primary production, rather than rural residential use of these lands and protection of identified Significant Natural Features. But transfers have also stopped as there currently appears to be no available donor sites, but a surplus of recipient sites available.

3 Messer KD 2007 Transferable development rights programs: An economic framework for success. J Conservation Planning V.3, 47-56. Walls M 2012 Markets for Development Rights: Lessons Learned from three Decades of a TDR Program. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper RFF DP 12-49

TOPIC 056 & 057 & 064 RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham June 2015 12

32. This underlines a difference between the Rodney and Franklin TTR/TRSR programmes. In Rodney donor sites mainly become available now through the proposed protection of significant natural areas (SNAs) and the enhancement of non-significant natural areas and other land. Once the willing owners of SNAs have been exhausted, then the donor supply comes from enhancement or restoration (e.g planting, pest control, improved natural area management). As long as there is sufficient recipient sites and areas available, then the Rodney TTR scheme would be sustainable through the life of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

33. In contrast the Franklin TTR scheme relied mainly on a finite donor source, land with versatile soils (Class 1-3) in the designated donor area and identified SNFs. It appears that almost all of the available donor sites within this area have been exhausted although recipient sites are available. The Rural Controls in the PAUP have been modelled on the Franklin TTR/TRSS programme and in my opinion draw on the features of both TTR/TRSS programmes that have failed.

34. The donor sites for the PAUP TRSS programme potentially come from

a. The amalgamation of rural land; and

b. Creation of sites from the protection natural areas that qualify as SEAs, or the enhancement of land so that are connected to SEAs.

TRANSFER OF SITES BY AMALGAMATION OF RURAL LAND

35. The PAUP rules for the amalgamation of rural land meet a broad range of RPS objectives and policies and should be retained as they stand. The use of transferable rural sites is referred to in the RPS policies. They provide for the reduction of rural sites that will:

a. Increase rural production and farm viability, by providing incentives for the consolidation of rural land-holdings and addressing the fragmentation of versatile soil areas and viable farms.

TOPIC 056 & 057 & 064 RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham June 2015 13

b. Protect biodiversity, by providing for the transfer of titles out of SEAs, in the Rural Conservation zone in particular. In the Waitakere Ranges there are a significant number of undeveloped sites where the clearance of indigenous forest is permitted for a dwelling and driveway. These sites are scattered across the Ranges, but most are along Scenic Drive and the eastern foothills.

c. Protect significant landscape values, by providing for the transfer of titles out of ONLs, ONFs and HNCs for instance.

36. The recipient areas for the PAUP SEA TRSS programme are all in the former Rodney District and from my experience only the Rodney South Countryside Living receiving areas provides any significant additional sites, as the other four Countryside Living receiving areas have had little or no transfers over the last 5- 10 years. But the Rodney South receiving area will have to take up donor sites from the rest of the region.

37. In my opinion the PAUP TRSS programme as it stands, will quickly result in the exhaustion of the receiving areas in the Rodney South Countryside Living, apart from the 20-30% that are impractical to further subdivide. At that point the UP TRSS programme will fail, like its predecessors through insufficient receiving area being available. Although it may last longer if the donor supply is restricted, as proposed in the Council’s rural subdivision strike-through.

38. I have reviewed other potential options for additional TRSS Countryside Living receiving areas (Attachment 1, Revised Table 10) and other zones which could accommodate TRSS receiving areas. Auckland Council has also proposed serviced villages as TRSS receiving areas, and I have briefly analysed their capacity which appears to be severely constrained. Submissions from Terra Nova Planning and Grant Oliff regarding rural hamlets as TRSS receiving areas are addressed in Mr Hartley’s evidence.

TOPIC 056 & 057 & 064 RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham June 2015 14

39. I am unable to quantify my views as Council have provided no data from the latest census as it relates to their urban growth model and urban-rural capacity.

