Precincts (Geographical Areas)

BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER of TOPIC 081b Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical areas)

AND

IN THE MATTER of the submissions and further submissions set out in the Parties and Issues Report

EVIDENCE REPORT ON SUBMISSIONS BY NATHAN TE PAIRI

Hatfields Beach 1 (Seaforth Ltd) Hatfields Beach 2 (Objective Holdings Limited) Hatfields Beach 3 (Kauri Orewa Limited - ‘Chin Hill’ precinct)

28 January 2015

1. SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this Evidence Report (Report) is to consider submissions and further submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) for Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts Geographic (Topic 081).

1.2 A core strategic direction in the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) is to prevent further sporadic and scattered subdivision in rural Auckland.

1.3 Rural subdivision is strategically managed through a ‘zoned-based’ approach in areas identified for Countryside Living in the PAUP. As noted in my evidence on zoning in relation to Hatfields/Waiwera, I do not support the requests seeking a Countryside Living zone as a ‘platform’ to support the level of development of the Chin Hill and Seaforth precincts.

1.4 The Hatfields Beach area, in particular, is a sensitive coastal area that contains significant natural and landscape character values. The RPS acknowledges these values and seeks to protect them.

1.5 Enhancement planting is not a method that is supported by the PAUP as proposed and, in my view, should not be supported as a primary method to enable subdivision rights, particularly in a ’sensitive’ locality such as Hatfields Beach.

1.6 In terms of wider ecological benefits, I agree with the conclusions of Ms Shona Myers and I do not consider the proposed precincts; in particular, Hatfields 3 (Chin Hill) and Hatfields 1 (Seaforth) will make a regionally or nationally significant contribution to ecological outcomes.

1.7 Therefore, having regard to the Merits Based Assessment for new precincts outlined in the Evidence of John Duguid, I do not support the inclusion of the precincts into the PAUP.

PART A: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 The purpose of this Report is to consider the submissions (and further submissions) received by the Council in relation to the following precincts:

 Hatfields Beach 1 - on behalf of Seaforth Ltd (Seaforth)1  Hatfields Beach 2 - on behalf of Objective Holdings Limited (OHL)  Hatfields Beach 3 - on behalf of Kauri Orewa Limited2 (Chin Hill)

2.2 The Report includes proposals on whether, in my opinion, it is appropriate to support or not support the submissions, in full or in part, and what amendments, if any, should be made to address matters raised in the submissions.

2.3 This Report has been prepared by Nathaniel (George) Te Pairi. My qualifications and experience are set out in Attachment A.

3. CODE OF CONDUCT

3.1 I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and that I agree to comply with it. I confirm that I have considered all the material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person.

4. SCOPE

4.1 In preparing this statement of evidence I have relied on the Auckland-wide evidence of John Duguid to hearing Topic 080 and Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts Geographic (Topic 081) which sets out the statutory framework, methodology, principles and section 32 evaluations used to guide the development and application of zones and precincts.

1 Formerly Chin Hill Ltd (also submitted related on Topics 011 (RPS rural) and 056/057 (rural zones and rural subdivision)

2 also submitted on related Topics 011 (RPS rural) and 056/057 (rural zones and rural subdivision)

4.2 In addition to the John Duguid Statement, the following expert statements of evidence have been relied on in preparing my Report:

(a) Ruth Andrew’s planning statement outlining a regional overview of the approach to rural zoning within the Auckland region for Topic 081 dated 26 January 2016;

(b) Stephen Brown’s landscape evidence in relation to the precincts (see 2.1) dated January 2016; and

4.3 This Report relies on the changes to the underlying Rural Coastal zone as proposed by the Council separately in my primary statement of evidence in relation to the zoning in hearing Topic 081 for the Waiwera/Hatfields area (part of Hibiscus Coast)

4.4 A Merits Based Assessment identified in John Duguid’s evidence has been undertaken to consider the precincts outlined in 2.1.

4.5 A detailed assessment of constraints and the unique coastal character of Hatfields Beach has been addressed in my evidence for Topic 016 RUB North/West (Topic 016). Similarly the natural coastal character and landscape significance has been considered in the evidence of Stephen Brown for Topic 016.

Post submission correspondence

4.6 On 7 September 2015, the Council received a precinct proposal from the representatives of #6283 (Chin Hill) for Hatfields 3 (Attachments E). No supporting material was provided. This information is the basis of my assessment for Hatfields Beach 3.

4.7 On 14 September 2015 the Council received a precinct proposal from the representatives of #4826 and others3 (Seaforth) for Hatfields 1 (Attachment C). This information is the basis of my assessment for Hatfields Beach 1.

4.8 At the pre-hearing meeting for precincts and rezoning on 1 October 2015, the Panel invited submitters to provide full details to the Council for consideration by 15 October 2015. No further information was received.

4.9 On 17 October 2015 (see Attachment G) email correspondence was received from representatives of Hatfields 1 and 3 (Seaforth and Chin Hill) to meet and discuss the

3 McKenzie Family – 4826, 4831, 4994, 6155, 6538, 7397

precincts in further detail including a vision of development envisaged for all the rural land in the Waiwera/Hatfields Beach area.

4.10 Council officers (including myself) met with representatives of the submitter on a without prejudice basis on 15 November 2015 to understand more about the precincts for Chin Hill and the Seaforth precincts.

4.11 No feedback was provided by Council officers at that meeting and the submitters were advised that the Council’s position would be provided at the time of evidence exchange.

Further updates

4.12 On 22 January 2016 the Council received an email from representatives for Hatfields Beach 1 (Seaforth #4826 et al4) and Hatfields Beach 3 (Chin Hill (#6283)) that revised proposals were to be provided to the council.

4.13 On 25 January 2016, the Council received revised proposals for Hatfields Beach 1 (Seaforth) and on 26 January 2016 for Hatfields Beach 3 (Chin Hill).

5. INTERIM GUIDANCE FROM THE PANEL

5.1 I have read the Panel’s Interim Guidance direction and in particular those relating to:

(a) Chapter G: General Provisions, dated 9 March 2015;

(b) Best practice approaches to re-zoning and precincts, dated 31 July 2015;

6. PAUP APPROACH TO PRECINCTS

6.1 The approach to precincts is outlined in the evidence of Mr. John Duguid. In particular, Mr. Duguid outlines the Plan structure and the relationship between overlays, zones, Auckland-wide and precinct provisions.

6.2 Mr. Duguid also provides an overview of the methodology for applying precincts and the types of precincts identified in the PAUP. I have read this overview and agree with this evidence.

4 4831, 4994, 6155, 6538, 7397 (Mackenzie Family)

6.3 The proposed precincts have been considered against the ‘NEW PRECINCT REQUEST - MERIT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA’ in Attachment F of Mr. Duguid’s Evidence about precincts for Topics 080 and 081. The criteria are also included in Attachment F of this Report.

PART B: OVERVIEW OF THE NEW PRECINCTS

7. CONTEXT

7.1 Hatfields Beach includes the northern most contiguous urban limit to Greater Auckland and represents one of the gateways to rural Rodney in the north.

7.2 The proposed precincts sought in Hatfields Beach are as follows (see Figure 1).

 Hatfields Beach 1 - on behalf of Seaforth Ltd (Seaforth)5  Hatfields Beach 2 - on behalf of Objective Holdings Limited (OHL)  Hatfields Beach 3 - on behalf of Kauri Orewa Limited (Chin Hill)6

5 also submitted on Topics 011 (RPS rural) and 056/057 (rural zones and rural subdivision)

6 also submitted on Topics 011 (RPS rural) and 056/057 (rural zones and rural subdivision)

7.3 The land identified by the submissions includes Outstanding Natural Landscape 44 (ONL44) (see Figure 2 below) and also includes the land identified within the coastal environment7 and some areas of SEA and areas subject to coastal inundation.

7.4 The land subject to the precinct requests is also subject to some SEAs, and is described in the assessment of each of the precinct requests in PART C.

7 Based on Map 20 of the Natural Character Assessment Auckland Region’, Brown NZ Ltd, dated January 2013

ONL44

SEA’s ONL44

SEA’s

Indicative extent of the coastal environment

Figure 2: Key planning constraints – indicative extent of the coastal environment, ONL44, SEA’s

8. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS)

8.1 A notable portion of Hatfields Beach falls within the coastal environment8 (see Figure 2).

8.2 The key themes of the NZCPS that relate to the precinct request are as follows:

(a) Landscape and Natural Character in the Coastal Environment – Policy 13(1)(b) and 15(1)(b)

8Based on Map 20, ‘Natural Character Assessment Auckland Region’, Brown NZ Ltd, January 2013 for Auckland Council.

These policies generally seek to preserve ONC, HNC and areas of significant natural character and protect significant landscapes within the coastal environment from inappropriate, subdivision use and development.

Key sections of the PAUP (as amended)

8.3 The following sections of the PAUP (as proposed to be amended by the Council) are particularly relevant in considering the precinct requests in the Hatfields Beach/Waiwera area.

8.4 SUBDIVISION

RPS Chapter B.8 (Sustainably managing our rural Environment)

(a) 8.3 Rural subdivision

Objective 1, 2, 3& 5 and, Policy 6:

(Objective 1)

‘Land subdivision does not undermine the productive potential of rural land and avoids remedies or mitigates adverse effects on biodiversity or landscape values, rural character or amenity values of rural land.’

