Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point General C E Henderson General Support general comments, objectives and policies in the proposed Plan and as outlined in the Section 32 report. Seek that Retain objectives and policies as stated. 17.6 Southland community be included in more consultation regarding “un-assessed” landscapes. Whole landscapes as well as vistas need protection. C and W General Oppose this section. The Plan if implemented will be impractical and potentially detrimental to the efficient operation of properties Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the McDonald affected by it. It will add yet another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and cost to our business. Consultation has been following: Delete the entire section and associated rules in 136.3 inadequate, either as a group or individual. We feel that the effects of this section could have a detrimental effect on our farming relation to landscapes. operation and impinge on our existing use rights as freehold property owners. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons PD Chartres t/a Te Support We agree with the concerns raised by the submitter Anau Downs, PD Chartres Trust and PD Chrtres and F Munster FS37.28
DOC General Support in part. Include in the planning maps the outstanding natural features 134.18 Southland has internationally significant landscapes that should be protected in the Plan. Also the sites identified in the and landscape of: New Zealand Geological Society Geopreservation Index should be recognised in the Plan and given appropriate protection to give Te Wahipounamu South West Fiordland World Heritage effect to S5, 6(e) and s31 of the RMA and in the coastal environment New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010, in particular Area, the neighbouring lands of the Waitutu Block Policy 15. Settlement Act 1997 that are managed as if National Park and adjacent covenanted areas between Waitutu and Wairaurahiri Rivers; Statutory Acknowledgement Areas or Töpuni sites such as Takitimu Range as outlined in Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998; The periglacial landscapes of Garvie, Old Woman, Old Man and Umbrella Ranges as outlined in the Land Information New Zealand Crown Pastoral Lease Conservation Resources Report on Glenaray Station and Gem Lake; and New Zealand Geological Society Geopreservation Sites; And include objectives, policies and rules to protect these sites. Amend the introduction to recognise the landscapes identified above, by amending the second sentence in the first paragraph to read: The District is encompassed by a range of landscapes, from those dominated by natural processes and patterns such as those in Fiordland National Park and what is recognised internationally as Te Wahipounamu Southwest Fiordland World Heritage Area; and Rakiura National Parks and surrounding lands such as Tutae-Ka-Wetoweto lands protected under the Tutae-Ka-Wetoweto Forest Act 2001; to those which reflect human modification and settlement such as “working‟ rural landscapes and urban areas. Notable natural landforms and geological features also form a key part of the District‟s landscapes. Amend the last sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction to: • Te Anau Scenic Zones Visibility/Visual Landscape Assessment 2010; • Ecological studies of a marine terrace sequence in
Form - Summary of Further Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 1 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point the Waitutu Ecological District of southern New Zealand. Part 1: The vegetation and soil patterns. New Zealand 1988; • Marine terraces of Waitutu District and their relation to the late Cenozoic tectonics of southern Fiordland region. New Zealand 1988. • Crown Pastoral Lease Tenure Review Reports (in particular, Glenary/Whitecoomb Conservation Resources Report 2006); • New Zealand Geological Society Geopreservation Sites (New Zealand Geopreservation Inventory MfE Website). http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/metadata/lan d-rep/page31.html Amend the last sentence in the third paragraph to read: It is expected that identified Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes will not change significantly over time as a result of subdivision, land use and development. Amend the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the explanation to read: Areas of the Southland District where Outstanding Natural Features and landscape values have not been assessed to date, include: • The Inland Mountains (Takitimu, Livingston, Eyre, Garvie, Old Woman, Old Man, and Umbrella Ranges); • The Southland Hills (Longwoods, Taringatura‟s, Hokonui‟s and Inland Catlins) in particular the extent of nationally significant features of the Southland geosyncline; • The Southland Valleys and Plains (Lower Waiau Valley, Waimea Plains, Southland Plains).
As natural feature and landscape assessments of these areas are undertaken, Council, through the Plan change process, may will identify and protect additional Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes and Visual Amenity Landscapes. If a resource consent application is made for quarrying, construction of cuts and embankments such as for a new road, or for clearance of indigenous vegetation, it is essential that any outstanding landscapes or natural features are identified and the effects of the activity on those landscapes or features identified and assessed Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Federated Farmers Oppose Any such inclusion of additional outstanding natural features and landscapes should follow a complete and appropriate assessment, FS14.41 engagement and consultation with those affected. This would include neighbouring landowners to conservation lands. Meridian Energy Ltd Oppose in part The identification of ONFL should be undertaken as part of an integrated assessment. It is not appropriate to include all of the areas and FS9.18 sites within the Geopreservation Index as automatically being ONFL. While this index may provide a useful resource to inform any future study it is not appropriate to be included in the District Plan as sought.
NZ Landcare Trust General Support. It is good to recognise the two tiers of landscape values. Also support the need for landscape assessments to be Retain as stated. 161.11 undertaken where development is proposed.
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 2 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point C Stewart General Support in part, but the assessment of significant areas needs to be prioritised. Areas and landscapes assessed and documented throughout 202.2 Southland before any further related consents are considered.
NZ Institute of General Support, however there is concern as to whether the ONFL and VAL overlay boundaries have been adequately assessed. Not stated. It is considered the submitter is requesting the Surveyors following: 244.4 Further investigations into areas covered by overlays. A and R Johnston General Support section in general but more support may be required at a local level. Further initiatives such as education with the local Maori 279.5 Culture and native species planting to assist with implementation of this section. Fulton Hogan and General Support. Retain section as notified Southern Aggregates 240.7 Southland General Activities have often been developed on unsuitable land for the activity eg, dairy farming on peat soils, therefore a policy and rule Insert new policy and rule should be included to ensure land Conservation is required to avoid this type of inappropriate land use. and its inherent soil type can sustain a given activity. Board 115.18 Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Federated Farmers Oppose The plan adequately addresses protection when it is appropriate and is consistent with RMA. Not effects based, outside scope of district FS14.42 plan. PD Chartres t/a Te Oppose The plan adequately addresses any such protection when it is appropriate, necessary and where consistent with priorities and intent of the Anau Downs, PD RMA. Not effects based, outside scope of District Plan Chartres Trust and PD Chartres and F Munster FS37.29
Growplan Ltd General Concerned that the assessment was made on short notice and may result in excess litigation. Concerned also wit the point More time and resources be made available to ensure that 286.1 sampling approach that was taken which does no approximate human vision sufficiently. (It is considered the submitter is referring visual assessment is robust and less able to be challenged, to the Boffa Miskell report). and more points are use in the further analysis. Review the ONFL and VAL assessment and resulting overlays. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Rayonier NZ Support Concur with the reasons set out in the submission FS5.19
D Baker General Oppose need for planning permission regarding visual impact. Farmers already face undue restrictions and do not require further Eliminate need for planning permission regarding visual 233.2 regulation. impact relating farmland. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Federated Farmers Support FF opposes any protection of an ideal, landscape or amenity that is there as a result of the activities you would expect to find in the rural FS14.43 zone. Delete Visual Amenity Landscapes from the plan. Rayonier NZ Support Concur with the reasons set out in the submission FS5.20 PD Chartres t/a Te Support We oppose any protection of a rural ideal, landscape or amenity that largely involves working landscapes there as a result of the activities Anau Downs, PD you would expect to find in the rural zone. We therefore oppose the idea of visual amenity landscapes. This goes beyond the requirements Chartres Trust and of the RMA. Any reference to VAL should be deleted from the plan in its entirety PD Chartres and F Munster FS37.30
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 3 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point
Taramea (Howells General A management plan has been prepared after public consultation and outlines the future development plans for the land. As the The council to work with Taramea Management Committee Point) tangata whenua of the land, spiritual and cultural values will guide any developments and would undertake them sympathetically and Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Tribal Property division to Management to the coastal land form. overcome any impediment to the planned longer term Committee development aspirations of Tangata Whenua on Taramea 274.3 B Kane General - Visual Oppose. In particular in the area of Ramparts Road. Creates a restrictive, additional regulatory cost and process and uncertainty Retain the same rules/regulations approved by Council at the 155.1 Amenity Landscapes in the planning process. This could inhibit the use of the land as intended at time of purchase. time of the subdivision which created the Ramparts Road and Method NFL.1 Support the use of Non-Regulatory Method NFL.1 to encourage their protection through use of non-regulatory design guidelines. subdivision. R/12/12/22739 - Section 2.1 Instead utilise a non-regulatory approach to encourage their R/12/12/22744 - Section 2.4 protection instead of rules. R/12/12/22745 - Section 2.5 G M Bell General - Lakeside Support the imposition of the 12 m height restriction in the commercial area of the Te Anau Township. Oppose the ability to Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the 19.2 Protection Area construct structures up to 12 m high on the land between the Golf Course Road, SH95, Lakefront Drive, Te Anau Terrace, and the following: - Te Anau Lake; and including the land surrounding the walkway that extends from the boat harbour round to the mouth of the Amend the Lakeside Protection Area provisions to provide Upukeroa River. more protection from development in the specified areas of The land around the bottom of the lake as it regenerates provides a natural corridor and connection between the national park and land around Lake Te Anau. the township for recreation and connection with nature. This land should be protected from further development (relates also to Include this part of the Lake Front in the Fiordland/Rakiura Urban and Fiordland/Rakiura Zones). Zone. Colac Bay Vision General - Outstanding All properties along Colac Foreshore Road from Bungalow Hill Road to the surf shed outside 350 Colac Foreshore Road should The properties described should be zoned as Colac Bay Limited Natural Feature be zoned the same as Colac Bay Township because they are small allotments and are adjacent to an area of heavy recreational Township and not as an Outstanding Natural Landscape 10.1 use for boating, fishing and freedom camping (shown on Map 36B). (Map 36B).