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION OF RURAL LAND

40. I propose the following changes to the rules in relation to ‘enhancement planting’ or ecological restoration as it would be more correctly termed. What is being proposed is not a landscaping exercise, but restoring the ecological values and services of an area so that it meets the criteria of SEA in the plan. As such, I agree with Dr Seabrook-Davison in terms of what it needs to be referred to in the plan (Cl.6.3). Consequently the references in the proposed rules to landscape plans and planting plans are not appropriate in every case of ecological restoration, as proposed in the Council’s revised strike-through. These sites require an ecological restoration plan.

41. I support the rules as they provide for ecological restoration of indigenous vegetation, forests, shrublands, wetlands and threatened plant species, and these may require a planting plan as part of an ecological restoration plan for the site. But the ecological restoration of a site for a threatened animal species is more likely to require predator elimination or a high-level of predator control than any planting. The changes of the rules I propose for ecological restoration (previously termed ‘enhancement planting’) take these matters into account.

42. The change of focus towards ecological restoration (rather than ‘enhancement planting’ being seen only in amenity terms) also needs a significant shift in professional experience and qualifications, both with Auckland Council and other ecological practitioners and particularly using animal pest control to restore threatened species and ecosystem processes. This will require outcomes such as the successful establishment of a breeding population of a threatened species, rather than planting 1.4 stems per hectare. So some Ecological Restoration Plans will require a greater investment from the

TOPIC 056 & 057 & 064 RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham June 2015 15

landowner and sufficient expertise from the Council to assess plans and progress.

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR RODNEY AND FRANKLIN TRANSFER OF RURAL SITES

43. Another matter that seems to have slipped through the cracks is a transitional provision for landowners in the process of protecting significant natural areas and transferring titles to another locality. Currently in Rodney there are very few rural site transfers occurring as there are few receiving sites, this puts landowners with more than 5 sites to transfer (i.e. more than 16 ha of wetland SNA or 52 ha of indigenous forest SNA protected) in a difficult situation as they cannot find one or two receiving sites to transfer. They have to wait until sites become available and have been told by Council compliance staff that there transferrable titles will expire with the ADP: Rodney Section. This particularly affects landowners protecting large and very significant areas of bush and wetlands.

44. The Unitary plan needs to provide a transitional provision so that the protection of these SNAs under the legacy Rodney and Franklin Plans can be completed, with the transfer of sites into the Unitary Plan’s new receiving areas.

45. I adopt Mr Hartley’s Appendix D (Rural Controls and Rules) and Appendices E and F (Rural Objectives and Policies) as they incorporate the matters referred to above.

TOPIC 056 & 057 & 064 RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham June 2015 16

ATTACHMENT 1 Revised Table 10: Auckland-wide Subdivision Rules 2.3.3

Barry Moseley’s Table 10 with Dr Mark Bellingham’s amendments shaded)

Table 10: Minimum and average net site areas for subdivision in Countryside Living zones Location of Countryside Living Minimum net site area and average net site Minimum net site area and average net site zone area without transferable rural site area with transferable rural site subdivision subdivision Wellsford Minimum: 2ha Minimum: 8000m2. Kaukapakapa Minimum average: Not < 1ha Helensville Matakana - Warkworth Minimum: 2ha Minimum: 8000m2. Kumeu - Huapai Minimum average: Not < 1ha Paremoremo - Albany Heights Algies Bay Minimum: 2ha N/A Minimum: 8000m2 Average: Not < 1ha Puhoi Minimum: 2ha N/A Minimum: 8000m2. Parakai – Helensville Minimum average: Not < 1ha Waimauku Okura (W of SH1) Minimum: 4ha N/A

Okura (E of SH1 Minimum: 2ha N/A Minimum: 8000m2. Minimum average: Not < 1ha South Rodney Minimum: 2ha Minimum: 8000m2 Average: Not < 1ha Waitakere-Birdwood (None stated in PAUP*) N/A Minimum: 8000m2. Minimum average: Not < 1ha Mangere - Puhinui Minimum: 2ha N/A Minimum: 8000m2. Whitford (excluding Precinct) Average Not < 4ha Minimum average: Not < 1ha Papakura Minimum: 1ha N/A Minimum: 8000m2. Minimum average: Not < 1ha Point Wells & Omaha Flats Minimum: 5000m2 N/A Minimum average: Not < 7500m2 Drury East (None stated in PAUP*) Minimum: 8000m2. Minimum average: Not < 1ha Pukekohe West & East (None stated in PAUP*) Minimum: 8000m2. Minimum average: Not < 1ha

* It appears that by omission, any subdivision in these Countryside Living zones is non-complying, as it doesn’t comply with Table 10.