(Objective 2)

‘Further fragmentation of rural land by sporadic and scattered subdivision for urban and rural countryside living is prevented.’

(Objective 3)

‘The amalgamation and transfer of rural sites to areas that can best support them is encouraged.’

(Objective 5)

‘Land subdivision is used to protect significant indigenous biodiversity.’

Policy 6 of Chapter B8.3 (rural subdivision) is a specific method to manage the Countryside Living zones in the Auckland region. Policy 6 states:

‘Manage the location, scale, density and extent of areas identified for Countryside Living to:

(a) Avoid areas that would undermine the integrity of the RUB or compromise the expansion of the satellite towns of Warkworth and Pukekohe, and rural and coastal villages;

(b) Avoid areas that would undermine high natural values and elite and prime land;

(c) Avoid areas that would constrain the operation of existing mineral extraction activities or access to known and accessible future resources;

(d) Maintain and enhance landscape, rural character and amenity values;

(e) Provide opportunities for future intensification and retrofitting of services within the identified area, including opportunities to be receiver areas for transferable rural site subdivision;

(f) Avoid the potential for reverse sensitivity effects that could hinder the continued operation or growth of existing rural activities, or the establishment or new rural activities;

(g) Safeguard the operation, maintenance, upgrading or development of existing or significant infrastructure.

RPS Chapter B.7 (Sustainably managing our Coastal Environment)

(b) 7.1 Subdivision, use and development in Coastal Environment

Objective 1 and 2A and, Policies 1 and 2:

(Objective 1)

Subdivision, use and development in the coastal environment is located in appropriate areas, and is of appropriate form, taking account the range of uses and values of the coastal environment.

(Objective 2A)

The adverse effects of subdivision, use and development on the natural values of the coastal environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

(Policy 1)

Determine the appropriateness of subdivision, use and development in the coastal environment having, in addition to the objectives and policies in this section, to all other RPS objectives and policies.

(Policy 2)

Avoid or mitigate sprawling or sporadic patterns of subdivision, use and development that will individually or cumulatively compromise the RUB or the coastal settlement growth for the coastal environment:

(a) Concentrating subdivision, use and development within areas already characterised by development and where natural character values are already compromised.

Significant Ecological Areas

14. Rural subdivision results in the protection and restoration of identified Significant Ecological Areas and natural features.

8.5 NATURAL HERITAGE

(d) RPS Chapter: 4.3.1 (Natural character)

Objective 1 and Policy 1(b):

(Objective 1)

Subdivision, use and development in the coastal environment is designed and located and managed to preserve the natural characteristics and qualities that contribute to the natural character of an area the coastal environment, wetlands, lakes, rivers and their margins.

(Policy 1(b))

Subdivision, use and development must be managed in natural character areas of the coastal environment, and in wetlands, lakes, and rivers and their margins to:

avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects, on the natural characteristics and qualities that contribute to an HNC or other area’s natural character values.

(d) RPS Chapter 4.3.2 (Landscape)

Objectives 1 and 5 and, Policies 7 and 9:

(Objective 1)

Auckland’s ONL’s and ONF’s are protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

(Objective 5)

Landscape and features not identified as outstanding but which display particular values, sense of place or identity and high amenity value, are maintained and enhanced.

(Policy 5)

Protect the physical and visual integrity of ONLs by:

a. avoiding the adverse effects of subdivision, use and development within the ONL on the natural characteristics and qualities that contribute to the values of the ONL;

b. maintaining the visual coherence and integrity of the landscape ONL;

c. maintaining natural landforms, natural processes and vegetation areas and patterns;

d. maintaining the visual or physical qualities that make the landscape iconic or rare;

e. maintaining high levels of naturalness in ONLs that are also identified as ONC or HNC areas.

(Policy 7)

Manage subdivision, use and development on sites immediately adjacent to an ONL or ONF:

a) Protecting visual and biophysical linkages between the site and the ONL or the ONF area;

b) Avoiding adverse cumulative effects on the values of an ONL or ONF;

c) Avoid adverse effects on Mana Whenua values’.

(Policy 9)

‘Maintain and enhance significant landscape values, sense of place and identity or amenity values found within landscapes and natural features that are not identified as being outstanding, by ensuring that zone and overlay provisions recognise and provide for the characteristics and qualities that contribute to such values, taking into account …’

9. PART C: CONSIDERATION

9.1 The requests seek to achieve a similar purpose, that is, to primarily enable rural subdivision in exchange for varying degrees of environmental benefits (see Attachments C to E) i.e. a Countryside Living style development.

9.2 As noted above, as part of my consideration of the three precincts I have applied the Merits Based Assessment outlined in Attachment F of John Duguid’s evidence and commented on each of the precincts as relevant.

SEAFORTH LTD (Hatfields Beach 19)

Precinct specific SEAFORTH provisions

9.3 1 submission point has been received from Seaforth Ltd requesting a precinct at 605-710 Hibiscus Coast Highway (see Figure 2 below). 1 further submission in support has been received from Alan J Wiltshire (FS3097).

9.4 The area within the proposed precinct is 61ha.

Figure 3: Location of the Seaforth Precinct (black) in relation to ONL4410 and SEAs, and the coastal environment (red line).

9.5 It is not known whether all land owners within the proposed precinct support the relief sought.

9 #4826 et al – McKenzie Family 10 Amended to include a band on the southern extent through Topic 019 by Stephen Brown on behalf of the Council

9.6 As outlined in paragraphs 4.6 to 4.10 above, my evidence addresses the material provided by Seaforth Ltd.

9.7 In addition, to the RPS objectives in 8.4 to 8.5 of this Report, the subject land is proposed to be zoned Rural Coastal in the PAUP.

9.8 The following key provisions in the PAUP apply to the land:

 Outstanding Natural Landscape (ONL44) surrounds but also includes the southern extent of the land11

 SEAs on the southern extent

9.9 Part of the site also lies within the coastal environment and therefore, the NZCPS applies.

SEAFORTH: Planning History

9.10 The same area of land identified in Figure 3 (and some of the same submitters) was the subject of an appeal to the legacy Rodney District Plan (notified in 2000). After lengthy litigation, the appeal was resolved in 2010.

9.11 As the decision was considered under the Rodney Plan and was decided almost 6 years ago to plan notified in 2000, the decision is not entirely relevant. However, the EC summarised usefully summarised their views with regards to the character of the Peninsula. This is discussed further in Sections 10.52 to 10.58 of this Report.

Key components of the SEAFORTH Precinct

9.12 I have considered the precinct proposal and attachments together (see Attachment C for full details). My summary is as follows:

(a) The primary purpose of the precinct is to provide for rural subdivision in exchange for environmental benefits;

(b) Seeks an underlying zone of Countryside Living;

 Bush Residential 1: approx. 20ha that provides for up to 5 sites per hectare.

 Bush residential 2: approx. 40ha that provides for up to 1 site per hectare.

The number of dwellings/sites is not explicitly stated12 in the provisions provided on 1 September 2015.

(d) Includes “highway landscape protection’’ and coastal protection areas.

(e) Cluster of houses would be ‘master-planned’;

(f) Pest and plant control measures (no fencing).

Figure 3: Structure Plan by Seaforth Ltd13

12 Representatives indicated around 70 to 90 dwellings at the without prejudice meeting on 15 November 2015.

13 provided to the Council on 14 September 2015

OBJECTIVE HOLDINGS (OHL14) (Hatfields Beach 2)

9.13 1 submission point has been received requesting a precinct (see Figure 4 below). 1 further submission was received from Chin Hill Farm Ltd (FS3328).

9.14 No precinct provisions were provided but a layout plan (see Attachment D) and a preliminary geo-tech and landscape report. See submission ref: #6623 for full details (not attached).

Figure 4: location of the proposed layout plan proposed by OHL (black line) in relation to the coastal environment and ONL44.

9.15 The area within the proposed precinct is 56ha.

9.16 On 28 August 2015, the Council received an invitation to meet and discuss proposals with adjoining land owners. In the absence of a specific proposal the

14 #6623

Council did not meet with OHL. Therefore, I have assessed the precinct on the information provided in the submission.

9.17 I note that a combined land use and subdivision consent for 2 lots15 was recently granted. However, I do not consider this to be particularly relevant to this submission.

OHL - Key components of the precinct

9.18 In summary, these are:

(a) The primary purpose of the precinct is to provide for subdivision in exchange for environmental benefits;

(b) Underlying zones of Single House, Mixed Housing Suburban zones with subdivision controls seeking approx. 120 to 15016 units;

(d) Cluster of houses would be ‘master-planned’; and

(e) Pest and plant control measures (no fencing).

OHL - Specific PAUP provisions

9.19 ONL44 applies over part of the subject land. The subject land is zoned Rural Coastal in the PAUP.

9.20 The site also falls within the coastal environment (see Figure 4 above).

CHIN HILL (Hatfields Beach 3)17

9.21 1 submission point has been received requesting a precinct at 203 Weranui Road (see Figure 3 below) from Kauri Orewa Limited (Chin Hill Ltd).

15 Ref: 55891 and 63901 dated 10 November 2015

16 estimate – see Attachment D 17 now known as Kauri Orewa Limited (#6283)

Figure 5: Location of Chin Hill Precinct (Black Line) in relation to ONL44, coastal inundation, SEA’s and the extent of the coastal environment (Red Line)

9.22 The area within the proposed precinct would be 183ha.

9.23 No further submissions were received - as the original submission did not seek a precinct.

9.24 However, as the original submission sought all the land to be included in the RUB, the precinct was accepted as a form of minor relief to the original submission.