P Robertson General - Outstanding Oppose. Object to being identified as an Outstanding Natural Feature/Landscape at 744 Papatotara Road. Seek justification for the farm at 744 Papatotara Road being 124.2 Natural identified as an Outstanding Natural Feature/Landscape, Feature/Landscape while surrounding farms are not. P D Hampton General - Visual Oppose rezoning of land to Visual Amenity Landscapes and the costs that would be associated with increased consent Not stated. It is considered that the submitter is requesting the 186.1 Amenity Landscapes requirements. following: Retain current zoning and associated rules. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Rayonier NZ Support Concur with the reasons set out in the submission FS5.21 Orepuki CDA Support It is noted that a large number of submissions are opposing the VAL overlay and rules. This further submission supports only a selection of FS11.11 those submissions for practicality reasons. What we find with the majority of the proposed Visual Amenity Areas to date is a completely modified foreground that only in a percentage of areas leads to a natural background view. The Orepuki CDA agrees that there is some development that is inappropriate for some areas however we see a very real need to identify the types of development that are appropriate and ensure that we do not disenable appropriate development by applying broad brush regulatory constraint. The Visual Amenity areas will occur extra cost and is likely to stall the type of development that our community wants to see.
M D Cave General - Visual The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values is recognised in s7 of the RMA along with 10 other matters, all of which All reference to Visual Amenity Landscapes be deleted from 219.5 Amenity Landscapes have similar weight. Council does not have the power to establish specific designations relating to amenity over defined areas the Plan. under this section. The RMA, also only identified two landscapes (“outstanding natural features and landscapes, and the remaining landscapes”), and the District Plan is creating a third category “Visual Amenity Landscapes”. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Federated Farmers Support FF oppose the idea of visual amenity landscapes and consider that these should be deleted from the plan in its entirety. Oppose the FS14.44 protection of a rural ideal, landscape or amenity that is there as a result of the activities you would expect in the rural zone. PD Chartres t/a Te Support We oppose any protection of a rural ideal, landscape or amenity that largely involves working landscapes there as a result of the activities Anau Downs, PD you would expect to find in the rural zone. We therefore oppose the idea of visual amenity landscapes. This goes beyond the requirements Chartres Trust and of the RMA. Any reference to VAL should be deleted from the plan in its entirety PD Chartres and F
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 4 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point Munster FS37.30 Orepuki CDA Support It is noted that a large number of submissions are opposing the VAL overlay and rules. This further submission supports only a selection of FS11.11 those submissions for practicality reasons. What we find with the majority of the proposed Visual Amenity Areas to date is a completely modified foreground that only in a percentage of areas leads to a natural background view. The Orepuki CDA agrees that there is some development that is inappropriate for some areas however we see a very real need to identify the types of development that are appropriate and ensure that we do not disenable appropriate development by applying broad brush regulatory constraint. The Visual Amenity areas will occur extra cost and is likely to stall the type of development that our community wants to see.
Genesis Power General - Visual Oppose. Remove all references to Visual Amenity Landscapes from Limited Amenity Landscapes While the Plan notes that Visual Amenity Landscapes have been identified in response to Section 7 of the Resource Management the Plan. 5.5 Act 1991, it is contended that Visual Amenity Landscapes are not defined nor required by the RMA. Furthermore, the Section 32 analysis has not sufficiently evaluated the inclusion of Visual Amenity Landscapes within the Plan, nor 1. The extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA; and 2. Whether the proposed policies and methods are the most appropriate way in which to achieve the objectives in terms of their efficiency and effectiveness. While relatively confined (to the Coastal Environment and in the Te Anau Basin), the inclusion of these landscapes in the Plan add additional landscape requirements when considering development within the District. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Federated Farmers Support FF opposes any protection of an ideal, landscape or amenity that is there as a result of the activities you would expect to find in the rural FS14.45 zone. Delete Visual Amenity Landscapes from the plan. Rayonier NZ Support Concur with the reasons set out in the submission FS5.11 J M McKay Oppose Significant landscapes such as those behind Riverton should be identified and protected. FS44.6 J Stewart Oppose SDC need to have robust processes in place to ensure respect and preservation for natural features and outstanding landscapes FS42.10 PD Chartres t/a Te Support We oppose any protection of a rural ideal, landscape or amenity that largely involves working landscapes there as a result of the activities Anau Downs, PD you would expect to find in the rural zone. We therefore oppose the idea of visual amenity landscapes. This goes beyond the requirements Chartres Trust and of the RMA. Any reference to VAL should be deleted from the plan in its entirety PD Chartres and F Munster FS37.31 Orepuki CDA Support It is noted that a large number of submissions are opposing the VAL overlay and rules. This further submission supports only a selection of FS11.11 those submissions for practicality reasons. What we find with the majority of the proposed Visual Amenity Areas to date is a completely modified foreground that only in a percentage of areas leads to a natural background view. The Orepuki CDA agrees that there is some development that is inappropriate for some areas however we see a very real need to identify the types of development that are appropriate and ensure that we do not disenable appropriate development by applying broad brush regulatory constraint. The Visual Amenity areas will occur extra cost and is likely to stall the type of development that our community wants to see. Transpower Support It is unclear from the planning maps where the visual amenity landscapes are and where the final map boundary of these areas will be FS38.10 without the summary of submissions on the maps section. Transpower is concerned with how the visual amenity landscape provisions could affect the operation, maintenance and development of the National grid. Chorus NZ Support Support reducing emphasis on the protection of landscapes that are not “outstanding”, and supports the submitters opposition to the FS35.2 concept of “visual amenity landscapes”. This is particularly as the kind of landscape is not referred to in the RMA - it is a local construct that Telecom has inadequate justification when the RMA and RPS are focussed on outstanding landscapes. FS45.2
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 5 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point K W Fiordland Ltd General - Visual Oppose. Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the (L Wicks and Amenity Landscapes The zoning of our land as Visual Amenity Landscapes will incur additional costs in developing our property. following: H Kraak) Why is the Landcorp Farm area known to be ear marked for future development not covered by this zoning as well? Remove the requirement for resource consent. 13.4 We have had no direct consultation with the Council regarding the proposal to include a new zone excluding building. This shows Review the extent of the Visual Amenity Landscapes zoning. a huge lack of transparency shown by the Southland District Council with regard to this whole protect. And The inclusion of our property within this zone will have a dramatic negative effect on our property value and future development Remove the Visual Amenity Landscapes Zone from this opportunities. specific property. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Rayonier NZ Support Concur with the reasons set out in the submission FS5.22
N Robertson General - Visual Oppose the extent of the identified landscapes, particularly along Kakapo and Wetland Roads. The area is too large and Review the extent of the identified landscapes and related 20.1 Amenity Landscapes ambiguous. More thought is needed to where this change should be made - ie, practice V‟s theory. rules. Remove the identified Visual Amenity Landscapes from areas along Kakapo and Wetland Roads. P and R Ward General - Visual Oppose the expansion of the Scenic Resource Area. Object to the arbitrariness of our farm inclusion and onerous conditions Remove the Visual Amenity Landscapes Zone from this 23.1 Amenity Landscapes associated with the classification. There are no special visual features on our farm. Rural social conditions have not been specific property. understood by this proposal in terms of the need for rural accommodation for farm workers. Orepuki CDA General - Visual Oppose. The areas are dubious in their existence due to the nature of the amenity area. The rural towns that exist within these That the Visual Amenity Landscapes is removed from 65.5 Amenity Landscapes landscapes are more closely aligned to Urban Amenity values and will be forced into the resource consent area for any activity identified Rural Residential Settlement Areas. that would otherwise be considered appropriate. Development within these areas should be considered appropriate and enabled. The existing layout of the townships as surveyed provides for roads and esplanades that will maintain the viewing amenity of that is appropriate in a residential area. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Orepuki CDA Support It is noted that a large number of submissions are opposing the VAL overlay and rules. This further submission supports only a selection of FS11.11 those submissions for practicality reasons. What we find with the majority of the proposed Visual Amenity Areas to date is a completely modified foreground that only in a percentage of areas leads to a natural background view. The Orepuki CDA agrees that there is some development that is inappropriate for some areas however we see a very real need to identify the types of development that are appropriate and ensure that we do not disenable appropriate development by applying broad brush regulatory constraint. The Visual Amenity areas will occur extra cost and is likely to stall the type of development that our community wants to see.
