BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ENV-2016-AKL- AT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“the Act”) AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal under clause 14 of the Schedule 1 of the Act of Decisions on the Proposed Thames Coromandel District Plan and Variation 1 BETWEEN Northern Land Property Limited Appellant AND Thames Coromandel District Council Respondent NOTICE OF APPEAL T L Hovell/P R H Mason PO Box 1585 Shortland Street AUCKLAND 1140 Solicitor on the record Tama Hovell [email protected] (09)3040424 Contact Solicitor Phoebe Mason [email protected] (09)3040425 2 TO: The Registrar Environment Court AUCKLAND 1. Northern Land Property Limited appeals a decision of Thames Coromandel District Council on the following plan and variation: Proposed Thames Coromandel District Plan (“Proposed Plan”) and Variation 1 – Natural Character (“Variation 1”). 2. Northern Land Property Limited made submissions and further submissions as follows: (a) Original submission on the Proposed Plan on 14 March 2014 and further submissions on 16 June 2014; and (b) Original submission on Variation 1 on 4 December 2015 and further submissions on 28 January 2016. 3. Northern Land Property Limited is not a trade competitor for the purposes of section 308D of the Act. 4. Northern Land Property Limited received notice of the decision on 29 April 2016. 5. The decision was made by the Thames Coromandel District Council. 6. The parts of the decision that Northern Land Property Limited is appealing are the decisions on: (a) Section 3 – Definitions; (b) Section 7 – Coastal Environment; (c) Section 9 – Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes; (d) Section 27 – Structure Plans; (e) Section 32 – Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes Overlay; 3 (f) Section 32A – Natural Character of the Coastal Environment; and (g) Section 38 – Subdivision; (h) Section 56 – Rural Area and Zone; of the Proposed Plan and Variation. REASONS FOR APPEAL 7. Northern Land Property Limited supports the conservation lot subdivision framework implemented in the Decisions Version. This appeal raises a number of points of clarification in relation to that framework, and Northern Land Property Limited is hopeful that these points can be clarified through mediation processes. 8. The Appellant seeks to modify and clarify the boundaries of the overlays mapped on its land, namely the properties listed in the Appellant’s primary submissions on the Proposed Plan and Variation 1 (“Te Punga Station”). 9. Northern Land Property Limited also continues to seek the inclusion of the Te Punga Station Structure Plan sought in submissions and evidence throughout the hearings process. 10. The reasons for this appeal are that, without the clarifications and addition sought, the Proposed Plan and Variation 1: (a) Does not give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement or Waikato Regional Policy Statement (Te Tauākī Kaupapa here ā-Rohe),; (b) Is not the most appropriate means of achieving the relevant plan objectives, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, and taking into account benefits and costs; (c) Is not consistent with the purpose and principles of the Act as it: 4 (i) Does not manage the use of resources in a way that enables the community to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing; (ii) Does not have particular regard to the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources; (iii) Does not facilitate sustainable land use outcomes which maintain and enhance amenity values and the quality of the environment; (iv) Does not sustain the potential of lands within the district to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations including for housing. (d) It does not provide for the sustainable management of the natural and physical resources at Te Punga Station. 11. In particular, and without limiting the generality of paragraph [10] above, specific reasons for this appeal are as follows, alongside the relief sought. POINTS OF CLARIFICATION Non-Notification Rules 12. Unlike the Operative District Plan, the Proposed Plan and Variation do not contain any non-notification rules for controlled and restricted discretionary activities. The Appellant considers that it is more appropriate to include such rules as: (a) Where activities have been categorised as controlled and restricted discretionary, there is no need for public notification as the effects of such activities are 5 generally well understood, the activities are provided for and encouraged within the zone, and the Council is able to manage anticipated effects by reference to the assessment criteria. (b) It will also result in greater uncertainty for plan users as to what activities will be notified and what activities are appropriate in the area. The omission of a non- notification rule may result in activities being notified unnecessarily which is a costly and inefficient exercise. Relief Sought 13. That a rule or rules be inserted within the District Wide Rule sections of the Proposed Plan to require the processing of resource