17

ATTACHMENT 2 Capacity for Additional Receiving Areas in Serviced Villages for TRSS

Serviced Villages Capacity for TRSS Minimum net site area Bombay Minimal 800m² Bucklands Beach 800m² Clarks Beach 800m² Clevedon Minimal Single house Glenbrook Beach 800m² Herald Island No capacity 800m² Karaka Kawakawa Bay 750m² Kingseat 800m² Laingholm No capacity Maraetai No capacity 700m² Matakana Extra 20 ha area already zoned single house

Omaha No capacity Okura Parakai Extra 20 ha area already zoned single house

Patumahoe 800m² Point Wells Wastewater capacity limited, not suitable 1000m² Stillwater Minimal capacity ? 10 sites Waiau Beach 800m² Waimauku Mostly unserviced, not suitable 800m² Waiwera No capacity Weiti No capacity Whenuapai Not suitable, surrounded by FUZ and airbase/industrial land Whitford.

18

ATTACHMENT 3

Transferable Development Rights Schemes in Auckland Region

Transferable development rights have been a feature of planning in Auckland for 20 years, since Plan Change 55 to the Rodney District Plan was proposed in 1995. These planning provisions have had two aspects, the amalgamation of rural titles to consolidate land- holdings and the creation of new titles from the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and other public values, and then the transfer of these additional titles to other parts of the district where subdivision and development could be properly accommodated. They have most commonality with TDR programmes in the United States, where most programmes transfer sites from peri-urban areas to urban areas. Many of these schemes have failed over the past 30-40 years since their inception and some have been very successful4. Reviews of the successes and failures of TDR schemes provide a sound basis for ensuring that the Transferable Rural Site Subdivision process (H.5.2.3.3) can be successful.

Rodney’s Plan Change 55 (1995) set up the natural area protection incentives for natural areas (bush and wetlands), enhancement planting and retirement of eroding land. These provisions carried through into the Rodney DP 2011 and into the current ADP: Rodney Section. These provisions have been carried through into the PAUP in the Te Arai North and South, Kawau Island, Omaha Flats and Riverhead Precincts (in the Rural Coastal, Rural Conservation, Mixed Rural and Rural Production zones) although the PAUP has not prescribed any development or land use controls or other rules for these provisions.

The Franklin transferable development rights provisions (Plan Change 14 to the Franklin District Plan) were modelled on the Rodney and Western Bay of Plenty District Plan provisions (and the WBoP provisions were originally derived from the Rodney DP provisions, with some changes to suit that district).

4 Walls M 2012 Markets for Development Rights: Lessons Learned from three Decades of a TDR Program. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper RFF DP 12-49

19

At the time that PC14 was introduced, many properties within the Franklin district had the subdivision rights as they contained very versatile soils and were valuable for horticultural and agricultural production, or had significant native bush or wetlands. If those properties were to be subdivided then it would introduce further rural residential living and increase reverse sensitivity issues and irreversible fragmentation. The transferable development rights provisions identified Donor Properties that had no dwelling and were at least one hectare in size. The Receiver Properties had to contain the same or a lesser percentage of versatile soil as than in the Donor Property. Also Receiver Properties (0-4ha) qualified for one transferable lot with a maximum area of 8,000m2 and Receiver Properties (>4ha) qualified for two transferable lots with a maximum of 8,000m2.

Another feature of the Franklin transferable right provisions was the Transferable Rural Lot Right (22B.12) that allowed the transfer of vacant sites to lessen effects on rural character and amenity, lessen reverse sensitivity and to reverse the fragmentation of rural land particularly the more productive land. The TRLR proposed small sites (2,000 - 10,000m2) and clustered development.