C Brockman General - Visual Oppose in part. Uplift the Visual Amenity Landscapes designation from 110.1 Amenity Landscapes The Visual Amenity Landscapes covers my section at 880 Haldane-Curio Bay. This designation may have a severe impact on a 880 Haldane-Curio Bay Road. potential single family home residence with little to no Visual Amenity Impact benefit to the rural neighbour nor the general public. The topography (a highly banked hill) almost completely removes my section from the bordering Haldane-Curio Bay (unpaved) Road view. This view is the only adjacent public viewpoint possible (see submission point 110.1 in Section 3.1 Rural also). O Buckingham General - Visual Oppose the Te Anau Basin being zoned as a “Visual Amenity Landscapes”. For the following reasons: Retain “Status Quo” zoning on this land. 135.1 Amenity Landscapes • This proposal will impede economic growth and development. - Te Anau • The high cost associated with resource consent. • The cost to ratepayers in administering this change. • Puts rural landowners in Te Anau at a disadvantage to other southland landowners. • Creates the opportunity for individuals/organisations to frustrate and delay proposals. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Orepuki CDA Support It is noted that a large number of submissions are opposing the VAL overlay and rules. This further submission supports only a selection of FS11.11 those submissions for practicality reasons. What we find with the majority of the proposed Visual Amenity Areas to date is a completely modified foreground that only in a percentage of areas leads to a natural background view. The Orepuki CDA agrees that there is some development that is inappropriate for some areas however we see a very real need to identify the types of development that are appropriate and ensure that we do not disenable appropriate development by applying broad brush regulatory constraint. The Visual
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 6 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point Amenity areas will occur extra cost and is likely to stall the type of development that our community wants to see.
G and A Still General - Visual Oppose the imposition of Visual Amenity Landscapes provisions over the area from Wetlands Road through to the Upukeroa for Remove Wetlands Road subdivision from this overlay. 137.1 Amenity Landscapes the following reasons: • It is a breach of human rights to be told where to build, what height, colour, plantings etc • Wetlands Road already has covenants on it and is located in an area that is not highly visible. • There seems to be a big inconsistency of allocation of the expanded landscape area and there should be one rule for all. • The requirement for resource consent will add substantially to an already expensive building project. • These restrictions will discourage prospective purchases of our properties in the future. T and W Holder General - Visual Oppose. Patience Bay properties already have restrictive covenants, now further restrictions will inhibit our proposed use of the Patience Bay properties be left out of the Visual Amenity 139.1 Amenity Landscapes land (see also submission point 139.2 in Rural summary section). Landscapes Zoning which requires resource consent. A and S Mouat General - Visual Oppose any building over 2 m requiring a resource consent. This is not fair as some garden sheds and glasshouses are just over Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the 147.3 Amenity Landscapes two metres (see also submission point 147.3 in the Rural Zone summary). following: Delete the Visual Amenity Layer and associated rules in the rural zone. Environment General - Visual This tiered approach to landscape categories is supported in part. However Environment Southland seeks alignment with the That all references to “Visual Amenity Landscapes” Southland Amenity Landscapes terminology used in the PSRPS 2012 which refers to “Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes” and “Locally Distinctive and throughout the District Plan to be replaced with “Locally 16.24 Valued Natural Features and Landscapes”. Distinctive and Valued Natural Features and Landscapes”. It is noted there are a number of areas within the Southland District that have not been assessed for their landscape significance. Environment Southland encourages a region wide collaborative process to assess and identify landscapes and natural features. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Rayonier NZ Oppose Visual amenity landscape is consistent with other regional and district council naming. No need to make the naming of something more FS5.23 difficult as all this does is confuses those interpreting the plan. Meridian Energy Ltd Oppose in part Meridian accepts that a District Plan needs to give effect to a Regional Policy Statement and achieving consistency where possible is FS9.19 beneficial. However the provisions in the PSRPS 2012 are not settled and may be subject to change. Therefore provisions that are under challenge, including reference to landscape types, should not be inserted into the District Plan.
A Sutherland General - Visual It is assumed the submitter is opposed to this overlay. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the 122.1 Amenity Landscapes We have wetlands and proposed building sites in this zone, some of which are already approved. following: Delete the overlay from their property - 681 Manapouri Road. L Grace General - Visual Support protection of Jacobs Estuary. Not stated. It is considered the submitter is requesting the 237.2 Amenity Landscapes following: Retain visual amenity overlay over Jacobs Estuary. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons J Stewart Support Protect Jacobs Estuary. Retain visual amenity overlay. And protect from damage from runoff and nutrients from farming FS42.11
G Halder General - Visual Oppose (it is considered the submitter is referring to the Visual Amenity provisions of the proposed District Plan). The town itself Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the 278.1 Amenity Landscapes is an insult to this proposal as already the lake is obscured by new developments. Would ornamental trees need approval under following: the proposal? Is the farmland seen as offensive in today‟s world? The Plan is a gross waste of money and resources. Clarification over what would require approval or the deletion of the provisions relating to Visual Amenity Landscapes. S Vergeer General - Visual Oppose the Visual Amenity Landscapes proposal. Soon farmers will not be able to farm their land as it will no longer be able to do Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the 256.1 Amenity Landscapes so due to restrictions, red tape and costs. following: Remove the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay and rules throughout the Plan. B J Taylor General - Visual Oppose the Visual Amenity Landscapes proposal as it makes it impractical for any future farming decisions and increases the Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the 257.1 Amenity Landscapes costs. following: Remove the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay and rules throughout the Plan.
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 7 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point Te Anau General - Visual In conjunction with areas identified as “Visual Amenity Landscapes” we believe the height restriction should include trees, Make height restrictions also apply to trees. Community Board Amenity Landscapes particularly relating to those in the Urban Zone. 216.1 Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Rayonier NZ Oppose It is inconsistent with the intent of our submission FS5.24
G Turnbull General - Visual Oppose. These rules will have negative implications for earthworks contractors and will affect our own personal land use (see See decision requested in Rural Zone - submission point 166.3, Amenity Landscapes comments in the Rural Zone Summary Sheet also). 166.3. B Cochrane 167.3, G MacKay 172.3 Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Rayonier NZ Support Concur with the reasons set out in the submission FS5.6 K. Mitchell Support Support B. Cochrane‟s submission in general FS6.1
W and S Redwood General - Visual Object to the proposed re-zoning of areas within the Te Anau Basin as scenic resulting in stricter consent requirements on private The areas to be rezoned to Visual Amenity Landscapes be 225.1 Amenity Landscapes property. Some areas are not visible to the public but have been re-zoned while other areas that are more visible to the public reassessed, in particular Wetland Road. have not. N and J Excell General - Visual Strongly oppose the rural land in the Te Anau Basin and on the south coast be zoned as Visual Amenity Landscapes. Who will Retain „status quo‟ zoning on this land. 284.1 Amenity Landscapes benefit from the proposed changes? This will give Council increased control over how landowners use their land and will stifle development and economic growth. There would also be an increased cost and use of resources due to the increased consenting requirements. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Orepuki CDA Support It is noted that a large number of submissions are opposing the VAL overlay and rules. This further submission supports only a selection of FS11.11 those submissions for practicality reasons. What we find with the majority of the proposed Visual Amenity Areas to date is a completely modified foreground that only in a percentage of areas leads to a natural background view. The Orepuki CDA agrees that there is some development that is inappropriate for some areas however we see a very real need to identify the types of development that are appropriate and ensure that we do not disenable appropriate development by applying broad brush regulatory constraint. The Visual Amenity areas will occur extra cost and is likely to stall the type of development that our community wants to see.
J Carter General - Visual Support the Visual Amenity Landscapes zone and the recognition given to the landscapes special features. Retain zoning. 280.1 Amenity Landscapes R A and M J General - Visual Oppose limitation of height of construction to two metres before needing resource consent for those areas that were zoned scenic Wider information and consultation prior to making changes Youldon Amenity Landscapes - reserve under the Operative Plan. such as these. 187.2 Te Anau Remove the requirement for resource consent for buildings in the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay. V B Burch General - Visual Oppose the rezoning of parts of Te Anau Basin as Visual Amenity Landscapes, and the limitation on buildings heights to two Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the 192.2 Amenity Landscapes - metres with colour limitations and the choice of location without a costly consent. following: Te Anau Remove the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay resource consent requirements. R Smith General - Visual Oppose the rezoning of parts of the Te Anau Basin as Visual Amenity Landscapes. There has been a lack of consultation on the Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the 193.2 Amenity Landscapes - proposed rezoning. following: Te Anau Remove the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay from Te Anau Basin.
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 8 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Orepuki CDA Support It is noted that a large number of submissions are opposing the VAL overlay and rules. This further submission supports only a selection of FS11.11 those submissions for practicality reasons. What we find with the majority of the proposed Visual Amenity Areas to date is a completely modified foreground that only in a percentage of areas leads to a natural background view. The Orepuki CDA agrees that there is some development that is inappropriate for some areas however we see a very real need to identify the types of development that are appropriate and ensure that we do not disenable appropriate development by applying broad brush regulatory constraint. The Visual Amenity areas will occur extra cost and is likely to stall the type of development that our community wants to see.
C A Hampton General - Visual Oppose rezoning of land to Visual Amenity Landscapes, and the lack of consultation on the zoning changes. Proposal removed from the proposed District Plan and if 189.1 Amenity Landscapes - necessary re-proposed with information in a form that can be Te Anau understood by the public, and consultation with all affected landowners. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Orepuki CDA Support It is noted that a large number of submissions are opposing the VAL overlay and rules. This further submission supports only a selection of FS11.11 those submissions for practicality reasons. What we find with the majority of the proposed Visual Amenity Areas to date is a completely modified foreground that only in a percentage of areas leads to a natural background view. The Orepuki CDA agrees that there is some development that is inappropriate for some areas however we see a very real need to identify the types of development that are appropriate and ensure that we do not disenable appropriate development by applying broad brush regulatory constraint. The Visual Amenity areas will occur extra cost and is likely to stall the type of development that our community wants to see.