9.25 As outlined in paragraphs 4.5 to 4.10 above. I have considered the material provided by Chill Hill as the basis of by assessment for Hatfields Beach 3.

Chin Hill - Specific PAUP provisions

9.26 All of the land within the proposed precinct is proposed to be zoned Rural Coastal by the Council despite part of the land being notified as Rural Production (see Figure 1).

9.27 The following key provisions in the PAUP apply to the land (see Figure 5 above):

 Outstanding Natural Landscape (ONL44)

 Some SEAs;

 Some coastal inundation on the lower areas of the site.

9.28 Part of the site also lies within the coastal environment (see Figure 5).

Key components of the Chin Hill precinct

9.29 I have considered the proposal and attachments together (see Attachment E for full details). My summary is as follows:

(a) The primary purpose of the precinct is to provide for rural subdivision in exchange for environmental benefits;

(b) Requires an underlying zone of Countryside Living;18

(d) Enhancement planting: 42ha of bush (includes SEA’s) and 99ha contiguous to an SEA;

(e) Cluster of houses would be ‘master-planned’;

(f) Pest and plant control measures (no fencing).

Figure 6: Structure plan for the Chin Hill precinct (east - west format)

10. ANALYSIS

10.1 I have assessed the precincts against Attachment F19 of John Duguid’s Evidence ‘NEW PRECINCT REQUEST - MERIT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA.20 This is attached as Appendix F of this Report.

10.2 As previously noted, having reviewed each of the precincts I consider their primary purpose to be broadly the same. That is, to enable rural subdivision with some environmental benefits.

10.3 As such, the proposed precincts have been considered together and only where necessary have I addressed particular elements of any of the precincts.

10.4 No detailed material has been provided by the submitters in support of the precincts.

10.5 On 25 January 2016 revised proposals were received by the Council for the Chin Hill precinct. On 26 of January 2016 revised proposals were received for the Seaforth precinct. There has been inadequate time to fully consider the proposals and a response will be provided in the council’s

19 See Attachment F of John Duguid’s Evidence about precincts dated 3 December 2015

rebuttal evidence. No detailed material has been provided with the revised proposals.

10.6 Landscape and ecology evidence in relation to the precincts has been provided by Mr. Stephen Brown and Ms Shona Myers on behalf of the Council.

Do the precincts align with the strategic direction of the PAUP i.e. the RPS and Zones?

Regional Policy Statement (RPS)

10.7 The following assessment applies to all 3 of the proposed precincts.

10.8 As discussed in Topic 011 (RPS Rural), the RPS in the PAUP provides for a comprehensive strategic framework to manage rural subdivision in the rural environment (in response to the Auckland Plan).

10.9 Overall, the framework in the PAUP proposes a more restrictive regime to manage rural subdivision than previously in the legacy plans. This is particularly the case in the Hatfields Beach/ Waiwera area as it has been identified by Stephen Brown as an area of significant landscape sensitivity and natural character.

10.10 In my view, the following higher purpose RPS policies are most relevant:

(i) Rural subdivision (including in the coastal environment)

(ii) Landscapes and natural character

10.11 As the primary purpose of the precincts is to enable ruraI subdivision (albeit with some environmental benefits), I have placed greater weight on the objectives and policies in RPS Chapter B.8.3 (rural subdivision) and also, RPS Chapter 7.1 (subdivision in the coastal environment). These are set out in full in Section 8.5 of this Report.

10.12 In my view, the key outcomes sought in the RPS as relevant to the consideration of the precincts are follows:

(i) Subdivision avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse effects on biodiversity or landscape values, rural character or amenity values, of rural land;

(ii) Prevents further fragmentation of rural land by sporadic and scattered subdivision by directing rural subdivision to the Countryside Living zone;

(iii) Limited opportunities outside the Countryside Living zone are provided for to protect existing significant indigenous biodiversity (SEA’s);

(iv) Subdivision avoids significant adverse effects on areas of significant natural character in the coastal environment; and

(v) Concentrates development within areas in the coastal environment that are already characterised by development;

10.13 Having regard to the landscape evidence of Stephen Brown - that Hatfields Beach contains outstanding and significant landscape values with notable areas falling within the coastal environment, I have also considered the RPS Chapter 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 (Natural Heritage) precincts. These are set out in full in Section 8.5 of this Report).

10.14 In my view, the following outcomes are particularly relevant to the consideration of the proposed precincts:

(i) avoiding or mitigating sprawling and/or sporadic patterns or subdivision in the coastal environment;

(ii) preserving areas of significant natural character in the coastal environment (as directed by the NZCPS);

(iii) protecting the physical and visual integrity of the ONL’s and;

(iv) maintaining and enhancing significant but not outstanding landscape values by zoning land in the coastal environment as Rural Coastal.

10.15 I consider that together the objectives of RPS Chapter 8.3 and 7.1 (rural subdivision) form a core direction of the PAUP intended to prevent further

fragmentation of rural land by scattered and sporadic subdivision outside the Countryside living zones.

10.16 Moreover, in the case of Hatfields Beach, this direction is reinforced by RPS, Chapters 4.31 and 4.3.2 (Natural Heritage) which is guided in part by directions in the NZCPS.

10.17 Indeed, Stephen Brown considers that policies 13(1)(b) and 15(1)(b) of the NZCPS are relevant to the consideration of the rezoning and the precinct submissions but also;

‘objectives and policies proposed for the ONLs within RPS Chapter B4.3.2 strongly promote the approach of avoiding adverse effects on such landscapes – in line with ‘King Salmon’.21’

10.18 He further summarises the impacts proposed by the precincts and zoning stating:

‘The catchment as a whole would lose much of its inherent naturalness and related cohesive assemblage of natural landforms, vegetation and water catchments, becoming more obviously ‘developed’ and ‘domesticated’.22

10.19 As noted in my zoning evidence, I do not consider Countryside Living zone to be appropriate in the rural areas of Hatfields Beach and Waiwera area as a ‘platform’ to support the level of development envisaged in the proposed precincts for Chin Hill and Seaforth.

10.20 Therefore, having considered the proposition of the 3 proposed precincts, against all the provisions identified in 10.8 and 10.13, I consider the purpose of the precincts as a district plan method, would be contrary to the strategic directives of the RPS - that together seek to prevent sporadic rural subdivision (including the coastal environment), particularly in areas of significant landscape, natural character and amenity value such as Hatfields Beach.

10.21 For these reasons, I do not consider the precincts would give effect to Sections 67 and 74 of the RMA, which require regional and district plans (including the proposed precincts) to give effect to the ‘higher order’ Regional Policy Statement provisions.

21 [60] EIC Stephen Brown for Topic 081 26/1/2016 22 [61] EIC Stephen Brown for Topic 081 26/1/2016

Does the precinct conform with the Council’s position on the RUB?

Seaforth

10.22 It is understood that Seaforth no longer wish to pursue a RUB. However, an element of the precinct appears to seek an urban density (5 sites per ha). Such a density could only be located within a RUB.

10.23 This was addressed in my primary evidence on the RUB23. In summary, I do not support non-contiguous extensions to the RUB. Overall, I consider other locations to be more appropriate for this intensity of development.

OHL

10.24 The submission seeks a mixture of SH and MHS zone with additional subdivision controls in some areas24.

10.25 This was addressed in my primary evidence on the RUB25. In summary, I do not support non-contiguous extensions to the RUB. Overall, I consider other locations to be more appropriate for urban development.

Chin Hill

10.26 The submitter seeks inclusion in the RUB at the south eastern portion of the site, known as 203 Weranui Road, alongside the Edward Henderson Trust (#7029). This falls within the undeveloped Hatfields Beach catchment.

10.27 As discussed in my primary evidence on the RUB26, I do not support the proposed extension to the RUB (including the relief sought by #7029 and #FS2710) in this location. In my view, a RUB extension would not achieve the efficient use of land sort by the RPS directions that seek to manage

23 Primary and Rebuttal Evidence on the Topic 016 dated 16 October and 17 December 2015 24 [15] of #6623 25 Nathan Te Pairi’s EIC on the Topic 016 dated 16 October and 17 December 2015 26 Nathan Te Pairi’s and Rebuttal Evidence on the Topic 016 dated 16 October and 17 December 2015

urban growth or avoid environmentally sensitive areas (i.e. the undeveloped Hatfield Beach catchment and beyond).

Do the precincts avoid overriding overlays?

Chin Hill

10.28 In relation to the proposed Chin Hill precinct, Stephen Brown considers that;

‘Even though re-vegetation and planting is proposed generically around individual dwellings and their curtilage, there is little detail that can be relied on to ensure mitigation of all significant effects, including those generated by roading, access tracks, building platform formation and other earthworks.’27

10.29 He further concludes that the Chin Hill precinct would have significant impacts on ONL44 (see Figure 5) and the wider area where he states:

‘there is little likelihood that such amelioration and mitigation could every wholly counteract, or compensate, for the irreversible changes imposed on ONL44 and the wider landscape of Hatfields Beach’.28

10.30 Having regard to his evidence it is clear that the precinct would have significant adverse effects on ONL44 and therefore, is directly contrary to RPS Chapter B4.3.2 (Natural Heritage) Objective 129 which seeks to protect Auckland’s ONL’s from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

10.31 I also note that the Panel’s interim guidance (31 July 2015) states that precincts should not undermine overlays. From the evidence of Stephen Brown it is clear that the precinct could not be accommodated without undermining the ONL overlay.