consent applications for controlled and restricted discretionary activities by the Council on a non-notified basis. The Definition of “Site” 14. The definition of “site” has changed to refer to that of a lot rather than the broader meaning set out in the notified version of the Proposed Plan. A lot has a prescribed legal meaning whereas a site can and often is comprised of a number of lots. The Appellant considers that the broader definition set out in the notified plan is more appropriate as it is more consistent with common and industry usage and understanding, will provide greater clarity for plan users, and will provide for the more integrated management of sites which comprise more than one lot. Relief Sought 15. Section 3 Definitions be amended to include a definition of the term “site” as follows: Site means the area of land clearly related to a particular development, application, proposal, or activity. A site 6 contains at least one complete lot. Included in this definition are: All buildings and land use that relate to a particular development, application, proposal, or activity; The site can include more than one lot however, the lots must be adjoining. Section 7 Coastal Environment, New Policy 1(b) 16. The inclusion of the words “outside of the natural character overlay” in new policy 1(b) of Section 7 Coastal Environment is internally inconsistent and inappropriate as the policy does not then give effect to the relevant part of Objective i.e. the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment. Areas of Natural Character have already been identified on the planning maps, and so the requirement in policy 1(b) to avoid significant adverse effects on natural character, when the policy only applies to areas outside of the natural character overlay, is inconsistent. The policies relating to Natural Character apply as overlays in any event, rendering a cross reference to those policies unnecessary. Relief Sought 17. Section 7 Coastal Environment, Policy 1(b) be amended as follows: Policy 1b Subdivision, use and development in the Coastal Environment (outside of the Natural Character Overlay) shall avoid significant adverse effects on the values and characteristics of natural character and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects. Section 9 Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes: Restoration and Enhancement 18. Objective 1 and its associated policies in Section 9 – Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes do not 7 recognise the opportunities for enhancement and restoration in such areas. Given the overlap of some priority areas with outstanding natural features and landscapes, the Appellant considers that a similar objective and policy to those set out in Section 7 Coastal Environment regarding restoration and enhancement should be added. Relief Sought 19. Section 9 – Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes, be amended to include a new objective and a new policy as follows: New Objective Opportunities for restoration or rehabilitation of modified or degraded areas of natural character are promoted. New Policy The restoration or rehabilitation of modified or degraded natural character in the Coastal Environment shall be promoted. Subdivision in ONFL 20. Rule 11 in Section 32.3 Outstanding natural features and landscapes overlay rules makes “subdivision creating one or more additional lots”, “subdivision creating one or more conservation lots”, and “subdivision for environmental benefit lots” within ONFL a non-complying activity. The Appellant considers that this is inappropriate and that instead subdivision should be specified by its underlying zone activity status. 21. In of itself, subdivision appropriately done need not give rise to adverse effects on the values and characteristics of ONFLs. Rather, it is the use of land that follows the subdivision that has the potential adverse effect (buildings, earthworks etc) and should be appropriately specified by the overlay rules. 22. A consequence of a non-complying subdivision status within ONFLs may be subdivision patterns which arbitrarily follow 8 ONFL boundaries (in order to avoid a non-complying activity status for the subdivision as a whole) and a resulting land ownership pattern that excludes ONFL areas from management regime of the occupied titles. An approach which allowed ONFLs to be subdivided with the same activity status as the balance (non-ONFL) part of the property would better achieve the relevant objectives of the Plan. Relief Sought 23. Section 32.3 Outstanding natural features and landscapes overlay rules, delete Rule 11 so that subdivision in an ONFL is not non-complying and is specified by its underlying zone activity status. Subdivision in HNC 24. Rule 10 in Section 32A.2 High Natural Character Overlay Rules, makes “subdivision creating one or more additional lots” within the HNC Overlay a discretionary activity. The Appellant considers that this is inappropriate and that instead subdivision creating one or more additional lots should be specified by it underlying zone activity status. Relief Sought 25.