Manapouri General - Visual Oppose limitation of height of construction to two metres before needing resource consent for those areas that were zoned Wider information and consultation prior to making changes Community Amenity Landscapes - Scenic Reserve under the Operative Plan. such as these. Development Area Te Anau Subcommittee 262.2 S Slee General - Visual Oppose. Retain “status quo” zoning on this land. 146.1, Amenity Landscapes - The proposal will impede economic growth and development. M Slee Te Anau Costs imposed on landowners to go through resource consent process and costs to ratepayers to administer this change. 154.1 Disadvantages rural landowners in Te Anau more than other Southland landowners with regard to potential land use change. Creates opportunities for other organisations / individuals to frustrate legitimate development proposals. (See also submission point 146.1 under the Rural Zone summary - affects rules the rural zone also.) R Smith General - Visual Oppose. Against any changes to the District Plan for the Te Anau Basin area. Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the 162.2 Amenity Landscapes - following: Te Anau Delete the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay and associated provisions. Fiordland Aero General - Visual Oppose. Council has not had the decency to consult with the individual landowners on this issue. Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the Club Amenity Landscapes - It restricts development and places unnecessary restrictions on landowners. following: 164.1 Te Anau The area is too vast. Delete the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay and associated restrictions. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Rayonier NZ Support Concur with the reasons set out in the submission FS5.25
R Pearce General - Visual Oppose. Strongly object to rezoning parts of Te Anau Basin Visual Amenity Landscapes. Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the 165.1 Amenity Landscapes - following: Te Anau Delete the Visual Amenity Landscapes and associated restrictions. W Hames General - Visual Oppose. Not stated. It is assumed that the submitter requests the 169.1. Amenity Landscapes - These restrictions on land in Te Anau (as shown on the map in the Fiordland Advocate) will make it impossible to improve the following: A Hames Te Anau land. Delete the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay and 173.1, associated restrictions on development.
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 9 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point M. Hames 175.1
P and S Goble General - Visual Oppose. This will severely restrict our options for relocating a house onto our land and further intentions to subdivide. Extra costs Not stated. It is assumed that the submitter requests the 179.1 Amenity Landscapes - will be imposed on us. The extent of the overlay seems unfair with one side of the state highway being treated differently to the following: Te Anau other. Delete the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay and associated restrictions on development. B Campbell General - Visual Oppose. It is not in the best interests of the Te Anau Community and 144.5 Amenity Landscapes - The cost/benefit relationship is flawed. should be removed in its entirety. Te Anau The rules will encumber the existing property owners and their rights which effect peoples livelihoods. At no time have consultants or Council staff approached any of the landowners to seek their scrutiny. Council has ignored the submission process made to Council on the Boffa Miskell Report which is against RMA process. G M Bell General - Visual In the Te Anau area the current Scenic Resource Area is considered an Outstanding Landscape and significant resource in terms Retain Scenic Resource Area status as an outstanding 19.1 Amenity Landscapes - of Section 6 of the Act. The proposed expansion and amendment to Visual Amenity Landscapes devalues this landscape from landscape. Te Anau being Outstanding and Significant to a mere amenity. This signals Council no longer cares about those matters outlined in Section 6 of the Act. M and B Hagen General - Visual Oppose. The Visual Amenity Landscapes restrict development around Manapouri in the future, and the areas are too vast for Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the 289.1 Amenity Landscapes - farm land that landowners have developed at their own expense only to have Council place restrictions on them. following: Te Anau Removal or amendment to the areas covered by Visual Amenity Landscapes. N Lamb General - Visual Oppose expansion of scenic resource area. In the interests of road safety sightseeing while driving should not be encouraged. Review boundaries and need or benefit of the overlay. 258.1 Amenity Landscapes - The landscape in the Te Anau Basin has been highly modified by the development of farms. The reasons some areas and not Investigate developing more scenic viewpoints along state Te Anau others have been included in the Visual Amenity overlay are not clear. The overlay also puts restrictions on the development of highways, promoting road safety and not imposing the airport when the airport was put there to encourage development. unnecessary restrictions on rural landowners S Robertson General - Visual Strongly object to the rezoning of parts of Te Anau Basin in visual amenity. Not rezone parts of Te Anau Basin Visual Amenity 283.1 Amenity Landscapes - Landscapes. Te Anau W Baxter General - Outstanding Oppose in part. The 2006 Landscape Plan determined areas of high natural landscape values for the District Plan. This did not Classification and justification of the allocation of High 111.1 and Visual Amenity accurately and consistently determine values in the Hump Burn area of Te Waewae Bay. landscape value to land along Papatotara Coast Road. Landscapes
Introduction Forest and Bird Introduction Support in part. There are a number of areas dominated by natural processes that should be included. While they may not have Add the following: 215.22 been assessed for planning purposes, many have been assessed in various documents. There is a danger that potentially Landscapes reflect relationships between landform, land outstanding natural features and landscapes will be adversely affected before assessments and Plan changes are completed. In cover and land use and continue to evolve through natural the mean time Council should use the resource consent process to ensure that potentially outstanding natural features and and cultural processes. landscapes are not adversely affected. The District is encompassed by a range of landscapes, from those dominated by natural processes and patterns such as those in Fiordland National Park, all lands within the Te Wahipounamu Southwest Fiordland World Heritage Area, ;Catlins Rainforest Park, Eyre Mountains Taka Ra Haka Conservation Park, Mavora Lakes Park and Rakiura National Parks; to those which reflect human modification and settlement such as “working‟ rural landscapes and urban areas…….. Activities located in areas of with Outstanding Natural Features and/or Landscapes should will be managed to ensure that outstanding values are protected from inappropriate subdivision, land use and development. It is expected that identified Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes will not change significantly over time as a result of subdivision, land use and development. …… As landscape assessments of these areas are undertaken, Council, through the Plan change process, may Council will
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 10 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point identify and protect additional Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes and Visual Amenity Landscapes, by completing a District wide assessment and introducing Plan changes by 2015. In order to ensure that potentially outstanding natural features and landscapes are not adversely affected resource consents will be required to assess the values of landscapes and natural features and the potential effects of proposed activities, using specific criteria Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Rayonier NZ Oppose In some instances indigenous vegetation is removed or modified to allow for the continuance of the land use. It is unreasonable make non- FS5.16 complying and this could severely impact current land use activities which contribute significantly to the district. Timeframes should not be imposed, this can rush the process and see consultation cut short to meet deadlines. PD Chartres t/a Te Oppose The potential to extend areas classified as ONFL and VAL creates further uncertainty for landowners and resource consent applications. Anau Downs, PD Time and Costs associated with resource consent applications would be unreasonably increased through the requirement to include a Chartres Trust and landscape assessment for any application. PD Chartres and F Munster FS37.32 Meridian Energy Ltd Oppose The current approach within the District Plan relating to the need to identify ONFL is appropriate. Once these areas are identified the FS9.20 appropriate way for these to be inserted into the DP is by way of a Plan Change to enable community participation.
Catlins Coast Inc Introduction Tourism is promoted based on the concept of significant landscapes and these need to be protected. Council needs to prioritise The Catlins landscape as a whole should be identified as an 191.1 the assessment of priority 3 areas that have not been done and include public Southland opinion in this classification. area of significance prior to the Plan being adopted. Nothing should be consented in these areas until they have been assessed. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Meridian Energy Ltd Oppose While the desire to have a priority assessment of the Catlins Landscape is a matter of principle it is not appropriate to seek that nothing be FS9.21 consented until areas have been assessed. This approach does not accord with the purpose or enabling parts of the RMA>
G H Parr Introduction Council needs to priorities the assessment of priority 3 areas that have not been done and include public Southland opinion in this Nothing should be consented in the unassessed Outstanding 200.4 classification. Landscape areas until they have been assessed. West Catlins Preservation Inc 203.4 M D Cave Introduction The areas that have been identified have been based on what can be seen from a particular public place, without any No land in the Te Anau Basin be classified as in a Visual 219.6 consideration of its visual amenity value. The Te Anau Landscape Assessment Study 2006 awards no area in the Te Anau Basin Amenity Landscapes Zone. with “high aesthetic value”. Federated Introduction Support in part - Paragraph 1. Support the acknowledgement that the District‟s landscapes include those which reflect human Adopt paragraph 1 as stated. Farmers modification and settlement such as those within „working‟ rural landscapes. Support the acknowledgement that it is inappropriate 268.16 land use subdivision and development that landscapes and natural features are vulnerable from. P Dolamore Introduction Oppose the Te Anau Scenic Zones Visibility/Visual Landscape Assessment prepared by Boffa Miskell. It appears that this report Remove this proposal from the District Plan. 261.1 does not take into account there are farms on either side of the roads.