27 [60] EIC Stephen Brown for Topic 081 January 2016 28 [61] EIC Stephen Brown for Topic 081 January 2016 29 in addition other objectives and policies - see 8.5 of this Report

Does the zone or Auckland-wide rules provide for this activity?

Methods supported by the PAUP to enable subdivision

10.32 The following discussion applies to all 3 proposed precincts.

10.33 As noted in my primary evidence for zoning (Hatfields Beach and Waiwera), I consider that the Rural Coastal zone is the most appropriate method to give effect to the RPS at Hatfields Beach.

10.34 Chapter C.6 envisages provision for some limited subdivision to a minimum site size of 40(ha)30 in the Rural Coastal zone.

10.35 In addition, the PAUP envisages some limited in situ subdivision rights along with transfer rights for the protection/restoration of SEA’s in the Rural Coastal zone31. This outcome is promoted by Objective 5 of RPS Chapter B8.3, and Policy 14 of Chapter C.6 of the PAUP (see 8.4). However, these rights are strictly controlled.32

10.36 Therefore, I consider that the precincts propose a far reaching departure from the amount of development envisaged in the PAUP in the Rural Coastal zone.

Methods not supported by the PAUP to enable subdivision i.e. Enhancement Planting

10.37 Enhancement planting in exchange for subdivision rights is a method in the Rodney Operative Plan that has not been rolled over into Unitary Plan in favour of other methods considered to be more appropriate33. The Council’s s.32 report on rural subdivision34 provided a detailed analysis on enhancement planting a method to enable rural subdivision has been discarded in the PAUP. I understand this matter was discussed at length in the Topic 011 (RPS: rural provisions) and therefore I will not elaborate on this in detail.

30 Chapter C.6 (subdivision) Section 2.3.3, Table 4a (as proposed by the council) 31 Chapter C.6 (subdivision) Section 2.3.3, Table 8b 32 Chapter C.6 ((subdivision) Section 2.3.3 33[1.6] of the s.32 for rural subdivision in the PAUP 34 ibid

10.38 In the ecological evidence provided by Ms Shona Myers regarding these precincts (and her evidence provided on Topics 011 (RPS Rural) and 010 (SEA’s) for Auckland Council), she states in relation to the enhancement planting that:

‘Natural areas require long term management to develop into self- sustaining natural ecosystems. To meet the definition of SEA (as defined in Topic 010) is likely to require at least 20 years35.’

10.39 Given that Ms Shona Myers considers it would take up to 20 years to realise the ecological benefits of the enhancement planting to an SEA quality equivalent, any substantive ecological benefits could not be realised until long after the subdivision occurred. In addition, landscape effects would also be apparent until the planting is established.

10.40 I do not consider enhancement planting should be relied on as the primary method to enable subdivision rights, particularly, in sensitive locations that lie within areas of significant natural character and/or are adjacent to ONLs where such adverse effects should be avoided as is the case of Hatfields Beach.

10.41 This is especially the case when the outcomes of the precincts contravene higher order strategic directions namely:

(i) prevention of sporadic and scattered subdivision (particularly in the coastal environment); and

(ii) the protection of significant and outstanding landscapes (including the coastal environment) such as the Hatfields Beach area.

10.42 Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, I do not consider the PAUP should support a precinct that derives its subdivision rights from enhancement planting.

Does the precinct result in significant or meaningful departure/variations from the underlying zone or Auckland-wide provisions which recognise place based differences/circumstances?

35 [6.15] EIC Shona Myers on the Hatfields Beach Precincts

10.43 Representatives for the Chin Hill and Seaforth proposals consider there is a significant opportunity to complete two ecological corridors. These are (see Attachment B of Ms Myers evidence):

(i) ‘east-west’ corridor linking the SEA on the Chin Hill land – to existing bush on the site - to the sea; and

(ii) ‘north-south’ corridor connecting the Alice Eaves Reserve (south) linking to the SEA, and Chin Hill land (to the north) and then to Wenderholm Regional Park (further north).

10.44 I note the Chill Hill land is situated some 1.5km away from Wenderholm Regional Park (see Attachment B of Ms Myers evidence).

10.45 Ms Shona Myers has provided an overview of the likely ecological benefits of the proposals together as well as each of the proposals.36

10.46 In her evidence she notes that natural areas require long-term management to develop into self-sustaining natural ecosystems. To meet the definition of Significant Ecological Areas (as defined in PAUP Topic 010) is likely to require at least 20 years37.

10.47 She also observes that the proposed planting in the Chill Hill and Seaforth precincts in would be fragmented by the clusters of development, and by houses and roads within the precinct.

10.48 In the case of the Chin Hill precinct she considers;

‘the area of proposed native revegetation on the edge of RAP21 [adjacent to the Chin Hill] precinct is fragmented by cluster development on this edge and will not provide an intact sequence to other ecological areas.’38

10.49 Overall, Ms Myers considers,

‘The proposed enhancement planting could have local benefits however it will not provide regionally or nationally significant ecological outcomes’39

10.50 I agree with Ms Myers and therefore, I do not consider the precinct proposals, in particular Seaforth and Chin Hill, would result in a significant

37 [1.3] EIC of Ms Myers 38 [6.3] EIC of Ms Myers 39 [7.1] EIC of Ms Myers

or meaningful placed based reason to depart from the Auckland-wide provisions.

For previously declined plan changes or Environment Court decisions does the precinct demonstrate significant new information or changed circumstances?

Seaforth

10.51 Almost the same area of land (and some of the same submitters) was the subject of an appeal to the Environment Court (EC) to the legacy Rodney District Plan (notified in 2000) (see Figure 3). After lengthy litigation, the appeal was resolved in 2010.

10.52 Mr Jeffrey Brown on behalf of Seaforth Ltd considers this decision is no longer relevant40. I agree in so far as the provisions that resulted from that decision were based on a different set of circumstances and the policy framework of the day and, in my view 6 years has been a sufficient period to implement those development rights granted by the EC in 2010.

10.53 However, in reaching their decision (see Attachment B), the EC noted that the special provisions (that allowed multiple household units) that were included in the notified version of Rodney District Plan in 2000, did already compromise to some extent the objectives and policies of the East Coast Rural zone of the operative (Rodney) District Plan. Notwithstanding this, the EC granted some further minor development rights.

10.54 Neither the special provisions that were included in notified Rodney Plan nor the further development rights granted by the EC in 2010 have been rolled over into the PAUP. I support their exclusion from the PAUP for the reasons stated above in 10.52 and elsewhere in this Report.

10.55 The relevance of this decision is the EC’s observation that provisions in the Rodney Plan that was notified in 2000 already to compromised the objectives and policies of East Coast zone of the Hatfields North Peninsula. I take this to mean that further development opportunities are limited.

40 [8] Correspondence received from Jeffrey Brown on behalf of Seaforth: see Attachment C on 14 September

10.56 Stephen Brown has also reviewed the decision and is familiar with the Hatfields North Peninsula. He considers41 that additional development would exacerbate the situation of what is an unusually high density for the Rural Coastal zone. Therefore, in his view, further intensification would be inappropriate. I agree with Mr Brown.

10.57 On this basis, I do not support the scale and intensity (see 9.15) proposed by the Seaforth Precinct at the Hatfields North Peninsula.

11. CONCLUSIONS

11.1 In summary, I do not support the precincts for the following reasons:

(a) I consider the purpose of the precincts to be contrary to the strategic directions in the RPS to prevent further sporadic and scattered subdivision in rural Auckland.

(b) The scale, extent and intensity of rural subdivision proposed by the precincts would undermine the higher level directives in the RPS to protect significant landscapes and natural character values.

(c) Enhancement planting is not a method that is supported by the provisions in the PAUP as proposed by the Council and therefore, should not be supported as a primary method to enable subdivision rights.

(d) I do not consider the proposed precincts; in particular, Hatfields 3 (Chin Hill) and Hatfields 1 (Seaforth) will make a regionally or nationally significant contribution to ecological outcomes.

11.2 Therefore, having regard to the Merits Based Assessment for new precincts outlined in the Evidence of John Duguid, I do not support the inclusion of the precincts into the PAUP.

Nathaniel (Nathan) George Te Pairi

28 January 2016

41 [61] EIC Stephen Brown for Topic 081

ATTACHMENT A: CV

Career Summary:

September 2013 to Present  Planner: Auckland Council: North West Planning

March to September 2013  Planner (on a part time basis): Planning Consultants Ltd

July 2012 to January 2013  Planner: 4sight (formerly Andrew Stewart Ltd)

February 2008 to September 2010

 Planner: Olympic Delivery Authority/Planning Decisions Team

October 2004 to February 2008  Planner: London Borough of Tower Hamlets, United Kingdom

September 2001 to December 2003  Planning Advisory Role/Resource Consent Planner: Waitakere City Council

Qualifications:

 BPlan (2000), Certificate in Maori Studies Christchurch Polytechnic 1999

Affiliations:

 Graduate Member of the NZCPS

ATTACHMENT B: Environment Court Decision 2010

ATTACHMENT C:

Details provided for Seaforth Precinct (#4826 et al)

Seaforth Peninsula Precinct

The objectives, policies, activities, controls and assessment criteria in the underlying Countryside Living Zone and Auckland-wide rules apply in the Seaforth Peninsula Precinct, unless otherwise specified below.