Objective NFL.1 Forest and Bird Objective NFL.1 Support in part. Some areas are still to be assessed. Amend to read: 215.23 Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes are identified and protected from inappropriate subdivision, land use and development. Further Submission
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 11 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Federated Farmers Oppose FF supports the development of workable solutions for the management of ONFL‟s in the region. Concerned about the costs of identifying, FS14.46 defining and protecting these for rural landowners. The definition of land as ONFL and the protective measures that follow have adverse economic and social effects that are often not recognised. Meridian Energy Ltd Oppose The changes sought in relation to this submission are not appropriate or necessary. If additional areas are to be identified as outstanding FS9.22 natural features and landscapes then the appropriate approach for these to be included is via a plan change which enables participation in the process by parties. The requirements of the RMA, including consideration of Part II matters, including s6 apply in the consideration of a resource consent proposal anyway. Transpower Support Transpower has an obligation under the NPSET to avoid adverse effects on these areas and the best way of achieving this is trhough the FS38.11 route and site selection process for the new National Grid infrastructure. The clear identification of these areas allows them to be considered early in route and site selection process.
Environment Objective NFL.1 Supported in part. The identification of outstanding natural features and landscapes should also be included within this provision, That Objective NFL.1 be amended to: Southland given that not all landscapes have currently been assessed. Objective NFL.1 16.25 Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes are identified and protected from inappropriate subdivision, land use and development. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Federated Farmers Oppose FF supports the development of workable solutions for the management of ONFL‟s in the region. Concerned about the costs of identifying, FS14.47 defining and protecting these for rural landowners. The definition of land as ONFL and the protective measures that follow have adverse economic and social effects that are often not recognised. Meridian Energy Ltd Oppose The changes sought in relation to this submission are not appropriate or necessary. If additional areas are to be identified as outstanding FS9.23 natural features and landscapes then the appropriate approach for these to be included is via a plan change which enables participation in the process by parties. The requirements of the RMA, including consideration of Part II matters, including s6 apply in the consideration of a resource consent proposal anyway. Transpower Support Transpower has an obligation under the NPSET to avoid adverse effects on these areas and the best way of achieving this is trhough the FS38.11 route and site selection process for the new National Grid infrastructure. The clear identification of these areas allows them to be considered early in route and site selection process.
R Dalley and Objective NFL.1 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the L Shaw following: 118.12 Retain as stated. DOC Objective NFL.1 Support. Retain as stated. 134.19 Southland Objective NFL.1 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Conservation following: Board Retain as stated. 115.11 Fish and Game Objective NFL.1 Support in part. Objective requires amendment to provide for the identification of further Outstanding Natural Features and Amend NFL.1 to provide: 195.19 Landscapes and Visual Amenity Landscapes in the Southland region which have not yet been assessed. “Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes are identified and protected from inappropriate subdivision, land use and development.” Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Federated Farmers Oppose FF supports the development of workable solutions for the management of ONFL‟s in the region. Concerned about the costs of identifying, FS14.48 defining and protecting these for rural landowners. The definition of land as ONFL and the protective measures that follow have adverse economic and social effects that are often not recognised.
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 12 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point New Zealand Wind Objective NFL.1 Support. Retain objective. Energy Association 267.1 Federated Objective NFL.1 Support in part. Support the emphasis on inappropriate subdivision, land use and development. Adopt the objective as proposed. Farmers 268.17 N Johnstone Objective NFL.1 and Oppose. There is no need for a Visual Amenity Map or these provisions because it will unfairly and unreasonably prevent Delete Objectives and associated overlays in the planning 130.1, NFL.2 residential and other development. maps. S Bradshaw 131.1 Catlins Coast Inc Objective NFL.1 and Support Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the 191.3 NFL.2 and Policies following: G H Parr NFL.1 and NFL.2. Retain as stated. 200.3 West Catlins Preservation Inc 203.3 Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Meridian Energy Ltd Oppose While the desire to have a priority assessment of the Catlins Landscape is a matter of principle it is not appropriate to seek that nothing be FS9.21 consented until areas have been assessed. This approach does not accord with the purpose or enabling parts of the RMA>
Objective NFL.2 Forest and Bird Objective NFL.2 Support. Retain. 215.24 New Zealand Wind Objective NFL.2 Oppose. Maintaining amenity values and visual qualities is open to interpretation and very subjective. Rewording of the objective Amend objective as follows: Energy is sought to better align it with Part 2 of the RMA. “Within Visual Amenity Landscapes, subdivision, land use and Association development is undertaken in a manner that maintains 267.2 managed to ensure that particular regard is given to the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values and visual qualities.” Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Rayonier NZ Support Concur with the reasons set out in the submission FS5.26
Meridian Energy Objective NFL.2 While it is appropriate to recognise the values of these landscapes it is important that the District Plan provisions do not seek to Amend the Objective NFL.2 as follows: 184.12 preserve the status quo with respect to amenity values and visual qualities. “Within Visual Amenity Landscapes, Subdivision, land use and development within Visual Amenity Landscapes is undertaken in a manner that maintains appropriately considers the amenity values and visual qualities of these areas.” P D Chartres T/A Objective NFL.2 Oppose the concept of identifying “Visual Amenity Landscapes” for the following reasons: Delete all reference to Visual Amenity Landscapes Te Anau Downs, Policy NFL.2 The balance between the working rural environment and visual amenity is already being achieved without imposing throughout the Plan, P D Chartres Policy NFL.3 additional rules. Delete all policies and rules that impose restrictions Trust, NFL rules Subdivision and land use is already managed through s2.6 (Subdivision) and s3.1 (Rural zone) on subdivision land use and development within P D Chartres and Method NFL.1 The Visual Amenity Landscapes creates an additional layer of objectives, policies and rules, adding to the constraints and Visual Amenity Landscapes, F Munster Method NFL.2 costs for landowners. Delete provisions to undertake further landscape 264.18 The concept of “amenity value” is highly subjective and questionable. studies and assessments that may lead to the It should be recognise that agriculture by definition results in changing landscapes. Attempting to create a static landscape extension of Visual Amenity Landscapes to other will only inhibit growth in rural areas. parts of the Southland District in future.
It is disappointing that „maintenance of amenity values‟ for the benefit of tourism is valued more highly than farming and is
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 13 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point used as motivation for placing restraints on farm development when farming itself contributes to tourism. Question the methodology used in the landscape assessments to delineate Visual Amenity Landscapes. Consultation has not been undertaken with affected landowners despite this being requested previously. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Federated Farmers Support Oppose the protection of a rural ideal, landscape or amenity that largely involves a working landscape and is there as a result of activities FS14.49 you would expect to find in a rural zone. Visual Amenity Landscapes include rural working land that has been created or enhanced by normal farming activities over many generations. Rayonier NZ Support Concur with the reasons set out in the submission FS5.9 Genesis Power Objective NFL.2 Oppose Delete Objective NFL.2. Limited The objective as stated is ambiguous and does not reflect the Act‟s premise of “avoid, remedy or mitigate” in respect of adverse 5.6 effects. Environment Objective NFL.2 Supported in part. As noted in the submission above, references to “Visual Amenity Landscapes” should be replaced with the That Objective NFL.2 be amended as follows: Southland term “Locally Distinctive and Valued Natural Features and Landscapes” in line with the provisions of the PSRPS 2012. Objective NFL.2 16.26 The introduction to this section mentions that “activities located in Visual Amenity Landscapes should achieve a balance between Within Visual Amenity Landscapes Locally Distinctive and the maintenance and enhancement of natural feature and landscape values with a focus on the visual aspects of amenity…” Valued Natural Features and Landscapes, subdivision, land Section 7(c) of the RMA also states that “…shall have particular regard to - (c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity use and development is undertaken in a manner that values”. maintains and enhances amenity values and visual qualities. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Rayonier NZ Oppose Visual amenity landscape is consistent with other regional and district council naming. No need to make the naming of something more FS5.23 difficult as all this does is confuses those interpreting the plan. NZ Institute of Surveyors Oppose in part Oppose amendment of objective to include reference to “maintains and enhances”. Replace relief sought in original submission with FS41.6 “maintains, or enhances” Meridian Energy Ltd Oppose in part Meridian accepts that a District Plan needs to give effect to a regional policy statement and achieving consstency where possible is FS9.24 beneficial. However the provisions in the PSRPS 2012 are not settled and may be subject to change. Therefore provisions that are under challenge, including the terminology used, should not be inserted into the District Plan.
R Dalley and Objective NFL.2 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the L Shaw following: 118.13 Retain as stated. DOC Objective NFL.2 Support. Retain as stated. 134.20 Southland Objective NFL.2 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Conservation following: Board Retain as stated. 115.12 Fish and Game Objective NFL.2 Support in part. Explanation requires amendment to recognise that within Visual Amenity Landscapes, subdivision, land use and Amend NFL.2 to provide: 195.20 development activities should be undertaken in a manner that maintains, restores or enhances amenity values and visual qualities “Within Visual Amenity Landscapes, subdivision, land use and development is are undertaken in a manner that maintains and enhances amenity values and visual qualities.” Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Federated Farmers Oppose Goes beyond the intent of RMA. Should be no requirement to enhance these amenity values. Such landscapes are often enhanced by FS14.50 normal farming activities given they are largely rural working landscapes. PD Chartres t/a Te Oppose This goes beyond intent of the RMA. There should be no such requirement to enhance these amenity values. We do consider however that Anau Downs, PD such landscapes are often enhanced by normal farming activities - given that they are largely ruralworking landscapes. Chartres Trust and PD Chartres and F Munster FS37.33
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 14 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point
Federated Objective NFL.2 Oppose in part. Oppose the idea of Visual Amenity Landscapes and any reference to Visual Amenity Landscapes should be Delete the objective or maned the object as follows: Farmers deleted from the Plan in its entirety. Within Visual Amenity Landscapes, subdivision, land use and 268.18 Concerned at the lack of landowner involvement in the process of identifying these landscapes. There has not been the same development is undertaken in a manner that maintains inclusive approach taken to the inclusion of these areas in the Plan as provided for as in previous years. amenity values and visual qualities while recognising and Existing use rights for all lawfully established activities (such as farming) comments in the Boffa Miskell 2012 report may have lead enabling continuation as a working rural environment. to landowners considering they did not need to submit against these latest proposed changes. There is uncertainty around the application of Section 10 RMA itself and difficulties with the onus of proof of an existing use right. Council also ensure specific provision within the policies and Expected activities should be specifically provided for in the Plan as permitted activities to avoid the uncertainty related to relying permitted rules framework the continuation of normal and on Existing use rights. For example where some farming activities are irregular by their nature. intermittent farming activities previously lawfully established (that occur as permitted activities within the planning Oppose the protection of a rural ideal, landscape or amenity that largely involves working landscapes, any objective must framework and / or fall under the definition of those activities). appropriately acknowledge the importance of also enabling continuation as a working rural environment. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Rayonier NZ Support Concur with the reasons set out in the submission FS5.10 PD Chartres t/a Te Support We agree with the points made in this submission Anau Downs, PD Chartres Trust and PD Chartres and F Munster FS37.34
M D Cave Objective NFL.2 and Oppose NFL.2 Objective and Policy Statements. The policy makes the visual impact of land use more important that any other Deletion of Objective NFL.2 and Policy Statements NFL.1-4 219.7 Policies NFL.1-4 aspect. The council has a legal obligation not to require the landowners to waste resources on mitigating visual impacts, based on from the Plan. a highly subjective judgement of the effects. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons PD Chartres t/a Te Support We agree with the points made in this submission Anau Downs, PD Chartres Trust and PD Chartres and F Munster FS37.35
Pioneer Objective NFL.2 and Oppose. The Southland landscape is a „working landscape‟ and future land use options, particularly renewable energy options, Delete Objective NFL.2 and Policy NFL.3 Generation Ltd Policy NFL.3 should not be foreclosed by policies that maintain the status quo. (PGL) 21.2 Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Federated Farmers Support Such restrictions should not apply on what are predominately working rural landscapes. FS14.51 PD Chartres t/a Te Support Such restrictions should not apply on what are predominantly working rural landscapes Anau Downs, PD Chartres Trust and PD Chartres and F Munster FS37.36
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 15 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point Policy NFL General PowerNet Policy NFL - general Oppose. Amend Policy NFL.1 as follows: 241.1 Policy gives preference to „avoid‟ over „remedy and mitigate‟ which is inconsistent with s5(2)(c) of the RMA Avoid, remedy or mitigate inappropriate subdivision, land use and development within areas identified as Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Federated Farmers Support in part The policy gives preference to „avoid‟ over „remedy and mitigate‟ which is inconsistent with s5(2)(c) of the RMA. FS14.52 Rayonier NZ Support Concur with the reasons set out in the submission FS5.27
Transpower NZ Policy NFL - new Transpower‟s assets in this area need to be specifically provided for to give better effect to the NPSET. New policy inserted after NFL.1 as follows: Limited “Recognise that activities such as network utilities and other 190.6 infrastructure may have a functional, technical or operational requirement to be sited within an Outstanding Natural Feature or Landscape, or Visual Amenity Landscapes.” Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons PowerNet Ltd Support Agree that there are technical and functional reasons why regionally significant infrastructure required to be located within areas of FS15.1 landscape protection. It is important that this is recognised within the proposed plan. Chorus NZ Support Supports recognition that infrastructure sometimes needs to be located in areas of outstanding landscapes, especially when functionality FS35.6 and network design require the infrastructure to be located in specific locations to meet the needs of Southland communities. Telecom FS45.6
Policy NFL.1 Fish and Game Policies NFL.1-4 Support. Retain as drafted 195.21 Environment Policies NFL.1-4 Policies NFL.1-4 are supported. It is considered that this combination of policies enables due consideration of the adverse effects That Policies NFL.1-4 be amended by replacing references to Southland on natural features and landscapes within the District. “Visual Amenity Landscapes” with “Locally Distinctive and 16.27 As noted in the submission above, references to “Visual Amenity Landscapes” should be replaced with “Locally Distinctive and Valued Natural Features and Landscapes”. Valued Landscapes and Natural Features” in line with the provisions of the PSRPS 2012. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Rayonier NZ Oppose Visual amenity landscape is consistent with other regional and district council naming. No need to make the naming of something more FS5.23 difficult as all this does is confuses those interpreting the plan. Meridian Energy Ltd Oppose in part Meridian accepts that a District Plan needs to give effect to a regional policy statement and achieving consstency where possible is FS9.24 beneficial. However the provisions in the PSRPS 2012 are not settled and may be subject to change. Therefore provisions that are under challenge, including the terminology used, should not be inserted into the District Plan.
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 16 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point Meridian Energy Policy NFL.1 The explanation does not accurately describe that it is protection from inappropriate subdivision use and development that is Amend the explanation to Policy NFL.1 as follows: 184.14 sought, it is not reflective of the policy it is to be explaining and it is not consistent with the matters in s6(b) of the RMA “Outstanding Natural features and landscapes throughout the District can be vulnerable to modification and destruction from inappropriate activities subdivision, use and development. Within areas identified as Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes activities should be undertaken in a manner that avoids adverse effects on these landscapes and ensures their protection. It is expected that identified Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes will not change significantly over time as a result of subdivision, land use and development. Particular consideration should be given to the design, siting and scale…………..” Forest and Bird Policy NFL.1 Support in part. The Plan fails to identify all the District‟s outstanding natural features and landscapes and does not meet the Amend policy as follows: 215.25 requirements of the Resource Management Act Avoid inappropriate subdivision, land use and development within areas identified as Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes on the planning maps or through a resource consent process. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons PD Chartres t/a Te Anau Oppose The potential to extend areas classified as ONFL and VAL creates further uncertainty for landowners and resource consent applications. Downs, PD Chartres Trust Time and Costs associated with resource consent applications would be unreasonably increased through the requirement to include a and PD Chartres and F landscape assessment for any application. Munster FS37.32 Meridian Energy Ltd Oppose It is not necessary to include the additional words within the policy. In a resource consent process the requirements of s6 of the Act will FS9.25 already be considered.
Transpower NZ Policy NFL.1 Support the reference to “inappropriate” subdivision Retain policy Limited 190.7 G and R Cockburn Policy NFL.1 Support in part. Comments are included or acknowledged in the explanation 107.3 Natural landscapes such as tussock lands require active management to maintain their aesthetic values. Active management of the policy that provide for active management of natural includes measures such as ongoing weed management. landscapes. R Dalley and Policy NFL.1 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the L Shaw following: 118.14 Retain as stated. DOC Policy NFL.1 Support in part as it could be read as only applying to outstanding natural features and landscapes indentified in the Plan. Amend Policy NFL.1 to read: 134.21 Avoid inappropriate subdivision, land use and development within areas identified either within this Plan, future studies, or through the resource consent process as Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes. Explanation: Natural features and landscapes throughout the District can be vulnerable to modification and destruction from inappropriate activities. Within areas identified within this Plan, or as a result of future studies, or through the resource consent processes as Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes activities should be undertaken in a manner that avoids adverse effects on these landscapes and ensures their protection. It is expected that any identified Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes will not change significantly over time as a result of subdivision, land use and development. Particular consideration should be given to the design, siting and scale of buildings and structures and associated 17artilage, utilities, signage, earthworks and
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 17 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point landscape plantings and the way in which these factors integrate and respect the landform, natural character and landscape quality. Consideration should also be given to the visibility of buildings, structures and activities from public places. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons PD Chartres t/a Te Anau Oppose The potential to extend areas classified as ONFL creates further uncertainty for landowners and resource consent applicant. Time and Downs, PD Chartres Trust costs associated with resource consent applications would be unreasonably increased through the requirement to include a landscape and PD Chartres and F assessment for any application. Munster FS37.37 Meridian Energy Ltd Oppose It is not necessary to include the additional words within the policy. In a resource consent process the requirements of s6 of the Act will FS9.26 already be considered. Once these areas are identified the appropriate way for these to be inserted into the Plan by way of a plan change to enable public participation.