Refer to planning maps for the location and extent of the Precinct.

Precinct Description:

The Seaforth Peninsula Precinct is located immediately north of Hatfields Beach and east of the Hibiscus Coast Highway. It contains 61 ha in 20 existing titles, used mainly for rural lifestyle purposes as well as some rural commercial activities, visitor accommodation and a rest home. Much of the southern part of the peninsula is in native bush and is within the Significant Ecological Area overlay. Vegetation throughout the rest of the peninsula is predominantly exotic forest with native undergrowth.

The land has varied, rolling topography with a central east to west ridgeline, and is capable of absorbing a greater level of development without adverse effects on landscape values, coastal values or rural amenities. The land is very close to the urban area of Orewa and there is a regular commuter bus route on the Hibiscus Coast Highway. Reticulated water supply on Hibiscus Coast Highway currently services some properties on the peninsula.

The purpose of the Seaforth Peninsula Precinct is to enable rural lifestyle activities in a manner that avoids, remedies and mitigates adverse effects on nature conservation values, landscape and coastal values and rural amenities. This is achieved by setting aside areas within the Precinct for protection and enhancement, and arranging new rural lifestyle development, along with access, in locations and densities that are appropriate to the local topography and aspect.

To achieve this, a Precinct Plan has been developed. The Precinct Plan delineates three protection areas and two development areas. The protection areas are:

 The Significant Ecological Area (SEA) on the southern slopes of the Precinct;  The Coastal Landscape Protection Area adjoining the coastline;  The Highway Landscape Protection Area adjoining the Hibiscus Coast Highway.

The development areas are:

 Bush Residential 1, includes around 20 hectares on the northern (highway side) of the ridgeline and between topographic features which restrict visibility from the highway into the area. This screening effect renders this area less sensitive to development and the area is capable of a higher density of housing, to a density of 5 households per hectare. Development will be subject to building design controls and landscaping controls, including native revegetation, to ensure buildings are in keeping with the rural character, maintain privacy and are not visually prominent;  Bush Residential 2, includes around 40 hectares on the coastal (southern) side of the ridgeline, has more potential to be visible from public places and is capable of absorbing a density of 1 household per hectare. Development is to be located within discrete pockets of land where it can best be absorbed, and on flatter areas where disruption to landform is minimised. Building design controls will avoid or mitigate adverse effects on landscape values. Landscape controls will include native revegetation to complement the existing native vegetation within the SEA.

Access to the Precinct will be from existing access points. The additional development potential is capable of being serviced.

DRAFT 8 September 2015 2

Objectives:

The objectives are as listed in the Countryside Living Zone and the Auckland-wide objectives except as specified below. If there is any conflict, the following objectives prevail:

1. Comprehensively designed rural lifestyle development is provided for in a manner that avoids or mitigates adverse effects on landscape, coastal and amenity values.

2. The rural character, landscapes, and amenity values of the Precinct and the wider area, including the coastal environment, are retained.

3. Areas adjacent to the highway and the coast are protected from development and are enhanced by ecological protection and revegetation.

4. The existing Significant Ecological Area and other areas of native vegetation and riparian margins are protected from development and are maintained and enhanced.

Policies:

The policies are as listed in the Countryside Living Zone and the Auckland-wide policies except as specified below. If there is any conflict, the following policies prevail:

1. Enable up to [xxx} total dwelling sites within the Seaforth Peninsula Precinct. Where cleared building platforms exist, develop dwellings to mitigate effects on existing vegetation and land forms.

2. Locate and design development and accessways to blend with the natural topography in order to avoid significant disruption to natural landform, and to avoid visual prominence when viewed from outside the Precinct.

3. Control the density of development to an average of five dwellings per hectare in the Bush Residential 1 area and an average of one dwelling per hectare in the Bush Residential 2 area, with a primary focus on how the dwelling fits into the landscape.

4. Locate vehicle access to the highway in a manner that consolidates existing access and avoids any new access points.

5. The existing Significant Ecological Area will be:

a. Legally protected from any development; b. Enhanced through the ongoing control of animal and plant pest species; c. Enhanced through the upgrading of a walking trail network which will improve access for the residents of, and visitors to the Seaforth Peninsula Precinct to the site’s ecological values, and to the coast.

6. The Highway Landscape Protection Area will protect views of the Seaforth Peninsula from the highway by:

a. Retaining areas of open space which give the site its character as experienced from the highway; b. Planting areas which can mitigate visibility of development from the highway while enhancing the site’s natural character and ecological values; c. Protecting areas of regenerating native vegetation; d. Ensuring any landscape elements, including signage, gates, fences etc. are consistent with the existing landscape character.

7. The Coastal Landscape Protection Area will protect views from the immediate and wider coastal environment to the Seaforth Peninsula by:

DRAFT 8 September 2015 3

a. Retaining the natural values of the coastal margins and promoting ecological regeneration and enhancement; b. Allowing limited walking trail access to appropriate areas of the coast (taking into account that much of the coast in this area is very difficult to access).

Rules:

The activities in the Countryside Living Zone apply in the Precinct.

1. Activity table

Activity Activity status Accommodation One dwelling per site within the Bush Residential 1 and C 2 Areas Dwellings within the SEA on existing building platforns RD Dwellings within the Significant Ecological Area, NC Highway Landscape Protection Area and the Coastal Landscape Protection Area other than on existing building platforms

2. Land use controls

The land use controls of the Countryside Living Zone apply in the Precinct.

3. Subdivision controls

The subdivision controls in the Auckland-wide subdivision rules apply in the Precinct unless otherwise specified below. Any subdivision is a restricted discretionary activity except that any subdivision that does not comply with the controls below is a non-complying activity.

3.1 Precinct plan

Any subdivision must be carried out in accordance with the Precinct Plan. Subdivision shall not create a site with the only available building platform being within the Significant Ecological Area, Highway Landscape Protection Area or the Coastal Landscape Protection Area, unless a cleared building platform exists at the time this plan becomes operative/ as shown on the precinct plan.

3.2 Building platform Each proposed site shall include a building platform and access way located in a manner which avoids or mitigates the effects of the proposed development on the landform, landscape, natural values of the coastal margins and rural amenities,.

3.3 Maximum number and density of sites

The number of sites on which a dwelling may be erected must not exceed [xxx] within the Precinct. The density of sites on which a dwelling may be erected must not exceed the following:

a. Bush Residential 1 area: 5 sites per hectare (average) b. Bush Residential 2 area: 1 site per hectare (average).

This density control applies to each individual land-use or subdivision application. If any application involves land included in a prior application, that land can only be included to calculate density if both applications (considered together) would comply with the density control.

DRAFT 8 September 2015 4

3.4 Access

Access shall generally be in accordance with the layout shown on the Precinct Plan. Access to all new sites shall be from the primary access shown in the Precinct Plan, and shall avoid significant disruption to natural landform.

3.5 Management of the Significant Ecological Area, Highway Landscape Protection Area and the Coastal Landscape Protection Area

Any subdivision application shall be accompanied by an implementation and management plan setting out:

a. the methods for protecting the Significant Ecological Area, Highway Landscape Protection Area and the Coastal Landscape Protection Area (where these areas are contained within the proposed subdivision); b. planting proposed if required for enhancing nature conservation values and for avoiding or mitigating any potential adverse effects of built development (within the Bush Residential Areas) on landscape values, and the ongoing management of the planting to achieve these purposes; c. the methods for eradication and ongoing management of plant and animal pest species;

4. Assessment: controlled activities

4.1 Matters of control

The Council will restrict its control to the matters below:

a. External building design and external appearance b. Location, landform modification and earthworks c. Design and implementation of landscaping for visual mitigation

4.2 Assessment criteria

The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for the controlled activities listed above.

a. External building design and external appearance i. All buildings should be sited and designed so they are not visually prominent from any significant ridgeline or skyline when viewed from any road or other public place. ii. Building finishes, including colours and materials, should complement the bush, rural, natural and rural coastal character of the surrounding environment. The exterior finish of the building or structure shall have a reflectance value of, or less than, 30 per cent as defined within the BS5252 standard colour palette.

b. Topography and landform modification i. Development should not require extensive landform modification.

c. Design and implementation of landscaping for visual mitigation i. Existing native trees and bush that make a significant contribution to the visual and environmental qualities of the site should be retained to the fullest extent practicable, particularly around existing waterways. ii. Landscaping design should mitigate any potential adverse visual effects of new buildings when viewed from any road or other public place.

DRAFT 8 September 2015 5

5. Assessment: restricted discretionary activity – subdivision

5.1 Matters of discretion

In addition to the matters in H.5.4.1, the council will restrict its discretion to the matters below for subdivision within the Precinct.

a. Site size, layout and access. b. The location of, and building envelope for, any potential dwellings and the mitigation measures to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on rural character and amenity. c. The method of protection and the content of planting and management plans for the Significant Ecological Area, the Highway Landscape Protection Area and the Coastal Landscape Protection Area.

5.2 Assessment criteria

In addition to the matters in H.5.4.2, the council will consider the assessment criteria below for subdivision within the Precinct:

a. Site size, layout and access i. The site size, shape, contour and access should be suitable for the intended activities proposed for the lot.

b. The location of, and building envelope for, any potential dwellings and the mitigation measures to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on rural character and amenity

i. Sites should take advantage of the topography taking into account views and accessibility. ii. The layout of sites should minimise disturbance to existing stands of native vegetation. iii. The building area should not be on a prominent ridge, knoll or skyline where the erection of buildings would be visually prominent in the landscape or detract from the rural amenities when viewed from any road or other public place.

c. The method of protection and the content of planting and management plans for the Significant Ecological Area, the Highway Landscape Protection Area and the Coastal Landscape Protection Area

i. The method for protecting the Significant Ecological Area, the Highway Landscape Protection Area and the Coastal Landscape Protection Area, including but not limited to fencing, covenanting, or ownership structure. ii. New planting within the Highway Landscape Protection Area and the Coastal Landscape Protection Area, and any enhancement planting within the Significant Ecological Area, should be for the benefit of nature conservation values. iii. New planting and any enhancement planting, and its ongoing maintenance and management, should be in accordance with the management plan required under Rule 3.5.

DRAFT 8 September 2015 6

5. Precinct plan

DRAFT 8 September 2015

Level 10, 1 Kitchener St, PO Box 91839, AMC, AUCKLAND Phone (09) 377 5499, Fax (09) 377 2799

Level 1, The Forge, Athol Street, PO Box 1467, QUEENSTOWN Phone (03) 409 2258, Fax (03) 409 2259

www.brownandcompany.co.nz

14 September 2015

Auckland Council Unitary Plan Team

By Email: [email protected]

Attention: John Duguid

Dear John

RE: SEAFORTH PENINSULA PRECINCT – “HATFIELDS BEACH 1NEW” PRECINCT

1. This letter relates to Primary Submission No. 4826 by James B Mackenzie which requests rezoning and a precinct to apply to an area of land containing 61 hectares in 20 existing titles, used mainly for rural lifestyle purposes as well as some rural commercial activities, visitor accommodation and a rest home. The Seaforth Peninsula Precinct is located immediately north of Hatfields Beach and east of the Hibiscus Coast Highway. The land is very close to the urban area of Orewa and there is a regular bus route on the Hibiscus Coast Highway.

2. The submission seeks a range of alternative reliefs to enable development and use of the land for nature conservation, landscape protection and residential (lifestyle) purposes.

3. This letter addresses the issue of the proposed Seaforth Peninsula Precinct, in accordance with directions from the Council. Accompanying this letter are the proposed Precinct Provisions and Plan. This letter presupposes an underlying zoning of Countryside Living which is not addressed in this letter. The ultimate presentation to the Hearing Panel will seek an underlying zoning of Countryside Living along with the Seaforth Peninsula Precinct.

4. The purpose of the Seaforth Peninsula Precinct is to enable rural lifestyle activities in a manner that avoids, remedies and mitigates adverse effects on nature conservation values, landscape and coastal values and rural amenities. This is achieved by setting aside areas within the Precinct for protection and enhancement, and arranging new rural lifestyle development, along with access, in locations and densities that are appropriate to the local topography and aspect.

5. To achieve this, a Precinct Plan has been developed. The Precinct Plan delineates three protection areas and two development areas. The protection areas are:

6. The two development areas are:

 Bush Residential 1 - around 20 hectares on the northern (highway side) of the ridgeline on the site, with a proposed density of 5 sites per hectare (average);  Bush Residential 2, includes around 40 hectares on the coastal (southern) side of the ridgeline, with a proposed density of 1 site per hectare (average).

7. The total number of sites on which a dwelling may be erected must not exceed [xx] within the Precinct.

8. There are no recent plan changes that are relevant. Submissions to the Proposed Rodney District Plan, seeking some increased development rights on the Peninsula land, were dealt with by the Council and by the Environment Court, concluding in 2010.

9. Part of the Seaforth Peninsula Precinct is subject to an existing Significant Ecological Area overlay. That overlay is reflected in the Precinct provisions and Precinct Plan. The SEA will be fully protected in perpetuity and its values will be enhanced by ongoing management control of pest plant and animal species. The existing SEA areas will be legally protected from development, enhanced through planting and pest control, and provide for public access by way of a walking trail network.

10. The Precinct incorporates two Landscape Protection Areas, to protect the rural character, landscapes, and amenity values of the Precinct and the wider area. The Highway Landscape Protection Area will protect views by retaining areas of open space, landscape planting, protection of vegetation and control of landscape elements. The Coastal Landscape Protection Area will protect views from the immediate and wider coastal environment by retaining the natural values of the coastal margins, ecological enhancement, and will allow for limited walking access.

11. The nature of the land within the Precinct is such that a master-planned approach is required to achieve the specific ecological and landscape outcomes which underpin the purpose of the Precinct. Due to the need for this master-planned approach, the purpose of the Precinct could not be achieved through the use of the (proposed) underlying Countryside Living zone and Auckland-wide provisions, because these provisions do not have the specificity or certainty needed to ensure the desired outcomes.

12. The Precinct promotes outcomes that are quite distinct from the generality of Countryside Living Zone subdivision and development outcomes, through the maximum number of sites that allow for dwellings across the two distinct development areas, the two landscape protection areas and the ecological protection area. These desired outcomes are better promoted by way of a Precinct than by resource consent(s).

13. The proposal only changes the zoning of a small part of the current rural zone. The appropriate way to achieve the desired outcomes is re-zoning the land for Countryside Living and then applying the Precinct overlay to ensure achievement of the specific development configuration and ecological outcomes anticipated.

14. The proposed Precinct is not already enabled through any existing resource consent.

15. The Precinct Plan structure is simple, consisting of two Development Areas for residential activities, two Landscape Protection Areas, and one Significant Ecological Area. Access to the Precinct will be from existing access points. The additional development potential is capable of being serviced.

16. To date, information has been provided to all landowners within the precinct, although not all feedback has been received from these parties. It is planned that further consultation will take place in the next few weeks.

17. The Precinct uses the PAUP definitions.

Supporting Information

18. The existing relevant layer of the PAUP is the Significant Ecological Area layer which h affects part of the site, as shown on the Precinct Plan.

19. The accompanying Precinct Plan provisions include objectives, policies, activity table, development and use controls, notification provisions, matters of discretion, assessment criteria and special information requirements.

20. The Seaforth Peninsula Precinct proposal is supported by the following maps:

(a) PDF zoning map showing the extent of the Precinct; and

(b) Precinct Plan map.

Please feel free to call me at 021 529 745 if you have any questions or would like any further information. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet to discuss the proposed Precinct.

Yours sincerely Brown & Company Planning Group

Jeff Brown Seaforth-lett-AC-14Sept15

ATTACHMENT D:

Objective Holdings Ltd (#6623) Layout Plan: (see submission 6623 for full details)

ATTACHMENT E:

Details provided for the Chin Hill precinct (#6283) (formerly Chin Hill Limited)

North

North North

Hibiscus Coast Highway

Rural Lifestyle Clusters

Significant Ecological Area 6 Other Ecological Areas 8 5 7 Native Revegetation Areas

Primary Access

Walking / Biking Trail 1 Weranui Road 2 Rural Lifestyle Clusters 4 1: Top Plateau CHIN HILL - PROPOSED STRUCTURE PLAN 2: North Plateau CHINREFERENCE HILL 2534-SK24- PROPOSED - SCALE = STRUCTURE PLAN 3: West Ridge REFERENCEj:\2534 -2534-SK24 chin hill\cad\xref - 2534 - -SCALE masterplan.dwg = j:\2534 - chin hill\cad\xref - 2534 - masterplan.dwg 4: Central Valley - 1:4000 1:4000portrait (3) AT A1 - 1: - portrait (3) AT A1 - 1: 8000 AT A3 - 5: East Ridge 8000 AT A3 - 10 Sep 2015 10 Sep 2015 6: Lower Valley 3 7: Lower Bush 8: West Plateau 9: North Valley CHIN HILL - PROPOSED STRUCTURE PLAN 9 REFERENCE 2534-SK24 - SCALE = 1:4000 AT A1 - 1:8000 AT A3 - 10 Sep 2015 © j:\2534 - chin hill\cad\xref - 2534 - masterplan.dwg - portrait (3) CHIN HILL - PROPOSED STRUCTURE PLAN DRAFT REFERENCE 2534-SK24 - SCALE = j:\2534 - chin hill\cad\xref - 2534 - masterplan.dwg © 1:4000 - portrait (3) AT A1 - 1: © 8000 AT A3 - 10 Sep 2015 DRAFTDRAFT

CHIN HILL - PROPOSED STRUCTURE PLAN REFERENCE 2534-SK24 - SCALE = 1:4000 AT A1 - 1:8000 AT A3 - 10 Sep 2015 © j:\2534 - chin hill\cad\xref - 2534 - masterplan.dwg - portrait (3) © CHIN HILL - PROPOSED STRUCTURE PLAN DRAFT REFERENCE 2534-SK24 - SCALE = 1:4000 AT A1 - 1:8000 AT A3 - 10 Sep 2015 + Chin Hill Precinct Plan © DRAFT j:\2534 - chin hill\cad\xref - 2534 - masterplan.dwg - portrait (3) REFERENCE : 2534 - Scale 1:8000 @ A3 - 10 Sept 2015 CHIN HILL - PROPOSED STRUCTURE PLAN DRAFT REFERENCE 2534-SK24 - SCALE = 1:4000 AT A1 - 1:8000 AT A3 - 10 Sep 2015 © j:\2534 - chin hill\cad\xref - 2534 - masterplan.dwg - portrait (3) DRAFT DRAFT – 11 Sept 15

Chin Hill Precinct

The objectives, policies, activities, controls and assessment criteria in the underlying Countryside Living Zone, Outstanding Natural Landscape overlay and Auckland-wide rules apply in the Chin Hill Precinct, unless otherwise specified below.

Refer to planning maps for the location and extent of the Precinct.

Precinct description:

The Chin Hill Precinct is a contiguous 183.8 hectare block of rural land held in 8 freehold titles, located immediately to the north of Hatfields Beach and to the west of the Seaforth Peninsula. The precinct is bounded by the Hibiscus Coast Highway on its eastern side, the Waiwera River on its northern side, the SH1 motorway on its western side, and the existing Hatfields Beach settlement on its southern side. The land is very close to the urban area of Orewa, and is well connected by transport links to central Auckland which lies 30km to the south. Much of the site is elevated with coastal views over the Hauraki Gulf, making it a desirable location to enjoy rural amenity in close proximity to urban areas.

The land is characterised by a mix of marginal pastoral farmland and large blocks of native bush, with a series of ridgelines and gullies. The south-western slopes contain stands of pristine native bush, including stands of kauri, that stretch downward toward the coast and adjacent wetland and estuary. The bush area is within a Significant Ecological Area overlay. The upper part of the Precinct is within an Outstanding Natural Landscape overlay. The existing use of the site for pastoral farming is no longer economically viable, and the soils are generally within Class 6 – 8; there are no elite or prime soils.

The purpose of the Precinct is to enable a comprehensively master-planned rural lifestyle development within a natural bush setting, while protecting and enhancing the nature conservation and landscape values of the land. The varied, rolling topography and existing areas of native bush – along with proposed revegetation and enhancement – ensure that the site is capable of absorbing rural lifestyle development in a manner that avoids or mitigates adverse effects on nature conservation, landscape and rural amenity values. This is achieved by setting aside areas within the Precinct for protection and enhancement, with ‘clustered’ areas of rural lifestyle development in carefully chosen locations to minimise adverse landscape effects.

The Precinct will assist in meeting Auckland’s growing demand for housing by providing for those seeking a rural lifestyle environment very close to the urban boundary and urban amenities, accessed off the Hibiscus Coast Highway which provides an existing public transport route and direct vehicle access to Auckland.

The Precinct will also assist in enabling off-road walking trails linking Hatfields Beach with Waiwera.

To achieve the desired outcomes for the Precinct, a Precinct Plan has been developed. The Precinct Plan delineates three Protection Areas, and nine development areas. The Protection Areas are: the existing SEA on the south-western slopes of the Precinct; the gullies and slopes with regenerating bush, and the existing grazing land. It is intended that these Protection Areas be retired from farming and enhanced with “infill” and new native revegetation and protected in perpetuity, along with comprehensive plant and pest management programmes.

Rural lifestyle development will be within nine distinct ‘clusters’ within the Precinct.

Development within the precinct will be subject to building design controls and site landscaping controls, including native revegetation, to ensure buildings are in keeping with the landscape character and are not visually prominent. Maximum height levels and building envelopes will be set for each of the ‘cluster’ areas to minimise adverse landscape effects. Although sites will generally be within the range of 2000 – 5000m2 each, the overall density of the development will achieve an average of one rural lifestyle site per at least 2 hectares. 2

Objective:

The objectives are as listed in the Countryside Living Zone and the Auckland-wide objectives, except as specified below:

1. A comprehensively master-planned rural lifestyle development based on the protection and enhancement of ecological and landscape values of the Precinct.

Policies:

The policies are as listed in the Countryside Living Zone and the Auckland-wide policies, except as specified below:

Development

1. Enable up to 81 rural lifestyle sites within the Chin Hill Precinct.

2. Ensure that all rural lifestyle sites within the Precinct are clustered in carefully chosen locations where new dwellings, structures and access points will be visually screened or softened by landform and vegetation when viewed from public places.

3. Establish appropriate height levels for the respective cluster areas that will ensure buildings are nestled into the natural topography and vegetation, and blend into the surrounded landscape.

4. Require landscape planting to be undertaken as part of any subdivision or development to assist achievement of Policies 3 and 4 above.

5. Locate vehicle access to the Hibiscus Coast Highway in a manner that consolidates existing access and avoids any new access points.

Protection Areas

6. The existing areas of native bush contained within the identified Significant Ecological Area (SEA) will be legally protected from any development and will be enhanced through the ongoing control of animal and plant pest species;

7. Areas with existing ecological values not contained within the SEA will be:

a. Enhanced through regenerative planting and control of animal and plant pest species. b. Legally protected from development and inappropriate land use practices.

8. Areas of existing pastoral land outside of development cluster areas will be retired from farming, enhanced and protected in accordance with Policy 7 above.

Rules:

The rules of the Outstanding Natural Landscape overlay, the Countryside Living Zone and relevant Auckland-wide rules apply in the Precinct, except where specified below:

1. Activity Table

Activity Activity status Development Buildings and structures with a gross floor area less P than 50m2 Buildings and structures with a gross floor area RD 3

greater than 50m2 including dwellings Buildings and structures that exceed the maximum D height levels for cluster areas in Rule 2 below

Dwellings that exceed the maximum density specified NC in Rule 4 below Subdivision that complies with the maximum density RD specified in Rule 4 below Subdivision that does not comply with the maximum NC density specified in Rule 4 below

2. Maximum height of buildings [note – maximum heights to be confirmed]

 Top Plateau (xx metres)  North Plateau (xx metres)  West Ridge (xx metres)  Central Valley (xx metres)  East Ridge (xx metres)  Lower Valley (xx metres)  Lower Bush (xx metres)

3. Precinct plan

Any subdivision or development must be carried out in accordance with the Precinct Plan.

4. Maximum number and density of sites and dwellings

The number of dwellings, or sites on which a dwelling may be erected, must not exceed 81 within the Precinct. The number of dwellings or sites within each cluster shall not exceed the following:

 Top Plateau (15 sites)  North Plateau (6 sites)  West Ridge (9 sites)  Central Valley (12 sites)  East Ridge (7 sites)  Lower Valley (5 sites)  Lower Bush (16 sites)  West Plateau (5 sites)  North Valley (6 sites)

5. Access

Access shall generally be in accordance with the layout shown on the Precinct Plan. Access to all new dwellings or sites shall be from the primary access shown in the Precinct Plan, and shall avoid significant disruption to natural landform.

6. Management of the Protection Areas

The Protection Areas are as defined on the Precinct Plan, and are as follows:

a. Significant Ecological Area: the existing area of native bush contained within the identified Significant Ecological Area, to be protected; b. Other Ecological Areas: the areas with existing ecological values not contained within the SEA, to be enhanced and protected; c. Native Revegetation Areas: the areas of existing pastoral land outside of development cluster areas, to be retired from farming and enhanced through native revegetation and protected. 4

Any subdivision or development application shall be accompanied by an implementation and management plan setting out:

a. the methods to protect any part of the Protection Areas located within the proposed subdivision or development; b. planting proposed to enhance nature conservation values and to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects of built development on landscape values; c. the methods to achieve at least 2ha of ecological protection and/or enhancement per rural lifestyle site or dwelling; d. the ongoing management of the planting to achieve these purposes; e. the methods for eradication and ongoing management of plant and animal pest species;

7. Any application that does not comply with Rules 2 – 6 above

Any application that does not comply with Rules 2 – 6 above is a non-complying activity.

8. Assessment: Restricted discretionary activities – buildings

8.1 Matters of discretion

In addition to the matters relating to buildings in the Countryside Living Zone and within the Outstanding Natural Landscape overlay, the Council will restrict its discretion to the matters below:

a. Location of buildings and landform b. External building design and external appearance c. Design and implementation of landscaping for visual mitigation

8.2 Assessment criteria

In addition to the matters relating to buildings in the Countryside Living Zone and within the Outstanding Natural Landscape overlay, the Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for the restricted discretionary activities listed above.

a. Location of buildings and landform

i. All buildings should be sited and designed so they do not visually intrude on any significant ridgeline or skyline when viewed from any road or other public place. ii. Residential development should not require extensive landform modification, and should generally be limited to that required to establish the setting and foundations of any dwellings and vehicle access. Areas of cut and fill should be visually screened by vegetation planting or buildings.

b. External building design and external appearance

i. The finishing of buildings, including final choice of colours and materials, complements the rural character of the surrounding environment. ii. The exterior finish of the building or structure has a reflectance value of equal to, or less than, 30 per cent as defined within the BS5252 standard colour palette.

c. Design and implementation of landscaping for visual mitigation

i. Existing trees and bush that make a significant contribution to the visual and environmental qualities of the site should be retained to the fullest extent practicable. ii. Landscape planting should be implemented, in conjunction with existing landform and vegetation, to ensure that any built structures or vehicle access are visually screened or softened when viewed from outside the Precinct.

9. Assessment: restricted discretionary activity – subdivision

9.1 Matters of discretion

In addition to the matters in H.5.4.1, the council will restrict its discretion to the matters below for subdivision within the Precinct.

a. Site size, layout and access. b. The location of, and building envelope for, any potential dwellings and the mitigation measures to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on rural character and amenity. c. The method of protection and enhancement of ecological values and the content of planting and management plans for the Protection Areas.

9.2 Assessment criteria

In addition to the matters in H.5.4.2, the Council will consider the assessment criteria below for subdivision within the Precinct:

a. Site size, layout and access: i. The site size, shape, contour and access should be suitable for the intended activities proposed for the lot while minimising effects on existing landform.

b. The location of, and building envelope for, any potential dwellings and the mitigation measures to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on rural character and amenity:

i. Sites should take advantage of the topography taking into account views and accessibility. ii. The layout of sites should involve minimum disturbance to existing stands of native vegetation. iii. The building area should not be on a prominent ridge, knoll or skyline, where buildings would be visually prominent in the landscape or detract from rural amenities when viewed from any road or other public place.

c. The method of protection and enhancement of ecological values and the content of planting and management plans for the Protection Areas;

i. The methods for protecting the vegetation and ecological values in the Protection Areas, including but not limited to fencing, covenanting, or ownership structure, should be practical and extend in perpetuity. ii. New planting and enhancement planting within the Protection Areas should be for the benefit of nature conservation values on an ongoing basis.

10. Special Information Requirements

Any application for subdivision or development shall be accompanied by an assessment of:

a. The existing ecological values of the area subject to the application;

b. An analysis of options and methods to restore, maintain and enhance existing and potential ecological values.

11. Precinct Plan

Level 10, 1 Kitchener St, PO Box 91839, AMC, AUCKLAND Phone (09) 377 5499, Fax (09) 377 2799

Level 1, The Forge, Athol Street, PO Box 1467, QUEENSTOWN Phone (03) 409 2258, Fax (03) 409 2259

www.brownandcompany.co.nz

11 September 2015

Auckland Council Unitary Plan Team

By Email: [email protected]

Attention: John Duguid

Dear John

RE: PROPOSED CHIN HILL PRECINCT – HATFIELDS BEACH

1. This letter relates to Primary Submission No. 6283 by Chin Hill Farm Limited which requests rezoning of a property containing 183.8 hectares located between Hatfield's Beach at the southern end, Waiwera at the northern end, the SH1 motorway to the west and the Hibiscus Coast Highway to the east. The submission seeks a range of alternative reliefs to enable development and use of the land for nature conservation and residential purposes.

2. This letter just addresses the issue of the proposed Chin Hill Precinct, in accordance with directions from the Council. Accompanying this letter are the proposed Precinct Provisions and Plan. This letter presupposes an underlying zoning of Countryside Living which is not addressed in this letter. The ultimate presentation to the Hearing Panel will seek an underlying zoning of Countryside Living with the Chin Hill Precinct as a proposed overlay.

3. The purpose of the Precinct is clearly stated in the attached Precinct provisions. The Precinct addresses the basic issue which is the appropriate sustainable management of this land resource. The Chin Hill Precinct land is currently partly pastoral and partly covered in significant areas of native bush, plus some waterways and wetlands. Farming or some other form of rural production could only be carried out at the expense of loss of significant environmental values, and even then would not be economically viable. Conservation values of the land are currently being lost through predation and lack of conservation management. The Chin Hill Precinct proposes to achieve a sustainable management outcome enabling protection and enhancement of significant ecological values, together with an appropriate extent of rural living which will provide the economic base for the ongoing sustainable management of the land.

4. There are no recent plan changes that are relevant.

5. Part of the Chin Hill Precinct is subject to an existing Significant Ecological Area overlay. That overlay is reflected in the Precinct provisions and Precinct Plan. The SEA will be fully protected in perpetuity and its values will be enhanced by ongoing management control of pest plant and animal species.

6. Part of the Precinct is subject to an existing Outstanding Natural Landscape overlay. The relevant ONL objectives and policies will be achieved through the Precinct Plan Provisions which require development to be located where it can be absorbed into the landscape while maintaining overall landscape values. The detailed degree of planning inherent in the Precinct Plan enables and justifies restricted discretionary activity status within identified development areas. 7. Much of the land subject to the ONL overlay also contains significant ecological values in areas of existing native bush and wetlands. Those ecological values will be significantly enhanced. Out of the total 183.8 hectares:

(a) 41.5 hectares, containing the existing native bush and wetland values, will be significantly enhanced through infill revegetation plus control of pest plant and animal species;

(b) 99 hectares of existing pastoral land will be retired from farming and fully revegetated in native bush, together with ongoing control of pest plant and animal species.

8. The nature of the land within the Precinct is such that a master-planned approach is required to achieve the specific ecological outcomes which underpin the purpose of the Precinct. Due to the need for this master-planned approach, the purpose of the Precinct could not be achieved through the use of the (proposed) underlying Countryside Living zone and Auckland-wide provisions, because those provisions do not have the specificity or certainty needed to ensure the desired outcomes.

9. The Precinct promotes outcomes that are quite distinct from the generality of Countryside Living Zone subdivision and development outcomes, the cluster arrangement, and the ecological protection mechanisms. These desired outcomes are better promoted by way of a Precinct than by resource consent(s).

10. The proposal only changes the zoning of a small part of the current rural zone. The appropriate way to achieve the desired outcomes is re-zoning the land for Countryside Living and then applying the Precinct overlay to ensure achievement of the specific ecological outcomes anticipated.

11. The proposed Precinct is not already enabled through any existing resource consent.

12. The Precinct Plan structure is simple, consisting of only one layer which identifies Protection Areas totalling in excess of 160 hectares, rural lifestyle cluster areas comprising approximately 20 hectares (although areas of that land will also be revegetated as a consequence of detailed site planning) plus provision for vehicle access.

13. The Chin Hill Precinct contains eight existing titles in the same ownership. Therefore Precinct boundaries follow existing land ownership property boundaries.

14. The Precinct uses the PAUP definitions.

Supporting Information

15. The existing layers in the proposed PAUP part of the site are:

(a) Significant Ecological Area layer – affects part of the site;

(b) Outstanding Natural Landscape layer – affects part of the site.

16. The accompanying Precinct Plan provisions include objectives, policies, activity table, development and use controls, notification provisions, matters of discretion, assessment criteria and special information requirements.

17. The Chin Hill Precinct proposal is supported by the following maps:

(a) PDF zoning map showing the extent of the Precinct; and

(b) Precinct Plan map. Please feel free to call me at 021 529 745 if you have any questions or would like any further information. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet to discuss the proposed Precinct.

Yours sincerely Brown & Company Planning Group

Jeff Brown Chin Hill-lett-AC-10Sept15

ATTACHMENT F: Merit Based Assessment of New Precincts

Is the precinct area or part thereof subject to an operative variation or resource consent under the Housing Accord Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHA)

Operative plan variations under HASHA result in any relevant PAUP submissions being withdrawn. All HASHA plan variations are constantly monitored by the Council to ensure that PAUP precinct assessments are not undertaken unnecessarily. In general, where a resource consent has been granted under HASHA a precinct is unlikely to be needed.

Does the precinct align with the strategic direction of the PAUP, i.e. RPS and zones? It is a requirement under sections 67 and 75 of the RMA that regional and district plans must give effect to the RPS. This is a high level review and is particularly important where precincts are inconsistent with the RPS.

Does the precinct conform with Council’s position on the RUB? Given the importance of the RUB to the PAUP’s land use strategy, this matter is considered separately from criterion 2 above.

Does the precinct avoid overriding overlays? The Council is seeking to ensure precincts only override overlays in exceptional circumstances and where the effects have been identified and managed in the precinct.

Is sufficient and appropriate infrastructure capacity available to support the development? Consideration is given to both site and network implications in relation to timing, operational standards and funding strategies. The level of consultation with the relevant infrastructure providers is also taken into account (ie. Auckland Transport, Watercare Services Limited and the Council’s stormwater unit).

Is the precinct outcome clearly stated? Can it be categorised against precinct types?

Precinct types are as explained in Section 4.1A of the PAUP.

Can the activity rely on existing use rights or existing resource consents or designations?

Precincts should not be developed where activities can rely on these methods. Precincts should not codify existing use rights or existing resource consents and should generally only cover matters not controlled by a designation.

Does the zone or Auckland-wide rules provide for this activity? The precinct provisions or part thereof may not be necessary if it is already managed elsewhere in the PAUP. The aim of this criterion is to avoid duplication and to rely on the zone and Auckland-wide rules in the first instance. As part of this assessment, the appropriateness of the underlying zone is considered.

Is there an existing precinct over this area in the notified PAUP? Only one precinct should be provided over a single area.

Does the precinct seek to control only 1 or 2 matters? Simple precincts which only manage one to two rule-based matters are potential candidates to be converted to spatially mapped zone rules.

Does the precinct result in significant or meaningful departure/variations from the underlying zone or Auckland-wide provisions which recognise place based differences/circumstances?

Minor changes to remove duplications and inconsequential differences are to be made in favour of the PAUP

Does the precinct give effect to a recent plan change or Environment Court decision?

Generally plan changes or Environment Court decisions over the last five years will be incorporated into the Plan in recognition of established community expectations and agreements.

For previously declined plan changes or Environment Court decisions does the precinct demonstrate significant new information or changed circumstances?

New precincts should not be used to re-litigate plan changes or Environment Court decisions.

Other matters These are matters specific to a particular precinct (if any). Such matters may include consultation undertaken by submitters and framework plans.