Southland Policy NFL.1 Support Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Conservation following: Board Retain as stated. 115.13 H W Richardson Policy NFL.1 Oppose. Amend Policy NFL.1 as follows: Group Limited Policy gives primacy to „avoid‟ over remedy or mitigate which is inconsistent with s5(2)(c) of the RMA “Avoid, remedy or mitigate inappropriate subdivision, land use 263.1 and development within areas identified as Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes” Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Federated Farmers Support in part The policy gives preference to „avoid‟ over „remedy and mitigate‟ which is inconsistent with s5(2)(c) of the RMA. FS14.53
Federated Policy NFL.1 Support in part. Federated Farmers supports the development of workable solutions for the management of ONFL‟s in the region Adopt the policy with the following amended wording: Farmers and the restriction of the policy to „inappropriate‟ subdivision, development and land use. Concerned about the costs of defining “Avoid inappropriate subdivision, land use and development 268.19 and protecting ONFL‟s for rural landowners and by extension the wider economic and social wellbeing of all Southlanders. The within areas identified as Outstanding Natural Features and whole community suffers if constraints or disincentives for investment result in static or declining job opportunities. Outstanding Natural Landscapes.” And make decisions in the area that are made: In full consideration of the adverse economic, social and cultural effects that might result for farmers; In recognition that farming activities are intrinsic aspects of the values of the District‟s landscapes, and that on-going stewardship by farmers underlies much of their value. That landowners are recognised as a critical part of managing the values associated with Outstanding Natural Landscapes and Outstanding Natural Features.
Policy NFL.2 M D Cave Policy NFL.2 Oppose the inclusion of “as well as associated land use activities”. This may make an activity require consent just because a Removal of “as well as associated land use activities” 219.11 building associated with that activity needs consent. Eg, farming would become a discretionary activity when a new building is reference in Policy NFL.2 explanation required for the farming operation. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons PD Chartres t/a Te Anau Support This extends the scope of issues to be considered in the Resource Consent process beyond what is reasonable and threatens existing Downs, PD Chartres Trust land use activities. Delete the policy. and PD Chartres and F
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 18 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point Munster FS37.38
Genesis Power Policy NFL.2 Oppose. Delete Policy NFL.2. Limited The requirement for development to be „appropriately integrated‟ within a landscape is subjective and open to interpretation and 5.7 conjecture. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Federated Farmers Support in part As proposed within the plan there is a risk of subjective interpretation which creates unnecessary legal uncertainty. FS14.54 PD Chartres t/a Te Support Due to the subjective nature of “visual amenity” and “appropriate integration within a landscape” we oppose the concept of Visual Amenity Anau Downs, PD Landscapes. These should be deleted from the plan. Chartres Trust and PD Chartres and F Munster FS37.39 Chorus NZ Support Support reducing emphasis on the protection of landscapes that are not “outstanding”, and supports the submitters opposition to the FS35.2 concept of “visual amenity landscapes”. This is particularly as the kind of landscape is not referred to in the RMA - it is a local construct that Telecom has inadequate justification when the RMA and RPS are focussed on outstanding landscapes. FS45.2
G and R Cockburn Policy NFL.2 Support in part. Comments are included or acknowledged in the explanation 107.4 In the case of productive farmland, these are working landscapes and need to continue to be treated as such. Protection of Visual of the policy that Visual Amenity Landscapes are working Amenity Landscapes in general needs to be undertaken in a consultative approach to enable consideration of practical farm landscapes. requirements. R Dalley and Policy NFL.2 It is considered the submitter supports this policy. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the L Shaw following: 118.15 Retain as stated. DOC Policy NFL.2 Support in general. Retain Policy NFL.2 as notified and amend the explanation to 134.22 Recognition should be given in the explanation to the potential of plantings to adversely affect neighbouring areas such as Policy NFL.2 to read: Fiordland National Park by the introduction of pest plant species. Adverse effects on Visual Amenity Landscapes should be avoided, remedied or mitigated through consideration of the design, siting and scale of buildings and structures and associated utilities, signage, earthworks and appropriate landscape plantings that will not result in the spread of pest plants into neighbouring lands as well as associated land use activities. Particular consideration should also be given to the visibility of activities from public places. Southland Policy NFL.2 Support Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Conservation following: Board Retain as stated. 115.14 Forest and Bird Policy NFL.2 Support Retain 215.26
Meridian Energy Policy NFL.2 Support. Appropriately recognises that the outcome sought is that appropriate integration between subdivision, land use and Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the 184.13 development is achieved within the Visual Amenity Landscapes following: Retain as stated. W and M Hunter Policy NFL.2 Oppose introduction of Visual Amenity Landscapes because of the arbitrary manner in which the boundaries have been Policy not adopted until it can be fairly applied across all of 253.1 determined, the lack of consultation with landowners, the cost implications for landowners, and the lack of clarity of the effect of the District. restrictions. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 19 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point Rayonier NZ Support Concur with the reasons set out in the submission FS5.28
Federated Policy NFL.2 Oppose. Federated Farmers have considerable concern with both the use of the term „Visual Amenity Landscapes‟ and the lack Delete this policy. Farmers of consultation with the current extension to the Te Anau Scenic Zone. Opposed to the protection of a rural ideal, landscapes or 268.20 amenity that largely involves working landscapes and is there as a result of the activities you would expect to find in a rural zone. All such normal farming activities should be expected within this landscape. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons PD Chartres t/a Te Support Agree with the reasons for deleting the policy Anau Downs, PD Chartres Trust and PD Chartres and F Munster FS37.40
Policy NFL.3 Forest and Bird Policy NFL.3 Support in part. One significant attribute that has been accepted by the Environment Court is missing, namely natural character, Amend policy as follows: 215.27 and there are other accepted attributes that are also missing. Avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of subdivision, land use and development on the District‟s natural features and landscapes which have not been assessed by having regard to the following landscape attributes: 1. Natural science factors, including the geological, topographical, ecological and dynamic components of the landscape. 2. Aesthetic values, including memorability, cohesion, vividness and naturalness. 3. Expressiveness, (legibility) which is how obviously the landscape demonstrates the formative processes which helped to create it. 4. Transient values, which specifically includes the occasional presence of wildlife, or its values at certain times of the day or of the year. 5. Landscape values that are shared and recognised, including recreational values. 6. Value to tangata whenua. 7. Historical associations. 8. Natural character, including, absence of development, natural elements, natural patterns and natural processes. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Federated Farmers Oppose Appropriate landscape attributes have been included in the policy as proposed and this list extends the policy well beyond the intent of the FS14.55 RMA, the plan itself and the relevant objective. PD Chartres t/a Te Oppose These additional attributes extends the policy well beyond the intent of the RMA, the plan itself and the relevant objective. Anau Downs, PD Chartres Trust and PD Chartres and F Munster FS37.41 South Wood Export Oppose SWEL opposes this submission as it considers that the addition sought by the submitter is too broad to be useful as an element of a test to Limited assess the natural features of a landscape
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 20 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point FS40.22
Meridian Energy Policy NFL.3 Oppose. This policy potentially is more restrictive on activities occurring in areas that have not been assessed then on areas that Delete Policy NFL.3 184.15 are identified as outstanding natural features and landscapes. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Federated Farmers Support It goes beyond the intent of the RMA to extend to these landscapes the level of protection set out within Policy NFL.3 given they have not FS14.56 yet been assessed. There is no justification for affording them such a high level of protection given no such attributes (as 1-7) have been shown. PowerNet Ltd Support Agree that the level of protection extended within this policy goes beyond the intent of the RMA given these landscapes have not yet been FS15.2 assessed. PD Chartres t/a Te Support It goes beyond the intent of the RMA to extend to these landscapes the level of protection set out within Policy NFL.3 given they have not Anau Downs, PD yet been assessed. There is no justification for affording them such a high level of protection given no such attributes (as 1 to 7) have been Chartres Trust and shown. PD Chartres and F Munster FS37.42
Genesis Power Policy NFL.3 Oppose. Amend Policy NFL.3 to read: Limited Policies are the course of action to achieve or implement the objective, however, there are no objectives included within the Plan Avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of subdivision, land 5.8 which seek to protect the “District‟s natural features and landscapes which have not been assessed”. The criteria included within use and development on the District‟s significant natural Policy NFL.3 read as assessment criteria or matters of control/discretion. The matters for which regard is to be had are subjective features and landscapes which have not been assessed by and will lead to the need for a comprehensive assessment of the cultural, physical and visual landscape. The matters to have having regard to the following landscape attributes: regard to extend beyond the information requirements associated with development within “significant” natural features and 1. Natural science factors, including the geological, landscapes, thus extending a pseudo-significant notation to the whole District. topographical, ecological and dynamic components of the landscape. 2. Aesthetic values, including memorability and naturalness. 3. Expressiveness, (legibility) which is how obviously the landscape demonstrates the formative processes which helped to create it. 4. Transient values, which specifically includes the occasional presence of wildlife, or its values at certain times of the day or of the year. 5. Landscape values that are shared and recognised. 6. Value to tangata whenua. 7. Historical associations. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Chorus NZ Support Support reducing emphasis on the protection of landscapes that are not “outstanding”, and supports the submitters opposition to the FS35.2 concept of “visual amenity landscapes”. This is particularly as the kind of landscape is not referred to in the RMA - it is a local construct that Telecom has inadequate justification when the RMA and RPS are focussed on outstanding landscapes. FS45.2
R Dalley and Policy NFL.3 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the L Shaw following: 118.16 Retain as stated. DOC Policy NFL.3 Support. Retain as stated. 134.23 Southland Policy NFL.3 Support Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Conservation following: Board Retain as stated. 115.15
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 21 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point Federated Policy NFL.3 Oppose for the following reasons: Delete this policy. Farmers This level of protection extended within this policy goes beyond the intent of the Resource Management Act 1991, given The protection of these landscapes is most appropriately 268.21 these landscapes have not yet been assessed. addressed through non-regulatory methods including These landscapes may hold no such attributes as those set out within 1-7 of this policy so there is no justification for education, guidelines, awards and the promotion of good affording them such a high level of protection. practice. This policy will either be inefficient for the low level of protection actually achieved, or it will restrict activities to an equivalent level to „Outstanding Natural Landscapes‟, both of these are inappropriate. The Amended Pigeon Bay Criteria are not frozen and are likely to continue to change. This is an important point because the Environment Court...”never intended for the list to be used as a static template”. Aspects of these criteria could be applied to almost any landscape in the rural zone irrespective of its value as a landscape in the context of the Act. (ie, criteria numbers 4 and 5). Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Rayonier NZ Support Concur with the reasons set out in the submission FS5.10 PowerNet Ltd Support Agree that the level of protection extended within this policy goes beyond the intent of the RMA given these landscapes have not yet been FS15.3 assessed. PD Chartres t/a Te Support This policy would unreasonably increase the time and cost of Resource Consent Applications Anau Downs, PD Chartres Trust and PD Chartres and F Munster FS37.43
A and R Johnston Policy NFL.3 Removing fault lines on maps means council should be legally accountable for damages which is quite irresponsible. Amend maps to include identification of fault lines. 279.6
Policy NFL.4 R Dalley and Policy NFL.4 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the L Shaw following: 118.17 Retain as stated. DOC Policy NFL.4 Support. However, Lake Te Anau is part of Fiordland National Park and this should be noted in the Explanation. Retain Policy NFL.4 as notified and amend the Explanation to 134.24 Policy NFL.4 to read: Explanation: Te Anau township‟ lakeside is locally distinctive and valued for its open space character and scenic views across Fiordland National Park‟s Lake Te Anau towards the mountains. Southland Policy NFL.4 Support with modification to include the lakeside in Manapouri township Amend Policy NFL.4 to apply the lakeside in the Manapouri Conservation township also. Board 115.16
Method NFL.1 Fish and Game Method NFL.1 Support. Retain as drafted. 195.22
Environment Method NFL.1 As noted in the submission above, references to “Visual Amenity Landscapes” should be replaced with “Locally Distinctive and That Method NFL.1 be amended by replacing references to Southland Valued Landscapes and Natural Features” in line with the provisions of the PSRPS 2012. “Visual Amenity Landscapes” with “Locally Distinctive and 16.29 Valued Natural Features and Landscapes”. Southland Method NFL.1 Support with modification, to include collaboration with DOC and other local authorities. Amend Method to include the requirement for the Council to Conservation work with DOC and other local authorities to achieve this Board 115.17
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 22 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point Federated Method NFL.1 Support. However, we would like to see better support for non-regulatory methods throughout the policy framework. We consider Adopt the method and; Farmers that the concept of Visual Amenity Landscapes should be deleted from the Plan. It is through the appropriate education, provision Delete reference to Visual Amenity Landscapes throughout 268.22 of information and increasing of awareness and through the encouraging of the protection of these landscapes that the best gains the Plan. can be made. Providing information on appropriate design guidelines will be more successful that overly bureaucratic rules in this area. Forest and Bird Method NFL.1 Support Retain. 215.29
Method NFL.2 Fish and Game Method NFL.2 Support. Retain as drafted. 195.23 Environment Method NFL.2 Support. It is important to assess those areas that have currently not been assessed for landscape significance to ensure robust That Method NFL.2 be retained. Southland planning outcomes. Without holistic assessment there is potential for ad-hoc development which could result in adverse effects 16.30 on some of the Districts most significant landscapes. R Dalley and Method NFL.2 Support. Suggest adding “assessed by qualified personal”. Add “assessed by qualified personal”. L Shaw 118.18 DOC Method NFL.2 Support with additions to recognise natural features. Amend Method NFL.2 to read: 134.26 Undertake landscape and natural feature studies and assessments focussed on those areas of the District where natural features and landscapes have not been assessed. Forest and Bird Method NFL.2 Support in part. The method should establish a time line for completion of the studies and include introducing Plan changes Amend method as follows: 215.30 Method NFL.2 Undertake and complete landscape and natural feature studies and assessments focussed on those areas of the District where natural features and landscapes have not been assessed, and introduce Plan changes by 2015.
Rule NFL General
Environment Rule NFL - General There is the possibility that some of Southland‟s potentially outstanding natural features and landscapes may have structures and That Rule MRA.1 from the operative Southland District Plan Southland buildings developed on them. This is within those areas that have not yet had a landscape assessment completed, and 2001 be inserted into the District Plan as an interim rule, until 16.28 development could fall within the permitted activity rules of the District Plan therefore potentially resulting in adverse effects on outstanding natural features and landscapes in the Mountains these un-assessed outstanding natural landscapes and natural features. An example of this is Rule RURAL.1 - permitted activities Resource Area are identified via landscape assessments and of the proposed District Plan, which identifies that as long as the location is not within an area of outstanding natural features and the findings incorporated into the landscapes, or an area of Visual Amenity Landscapes, up to five dwelling houses can be established up to 9 metres high within District Plan, as follows: close proximity to each other. Rule MRA.1 - Structures and Buildings It is acknowledged that only a few landscapes within this „not yet assessed category‟ are of potential significance. However the Mountain Resource potential for development to occur in those higher valued areas is of concern to Environment Southland. All structures and buildings that are visible from any public road or place (which includes esplanade reserves, marginal strips and public land) are controlled activities provided all relevant rules and performance standards of this Plan are complied with and are controlled in respect of the following: • siting of the structure in relation to any skyline, any physical feature, or natural character of the area; • design in respect of any structures visual obtrusiveness; • the removal of vegetation; • earthworks. Reason The effects of structures on the visual amenity and soil stability can be mitigated by the imposition of appropriate
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 23 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point conditions. This rule will cease to have effect when outstanding natural features and landscapes in the Mountains Resource Area are identified via landscape assessments and incorporated into the District Plan. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Federated Farmers Oppose There are sufficient provisions within the proposed plan to fulfil Council‟s functions in respect to s6 and until a full landscape assessment FS14.57 has been undertaken and incorporated into the plan.
Forest and Bird Rule NFL - general A new rule is needed to protect potentially outstanding natural features and landscapes that remain to be assessed. Add a new Non Complying Rule as follows: 215.28 Rule NFL.1 Non complying Activities Any activity which may adversely affect an area identified as an outstanding natural feature or landscape in the Plan, or that meets the criteria set out in Policy NFL.3, or is above 700 m in altitude. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons PD Chartres t/a Te Oppose Due to the subjective interpretation of the criteria set out in Policy NFL.3 this could potentially capture many normal and necessary Anau Downs, PD activities undertaken in the rural area and unnecessarily increase the time and cost associated with resource consent applications. Chartres Trust and PD Chartres and F Munster FS37.44 South Wood Export Oppose SWEL does not believe that activities should be non-complying simply because they are undertaken within certain areas. This imposes a Limited blanket rule which does not take into account circumstances of each case. SWEL contends that it is more appropriate and in keeping with FS40.16 the RMA to require the land user to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects in the areas specified by the submitter. Meridian Energy Ltd Oppose The approach of providing for any activity that has not been subject to an evaluation of whether it is an outstanding natural features of FS9.27 landscape as a non-complying activity will not promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources and does not acknowledge the enabling parts of s6 RMA. Fish and Game Support We concur with Forest and Bird that a new/additional non-complying activity status rule is required to protect potentially outstanding natural FS43.12 features and landscapes that remain to be assessed.
DOC Rules NFL - general New Rule. Include a new rule: 134.25 The Director-General considers the Plan fails to consider the effects of activities on the outstanding landscapes and natural Rule NFL.1 features of Southland. A District wide rule applying to areas identified as outstanding landscapes or natural features would Any activity which adversely affects an area identified as an recognise their national and international importance and give effect to Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991. outstanding landscape of natural feature in the Plan or by the This proposed rule is supported by Method NFL.2 which seeks Council undertake natural feature assessments as several resource consent process is a non complying activity. nationally outstanding landscapes and natural features have not been mapped and included in the Plan. The activities of concern are in particular are new roads, large scale earth disturbance (in excess of 1,000 m3), indigenous vegetation clearance or the infrastructure associated with damming or diversion of water. Further Submission Name and No. Support/oppose Reasons Rayonier NZ Oppose It is inconsistent with the intent of our submission FS5.29 Meridian Energy Ltd Oppose The approach of providing for any activity that has not been subject to an evaluation of whether it is an ONFL as a non-complying activity FS9.28 will not promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources and does not acknowledge the enabling parts of the RMA. Fish and Game Support We concur with DOC that it is appropriate to consider by way of a non-complying activity status activities which adversely affect areas FS43.13 identified as an outstanding landscape or natural feature in the Plan. Chorus NZ Oppose Oppose the requested new Rule NFL.1 as it fails the tests of legal certainty and is unreasonable. It is difficult to identify when the FS35.3 suggested rule is triggered and what the reference to features or landscapes identified through the “resource consent process” means. In Telecom addition the suggested non-complying activity status is unreasonable and inappropriate.
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 24 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes Section 2.3 Natural Features and Landscapes
Submitter Name/ Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested Submission No. and Point FS45.3
Form - Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 25 360/35/42/5 r/12/12/22742 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes