Office Use Only Application Number:

APPLICATION FOR RESOURCE CONSENT OR FAST-TRACK RESOURCE CONSENT (Or Associated Consent Pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)) (If applying for a Resource Consent pursuant to Section 87AAC or 88 of the RMA, this form can be used to satisfy the requirements of Form 9) Prior to, and during, completion of this application form, please refer to Resource Consent Guidance Notes and Schedule of Fees and Charges – both available on the Council’s web page. 1. Pre-Lodgement Meeting Have you met with a Council Resource Consent representative to discuss this application prior to lodgement? Yes / No 2. Type of Consent being applied for (more than one circle can be ticked):

O Land Use O Fast Track Land Use* O Subdivision O Discharge O Extension of time (s.125) O Change of conditions (s.127) O Change of Consent Notice (s.221(3)) O Consent under National Environmental Standard (e.g. Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil) O Other (please specify) *The fast track for simple land use consents is restricted to consents with a controlled activity status and requires you provide an electronic address for service. 3. Would you like to opt out of the Fast Track Process? Yes / No 4. Applicant Details: Name/s: Shirttail Orchards Limited

c/- Nola Ruth Colville & Walter Frederic Colville (Directors) Electronic Address for Service (E-mail): [email protected]

Phone Numbers: Work: ______027 657 5903 Home: ______09 409______8580

Postal Address: ______8 Harbour View Road ______(or alternative method of service under ______RD 4 ______section 352 of the Act) ______Pukenui ______Post Code: __0484______

5. Address for Correspondence: Name and address for service and correspondence (if using an Agent write their details here). Name/s: Northland Planning and Development

Electronic Address for Service (E-mail): [email protected]

Phone Numbers: Work: 09 929 6866 Home:

Postal Address: PO Box 526 (or alternative method of service under Kaitaia section 352 of the Act) Post Code: 0441 All correspondence will be sent by email in the first instance. Please advise us if you would prefer an alternative means of communication. 6. Details of Property Owner/s and Occupier/s: Name and Address of the Owner/Occupiers of the land to which this application relates (where there are multiple owners or occupiers please list on a separate sheet if required)

Name/s: Shirttail Orchards Limited

Morgan Kyle Harvey

Property Address/: 3351 State Highway 1 Location Motutangi

7. Application Site Details: Location and/or Property Street Address of the proposed activity:

Site Address/ As above Location:

Legal Description: Lot 1 DP 515576 & Lot 2 DP 429744 Val Number: 00011-87708 & 87711 _

Certificate of Title: 802174 & 516120 Please remember to attach a copy of your Certificate of Title to the application, along with relevant consent notices and/or easements and encumbrances (search copy must be less than 6 months old)

Site Visit Requirements: Is there a locked gate or security system restricting access by Council staff? Yes / No Is there a dog on the property? Yes / No Please provide details of any other entry restrictions that Council staff should be aware of, e.g. health and safety, caretaker’s details. This is important to avoid a wasted trip and having to re-arrange a second visit.

Please contact Wally Colville on 027 657 5903 or 09 409 8580

or John Harrington on 09 409 8281 or 021 825 102

before coming to property.

8. Description of the Proposal: Please enter a brief description of the proposal here. Attach a detailed description of the proposed activity and drawings (to a recognized scale, e.g. 1:100) to illustrate your proposal. Please refer to Chapter 4 of the District Plan, and Guidance Notes, for further details of information requirements.

See AEE and attachments

If this is an application for an Extension of Time (s.125); Change of Consent Conditions (s.127) or Change or Cancellation of Consent Notice conditions (s.221(3)), please quote relevant existing Resource Consents and Consent Notice identifiers and provide details of the change(s) or extension being sought, with reasons for requesting them.

9. Would you like to request Public Notification Yes/No 027 657 5903 14. Important Information:

Note to applicant You must include all information required by this form. The information must be specified in sufficient detail to satisfy the purpose for which it is required. You may apply for 2 or more resource consents that are needed for the same activity on the same form. You must pay the charge payable to the consent authority for the resource consent application under the Resource Management Act 1991.

Fast-track application Under the fast-track resource consent process, notice of the decision must be given within 10 working days after the date the application was first lodged with the authority, unless the applicant opts out of that process at the time of lodgement. A fast-track application may cease to be a fast-track application under section 87AAC(2) of the RMA.

Privacy Information: Once this application is lodged with the Council it becomes public information. Please advise Council if there is sensitive information in the proposal. The information you have provided on this form is required so that your application for consent pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991 can be processed under that Act. The information will be stored on a public register and held by the Far North District Council. The details of your application may also be made available to the public on the Council’s website, www.fndc.govt.nz. These details are collected to inform the general public and community groups about all consents which have been issued through the Far North District Council.

Declaration: The information I have supplied with this application is true and complete to the best of my knowledge.

Name: Brett King (please print)

Signature: (signature) Date: 10 August 2020 (A signature is not required if the application is made by electronic means)

Checklist (please tick if information is provided) o Payment (cheques payable to Far North District Council) Electronic o A current Certificate of Title (Search Copy not more than 6 months old) o Copies of any listed encumbrances, easements and/or consent notices relevant to the application o Applicant / Agent / Property Owner / Bill Payer details provided o Location of property and description of proposal o Assessment of Environmental Effects o Written Approvals / correspondence from consulted parties o Reports from technical experts (if required) o Copies of other relevant consents associated with this application o Location and Site plans (land use) AND/OR o Location and Scheme Plan (subdivision) o Elevations / Floor plans o Topographical / contour plans

Please refer to Chapter 4 of the District Plan for details of the information that must be provided with an application. Please also refer to the RC Checklist available on the Council’s website. This contains more helpful hints as to what information needs to be shown on plans.

Only one copy of an application is required, but please note for copying and scanning purposes, documentation should be:

UNBOUND SINGLE SIDED NO LARGER THAN A3 in SIZE Planning Assessment

Subdivision Resource Consent Proposal Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi

Date 03/08/2020

Please find attached:

x an application form for a Subdivision Resource Consent to create five allotments in the Rural Production Zone, with four of these allotments to be amalgamated with either existing allotments or proposed allotments and; x an Assessment of Environmental Effects indicating the potential and actual effects of the proposal on the environment.

The application has been assessed as a Non-Complying Activity under the Far North Operative District Plan.

The new amalgamation conditions are shown on the scheme plan which will have to be approved by Land Information NZ (LINZ).

Page | 1 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

Form 9

APPLICATION FOR RESOURCE CONSENT

Pursuant to Section 88, Resource Management Act 1991

TO: Far North District Council 1. Shirttail Orchards Limited, apply for a Subdivision Resource Consent. 2. The location of the proposed activity is as follows:

Legal Description: Lot 1 DP515576 & Lot 2 DP429744 Address: 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi 3. No additional resource consents are needed for the proposed activity. 4. For the purposes of this application, please see attached: x in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, an Assessment of Environmental Effects in the detail that corresponds with the scale and significance of the effects that the proposed activity may have on the environment; x any information required to be included in this application by the District Plan, the Regional plan, the Resource Management Act 1991, or any regulations made under that Act (if any), required to be included in the application by the District or Regional plan(s), or regulations; x information required by Sections 6-7 of Schedule 4, Sections 6 and 7 (relating to information and matters to be addressed in an assessment of environmental effects report) as detailed in this planning report; and x Information that is sufficient to adequately define 2 (1): a. a description of the activity: b. a description of the site at which the activity is to occur: c. the full name and address of each owner or occupier of the site: d. a description of any other activities that are part of the proposal to which the application relates: e. a description of any other resource consents required for the proposal to which the application relates: f. an assessment of the activity against the matters set out in Part 2: g. an assessment of the activity against any relevant provisions of a document referred to in section 104(1)(b). (2) (2) The assessment under subclause (1)(g) must include an assessment of the activity against— (a) any relevant objectives, policies, or rules in a document; and (b) any relevant requirements, conditions, or permissions in any rules in a document; and (c) any other relevant requirements in a document (for example, in a national environmental standard or other regulations). NORTHLAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (2018) LIMITED

ACTION NAME SIGNED AUTHOR: ALEX BILLOT Resource Planner REVIEWED BY: SHERYL HANSFORD Director Consultant Planner Assoc.NZPI AUTHORISED FOR FELICITY FOY RELEASE BY: Director Consultant Planner MNZPI BRM PGDipPlan

Page | 2 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY ...... 5 1.1 SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL ...... 5 1.2 AMALGAMATION CONDITIONS ...... 5 2.0 THE SITE AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT ...... 5 3.0 BACKGROUND ...... 7 3.1 RECORD OF TITLE AND CONSENT NOTICE INFORMATION ...... 7 3.2 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSENTS ...... 8 4.0 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES THAT ARE PART OF THE PROPOSAL ...... 8 5.0 REASONS FOR THE APPLICATION ...... 8 5.1 ASSESSMENT OF CHAPTER 13 ...... 8 5.1.1 OVERALL STATUS OF THE APPLICATION ...... 9 5.2 ASSESSMENT OF DISTRICT PLAN LAND-USE RULE 8.6.5.1 RURAL PRODUCTION ...... 9 5.2.1 OVERALL STATUS OF LAND USE COMPONENT ...... 10 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 11 7.0 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT ...... 19 7.1 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ...... 19 7.2 CHARACTER AND VISUAL AMENITY EFFECTS ...... 19 7.3 POSITIVE EFFECTS...... 19 7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY ...... 20 8 STATUTORY ASSESSMENT ...... 20 8.1 SECTION 104(1)(A) OF THE ACT ...... 20 8.2 SECTION 104(1)(AB) OF THE ACT ...... 20 8.3 SECTION 104(1)(B) OF THE ACT ...... 20 8.4 REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT ...... 21 8.5 FAR NORTH DISTRICT PLAN ...... 22 8.5.1 RELEVANT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES ...... 22 8.5.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES WITHIN THE RURAL PRODUCTION ZONE ..... 22 8.6 SECTION 104(1)(B) SUMMARY ...... 25 9 SECTION 104(1)(C) OF THE ACT ...... 25 10. OTHER RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ACT ...... 25 10.1 SECTION 104D TEST FOR NON-COMPLYING ACTIVITIES ...... 25 11. SECTION 125 – LAPSING OF CONSENT ...... 26 12. NOTIFICATION ASSESSMENT – SECTIONS 95A TO 95G OF THE ACT ...... 26 12.1 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION ASSESSMENT ...... 26 12.1.1 STEP 1: MANDATORY PUBLIC NOTIFICATION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES ...... 26 12.1.2 STEP 2: PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PRECLUDED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES ...... 27

Page | 3 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

12.1.3 STEP 3: PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIRED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES ...... 27 12.1.4 STEP 4: PUBLIC NOTIFICATION IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ...... 28 12.1.5 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION SUMMARY ...... 28 12.2 LIMITED NOTIFICATION ASSESSMENT ...... 28 12.2.1 STEP 1: CERTAIN AFFECTED GROUPS AND AFFECTED PERSONS MUST BE NOTIFIED ...... 28 12.2.2 STEP 2: LIMITED NOTIFICATION PRECLUDED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES ...... 29 12.2.3 STEP 3: CERTAIN OTHER AFFECTED PERSONS MUST BE NOTIFIED ...... 29 12.2.4 STEP 4: FURTHER NOTIFICATION IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ...... 30 12.2.5 LIMITED NOTIFICATION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY ...... 30 12.3 NOTIFICATION ASSESSMENT CONCLUSION ...... 31 13 PART 2 ASSESSMENT ...... 31 14 CONCLUSION ...... 32

Attachments: 1. Far North District Council Application Form signed 2. Record of Titles – RT516120 & RT802174 3. Consent Notices – 7309317.3 & 11515488.6 4. Scheme Plan – Von Sturmers Surveyors 5. Archaeological Report – Geometria Ltd 6. NZTA Approval Letter - NZTA 7. Wastewater Report – Effluential Drainlayers 8. Correspondence regarding hazardous activities – FNDC & NRC 9. Correspondence with Heritage NZ Pouhere Taonga

Page | 4 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

Assessment of Environment Effects Report

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY 1.1 Subdivision Proposal The proposal is to undertake a subdivision of Lot 1 DP 515576 and Lot 2 DP429744 to create five allotments, four of these allotments will be amalgamated with either existing allotments or proposed allotments. Therefore, there will not be an increase in the amount of Record of Titles created as a result of this proposal.

The proposed lot sizes are as follows: x Proposed Lot 1 - 1.24 hectares (to be amalgamated with Proposed Lot 3) Total area = 6.24 hectares x Proposed Lot 2 – 7.83 hectares (to be amalgamated with adjoining Lot 2 DP515576) Total area = 20.375 hectares x Proposed Lot 3 – 5.00 hectares (to be amalgamated with Proposed Lot 1) Total area = 6.24 hectares x Proposed Lot 4 – 15.40 hectares (to be amalgamated with adjoining Lot 1 DP 198446) Total area = 26.127 hectares x Proposed Lot 5 – 11.65 hectares

Areas and measurements are subject to final survey.

1.2 Amalgamation Conditions As stated above, Proposed Lots 2 & 4 are to be amalgamated with existing record of titles with adjoining allotments and proposed Lots 1 & 3 are to be amalgamated and held within one Record of Title.

The amalgamation conditions are stated on the scheme plan from Von Sturmers Surveyors and will need to be approved by LINZ. The amalgamation conditions are as follows:

x That Lot 1 hereon be transferred to the owner of Lot 3 hereon and that one Record of Title be issued to include both parcels. x That Lot 2 hereon and Lot 2 DP515576 (RT 802174) be held in the same Record of Title. x That Lot 4 hereon be transferred to the owner of Lot 1 DP198466 (RT 516119) and that one Record of Title be issued to include both parcels.

2.0 THE SITE AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT The subject sites are located within the Rural Production Zone, with Lot 1 DP515576 being 9.07 hectares and Lot 2 DP 429744 being 32.0469 hectares. The subject sites are currently used for rural production activities. Lot 1 DP515576 currently contains an existing dwelling which is proposed to be contained within Proposed Lot 1. Lot 2 DP429744 also contains a dwelling which will be contained within Proposed Lot 5, as shown on the scheme plan from Von Sturmers.

Page | 5 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

The contour of the land is mostly undulating and covered in grass. The two allotments are separated by State Highway 1, as can be seen in the aerial photo below. Access to the subject sites are via State Highway 1. NZTA approval has been obtained, which is discussed further in Section 6 of this report. Lot sizes in the surrounding locality range from smaller lifestyle blocks of 4 hectares to larger farming and horticulture blocks of approximately 25 hectares.

Screenshot from QuickMaps showing the subject sites and surrounding environment

Aerial view of the subject site. Source: Google Maps Page | 6 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 Record of Title and Consent Notice Information Lot 1 DP515576 is held within Record of Title 802174 which is dated 24 December 2019 and is owned by MK Harvey. Consent Notice 7309317.3 and 11515488.6 are registered on the Record of Title.

Consent Notice 7309317.3 was registered on 28th February 2007 and contains three conditions:

x No building which requires effluent disposal shall be erected on Lots 1-3 and 5-8 without the prior approval of the Council to a report from a person with the appropriate expertise in such disposal, in terms of the requirements of the Auckland Regional Council technical Publication 58, including an indication of compliance with the relevant Northland Regional Council rules. x No dwelling shall be erected on proposed Lots 1-3 and 5-8 without the prior approval of the Council to specific designs for foundations addressing flood potential and soil strength, prepared by a Chartered Professional Engineer with requisite geotechnical competence. x This area contains a high concentration of archaeological deposits, including historic pre-European field drainage systems associated with the pa site on Lots 5 & 6. If during the course of undertaking any development on any of the lots there is a discovery made of any archaeological fine, or suspected find, the work on that portion of the site should cease immediately and the NZ Historic Places Trust and a representative of the relevant local iwi contacted. It is unlawful to modify, damage or destroy an archaeological site without the prior authority from the Trust under the Historic Places Act 1993.

Consent Notice 7309317.3 was registered on an allotment, which has since been subdivided. This proposal does not propose to construct any additional dwellings or structures and therefore the first two conditions are not applicable to the proposal. An archaeological report has also been completed for the site which will be discussed further in Section 6 of this report.

Consent Notice 11515488.6 was registered on 29th October 2018 and contains the following:

x Reticulated power supply and telecommunication services are not a requirement of this subdivision consent. The responsibility for providing both power supply and telecommunication services will remain the responsibility of the property owner. x In conjunction with the construction of a new dwelling, a roof water collection system with a minimum tank storage of 45,000 litres shall be provided. The tank(s) shall be positioned so that they are safely accessible for fire fighting purposes and fitted with an outlet compatible with rural fire service equipment. Where more than one tank is utilised they shall be coupled together and at least one tank fitted with rural fire service equipment.

The other two consent conditions registered within CN11515488.6 are relevant to Lot 2 DP 515576 and therefore irrelevant to this application. It is anticipated that the above consent notice conditions will be brought forward to the new titles. Page | 7 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

Lot 2 DP429744 is held within Record of Title 516120 and is dated 28 May 2010 and is owned by Shirttail Orchards Limited. Consent Notice 7309317.3 is also registered on this title, which has been detailed above.

3.2 Previously approved Consents RMACOM 2180041 was granted on 22nd August 2017 which was for a subdivision to create one additional lot as well as consent for breach of the permitted setback from boundaries for the dwelling (which is to be contained within Proposed Lot 1 of this application). RMACOM 2180041 created Lots 1 & 2 DP 515576. Lot 1 DP 515576 is one of the subject sites included in this subdivision application.

4.0 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES THAT ARE PART OF THE PROPOSAL 4.1 Clause 3(A) of Schedule 4 of the Resource Management Act requires that information about related permitted activities be provided in the resource consent application. In this case there are no related permitted activities relevant to this proposal.

5.0 REASONS FOR THE APPLICATION

5.1 Assessment of Chapter 13 An assessment of the proposal against the rules contained with Chapter 13 has been undertaken and the following reasons for consent are:

The proposal is to undertake a subdivision of Lot 1 DP 515576 and Lot 2 DP429744 to create five allotments, with four of these allotments being amalgamated with either existing allotments or proposed allotments. No additional Record of Titles are created as a result of this proposal.

The proposed lot sizes are as follows: x Proposed Lot 1 - 1.24 hectares (to be amalgamated with Proposed Lot 3) Total area = 6.24 hectares x Proposed Lot 2 – 7.83 hectares (to be amalgamated with existing Lot 2 DP515576) Total area = 20.375 hectares x Proposed Lot 3 – 5.00 hectares (to be amalgamated with Proposed Lot 1) Total area = 6.24 hectares x Proposed Lot 4 – 15.40 hectares (to be amalgamated with existing Lot 1 DP 198446) Total area = 26.127 hectares x Proposed Lot 5 – 11.65 hectares

The proposal will result in the new Record of Titles having total site areas all over 4 hectares due to the amalgamation conditions imposed. The proposed new record of titles can meet the minimum lot sizes under the Discretionary Activity Status, as the resulting area for each record of title is over 4 hectares in area. However, Page | 8 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

as Proposed Lot 1 is under 4 hectares in area the application is technically a Non-Complying Activity.

TABLE 13.7.2.1: MINIMUM LOT SIZES (i) RURAL PRODUCTION ZONE

Controlled Activity Restricted Discretionary Activity Discretionary Activity

The minimum lot 1. Subdivision that complies with the controlled 1. The minimum lot size is 4ha; or activity standard, but is within 100m of the boundary size is 20ha. of the Minerals Zone; 2. A maximum of 3 lots in any subdivision, provided 2. The minimum lot size is 12ha; or that the minimum lot size is 2,000m² and there is at 3. A maximum of 3 lots in any subdivision, provided least 1 lot in the subdivision with a minimum size of 4ha, and provided further that the subdivision is of that the minimum lot size is 4,000m2 and there is at least 1 lot in the subdivision with a minimum lot size sites which existed at or prior to 28 April 2000, or of 4ha, and provided further that the subdivision is of which are amalgamated from titles existing at or sites which existed at or prior to 28 April 2000, or prior to 28 April 2000; or which are amalgamated from titles existing at or prior 3. A subdivision in terms of a management plan as to 28 April 2000; or per Rule 13.9.2 may be approved. 4. A maximum of 5 lots in a subdivision (including the parent lot) where the minimum size of the lots is 2ha, 4. Subdivision in the Pouerua Heritage Precinct (refer and where the subdivision is created from a site that Maps 35, 41 and HP1), is a discretionary subdivision existed at or prior to 28 April 2000; activity.

5.1.1 Overall status of the application Overall, subdivision resource consent is required for a Non-Complying activity.

5.2 Assessment of District Plan Land-use Rule 8.6.5.1 Rural Production Proposed lots 1 & 5 will contain the existing residential units with proposed Lots 2, 3 & 4 being vacant land. An assessment of District Plan Rules contained within 8.6.5.1 is provided below.

Assessment of the PERMITTED RURAL PRODUCTION ZONE RULES: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Plan Rule Residential Unit within Residential Unit within Reference Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 5 8.6.5.1.1 RESIDENTIAL Complies. Complies. INTENSITY Proposed Lot 1 will only Proposed Lot 5 will contain contain one residential unit. only one residential unit. 8.6.5.1.2 SUNLIGHT Complies. Complies. The existing residential unit The existing residential unit does not breach the permitted does not breach the permitted sunlight rules. sunlight rules. 8.6.5.1.3 STORMWATER Complies. Complies. MANAGEMENT The impermeable surfaces The impermeable surfaces within Proposed Lot 1 are well within Proposed Lot 5 are well within 15% of the total site within 15% of the total site area. area.

Page | 9 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

8.6.5.1.4 SETBACK FROM Consent granted. Complies. BOUNDARIES The existing residential unit The existing residential unit was subject to a setback from and barn complies with the boundary breach which was permitted setback distances granted under RMACOM as the structure is a 2180041 approved in 2017. substantial distance from the The boundary subject to this new dividing boundary. breach will not change as a result of this proposal. 8.6.5.1.5 TRANSPORTATION Complies. Complies. The proposal complies with The proposal complies with the permitted standard. the permitted standard.

8.6.5.1.6 KEEPING OF Not applicable. Not applicable. ANIMALS This proposal does not seek to This proposal does not seek to apply for keeping of animals. apply for keeping of animals. 8.6.5.1.7 NOISE Complies. Complies. The proposal is considered to The proposal is considered to comply with the noise comply with the noise permitted standard of the permitted standard of the plan. plan. 8.6.5.1.8 BUILDING HEIGHT Complies. Complies. The residential unit is well The residential unit is well below the permitted 12m in below the permitted 12m in height. height. 8.6.5.1.9 HELICOPTER Not applicable as there is no Not applicable as there is no LANDING AREA helicopter landing area helicopter landing area proposed. proposed. 8.6.5.1.10 BUILDING Complies. Complies. COVERAGE Due to the large size of Due to the large size of Proposed Lot 1 the building Proposed Lot 5 the building coverage within the allotment coverage within the allotment will be less than the permitted will be less than the permitted standard of 12.5% of the total standard of 12.5% of the total site area. site area. 8.6.5.1.11 SCALE OF Not applicable. Not applicable. ACTIVITIES 8.6.5.1.12 TEMPORARY Not applicable as this Not applicable as this EVENTS proposal does not include any proposal does not include any temporary events. temporary events.

5.2.1 Overall status of land use component The proposal does not breach any land use District Plan rules and therefore this application is for subdivision only.

Page | 10 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT Having reviewed the relevant plan provisions and taking into account the matters that must be addressed by an assessment of environmental effects as outlined in Clause 7 of Schedule 4 of the Act, the following environmental effects warrant consideration as part of this application.

The proposal is considered to be a Non-Complying Activity as per rule 13.11. The criteria within 13.10 of the District Plan is therefore to be used as a guide for assessment of the subdivision, in conjunction with the matters set out under Sections 104, 104B, 104D and 106 of the Resource Management Act 1991. An assessment that corresponds with the scale and significance of the effects on the environment is provided below:

13.10.1 ALLOTMENT SIZES AND DIMENSIONS The proposal is to undertake a subdivision of Lot 1 DP 515576 and Lot 2 DP429744 to create five allotments with four of these allotments being amalgamated with either existing allotments or proposed allotments. No additional Record of Titles will be created as a result of this proposal.

The proposed lot sizes are as follows: x Proposed Lot 1 - 1.24 hectares (to be amalgamated with Proposed Lot 3) Total area = 6.24 hectares x Proposed Lot 2 – 7.83 hectares (to be amalgamated with existing Lot 2 DP515576) Total area = 20.375 hectares x Proposed Lot 3 – 5.00 hectares (to be amalgamated with Proposed Lot 1) Total area = 6.24 hectares x Proposed Lot 4 – 15.40 hectares (to be amalgamated with existing Lot 1 DP 198446) Total area = 26.127 hectares x Proposed Lot 5 – 11.65 hectares

The above resultant record of titles can meet the minimum lot sizes under the Discretionary Activity Status, as the allotments (including the amalgamated lots) will be over 4 hectares in area. However, as Proposed Lot 1 is under 4 hectares in area, (not including the amalgamation with proposed Lot 3), the application is technically a Non-Complying Activity. It is worth emphasising that the proposal will result in total site areas for each Record of Title being over 4 hectares in area, due to the amalgamation of allotments.

The surrounding allotments range in size from lifestyle blocks of around 4 hectares in area to larger farming and horticulture blocks of 10 to 50 hectares. Recently, this area has seen an increase in horticulture activities, with a large portion of the surrounding area, which has been previously used for beef farming, being converted to horticulture activities (mainly avocado orchards). It is intended for proposed Lots 1 & 3 to be amalgamated and continue to be used for rural lifestyle/production use. Proposed Lot 2 is to be amalgamated with existing Lot 2 DP515576, which is currently used for rural production activities. It is considered that Proposed Lot 2 will continue to be utilised for rural production use.

Page | 11 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

Proposed Lot 4 is to be amalgamated with existing Lot 1 DP198446. Lot 1 DP198446 already contains an avocado orchard and it is anticipated that future development of Lot 4 is likely to be an extension to the current avocado operation contained within Lot 1 DP198446. Proposed Lot 5 will be over 11 hectares in area and will contain the existing dwelling and continue to be utilised for rural production use.

The proposed allotments are within the size already in existence in the locality and have sufficient dimensions to provide a 30m x 30m buildable platform which does not encroach on the permitted boundary setbacks for the zone (noting that Proposed Lot 1 and 5 already contain residential units).

Due to the proposed amalgamation conditions, the proposed allotments will all be over 6 hectares in area and it is considered that the proposal is not out of character with the surrounding environment or the Rural Production zone in general.

Due to the existing pattern of development in the area it is considered that there are not any adverse cumulative effects created by the proposal and that the proposal does not result in degradation of the character of the surrounding rural environment.

Aerial view of the site and surrounding environment showing the rural use of the environment.

Page | 12 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

Screenshot from QuickMap showing the subject site and surrounding environment.

13.10.2 NATURAL AND OTHER HAZARDS The Northland Regional Council Hazard Maps do not indicate that the subject sites are susceptible to any known natural hazards. The FNDC Maps indicate that Lot 1 DP 515576 is shown to be susceptible to flooding as well as a small portion of the western area of Lot 2 DP429744, as shown in the maps below.

Excerpt from FNDC Maps showing flood susceptible areas Page | 13 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

There is an existing consent notice within Document 7309317.3, which is registered over both of the subject sites that states: ‘No dwelling shall be erected in proposed Lots 1-3 and 5-8 without prior approval of the Council to specific designs for foundations addressing flood potential and soil strength, prepared by a Chartered Professional Engineer with requisite geotechnical competence.’ In regard to the above consent notice condition, the relative lots referred to in the consent notice condition, for this application, are lots 3 – 5. Lot 3 is amalgamated with Lot 1 which already contains a dwelling, Lot 5 contains an existing dwelling and Lot 4 is to be amalgamated with a large rural block of over 41 hectares. In addition to this, it is the intention of the applicant to continue the rural productive use of the proposed allotments.

The subject site is not known to contain any other natural hazards to which s106 of the Act would apply. The subject site is also not located within a Coastal Zone. It is therefore concluded that the flood potential hazard of the site has been mitigated via a consent notice condition which applies to the construction of any habitable dwellings and that there are no other identified natural hazards which could adversely affect the ability to subdivide the subject site and affect the rural use of the new proposed allotments.

In terms of the National Environmental Standards for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES), there is no evidence to indicate that any HAIL activities have previously been undertaken, or currently being undertaken on the site. Enquiries have been made to the Northland Regional Council and FNDC regarding any hazardous activity information in relation to the properties. Both councils advised that the sites are not listed for any current or historical hazardous activities. Furthermore, assessment of historical photographs, as well as previously approved subdivision applications for the subject sites and discussions with the owners have been undertaken which also further validates that there are no activities or industries described in the HAIL list that are currently being or have been undertaken on the site. It is therefore concluded that the proposed subdivision does not require assessment under the NES.

13.10.3 WATER SUPPLY The site is not in an area that is serviced by a reticulated water supply. The proposed lots will have to provide for their own water supply through the collection and storage of rainwater in tanks. The existing residential units located on Lots 1 & 5 have existing water supply by way of tank collection. It is considered that Lots 2, 3 & 4 will also collect stormwater from roofs of buildings and hold it in water tanks when/if the sites are ever developed. This water supply will also be used for potential fire mitigation purposes as well.

Consent Notice 11515488.6, which is registered on Lot 1 DP515576, has the following condition: ‘In conjunction with the construction of a new dwelling, a roof water collection system with a minimum tank storage of 45,000 litres shall be provided. The tank(s) shall be positioned so that they are safely accessible for fire-fighting purposes and fitted with an outlet compatible with the rural fire service equipment. Where more than one tank is utilised they shall be coupled together and at least one tank fitted with rural fire service equipment.’

Page | 14 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

It is anticipated that the above mentioned consent notice will be registered on the new titles for the proposed allotments. 13.10.4 STORMWATER DISPOSAL The existing impermeable surfaces within Proposed Lots 1 & 5 are well within the permitted threshold for the Rural Production Zone. Stormwater runoff from the dwellings are directed to existing water tanks on site for potable use. Proposed Lots 2, 3 & 4 are currently vacant and do not contain any impermeable surfaces. All of the proposed allotments are of adequate size to allow for stormwater management within the proposed boundaries, via existing natural overland flowpaths and stormwater drains within the relevant lots. The proposal will retain the rural productive use of the sites and no additional impermeable surfaces are proposed.

It is therefore considered that the proposal will not cause any changes to the existing stormwater attenuation methods, as the proposed lots are of adequate size to contain stormwater within the respective boundaries.

13.10.5 SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL Effluential Drainlayers completed a wastewater report to cover the existing onsite septic systems within Proposed Lots 1 & 5. It was concluded in the report that the existing septic systems within Proposed Lots 1 & 5, are wholly contained within the proposed boundaries and are in working order, with no sign of septic stress.

Proposed Lots 2 & 4 are over 7 hectares in area and will remain in rural productive use.

It is anticipated a consent notice condition will be imposed on Proposed Lots 2 & 4, stating that the lot owner shall obtain a Building Consent and a TP58 from a suitably qualified professional and install the wastewater treatment and effluent disposal system as detailed, at the time of construction of any building that requires a wastewater disposal system.

It is considered that sanitary sewage disposal is achievable within Proposed Lots 2 & 4 without creating potential adverse effects and that the existing onsite systems within Proposed Lots 1 & 5 will also not create any adverse effects.

13.10.6 ENERGY SUPPLY & 13.10.8 TELECOMMUNICATIONS As these services are not a requirement for the Rural Production zone, comments have not been sought from Top Energy or Chorus. The provision of energy supply and telecommunications is not anticipated to be a condition of consent for this proposal.

13.10.7 TRANSMISSION LINES There are no transmission lines that are 50kv or above within close proximity to the site.

13.10.9 EASEMENTS FOR ANY PURPOSE The memorandum of easements is shown on the scheme plan from Von Sturmers. A snippet is also shown below for clarity. The existing Pedestrian Access easement, which is currently over Lot 2 DP515576, is to be extended over Proposed Lot 2 so that Proposed Lot 1 can gain pedestrian access to the conservation area which adjoins the eastern boundary of Lot 2 DP515576. A Right of Way easement is also proposed, with Proposed Lot 3 being the Servient Tenement and Proposed Lot 5 being the Dominant Tenement. This is in accordance with the NZTA Page | 15 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

Approval Letter which requires both Proposed Lots 3 & 5 to utilise the relocated CP277, as will be discussed further below.

13.10.10 PROVISION OF ACCESS The proposed allotments will gain access from State Highway 1. As access is to be from a State Highway, NZTA have been consulted for their comments and requirements for the subdivision. The NZTA Approval Letter has been included with this application.

The proposed access arrangements are as follows: x Proposed Lots 3 and 5 will utilise CP277 which is to be relocated, as per NZTA request. x Proposed Lots 1 & 2 will utilise CP117 which has already been formed to NZTA PPM Diagram C Standard, as part of the previously approved subdivision RMACOM 2180041 x Proposed Lot 4 – amalgamated with Lot 1 DP 198446 and accessed via CP281 to the south of the development

The following conditions have been requested from NZTA:

Page | 16 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

NZTA have also provided a list of advice notes 4-11, which are anticipated to be included as Advice Notes on the decision document.

13.10.11 EFFECT OF EARTHWORKS AND UTILITIES No earthworks or additional utilities are proposed as part of this subdivision application.

13.10.12 BUILDING LOCATIONS The proposed allotments are of sufficient area and dimensions to provide for many options in regard to buildable platforms. It is noted that lots 1 & 5 are already developed with and the remaining lots are being amalgamated with adjoining rural blocks where the rural production activities will remain in place. It is considered that specified building envelopes are not required for this application.

13.10.13 PRESERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF HERITAGE RESOURCES, VEGETATION, FAUNA AND LANDSCAPE, AND LAND SET ASIDE FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES The subject site is currently used for rural production activities and is not known to include any significant indigenous flora or fauna or known to have kiwi present.

An Archaeological Assessment has been completed for the proposed subdivision by Geometria Ltd in July 2020, which has been included with this application. It was concluded in the Archaeological Assessment that there is a recorded Archaeological site N03/640, which will be located within Proposed Lot 5, however, this archaeological site will remain unaffected as part of the proposed subdivision as the built development is existing and no earthworks are required for the subdivision. It was also noted that there may be possible pre historic drains within Proposed lot 2 however verification to determine the origin of these would require intrusive investigation and this is not required as the land use will not change and they are not under any current threat. It was concluded in the Archaeological Assessment that any potential Archaeological sites will not be affected by the proposed subdivision and further investigations can be completed if any residential development is proposed within Lots 2 & 3. It is therefore anticipated that the following consent notice condition will be imposed on the relevant Record of Titles for the new lots, as recommended by Geometria Ltd: x An Archaeological assessment is required of any future residential development to Lot 3 or Lot 5 is recommended.

Heritage NZ Pouhere Taonga were consulted during the pre-application process and provided with a copy of the Archaeological Assessment completed by Geometria Ltd. Heritage NZ Pouhere Taonga advised on 21st July 2020 that ‘Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga accepts and adopts and recommends that the ‘Recommendations’ of the 7 July 2020 Geometria Limited report be followed as no earthworks are proposed as part of this subdivision.’ This correspondence is attached with this application.

As the proposal will not change the current rural productive use of the site, and with the offered consent notice condition, it is considered that the proposed subdivision will not have any adverse effects in relation to heritage resources, vegetation, fauna and landscape.

Page | 17 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

13.10.14 SOIL The soil has been classified as high producing exotic grassland. As mentioned, it is proposed to keep the proposed allotments in rural productive use and therefore will not change the existing use of the sites. The proposal also includes the amalgamation conditions to ensure the allotments are of sufficient size to allow for rural productive use, and will therefore avoid any impacts on the soils and the continuation of the existing rural production activities. It is considered that this subdivision will not result in any adverse effects relating to the life supporting capacity of soil.

13.10.15 ACCESS TO WATERBODIES There are no waterbodies on the subject site which warrant the creation of any reserves or access ways.

13.10.16 LAND USE INCOMPATIBILITY The proposed lots can meet the minimum lot sizes under the Discretionary Activity Status, as the allotments (with the amalgamations) will be over 4 hectares in area. However, as Proposed Lot 1 is under 4 hectares in area, before the amalgamation with Proposed Lot 3, the application is technically a Non-Complying Activity. It is worth emphasising that the proposal will create new Record of Titles that will result in areas that are all over 4 hectares and it is considered that the proposal is not out of character with the surrounding environment or the Rural Production zone in general.

The surrounding allotments range in size from lifestyle blocks of around 4 hectares in area to larger farming and horticulture blocks of 10 to 50 hectares. Recently, this area has seen an increase in horticulture activities, with a large portion of the surrounding area, which was previously used for beef farming, being converted to horticulture activities (mainly avocado orchards). It is proposed that Lots 1 & 3 be amalgamated and continue to be used for rural lifestyle/production use as lot 1 contain an existing dwelling. Proposed Lot 2 is to be amalgamated with existing Lot 2 DP515576, which is currently used for rural production activities. It is considered that Proposed Lot 2 will be utilised for rural production use in the future. Proposed Lot 4 is to be amalgamated with existing Lot 1 DP198446. Lot 1 DP198446 already contains an avocado orchard and it is anticipated that Lot 4 will be utilised for rural production activities. Proposed Lot 5 will be over 11 hectares in area and will continue to be utilised for rural production use and also contains an existing dwelling and assessor buildings.

The proposed lot sizes have sufficient area to provide similar uses that are already in existence in the vicinity; therefore, it is considered the lot sizes proposed will not create or be subject to incompatible land use activities or reverse sensitivity effects from existing land uses adjacent to the lots.

It is considered the proposal will not erode the rural character of the area as there are several sites in close proximity that are of a similar size to the proposed allotments and also with the proposed amalgamation conditions, the lot sizes can comply with the discretionary activity lot size. The subject site has no distinguishing characteristics and it is considered that the visual effects of the proposal, including effects on landscape, natural character and amenity values, will be less than minor.

Page | 18 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

13.10.17 PROXIMITY TO AIRPORTS Not applicable as the site is not in close proximity to an airport.

13.10.18 NATURAL CHARACTER OF THE COASTAL ENVIRONMENT Not applicable as the site is not located within the coastal environment.

13.10.19 ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT/USE No renewable energy proposals have been included within this application.

13.10.20 NATIONAL GRID CORRIDOR The proposal is not within the National Grid Corridor, therefore this is not applicable.

7.0 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT In assessing the potential adverse effects on the environment, the receiving “environment” for effects must be considered. The receiving environment is a mandatory consideration defined by case law and is the environment beyond the subject site upon which a proposed activity might have effects. In this case, the receiving environment is as described in Section 2 of this report.

7.1 Other considerations As per sections 95D(d) and 104(3)(a) of the Act, the following assessment has not had regard to: x Trade competition, or the effects of trade competition

7.2 Character and Visual Amenity Effects In terms of effects on landscape values, it is considered the proposal is of a density that can provide for rural productive activities within each lot. The area does not contain any distinguishing characteristics and it is considered the character and visual effects of the subdivision proposal will be no more than minor.

7.3 Positive Effects The positive effects of the proposal include: x The proposal is in keeping with the environmental outcomes of the zone; x The rural character and current lifestyle use of the area will not change as a result of the subdivision; x The proposal will not result in any adverse social, economic or cultural effects; x The proposal enables the sustainable use of natural and physical resources, as the proposed development is not located within an area that has protected flora or fauna; x Proposed allotments 1 & 5 already contain dwellings with existing infrastructure such as wastewater & stormwater disposal; x The proposed amalgamation conditions will create allotments which have a minimum net area of 6 hectares and therefore are of adequate size to cater for rural productive activities within each of the proposed allotments.

Page | 19 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

x The proposal will increase traffic safety by relocating CP277 as per NZTA request. The other allotments can utilise existing crossing places and therefore are not increasing the number of crossing places on to State Highway 1. x The proposal will not increase the number of Record of Titles, due to the proposed amalgamation conditions. x The proposal will enable the protection of any archaeological sites by imposing a consent notice condition requiring further assessment if the use of the land is to change.

7.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Summary Overall, from the assessment undertaken above the proposal will have actual and potential effects that are considered to be minor.

8 STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

8.1 Section 104(1)(a) of the Act Section 104(1)(a) requires that when considering an application for a resource consent, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to ‘any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity’.

As assessed in Section 6 above, the proposal will have actual and potential effects that are acceptable. In addition, the proposal will also have positive effects on the environment, as the proposed allotments allow for the lifestyle and farming activities to continue and the allotment sizes are considered to be consistent with the existing character of the locality.

8.2 Section 104(1)(ab) of the Act Section 104(1)(ab) requires that the consent authority consider ‘any measure proposed or agreed to by the applicant for the purposes of ensuring positive effects on the environment to offset or compensate for any adverse effects on the environment that will or may result from allowing the activity’. It is considered the proposal is not of a scale or nature that would require specific offsetting or environmental compensation measures to ensure positive effects on the environment. As noted above, the proposed development itself will generate positive effects that are consistent with the intent of the Rural Production Zone.

8.3 Section 104(1)(b) of the Act Section 104(1)(b) requires that when considering an application for a resource consent, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to:

Any relevant provisions of – i. A national environmental standard; ii. Other regulations; iii. A national policy statement; iv. A New Zealand coastal policy statement; v. A regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement; vi. A plan or proposed plan Page | 20 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

An assessment of the relevant statutory documents that corresponds with the scale and significance of the effects that the activity may have on the environment has been provided below.

8.4 Regional Policy Statement The role of The Regional Policy Statement is to promote sustainable management of Northland’s natural and physical resources by providing an over view of the regions resource management issues and setting out policies and methods to achieve integrated management of Northlands natural and physical resources.

Assessment of Regional Policy Statement

OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE OF PROPOSAL 3.5 Northland’s natural and physical The proposal achieves this objective as Enabling resources are sustainably managed in a the explanation provided in the RPS economic way that is attractive for business and recognises the need for people and wellbeing investment that will improve the businesses to choose Northland as a economic wellbeing of Northland and its place to invest and for economic communities. development to be aligned with environmental outcomes and acknowledges that the character and quality of Northland’s natural Related environment is a major attraction for Policies: people, investors and businesses. The 4.1 – 4.3 & proposal is considered to result in the 6.1 additional investment in the district as well as managing the natural and physical resources of the site. 3.8 Manage resource use to: The site is not located in an area where Efficient and (a) Optimise the use of existing reticulated infrastructure has been effective infrastructure; provided. Lots 1 & 5 already contain infrastructure (b) Ensure new infrastructure is flexible, existing provisions for both water and adaptable, and resilient, and meets wastewater and lots 2, 3 & 4 are of a the reasonably foreseeable needs of size where they can provide for their the community; and own wastewater and stormwater (c) Strategically enable infrastructure to disposal if developed with a habitable lead or support regional economic building in the future. Therefore, this development and community application does not place any Related wellbeing. additional demands on the use of POLICIES: existing infrastructure. The proposal is 5.1 & 5.2 not considered to have any adverse effects on the community infrastructure. 5.1.1 (e) Should not result in incompatible land The proposal is to subdivide the Planned and uses in close proximity and avoids the subject sites to create five allotments coordinated potential for reverse sensitivity; with four of the allotments being development amalgamated with existing or (f)Applies to subdivision and plan proposed lots. With the proposed changes on land with highly versatile soils amalgamations, the minimum

Page | 21 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

in primary production zones. Proponents allotment size will be just over 6 should clearly demonstrate that the hectares. The proposed allotments benefits to the public (social, economic, are therefore of sufficient area to environmental and cultural) arising from continue rural productive activities. subdivision or a plan change, and The surrounding environment is subsequent development are greater made up of lifestyle blocks and larger than the benefits that would have blocks used for beef farming and occurred from productive use of the land. horticulture activities and the If the public benefits of retaining land proposal will create allotments that with highly versatile soil for primary can be utilised for similar uses. It is production activities is equal to or greater considered that the proposal will not Related than the public benefits that would be create incompatible land use and POLICIES: gained from a proposed development, it avoids any reverse sensitivity effects. 5.1 & 5.2 is expected that the land in question will

remain available for primary production.

The proposal is considered to create less than minor effects on the rural character of the locality. The proposal will enable further rural production activities to establish in a rural setting, while not compromising the sustainable management of natural and physical resources of the rural environment. The proposal is considered to have negligible effects on the life supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems. As such, it is considered the proposal is compatible with the intent of the RPS.

8.5 Far North District Plan

8.5.1 Relevant objectives and policies The relevant objectives and policies of the Plan are those related to the Rural Environment and the Rural Production Zone. The proposal is considered to create no more than minor adverse effects on the rural environment. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the rural character of the surrounding area and is considered to have negligible effects on the rural amenity value of the area, as the lot sizes in the locality already reflect the size of the lots proposed. The lots are able to remain in productive use which results in no physical changes to the environment and the landscape. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives and policies of the Plan.

8.5.2 Assessment of the objectives and policies within the Rural Production Zone

Objectives

-To promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in the Rural Production Zone.

The proposed subdivision will not create any additional Record of Titles as the allotments are to be amalgamated with existing or proposed allotments. All of the proposed allotments are of a size which can be used for rural production use, in a manner that has less than minor effects upon the existing activities occurring on and around adjoining sites. These sites are also able to be utilised for rural lifestyle purposes and rural production. The allotment sizes Page | 22 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

are considered to be consistent with the character of the locality, and therefore do not erode the rural amenity values of the area.

The proposal will enable further rural activities to be established in a rural setting, while not compromising the sustainable management of natural and physical resources of the rural environment.

-To enable the efficient use and development of the Rural Production Zone in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well- being and for their health and safety.

The proposed lifestyle and farming use of the lots is consistent with the character of the area. The proposal includes amalgamation conditions which create larger allotments to ensure that the lots are of a size to allow for many rural activities. The proposal will create allotments that can be utilised for rural production activities and potentially horticulture activities which will provide for the economic well being of the community.

The proposal is considered to allow for people and the community to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety.

-To promote the maintenance and enhancement of the amenity values of the Rural Production Zone.

The proposed allotments are considered to be of a size that will still be able to cater for productive use. The amenity of the rural environment is not considered to be compromised by the proposal, as the development is considered to be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. The property does not contain any outstanding landscapes or natural features.

-To promote the protection of significant natural values of the Rural Production Zone.

The rural environment in the Far North is varied and diverse. The amenity in the locality of the subject sites are lifestyle blocks and larger blocks used for farming and horticulture use that benefit from the rural type setting. The proposed allotment sizes are considered to be consistent with the character within the locality.

-To avoid, remedy or mitigate the actual and potential conflicts between new land use activities and existing lawfully established activities (reverse sensitivity) within the Rural Production Zone and on land use activities in neighbouring zones.

-To avoid remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of incompatible use or development on natural and physical resources.

-To enable the efficient establishment and operation of activities and services that have a functional need to be located in rural environments.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the land-use activities in the locality (being lifestyle, rural production and horticulture use). The current use of the sites are for rural production activities and it is considered that the proposed allotment sizes and proposed

Page | 23 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

amalgamation conditions will enable the proposed allotments to continue with the existing use. As mentioned, the subject site directly adjoins allotments that contain avocado orchards and there has been a rise in conversion of farming land to avocado orchards in the locality. It is therefore considered that the proposal will result in less than minor potential reverse sensitivity effects as the proposal will not change the existing use of the sites or the surrounding environment.

-To enable rural production activities to be undertaken in the zone.

The proposal is not considered to have potential adverse effects or prevent rural production activities from occurring. The subdivision of this site is considered to still allow for rural production activities to occur, therefore not resulting in any change of use on the site.

Policies

-That a wide range of activities be allowed in the Rural Production Zone, subject to the need to ensure that any adverse effects on the environment, including any reverse sensitivity effects, resulting from these activities are avoided, remedied or mitigated and are not to the detriment of rural productivity.

The proposal is not considered to alter the ability of the site to provide for a wide range of activities to occur. The proposal will result in five allotments with four of the allotments being amalgamated with existing or proposed allotments, therefore no additional Record of Titles will be created as a result of the proposal. With the proposed amalgamation conditions, the minimum allotment size will be 6 hectares, which complies with the minimum discretionary lot size. As mentioned, the proposal will enable a wide range of rural production activities within each of the allotments.

-That standards be imposed to ensure that the off-site effects of activities in the Rural Production Zone are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

-That although a wide range of activities that promote rural productivity are appropriate in the Rural Production Zone, an underlying goal is to avoid the actual and potential adverse effects of conflicting land use activities.

- That activities whose adverse effects, including reverse sensitivity effects cannot be avoided remedied or mitigated are given separation from other activities

The proposed productive use of the lots is considered to be consistent with the character and use of sites in the locality.

-That land management practices that avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on natural and physical resources be encouraged.

The existing use of the site is for lifestyle and farming purposes. The use of the site will not change as a result of the proposal.

-That the intensity of development allowed shall have regard to the maintenance and enhancement of the amenity values of the Rural Production Zone.

Page | 24 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

The amenity in the locality of this site is rural lifestyle, farming and horticulture blocks that benefit from the rural type setting in this locality. As previously explained in this report, the proposal is proposing allotment sizes which have been in existence previously and currently. It is considered that the proposal will not alter the existing amenity value of the area.

-That the type, scale and intensity of development allowed shall have regard to the maintenance and enhancement of the amenity values of the Rural Production Zone to a level that is consistent with the productive intent of the zone.

It is considered the proposal is of a density that can provide for rural living as well as rural production activities within all of the proposed allotments. The area does not contain any distinguishing characteristics and it is considered the character and visual effects of the subdivision proposal will be no more than minor. The proposal is therefore considered to enable the efficient use and development of the site and physical and natural resources.

-That activities be discouraged from locating where they are sensitive to the effects of or may compromise the continued operation of lawfully established existing activities in the Rural Production zone and in neighbouring zones.

The proposed lifestyle and farming use of the proposed lots is considered to be consistent with the character and use of sites in the locality.

8.6 Section 104(1)(b) Summary The above assessments demonstrate that the proposal will be consistent with the relevant objectives and policies and assessment criteria of the relevant statutory documents.

9 SECTION 104(1)(C) OF THE ACT Section 104(1)(c) also states that consideration must be given to ‘any other matters that the consent authority considers relevant and reasonable necessary to determine the application’. There are no other matters relevant to this application.

10. OTHER RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ACT

10.1 Section 104D Test for Non-Complying Activities To be able to grant consent to a non-complying activity, a council must be satisfied that either the adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be minor (s104D(1)(a)), or the proposed activity will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of a proposed plan or plan (s104D(1)(b)). This consideration is commonly known as the ‘threshold test’ or the ‘gateway test’.

The proposal is not considered to alter the ability of the site to provide for a wide range of activities to occur. The proposal will result in five allotments, with four of the allotments to be amalgamated with existing or proposed allotments. Therefore, there will not be an

Page | 25 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

increase in the number of Record of Titles, as a result of this proposal. The minimum lot size of the amalgamated lots will be 6 hectares, which meets the minimum lot size for discretionary activity status. Proposed Lots 1 & 5 will contain the existing residential units which contain onsite wastewater systems as well as water supply. It is anticipated that the allotments will continue to be utilised for rural production activities.

The surrounding environment consists of lifestyle blocks approximately 4 hectares in area to larger farming and horticulture lots of 10-50 hectares. It is therefore considered that the proposed lot sizes are not objectionable with the surrounding locality and the proposal will not create any reverse sensitivity effects, as what is currently in existence will remain.

NZTA have also provided their conditional approval to the subdivision, as has been explained in Section 6 of this report. Each of the allotments are of sufficient area to accommodate any future dwellings and onsite systems and a consent notice condition has been offered to mitigate effects of flooding on any future dwellings as well as effects on potential archaeological sites.

The area does not contain any distinguishing characteristics and it is considered the character and visual effects of the subdivision proposal will be no more than minor. The proposal is therefore considered to enable the efficient use and development of the site and physical and natural resources.

As identified in the assessment above, the adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be no more than minor and the proposed activity will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the plan. As such the application can be considered under Section 104 and a determination made on the application as provided by Section 104B.

11. SECTION 125 – LAPSING OF CONSENT The Act prescribes a standard consent period of five years in which all works must be undertaken, but this may be amended as determined by the Council. It is requested that the standard five year provision be applied in this case.

12. NOTIFICATION ASSESSMENT – SECTIONS 95A TO 95G OF THE ACT

12.1 Public Notification Assessment Section 95A requires a council to follow specific steps to determine whether to publicly notify an application. The following is an assessment of the application against these steps:

12.1.1 Step 1: Mandatory public notification in certain circumstances An application must be publicly notified if, under section 95A(3), it meets any of the following criteria:

Page | 26 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

(a) the applicant has requested that the application be publicly notified: (b) public notification is required under section 95C: (c) the application is made jointly with an application to exchange recreation reserve land under section 15AA of the Reserves Act 1977.

It is not requested the application be publicly notified and the application is not made jointly with an application to exchange reserve land. Therefore Step 1 does not apply and Step 2 must be considered.

12.1.2 Step 2: Public Notification precluded in certain circumstances An application must not be publicly notified if, under section 95A(5): (a) the application is for a resource consent for 1 or more activities, and each activity is subject to a rule or national environmental standard that precludes public notification: (b) the application is for a resource consent for 1 or more of the following, but no other, activities: (i) a controlled activity: (ii) a restricted discretionary or discretionary activity, but only if the activity is a subdivision of land or a residential activity: (iii) a restricted discretionary, discretionary, or non-complying activity, but only if the activity is a boundary activity: (iv) a prescribed activity (see section 360H(1)(a)(i)).

In this case Public Notification is not precluded, therefore Step 2 does not apply and Step 3 must be considered.

12.1.3 Step 3: Public notification required in certain circumstances An application is required to be publicly notified if one of the following circumstances are met, under section 95A(8): (a) the application is for a resource consent for 1 or more activities, and any of those activities is subject to a rule or national environmental standard that requires public notification: (b) the consent authority decides, in accordance with section 95D, that the activity will have or is likely to have adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor.

None of the circumstances specified under section 95A(8)(a) exist.

In regards to section 95A(8)(b) the following assessment is made: The adverse effects assessment under section 95D must discount adjacent land and positive effects, may take into account the permitted baseline and must consider the receiving environment.

Section 6 contains a comprehensive assessment of environmental effects of the proposal. When taking into consideration the above matters, in terms of section 95D the adverse effects of the activity will be no more than minor. In particular adverse effects in relation to the rural character including reverse sensitivity, have been considered and will be no more than minor.

Therefore Step 3 does not apply and Step 4 must be considered.

Page | 27 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

12.1.4 Step 4: Public notification in special circumstances Section 95A(9) states that a council must publicly notify an application for resource consent if it considers that ‘special circumstances’ exist, notwithstanding that Steps 1 – 3 above do not require or preclude public notification.

Special circumstances are not defined in the Act. Case law has identified special circumstances as something outside the common run of things which is exceptional, abnormal or unusual but less than extraordinary or unique. A special circumstance would be one which makes notification desirable despite the general provisions excluding the need for notification.

There are no special circumstances that exist to justify public notification of the application because the proposal is for a subdivision within the rural environment where the lots can retain rural activities which is considered as neither exceptional or unusual. The proposed lot sizes, with the amalgamation conditions, will also create lots which over 6 hectares in area, which complies with the minimum lot size for discretionary activities. As a result of the proposed amalgamation conditions, there will not be an increase in the number of Record of Titles as a result of this proposal. The proposal will allow the existing use of the site to remain while providing for social and economic benefit.

12.1.5 Public Notification Summary From the assessment above it is considered that the application does not need to be publicly notified, but assessment of limited notification is required.

12.2 Limited Notification Assessment If the application is not publicly notified, a consent authority must follow the steps of section 95B to determine whether to give limited notification of an application.

12.2.1 Step 1: Certain affected groups and affected persons must be notified The application must be limited notified to the relevant persons if the following are determined, as specified by section 95B(2) and (3): (2) (a) affected protected customary rights groups; or (b) affected customary marine title groups (in the case of an application for a resource consent for an accommodated activity). (3) (a) whether the proposed activity is on or adjacent to, or may affect, land that is the subject of a statutory acknowledgement made in accordance with an Act specified in Schedule 11; and (b) whether the person to whom the statutory acknowledgement is made is an affected person under section 95E.

There are no protected customary rights groups or customary marine title groups or statutory acknowledgement areas that are relevant to this application. Therefore Step 1 does not apply and Step 2 must be considered.

Page | 28 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

12.2.2 Step 2: Limited notification precluded in certain circumstances In the following circumstances an application must not be limited notified to any persons, as specified by section 95B(6): 6(a) the application is for a resource consent for 1 or more activities, and each activity is subject to a rule or national environmental standard that precludes limited notification:

(b) the application is for a resource consent for either or both of the following, but no other, activities: (i) a controlled activity that requires consent under a district plan (other than a subdivision of land): (ii) a prescribed activity (see section 360H(1)(a)(ii)).

There is no rule in the plan or national environmental standard that precludes notification. The application is not for a controlled activity, nor a prescribed activity. Therefore Step 2 does not apply and Step 3 must be considered.

12.2.3 Step 3: Certain other affected persons must be notified Other affected persons must be notified in the following circumstances specified by section 95B(7) and (8):

(7) Determine whether, in accordance with section 95E, the following persons are affected persons:

(a) in the case of a boundary activity, an owner of an allotment with an infringed boundary; and (b) in the case of any activity prescribed under section 360H(1)(b), a prescribed person in respect of the proposed activity.

(8) In the case of any other activity, determine whether a person is an affected person in accordance with section 95E.

The proposal is not for a boundary activity nor is it a prescribed activity.

In deciding who is an affected person under section 95E, a council under section 95E(2): (2) The consent authority, in assessing an activity’s adverse effects on a person for the purpose of this section,— (a) may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the person if a rule or a national environmental standard permits an activity with that effect; and (b) must, if the activity is a controlled activity or a restricted discretionary activity, disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the person if the effect does not relate to a matter for which a rule or a national environmental standard reserves control or restricts discretion; and (c) must have regard to every relevant statutory acknowledgement made in accordance with an Act specified in Schedule 11.

A council must not consider that a person is affected if they have given their written approval or it is unreasonable in the circumstances to seek that person’s approval.

Page | 29 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

In regards to effects on persons, the assessment in Sections 6 and 7 are also relied on and the following comments made:

x The size of the proposed allotments are consistent with the character of the allotments in the locality. x The proposed lot sizes, with the amalgamation conditions, comply with the minimum lot size under the discretionary activity status. x The development is not considered to be contrary to the objectives and policies under the District Plan. x All persons (potentially affected persons/parties) are sufficiently separated from the proposed development and works, such that there will be no effects on these people. x The existing use of the sites can remain. x NZTA conditional approval has been received for the proposed subdivision which includes the relocation of an existing crossing place to increase traffic safety. x An Archaeological Assessment has been completed as well as comments received from Heritage NZ Pouhere Taonga which determined that with the inclusion of the proposed consent notice condition, the subdivision will have no affects on potential or known archaeological sites.

Therefore, no persons will be affected to a minor or more than minor degree.

Overall, the adverse effects on any persons are considered to be less than minor. Therefore Step 3 does not apply and Step 4 must be considered.

12.2.4 Step 4: Further notification in special circumstances As required by section 95B(10), a council must determine the following: (10) whether special circumstances exist in relation to the application that warrant notification of the application to any other persons not already determined to be eligible for limited notification under this section (excluding persons assessed under section 95E as not being affected persons),

There are no special circumstances that exist to justify limited notification of the application because the proposal is for a subdivision within the rural environment where the lots can retain rural activities which is considered as neither exceptional or unusual. The proposed lot sizes, with the amalgamation conditions, will also create lots which over 6 hectares in area, which complies with the minimum lot size for discretionary activities. The proposal will not increase the number of Record of Titles, due to the proposed amalgamation conditions. The proposal will allow the existing use of the site to remain while providing for social and economic benefit. It is considered that no special circumstances exist in relation to the application.

12.2.5 Limited Notification Assessment Summary Overall, from the assessment undertaken Steps 1 to 4 do not apply and there are no such affected persons.

Page | 30 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

12.3 Notification Assessment Conclusion Pursuant to sections 95A to 95G it is recommended that the Council determine the application be non-notified for the following reasons:

x In accordance with section 95A Step 1, mandatory public notification is not required; x In accordance with section 95A Step 2, public notification is not precluded; x In accordance with section 95A Step 3, the circumstances requiring public notification do not apply, including that the adverse effects on the environment will be minor; x In accordance with section 95A Step 4, there are no special circumstances to warrant public notification. x In accordance with section 95B Step 1, there are no groups to whom the application must be limited notified; x In accordance with section 95B Step 2, limited notification is not precluded; x In accordance with section 95B Step 3, there are no such classes of affected persons; and x In accordance with section 95B Step 4, there are no special circumstances to warrant limited notification.

13 PART 2 ASSESSMENT The application must be considered in relation to the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991 which are contained in Section 5 to 8 of the Act inclusive.

The proposal will meet Section 5 of the RMA as the proposal will sustain the potential of natural and physical resource whilst meeting the foreseeable needs of future generations as the proposal is considered to retain the productive use of the land while still providing for their social, economic and cultural well-being. In addition, the proposal will avoid adverse effects on the environment and will maintain the rural character of the site and surrounding environment.

Section 6 of the Act sets out a number of matters of national importance. The proposal is considered to not have any adverse effects on these matters of national importance as:

x There is no significant indigenous vegetation affected by the proposal; x The works are not located within or near the coastal marine area; x The proposal is not located within an identified outstanding natural feature or landscape. x An Archaeological Assessment has been completed by Geometria Ltd which determined that the proposed subdivision will not have any adverse effects on known archaeological sites. It was concluded in the Archaeological Assessment that potential archaeological sites may be contained within Lots 2 & 3, but as these allotments are to remain in productive use, any potential sites will remain unaffected as part of the subdivision. A consent notice condition has been offered which requires further archaeological assessment if any future residential development is to occur within Proposed Lots 2, 3 or 5.

Section 7 identifies a number of “other matters” to be given particular regard by a Council in the consideration of any assessment for resource consent, including the maintenance and

Page | 31 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi Planning Assessment

enhancement of amenity values. The proposal maintains amenity values in the area as the proposal is in keeping with the existing character of the surrounding environment.

Section 8 requires Council to take into account the principals of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is considered that the proposal raises no Treaty issues. There are no scheduled Sites of Significance on the subject site or registered Wahi Tapu or Wahi Tapu Areas in the Heritage NZ Pouhere Taonga Register, as stated in the Archaeological Assessment by Geometria Ltd. The proposal is a boundary adjustment where no additional titles are being created The proposal is not considered to be contrary to the principals of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Overall, the application is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of Part 2 of the Act, as expressed through the objectives, policies and rules reviewed in earlier sections of this application. Given that consistency, we conclude that the proposal achieves the purposes of sustainable management set out by section 5 of the Act.

14 CONCLUSION The proposal will result in five allotments with four of the allotments to be amalgamated with existing or proposed allotments. There will not be an increase in the number of Record of Titles as a result of the subdivision, due to the proposed amalgamation conditions. The minimum lot size of the amalgamated lots will be 6 hectares, which meets the minimum lot size for discretionary activity status. Proposed Lots 1 & 5 will contain the existing residential units which contain existing onsite wastewater systems as well as water supply. It is anticipated that the allotments will continue to be utilised for rural production activities. The proposed lots are of sufficient size to be used for rural purposes and contain rural production activities. The proposed lots sizes within the subdivision are consistent with other lots in the area.

In terms of section 104(1)(a) of the Act, the actual and potential effects of the proposal will be less than minor.

It is also considered that the proposal will have less than minor adverse effects on the wider environment; no persons will be adversely affected by the proposal and there are no special circumstances.

In terms of section 104(1)(b) of the Act, the proposal is found to be generally consistent with the objectives, policies and assessment criteria of the relevant statutory documents as set out in Section 8.

As such in terms of section 104D of the Act, the proposal is found to meet the gateway test. Therefore, in accordance with Section 104B of the Act, in relation to non-complying activities, it is considered appropriate for consent to be granted on a non-notified basis, subject to fair and reasonable conditions.

Page | 32 Subdivision Consent for Shirttail Orchards Limited 3351 State Highway 1, Motutangi RECORD OF TITLE UNDER LAND TRANSFER ACT 2017 FREEHOLD Search Copy

Identifier 516120 Land Registration District North Auckland Date Issued 28 May 2010

Prior References NA135D/978 Estate Fee Simple Area 32.0469 hectares more or less Legal Description Lot 2 Deposited Plan 429744 Registered Owners Shirttail Orchards Limited Interests

Subject to Part IV A Conservation Act 1987 Subject to Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 D574558.1 Gazette Notice (N.Z. Gazette No. 46 page 1021)declaring part State Highway No. 1F Far North District commencing on the eastern side of the highway at the intersection with Hendersons Bay Road and on the western side of the northern boundary and proceeding in the southerly direction to the intersection with State Highway No. 10 to be a limited access road - 25.1.2001 at 12.09 pm D574945.1 Notice pursuant to Section 91 Transit New Zealand Act 1989 - 25.1.2001 at 3.31 pm 7309317.3 Consent Notice pursuant to Section 221 Resource Management Act 1991 - 4.4.2007 at 9:00 am Appurtenant hereto is a water supply easement created by Easement Instrument 7309317.6 - 4.4.2007 at 9:00 am Subject to a water supply easement over part marked D on DP 429744 created by Easement Instrument 7309317.6 - 4.4.2007 at 9:00 am Fencing Covenant in Transfer 10888215.1 - 3.10.2017 at 1:08 pm

Transaction Id 61285698 Search Copy Dated 10/08/20 2:16 pm, Page 1 of 1 Client Reference 14127 Shirttail Register Only

RECORD OF TITLE UNDER LAND TRANSFER ACT 2017 FREEHOLD Search Copy

Identifier 802174 Land Registration District North Auckland Date Issued 24 December 2019

Prior References NA135D/983 Estate Fee Simple Area 9.0700 hectares more or less Legal Description Lot 1 Deposited Plan 515576 Registered Owners Morgan Kyle Harvey Interests

Subject to Part IV A Conservation Act 1987 Subject to Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 D574558.1 Gazette Notice declaring the adjoining State Highway No.10 to be a limited access road - 25.1.2001 at 12.09 pm 7309317.3 Consent Notice pursuant to Section 221 Resource Management Act 1991 - 4.4.2007 at 9:00 am 11216019.3 Mortgage to Bank of New Zealand - 5.9.2018 at 2:45 pm 11221206.1 CAVEAT BY HIGH RIDGE HOLDINGS LIMITED - 10.9.2018 at 11:24 am Appurtenant hereto is an easement for pedestrian access created by Easement Instrument 11515488.4 - 24.12.2019 at 3:01 pm The easements created by Easement Instrument 11515488.4 are subject to Section 243 (a) Resource Management Act 1991 11515488.5 Notice pursuant to Section 91 Government Roading Powers Act 1989 - 24.12.2019 at 3:01 pm 11515488.6 Consent Notice pursuant to Section 221 Resource Management Act 1991 - 24.12.2019 at 3:01 pm

Transaction Id 61285905 Search Copy Dated 10/08/20 2:25 pm, Page 1 of 1 Client Reference 14269 High Ridge Register Only

Archaeological Assessment of Effects: Proposed Subdivision of Shirttail Orchards Ltd Property Motutangi, Northland.
7 July, 2020

Commissioned by: Brett King Von Sturmers Kaitaia

Prepared By: Geometria Ltd. PO Box 68-653 Newton Auckland 1145

AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Executive Summary Geometria was engaged by Brett King, Von Sturmers, Kaitaia on behalf of their client Shirttail Orchards Ltd. to undertake an archaeological assessment of a proposed subdivision of the Shirttails Orchards property located at Motutangi, Northland. An inspection of the property and background research has concluded that previously recorded archaeological sites will not be affected by the development and the potential for archaeological discovery is low. No archaeological authority under Section 44(a) of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 is required for the proposed subdivision.

Cover image: Looking west over the wetlands located at the rear of the property.

Geometria 2018 ii
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Geometria 2018 iii
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Quality Information Document: Archaeological Assessment of Effects: Shirttail Orchards Ltd., Motutangi, Northland. Ref: 2018-108 Date: 10 July 2020 Prepared by: Russell Gibb

Revision History

Revision Revision Date Details Authorized Name

Draft 3 June 2018 Draft Gibb

Revisions 4 June 2018 Minor edits McCurdy

Issued 9 July 2020 Revised Gibb subdivision plan

© GEOMETRIA Limited 2020 The information contained in this document produced by GEOMETRIA Limited is solely for the use of the Client identified on the cover sheet for the purpose for which it has been prepared and GEOMETRIA Limited undertakes no duty to nor accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document. All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any from without the written permission of GEOMETRIA Limited.

File ref.: 2018_108/Shorttail_Orchards

Geometria 2018 iv
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

  
1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Location ...... 1 2.0 Statutory Requirements ...... 1 2.1 The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 ...... 2 2.2 The Resource Management Act 1991 ...... 2 3.0 Proposed Development ...... 3 4.0 Methodology ...... 3 5.0 Background ...... 3 5.1 Environment ...... 3 5.2 Historic Background ...... 4 5.3 Archaeological Context ...... 10 5.3.1 Previous Archaeological Work ...... 15 5.4 Other Heritage Sites and Features ...... 15 6.0 Results ...... 15 6.1 Constraints and Limitations ...... 24 7.0 Archaeological Values ...... 25 8.0 Assessment of Effects ...... 25 9.0 Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 26 10.0 References ...... 27 11.0 Appendices ...... 29 Appendix 1: N03/268 ...... 29 Appendix 2: N03/640 ...... 35 Appendix 3: N03/798 ...... 38

 

Table 1: NZAA sites proximate to the subject property ...... 10
Table 2: Values assessment for N03/640...... 25

Geometria 2018 v
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

  

Figure 1: The location of the Shirttail Orchards Ltd property, 3333 Far North Road, Motutangi, Northland (Source: Google Earth 2017)...... 1

Figure 2: Subdivision plan for Shirttail Orchards Ltd (Source: Von Sturmers 2017)...... 3
Figure 3: (Northern Advocate 20 December 1933:5) ...... 8
Figure 4: Northern Advocate 12 June 1935 ...... 8
Figure 5: SO 18541-9 (1915). Survey District plan showing the main topographical features in the area. Annotations for ‘Old Pa’ (Muiata Pa), and ‘Old cultivations’ are shown to the north of the subject property (hatched)...... 9
Figure 6: Section of SO 24449 (1927): Plan showing the road alignment and proposed subdivision of Motutangi swamp lands into small blocks for settlement, with little shown on the subject property (hatched)...... 9

Figure 7: Archaeological sites proximate to the subject property...... 10
Figure 8: Overlay showing true position of N03/268 and N03/640...... 11
Figure 9: Plan of N03/640 (formerly N6/488 in imperial map grid). Source: Barber 1984...... 11

Figure 10: Hensley’s 2001 plan showing the lots he assessed...... 12
Figure 11: Overlay of the 2001 scheme plan and current subdivision proposal...... 12
Figure 12: Photograph from 2001 survey showing prehistoric drain exposed in section in a historic drain. Source: Hensley 2001. . 13
Figure 13: Overlay of recorded archaeological features, proposed Lot 7 from the 2001 scheme and Lot 2 form the current subdivision scheme...... 14
Figure 14: Prehistoric drainage features in the 2001 scheme proposed Lot 7 recorded as archaeological site N03/798...... 14
Figure 15: Looking east over Lot 1 and Lot 2...... 16
Figure 16: Drains (white hatched lines) across Lots 1 & 2...... 16
Figure 17: Looking north over the low dune ridge in Lot 3...... 17
Figure 18: Looking south over the low dune ridge in Lot 3...... 17
Figure 19: NE corner of Lot 3 showing main drain diverting into a culvert and under Far North Road...... 18
Figure 20: Looking east from centre of Lot 3 showing main drain and part of feeder drain...... 18
Figure 21: Looking west from gate to rear of Lot 3...... 18
Figure 22: Looking west from middle of rear paddock Lot 3, with feeder drain in foreground...... 19
Figure 23: Track cut through the rear of Lot 3...... 19
Figure 24:Pond at the rear of Lot 3...... 19
Figure 25: Looking west over paddock in northeast of Lot 4...... 20

Figure 26:Exposed bank in track cutting, Lot 4...... 20
Figure 27:Track cutting between Lots 3 and 4...... 21
Figure 28: Wetland area NW corner of Lot 4...... 21

Figure 29: Looking south over southern paddock, Lot 4...... 21
Figure 30: Feeder drain between southern paddock and avocado orchard, Lot 4...... 22
Figure 31: Cattle bones exposed on surface in high dune, Lot 4...... 22
Figure 32: Existing shed on modified dune with tank in background, Lot 5...... 23

Figure 33: Existing access way to Lot 5 as viewed from the road...... 23
Figure 34: Looking east over drained paddocks, Lot 5 where N03/640 is located...... 23
Figure 35: Location of recorded archaeological features and possible prehistoric drains in relation to the proposed subdivision. .... 24

Geometria 2018 vi
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

1.0 Introduction Geometria Ltd were engaged by Brett King, Von Sturmers, Kaitaia on behalf of their client Shirttail Orchards Ltd. to undertake an archaeological assessment of a proposed subdivision at 3333 Far North Road, Motutangi. One archaeological site N03/640 is thought to be recorded on the property. Under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPTA 2014; previously the Historic Places Act 1993, HPA 1993), all archaeological sites are protected from any modification, damage or destruction except by the authority of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT). This report does not seek to locate or identify wahi tapu or other places of cultural or spiritual significance to Maori. Such assessments may only be made by Tangata Whenua who may be approached independently of this report for advice.

1.1 Location The subject property is located at 3333 Far North Road (SH1), Motutangi, south of Houhora (Figure 1). The legal descriptions of the land that comprise the property is Lot 1 DP 515576 (east of SH1) & Lot 2 DP 429744 (west of SH1).

Figure 1: The location of the Shirttail Orchards Ltd property, 3333 Far North Road, Motutangi, Northland (Source: Google Earth 2017).

2.0 Statutory Requirements There are two main pieces of legislation in New Zealand that control work affecting archaeological sites. These are the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPTA) and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Any person who intends carrying out work that may modify or destroy an archaeological site, must first obtain an authority from Heritage New Zealand. The process applies to sites on land of all tenure including public, private and designated land. The HNZPTA contains penalties for unauthorised site damage or destruction. The archaeological authority process applies to all archaeological sites, regardless

Geometria 2018 1
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi of whether: •
The site is recorded in the NZ Archaeological Association Site Recording Scheme or included in the Heritage New Zealand List,

•
The site only becomes known about as a result of ground disturbance, and/ or,

•
The activity is permitted under a district or regional plan, or a resource or building consent has been granted.

2.1 The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 Under the HNZPTA all archaeological sites are protected from any modification, damage or destruction. Section 6 of the HNZPTA defines an archaeological site as:

" any place in New Zealand, including any building or structure (or part of a building or structure), that—

(i) was associated with human activity that occurred before 1900 or is the site of the wreck of any vessel where the wreck occurred before 1900; and

(ii) provides or may provide, through investigation by archaeological methods, evidence relating to the history of New Zealand; and

(b) includes a site for which a declaration is made under section 43(1)”

To be protected under the HNZPTA an archaeological site must have physical remains that pre-date 1900 and that can be investigated by scientific archaeological techniques. Sites from 1900 or post-1900 can be declared archaeological under section 43(1) of the Act. If a development is likely to impact on an archaeological site, an authority to modify or destroy this site can be sought from the local Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga office under section 44 of the Act. Where damage or destruction of archaeological sites is to occur, Heritage New Zealand usually requires mitigation. Penalties for modifying a site without an authority include fines of up to $300,000 for destruction of a site. Most archaeological evidence consists of sub-surface remains and is often not visible on the ground. Indications of an archaeological site are often very subtle and hard to distinguish on the ground surface. Sub-surface excavations on a suspected archaeological site can only take place with an authority issued under Section 56 of the HNZPTA issued by the Heritage New Zealand.

2.2 The Resource Management Act 1991 Archaeological sites and other historic heritage may also be considered under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The RMA establishes (under Part 2) in the Act’s purpose (Section 5) the matters of national importance (Section 6), and other matters (Section 7) and all decisions by a Council are subject to these provisions. Sections 6e and 6f identify historic heritage (which includes archaeological sites) and Maori heritage as matters of national importance. Councils have a responsibility to recognise and provide for the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wahi tapu, and other taonga (Section 6e). Councils’ also have the statutory responsibility to recognise and provide for the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development within the context of sustainable management (Section 6f). Responsibilities for managing adverse effects on heritage arise as part of policy and plan preparation and the resource consent processes.

Geometria 2018 2
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

3.0 Proposed Development The proposed subdivision development will result in the partitioning of five lots (Lots 1-5) (Figure 2). Lot 1 (1.2ha) will be transferred to the owner of Lot 3 (5.0ha) and a single title issued for both parcels. Lot 2 and Lot 2 DP 515576 to the east of it will have a single title issued for both parcels. Lot 4 will be transferred to the owner of Lot 1 DP 198446 to the south and a single title issued for both parcels.

Figure 2: Subdivision plan for Shirttail Orchards Ltd (Source: Von Sturmers 2020).

4.0 Methodology The methods used to assess the presence and state of archaeological remains within the proposed subdivision included both a desktop review and site surveys. The desktop survey involved an investigation of written records relating to the history of the specific areas. These included regional archaeological publications and unpublished reports, New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Record Files (NZAA SRF) downloaded via the ArchSite website (www.archsite.org.nz), local histories, aerial photography, local authority heritage lists, the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga List and land plans held by Land Information New Zealand and Quickmap. Russell Gibb of Geometria Ltd. conducted a site survey on the 1st June 2018 and 24th June 2020. A walkover of the property was undertaken and exposed banks and potential archaeological site locations were inspected for further signs of archaeological evidence, with soil probing undertaken.

5.0 Background 5.1 Environment The subject property is located on the Aupouri Tombolo. Prior to human modification, the Aupouri Tombolo was dominated by conifer-broadleaved forests. Kauri (Agathis australis) was abundant and grew both in dense stands and as small groups or scattered emergents in climax and successional forest. A feature of

Geometria 2018 3
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi the lowland landscape found throughout the Aupouri Tombolo was extensive swamps and bogs. Commonly in the North Island, such wetlands had dense tall conifer- broadleaved forest cover. Kahikatea (Dacrycarpus dacrydioides), rimu (Dacrydium cupressinum), silver pine (Lagarostrobus colensoi), kauri, tanekaha (Phyllocladus trichomanoides), kaikawaka (Libocedrus plumosa) and swamp maire (Syzygium maire) were common dominants especially on waterlogged soils and shallow swamp margins.1 Some 50,000 to 60,000 years ago large tracts of forest were gradually buried beneath peat swamps and encroaching sand dunes.

The property is generally low, drained, swampland intercut with small consolidated dunes. A large part of the property is currently in pasture with areas of wetlands/undrained swamp interspersed throughout. Stands of Manuka and plantation pine are growing on the dunes and a small avocado orchard has been established at the rear of the property. Several residential and farm buildings are located throughout the property.

Soils of the area are predominantly Te Kie steepland soils and stony clay loam with areas of open drifting sand.2 Soils of the subject property consist of consolidated Pinaki sand dunes and consolidated Ruakaka peat swamps.3

5.2 Historic Background The following historic background for the area is extracted from a recent report4 on a property to the north:

Ngai Takoto and Ngati Kuri have overlapping histories and claims to the Motutangi swamp area, both belonging to the Muriwhenua collective of iwi. NgaiTakoto’s area of interest runs from Cape Reinga (Te Rerenga Wairua) to Kaitaia and Ahipara in the south and includes the Three Kings (Manawatawhi) and Kermadec Islands. Prior to the arrival of Europeans, NgaiTakoto were largely based around pa and kainga in Kapowairua, Parengarenga, Houhora, Waimononi, Kaitaia, and Te Make where they utilised the vast resources of the local waterways and coastal areas for food gathering and passage.5

Ngati Kuri trace their descent to Te Iwi o Te Ngaki, who were occupying the Far North (Te Hiku o Te Ika) before the arrival of the many migratory waka from Polynesia. Their ancestor was Ruatamore. Ngati Kuri also trace their whakapapa to the Kurahaupo waka which first made landfall in Ngati Kuri’s rohe at Te Rangitahua (Kermadec Islands).6

It is not yet clear when traditional occupation ceased and Maori moved away from the occupation of Motutangi swamp area, nor there is much evidence in the historic record that intensive occupation was taking place by the later part of the 19th century when Pakeha settlers were beginning to appear in the area. Hensley7 states that there is no Maori oral history relating to the Muaita Pa area but accepts there was “a large vibrant community with an ordered society living on Motutangi wetlands”, which he suggests is supported by the presence of other pa, middens, burial grounds and wetland agricultural systems.8

Similarly, relatively little is currently known about the date or chronology of occupation of the Motutangi swampland. Frederickson9 compares the presence of archaic artefacts and composition of midden from behind East Beach (Ngarui-o-te-Marangai) to that of those recorded in dunes behind Ninety Mile Beach, surmising that the dune areas of East Beach contained sites of ‘considerable antiquity and diversity.’ A single 14C date10 obtained from a drainage ditch base

1 McGlone 1999:116 2 Sutherland et al. 1979 cited in Johnson and Callaghan 2017:1 3 Hensley, 2001 4 Gibb 2017 5 OTS 2012 6 http://www.ngatikuri.iwi.nz/services/#history 7 Hensley 2003 8 Gibb 2017. 9 Frederickson 1985:1 10 Barber 1884

Geometria 2018 4
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

horizon in the Motutangi swamp indicated prehistoric occupation and approximate abandonment of the feature by the mid-17th century (~300 BP).11

The threat to traditional land tenure in the Far North and the inevitable arrival of pakeha settlers to the area was signaled in 1850 with an announcement of the appointment of a number of Native Assessors in The Southern Cross.12 The assessors were listed as Puhipi of Puhepoto, chief of Rawaranui, Popota of Maungatiti, chief of Kaitote, Mokoari Kokati of Parengarenga, chief of Aupori, Hohepa Poutam of Pukewhau, chief of Ngaitakoto and Nopera Panakarahau, the principal chief of the district north of Mangonui.

The first European to visit the area had been James Cook aboard the Endeavour, who on the 10th December 1769 sailed by the Houhora area and noted two villages on the slopes of a “…high mountain or hill standing upon a desert shore”, “…upon which account [the highpoint was called] Mount Camel”13

In 1840, seven decades after Cook’s survey of the New Zealand coastline, the explorer and naturalist Ernst Dieffenbach14 also described the landscape and cultural activity in the Houhora area recording: They have a sandy beach before them; and everywhere springs of most excellent water drip down, proving the moisture of the climate, even in the height of summer. In consequence of this abundant moisture the natives have many plantations, which are in a thriving state…Towards the harbour the natives have cultivated portions of the steep ridges; these plantations alternate with pleasant bushes and groves to the water’s edge. The natives are only about 40 in number and they belong to the Haupouri, and are not therefore an independent tribe. The first hydrographic chart of the harbour, produced following a survey in 1855 by Captain Stokes of the HMS Pandora, shows a number of cultivations along the harbour coastline that Dieffenbach had noted.

The first European settlers to purchase land in the area were Ludolph and Heinrich Subritzky who arrived in New Zealand via Australia in early 1860 intending to buy Kawau Island, one of the larger islands in the Hauraki Gulf which boasted a mild climate, plenty of fresh water, and significant potential for crop growing and farming. Upon their arrival however, the brothers found that Governor George Grey had already purchased the island, so prospective estates at Awanui and Houhora were inspected and subsequently acquired.

The Subritzky family soon moved north and became the first European settlers north of Kaitaia with their nearest neighbours being the Matthews and Puckey families at the Kaitaia Mission Station15, and gumtraders Samuel Yates and Stannus Jones, who acquired ownership of a large tract of land in the Cape Reinga region in 1873.16

The area around Houhora had originally been reserved in 1858 for Maori as part of the Muriwhenua South Crown land purchase of approximately 87,000 acres. The Houhora Block consisted of 7710 acres and it was subsequently sold in 1866, one year after private land sales commenced in 1865. The Muriwhenua Land Report issued by the Waitangi Tribunal17 suggests that arrangements to sell the land had been organised in advance as titles were investigated in 1865 and conveyed in 1866; the survey and court costs probably covered by the traders purchasing the land as Maori generally didn’t have the money to investigate title to their own lands. The Houhora Block reserve was sold to Ludolph and Heinrich Subritzky for £550 and Maori who were resident at the settlement at

11 Ibid 12 The Southern Cross 22 November 1850:2 13 Beaglehole 1955, see also McNab 1914:57 14 Dieffenbach 1843 I: 211-212 15 http://subritzky.homestead.com/north.html 16 http://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/places-to-visit/northland/kaitaia-area/te-rerenga-wairua-cape- reinga/features/history/ 17 Wai 1997

Geometria 2018 5
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Houhora no longer had a legal interest in the land and moved on.18 In total, the Subritzky’s land purchase from Maori under the then new Native Lands Act comprised between 7000 and 8000 acres, and later, a further 25 thousand acres was leased from the central government.19

In 1862, shortly after the arrival of the Subritzky’s, the Commissioner of Crown Lands’ Office advertised that a E. W. Puckey had taken up a run ‘bounded on the North by a line from Motutangi on the East Coast to Wai-ihi on the West Coast (being the southern boundary of Subritzky’s run); on the West by the sea; and on the East by the base of the hills on the West of the Awanui river, by Rangaunu Bay, and by the sea; excluding Maxwell’s and Ford’s land, and Mackay’s claim.’ The size of this block was estimated at 42,000 acres with Puckey to commence his farming with 800 sheep.20

Draining of the Motutangi Swamp Drainage of swamp land was desirable because it would open up previously low-value and poorly purposed land for settlement. To facilitate this a number of legislative acts were enabled. The first being the Swamp Drainage Act (1915) which was simply legislation for the draining of swamp land for settlement purposes. Complementary to this was the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act (1915) which marked the adoption of a major scheme of settling returned soldiers on the land. This Act enabled Crown land, as well as private land, to be bought by the Crown and subdivided with loans granted for development and for the purchase of existing properties. Through this scheme some nine thousand five hundred men were financed on to farms, 4,000 following subdivision of 1·4 million acres by the Crown and 5,500 by purchase of existing properties totaling 1·2 million acres.21 Later, the Small Farms Scheme was established to ‘make provision for the settlement of approved persons on small areas of Crown lands set aside for the purpose and on other lands that are not being utilized to their full extent, and thereby to mitigate the distress resulting from unemployment’22

In 1920, the Commissioner of Crown Lands announced the opening of settlement and Crown lands in the Far North noting that the Motutangi Swamp would be quite suitable for dairying if properly drained. Settlers in the area would also be offered opportunities to secure land through the Homestead Settlement Programme under which holders became entitled to freehold land upon making certain improvements to that land.23 That same year the Minister of Lands also reported that extensive drainage works will be necessary to make the land in the Motutangi swamp suitable for settlement. At that time, the chief drainage engineer was in America looking at procuring suitable machinery and adopting the most suitable methods of reclamation with the Minister noting that the draining of the swamp would not commence until his return and following his specific recommendations.24

Surprisingly, also that year, a lease of 3000 acres was given to the Peat Oil Company who hoped to extract fuel oil from the swamps. This lease was contentious as it blocked access for the gum diggers to a large acreage of prime swamp land in the area and isolated potential settlement land. In 1821, the local settlers asked the Minister of Lands to cancel the lease due to non-compliance with the conditions of the lease.25 In 1924, possibly in relation to the Peat Oils Ltd. controversy and at the behest of the High Commissioner for New Zealand, the Imperial Institute undertook a preliminary investigation regarding the yield and nature of the oils obtainable from kauri peat and swamp timber in the northern swamps.26 Threats to the northern swamp lands, now valued for both kauri gum and as land for expanding settlement included sand drift, which was recognized as a continued threat to the fertile soils, as

18 Ibid 19 Evans 1981: 53; Subritzky 1990 20 New Zealander 20 August 1862:6 21 https://teara.govt.nz/en/1966/land-settlement/page-7 22 Small Farms (Relief of Unemployment) Act 1932:437 23 Auckland Star 13 January 1920:5 24 Auckland Star 26 November 1920:9 25 Auckland Star 24 June 1921:4 26 Northern Advocate 30 July 1926

Geometria 2018 6
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

reported in 1921 with a call for extending dune planting that was taking place in Kaipara and Waipu to the Motutangi Swamp.27

The forthcoming drainage and opening of the swamp for settlement was announced during a tour of the area in January 1927 by local M.P. Allen Bell. He informed the local settlers that, with regards to the opening of the Motutangi swamp, the Commissioner of Crown Lands had been instructed to proceed with the layout and balloting of the area and that £500 of the £1000 voted for the main drain had been authorized for expenditure once settlers had been allotted their sections.28

In May 1927, the Government formally announced that the Motutangi swamp will finally be drained and settled.29 The Government had decided to cut up 100 sections of 3 acres each for gum-digging on land formerly held by the Peat Oil Company of Waiharara; the area of land being Crown lands north of Waipapakauri with the suitable plots of land to be selected by settlers. Also at this time, local M.P. Allen Bell announced that if the land in the reserves does not contain gum in payable quantities he will endeavour to arrange that these areas be ‘thrown open, and, together with the Motutangi swamp area, be given to the settlers free of cost, provided that certain improvements are made over a period of years; the hope being that more land would become available for settlement north of Waipapakauri.30 Interestingly, two years before the Government’s decision to section off the land, the Peat Oil Company had proposed a similar scheme whereby they would lease 3 acre sections to gum diggers, providing they pay a royalty of 10% of their earnings. Less than a year later there were some 200 settlers at Waiharara, most of whom were dependent on gum digging for their livelihood.

In January 1928, a meeting was held with the Hon. O. J. Hawken, Minister of Agriculture, where discussions regarding the forfeited Peat Oil Company land were held, which included lands in the Motutangi Swamp. These discussions centred around the hardship imposed on the gum diggers due to conditions imposed by the Government on the land, which included filling up gum digging holes after they were abandoned. The economics of gum digging and adherence to these conditions resulted in none of the Government land being taken up by the settlers at that time.31

Evidence of historic Maori drains at Motutangi was reported in 1933 by local settlers’ A and H Subritzky and R Watson of Awanui who reported inspecting a Maori drainage system in the Motutangi swamp (Figure 3). These drains were reported as being ‘three feet below the present Government drains’32

The Government allotted £2273 for the drainage of Motutangi and Big Flat swamps in August 1934,33 and by this time the Small Farms Board in Manganui County had a total of 7000 acres under its control, which they hoped to permanently settle with 80 new settlers when the various blocks of land had reached their final stages of development.34 This corresponded with further road development in the area with a deviation of 2 1/2 miles on the main route to Houhora constructed through the Motutangi swamp, which shortened the existing road by a mile. This new section of road was completed on 17 December 1934.35

It appears that settlement of the swamp land was finally about to commence in 1935 with the Northern Advocate announcing that the ‘northern Swamp Lands’ are opening for settlement with the draining of the Motutangi swamp, under Public Works Department supervision, nearing completion (Figure 4).36 Later in June at a meeting of local settlers held by the local M.P. Mr H M

27 Auckland Star 10 November 1921: 11 28 New Zealand Herald 14 January 1927:10 29 New Zealand Herald 21 May 1927:16 30 Auckland Star 9 March 1927:12 31 New Zealand Herald 18 January 1928:13 32 Northern Advocate 20 December 1933:5 33 New Zealand Herald 25 August 1934:8 34 Northern Advocate 3 October 1934:3 35 Northern Advocate 28 December 1934:3 36 Northern Advocate 6 March 1935:5

Geometria 2018 7
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Rushworth, a motion was carried asking for the Government to throw open for selection for settlement the Kai-Kino, Big Flat, Selwyn and Motutangi Swamps.37

The leasing of land blocks that the current farm is located on may have begun earlier than 1935. A previous assessment that included the subject property as well as land to the east of SH1 (Hensley 2001) noted that the property has been farmed since 1928 when Mr Percy Wagener won a government ballet and commenced draining and developing the land.38 After World War II the property was in the ownership of Mr Vic Aspen who continued to develop and improve the land, deepening and cleaning drains and working the land.39

Figure 3: (Northern Advocate 20 December 1933:5)

Figure 4: Northern Advocate 12 June 1935

37 Northern Advocate 12 June 1935:2 38 There is no reference in Hensley’s report to confirm this date. 39 Hensley 2001, Gibb 2017.

Geometria 2018 8
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Historic Plans There appears to have been little survey done of the area prior to 1900 and early historic plans of the area generally relate to post-1900 activity associated with Survey District mapping, Kauri Gum Reserves, swamp drainage, roads and early subdivision of the land for farm settlement. The plans relevant to the subject property are SO 18541-9 (1915) and SO 24449 (1927) (Figure 5 - Figure 6). SO 24449 shows the eastern area of the property at that time was largely swamp with a few low lateral dunes, while the west appear less swampy with higher dunes and a large lake in the south central part.

Figure 5: SO 18541-9 (1915). Survey District plan showing the main topographical features in the area. Annotations for ‘Old Pa’ (Muiata Pa), and ‘Old cultivations’ are shown to the north of the subject property (hatched).

Figure 6: Section of SO 24449 (1927): Plan showing the road alignment and proposed subdivision of Motutangi swamp lands into small blocks for settlement, with little shown on the subject property (hatched).

Geometria 2018 9
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

5.3 Archaeological Context A search of the New Zealand Archaeological Association records (Archsite 2020) shows two archaeological sites (N03/268 Pa, N03/640 Maori Horticulture) (Appendix 1 & 2, Figure 7: Archaeological sites proximate to the subject property.

N03/268 is located to the east of SH1 and 100m immediately east of the old Aspen residence described as a small ring ditch swamp pa with nineteen pits.

N03/640 was recorded by Ian Barber in 1984 and described as: ‘One ditch feature leads from a swamp into a grid feature lying downslope to the east (i.e. intersecting ditches). Much smaller than similar systems at N6/487 and N6/488.’The site’s location is given as being ‘located in fenced pasture land directly west of the main north road, several hundred metres northwest of V. Aspens residence.’ Barber did not include a site map or plan of the drainage features in the NZAA site record form, but these were included in his thesis.

The locations of N03/268 and N03/640 in relation to the proposed subdivision are shown in Figure 8. Barber’s description of the location for N03/640 in the site record form (‘several hundred metres northwest of V. Aspen’s residence’) matches his mapped location from his thesis and his plan for the site has been overlaid to show the position of the drains he mapped (Figure 9). This site is located near the existing shed and residential house in the proposed new Lot 5.

) are recorded proximate to the property.

Table 1: NZAA sites proximate to the subject property

NZAA Site Number NZTM Coordinates Description N03/268 1613411 6141980
Ruatuora Pa N03/640 1613411 6141980
Maori Horticulture

Geometria 2018 10
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

%&-//&(
- %-!.
/!

0*"

     )& 
 ,,-+1"! 
&/"
-" 
&*(*!
+*/+0-.
+,+
 '   ') "*!&*$ 
&/"
 0- 3 *!
*#+-)/&+*
"2
"(*!
$("
" %*+(+$3 * /&1" ,
-&!.

-0.."(($& 
- %"+(+$& (
..+ &/&+* Figure 7: Archaeological sites proximate to the subject property.

N03/268 is located to the east of SH1 and 100m immediately east of the old Aspen residence described as a small ring ditch swamp pa with nineteen pits.

N03/640 was recorded by Ian Barber in 1984 and described as: ‘One ditch feature leads from a swamp into a grid feature lying downslope to the east (i.e. intersecting ditches). Much smaller than similar systems at N6/487 and N6/488.’The site’s location is given as being ‘located in fenced pasture land directly west of the main north road, several hundred metres northwest of V. Aspens residence.’ Barber did not include a site map or plan of the drainage features in the NZAA site record form, but these were included in his thesis.40

The locations of N03/268 and N03/640 in relation to the proposed subdivision are shown in Figure 8. Barber’s description of the location for N03/640 in the site record form (‘several hundred metres northwest of V. Aspen’s residence’) matches his mapped location from his thesis and his plan for the site has been overlaid to show the position of the drains he mapped (Figure 9). This site is located near the existing shed and residential house in the proposed new Lot 5.

40 Barber, I. 1984

Geometria 2018 11
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Figure 8: Overlay showing true position of N03/268 and N03/640.

Figure 9: Plan of N03/640 (formerly N6/488 in imperial map grid). Source: Barber 1984.

N03/640 was revisited in 2001 by Vic Hensley who undertook an assessment for a proposed subdivision for a larger property (Lots 1 & 2 DP 152205 BLK 111 Opoe SD) that incorporated the current subject property (Figure 10). Hensley’s assessment addressed the archaeology of each lot on the property with Lot 2, Lot 5 and part of Lot 9 now being relative to proposed subdivision on the subject property (Figure 11).41

41 Hensley 2001:3-4.

Geometria 2018 12
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Figure 10: Hensley’s 2001 plan showing the lots he assessed.

Figure 11: Overlay of the 2001 scheme plan and current subdivision proposal.

Hensley assessment for Lots 2, 5 and 9 per the archaeology was given as:

Lot 2:42 An area of 4.2 ha of consolidated sand dunes with a cover of mainly light ti tree with light grass at the rear. No sites located.

Lot 5:43 An area of 33.2 ha. This lot falls into three sections; the front which is mainly drained, consolidated peat where prehistoric drains may have been found. A sand ridge of cut over and regenerating ti tree divides this lot from the back section which is a drained sandy peat loam. No new sites were located though a site record form N6/489 [N03/640] exists for a ditch system near the front of the lot.

42 Part of Lot 4 in the new scheme. 43 Lot 3 and part of Lots 4 & 5 in the new scheme

Geometria 2018 13
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Lot 9:44 An area of 21.59 ha. The SH 1F half of this lot is consolidates drained peat with a strong Cover of grass. Numerous drains feeding into the main drain on this lot. The paddocks near the road have recently been modified and regressed. The eastern or back section consists of a series of long, mainly undulating sand dune. Between these dune, small pockets of peaty swamps have been drained to create useable pasture. No recognisable features were located: No new features.

Hensley concluded that:

Whilst only one new feature was recorded [this was in Lot 7 of the scheme plan Hensley was assessing], the proximity of Ruatuora Pa to all the lots, particularly the drained peat swamps suggests that more evidence of prehistoric drains should have been evident. The presence of numerous “modern” drains goes some way towards an explanation for this but does not necessarily mean that all pre-historic drains were destroyed.

During his survey, Hensley did not relocate site N03/640 on the western part of SH1. The only new features that Hensley recorded were found in what was then to be Lot 7 in the subdivision scheme, which he described as ‘remnants of prehistoric drains…located near the centre of the lot.’ This prehistoric drain was revealed in profile on the exposed face of a historic drain. Although he didn’t supply a map showing the exact location of the drain, Hensley did photograph this feature (Figure 12). A new site record form was also made for the site (Appendix 3) and included in Hensley’s assessment, but this does not appear in the New Zealand Archaeological Association ArchSite database. The number given to the site, N03/798, has been duplicated and used for a midden site located in forestry further north. Lot 7 of the 2001 scheme incorporated part of Ruatuora Pa and a small area of land immediately north. This area is outside the current subdivision area. An inspection of the aerial photographs from 1944, that Hensley referenced in his report, shows that the prehistoric drainage features that he recorded as N03/798 are barely visible, with the drainage features from N03/640 better defined in this image (Figure 13). The Lot 7 features are more apparent in a modern 2018 aerial (Figure 14).

Figure 12: Photograph from 2001 survey showing prehistoric drain exposed in section in a historic drain. Source: Hensley 2001.

44 Includes Lot 2 in the new scheme plus the adjoining Lot 2 DP 515576

Geometria 2018 14
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Figure 13: Overlay of recorded archaeological features, proposed Lot 7 from the 2001 scheme and Lot 2 form the current subdivision scheme.

Figure 14: Prehistoric drainage features in the 2001 scheme proposed Lot 7 recorded as archaeological site N03/798.

Geometria 2018 15
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

5.3.1 Previous Archaeological Work No previous archaeological excavation work has been undertaken on the property. The research work of Barber (1984) and assessment by Hensley (2001) were essentially non-intrusive investigations, with the exception of the cleaning of a single face of an exposed drain by Hensley to clean the profile of an exposed pre-historic drain.

5.4 Other Heritage Sites and Features There are no scheduled historic heritage sites or features nor Maori Sites of Significance on the subject property in the Far North District Plan. Neither are there any registered Historic Places, Historic Areas, or Wahi Tapu or Wahi Tapu Areas in the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga register.

6.0 Results The weather at the time of the site visits was fine. The property is generally low, drained, swampland intercut with small consolidated dunes. The dunes on the western side of SH1 are low near the road with a higher dune system in the western central part of the property. Stands of manuka and plantation pine are growing on the westerly dunes and a small avocado orchard has been established on a neighbouring property on the western boundary. A large part of the property is currently in pasture with short grass cover in most of the paddocks affording good surface visibility. Significant drainage has been dug across the property to drain the low lying former swampy areas to make these areas good for pasture. Probing was undertaken across the site but no test holes were dug, as this was not necessary due to the numerous soil exposures across the site. The results for each proposed lot are discussed below: Lots 1 & 2 Lot 1 is a narrow lot adjacent to the east side of SH1 and is currently in pasture. It falls away from the road reserve which has been built up to form the road (Figure 15). It is defined by a lateral drain on its eastern boundary that connects to drains at each end (north and south) of the lot. Lot 2 extends out from the eastern edge of Lot 1to the eastern boundary of the proposed subdivision and like Lot 1 is currently in pasture. A low north-south running dune is located approximately 270m from the road and extends from the northern boundary halfway across the lot, with a large historic drain located immediately behind this - this is the old Motutangi Stream channel that is shown on plan SO 18541. Between the dune and the road, a series of drains, mostly running parallel with the road, have been dug. These feed to a main drain on the northern property boundary, which then drains off east to the main Motutangi Drain. This drainage system continues to the east of the dune up to the boundary (Figure 16). These paddocks have been plowed and likely planted with different varietals over the years. Whilst the majority of these drains are modern, several of the smaller less linear drains may be prehistoric drains that have continuous use and have been connected to the modern drainage system. This practice was sometimes undertaken in the larger wetland drainage systems located a little further to the north. Hensley45 notes that this part of the property has been farmed since 1928, first by Percy Wagener and asserts46 that, ‘Mr Wagener made extensive use of the Maori drains naturally using modern tools.’ After WWII, the property was bought by Vic Aspen who continued to improve the drainage on the property using mechanical equipment.47

45 Hensley 2011:1 46 NZAA SRF N03/798 47 Ibid.

Geometria 2018 16
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Figure 15: Looking east over Lot 1 and Lot 2.

Figure 16: Drains (white hatched lines) across Lots 1 & 2.

Geometria 2018 17
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Lot 3 Lot 3 is situated next to Far North Road and consists of a narrow swampy gulley/blocked drain adjacent to the road with a low dune ridge immediately behind it (Figure 17 - Figure 18). The northern boundary has a large modern drain running along its entirety which is intersected by another drain running north-south from the neighbouring property to the north. The drain then continues east to a culvert and passes under Far North Road (Figure 19). Apart from the small feeder drain there is no other evidence of drainage in the paddock. The western end of the lot is a flat paddock that appears to have been ploughed in the past and has one small lateral feeder drain midway along the paddock (Figure 20, Figure 21 and Figure 22). The western extremity of the lot rises to a low Manuka covered dune with farm tracks cut through and drops down to a small pond at the rear (Figure 23 - Figure 24). This pond is shown on SO 24449 (refer Figure 6) and now appears smaller than when recorded in 1927. The Manuka cover in the dunes inhibits grass growth and as such there are numerous exposed surfaces, sections and track cuttings, none of which showed any sign of anthropogenic change or archaeological material.

Figure 17: Looking north over the low dune ridge in Lot 3.

Figure 18: Looking south over the low dune ridge in Lot 3.

Geometria 2018 18
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Figure 19: NE corner of Lot 3 showing main drain diverting into a culvert and under Far North Road.

Figure 20: Looking east from centre of Lot 3 showing main drain and part of feeder drain.

Figure 21: Looking west from gate to rear of Lot 3.

Geometria 2018 19
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Figure 22: Looking west from middle of rear paddock Lot 3, with feeder drain in foreground.

Figure 23: Track cut through the rear of Lot 3.

Figure 24:Pond at the rear of Lot 3.

Geometria 2018 20
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Lot 4 Lot 4 consists of both open pasture and Manuka dune ridges with the dunes covering over half of the lot (Figure 25) and access to this lot from Lot 3 through a track cut through the manuka bush (Figure 26 - Figure 27). The boundary drain from Lot 3 continues along the northern boundary of Lot 4 and is fed by a number of smaller lateral drains, particularly in the northwest section of the lot where there are several wetland areas lying adjacent to the northern boundary (Figure 28). These wetlands are not evident on SO 24449. An inspection of a recently cut feeder drain through one of these areas did not reveal any sign of pre-historic drains. The open area of paddock in southeast of Lot 4 (Figure 29) was once a small lake and is likely to have been drained during the early development of the property in the early 20th century. A main drain runs west – east along the southern boundary and is feed from another drain running north –south and these were probably dug to drain the old lake (Figure 30). Again, within the dunes there was no indication of anthropogenic change or archaeological material. A number of bovine bones were evident within a stand of pine and represent a dumped or partially buried cow carcass (Figure 31).

Figure 25: Looking west over paddock in northeast of Lot 4.

Figure 26:Exposed bank in track cutting, Lot 4.

Geometria 2018 21
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Figure 27:Track cutting between Lots 3 and 4.

Figure 28: Wetland area NW corner of Lot 4.

Figure 29: Looking south over southern paddock, Lot 4.

Geometria 2018 22
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Figure 30: Feeder drain between southern paddock and avocado orchard, Lot 4.

Figure 31: Cattle bones exposed on surface in high dune, Lot 4.

Lot 5 Lot 5, like Lot 4, is a fairly even split of low-lying drained paddocks and bush covered Manuka with the paddocks located along the eastern half of the property. A series of drains run north-south through the paddock and connect to a southern boundary drain. The dune area is a continuation of the ridge that traverses through Lot 4 and there was no indication of anthropogenic change or archaeological material in this section either. Some topographic modification is evident in the eastern corner of proposed Lot 5 where several structures (house, barns and sheds) and an in-ground septic systems have been constructed (Figure 32 - Figure 33). The front section of Lot 5 adjoins the roadside via a small dune ridge running towards Far North Road. The area where Barber recorded site N03/640 was inspected for evidence of drains but surface visibility was poor due to long kikuyu cover in this area and no features could be detected (Figure 34). The dune where the large farm shed is located was modified to create a level platform for the shed.

Geometria 2018 23
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Figure 32: Existing shed on modified dune with tank in background, Lot 5.

Figure 33: Existing access way to Lot 5 as viewed from the road.

Figure 34: Looking east over drained paddocks, Lot 5 where N03/640 is located.

Geometria 2018 24
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Pre-European Drainage Evidence of pre-historic drainage clearly exists on the property (N03/640) and on the neighbouring property next to Ruatuora Pa where Hensley recorded N03/798. The inspection of the property did not reveal any obvious prehistoric drainage features - N03/640 being obscured by long kikuyu cover, and no other features or material deemed to be archaeological was found in any drain cuttings, drainage spoil heaps or exposed banks and dune surfaces across the rest of the property. However, it is clear that in prehistoric times Maori drained parts of this area for gardening purposes and some of these drains were re-utilised by the European settlers who began to enter the area in the 1920s. Sites N03/798 and Ruatuora Pa (N03/268) were not revisited as these are not within the subject property. Site N03/798 probably extends further north than Hensley’s description restricting it to Lot 7 in the 2001 subdivision scheme, and it is possible this drainage network goes as far as the proposed Lot 2 in the new subdivision. Parts of drainage network in the northeast part of Lot 2 is less linear and there are a number of ephemeral features evident in a 2018 aerial photograph, suggesting ditches of pre-historic origin (Figure 35). The actual origin and form of these can only be determined through intrusive investigation which is not required given that the land use will not change following the subdivision.

Figure 35: Location of recorded archaeological features and possible prehistoric drains in relation to the proposed subdivision.

6.1 Constraints and Limitations Change to the land surface through farming and infrastructure development tends to remove the surface signature of archaeological features. Field inspection, probing and limited sub-surface testing cannot necessarily detect all sub-surface features which is a general limitation to field survey on modified ground, especially where this modification is long-term and repetitive, or where deep fill events have taken place.

Geometria 2018 25
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

7.0 Archaeological Values HNZPT has provided guidelines setting out criteria that are specific to archaeological sites (HNZPT 2006:9- 10). The archaeological values of sites relate mainly to their information potential, that is, the extent to which they can provide evidence relating to local, regional and national history through the use of archaeological investigation techniques, and the research questions to which the site could contribute. The surviving extent, complexity and condition of sites are the main factors in their ability to provide information through archaeological investigation.

One site, N03/640, is located within the proposed subdivision and the values for this are assessed below in table 2:

Table 2: Values assessment for N03/640.

Significance Category Value Comment Condition Moderate Although currently obscured by long grass, the ditch system is likely to be intact. The general area appears to be relatively unmodified.

Rarity/Uniqueness Moderate Wetland drainage systems were once a common component of many Far North sites, but commonly much larger features than N03/640. Although many have now been destroyed.

Contextual Value Moderate The site is one of numerous similar sites associated with open settlements found around marginal land throughout the Far North, but also in other parts of the country, but clearly relates to the occupation of Ruatuora Pa.

Information Potential High The site would be able to provide information on the age, nature and function of lowland ditch drainage systems

Amenity Value Low The site is on private land with no surface visibility and has very limited amenity value.

Historical Association Low The site is not associated with any known historical personality or event. Dating from similar sites places these systems from around the mid 17th century.

8.0 Assessment of Effects The proposed subdivision will not affect N03/640, which will be located in the proposed Lot 5, and the extent of N03/798 is outside the boundaries of the proposed subdivision. It is possible that drainage features are located in the proposed Lot 2, and these may connect with N03/798, but these will be also be unaffected as the land use will remain the same following subdivision. Extensive investigation of the rest of the property found no archaeological evidence and the potential for archaeological discovery over the rest of the property is assessed as low.

No house sites or access ways have been designated for the proposed subdivision. Lot 1 incorporates an existing residence and will unlikely see much earthworks development. Lot 2 will be incorporated into the adjacent property and continue use as pastoral land. Lot 3 may be used for residential purposes and require an access way and house site to be established at some point in the future. Any future plans for this lot should be assessed further if residential development is proposed. Future development of Lot 4 is likely to

Geometria 2018 26
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi be an extension to the current avocado orchard operation. A large part of this lot was formerly a lake that was likely drained early in the 20th century development of the property and has no archaeological potential. Lot 5 remains largely unchanged with an existing house and shed already established, but any future development should avoid site N03/640, otherwise an authority form Heritage New Zealand would be required.

9.0 Conclusion and Recommendations Geometria Ltd. were commissioned by Brett King, Von Sturmers, Kaitaia on behalf of their client Shirttail Orchards Ltd to assess the proposed subdivision of Lot 1 DP 515576 and Lot 2 DP 429744, Motutangi. Recorded archaeological site N03/640 will be located in proposed Lot 5 and will not be affected by the proposed subdivision. No new sites were recorded on the property during this assessment. Possible pre- historic drains were noted in proposed Lot 2 but have not been recorded in the NZAA ArchSIte recording scheme as verification to determine the origin of these would require intrusive investigation under authority form Heritage New Zealand, and this is not required as the land use will not change and they are not under any current threat. However, a note has been added to the site record for N03/798 as to the possibility of drainage features being in the proposed Lot 2. Furthermore, it is recommended that if future plans for a residence on Lot 3, or changes to the current residential set up in Lot 5 eventuate, then further discussions regarding the archaeological risk should be conducted, particularly if these are planned in close proximity to N03/640. Therefore, the following recommendations are made to the client with respect to the proposed development as detailed in this assessment: 1.
No authority is required for the proposed subdivision.

2.
Archaeological assessment of any future residential changes to Lot 3 or Lot 5, or land use change in Lot 2 is recommended.

3.
Updates to all site record forms, including rectifying the duplicate site record form issue with N03/78 will be undertaken.

Geometria 2018 27
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

10.0 References

Barber, I. 1983. Prehistoric wetland cultivation in Far Northern Aotearoa: an archaeological investigation. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland.

Barber, I. 1989. Competing patterns: distinguishing historic and prehistoric era wetland modification through aerial photography. Archaeology in New Zealand 32: 8–16.

Beaglehole, J.C. 1939. The Discovery of New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. Wellington.

Coster, J. 1989. Dates from the dunes: a sequence for the Aupouri Peninsula, Northland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 11:51-75.

Furey, L. 2002. Houhora: A Fourteenth Century Maori Village in Northland. Bulletin of the Auckland Museum 19. Auckland Museum.

Gibb, R. 2017. Archaeological Assessment of Effects: Mapua Avocados Ltd. Eastern Block, Motutangi, Northland. Unpublished report to Mapua Avocados Ltd. Geometria, Auckland.

Goddard, M. 2011. Muiata Pa: Historic Heritage Assessment. Kaitaia: Department of Conservation.

Greville, R. et al 1914. Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1914. Session I, C-12 Kauri Gum Reserves in the Auckland Land District (Report of the Commission to Inspect and Classify the). Wellington: NZ Government Printer.

Hensley, V. 2001. An Archaeological Assessment of Proposed Subdivision of Lots 1&2 DP 152205 Blk 111 Opoe SD. Unpublished report to Von Sturmers.

Hensley, V. 2003. An Archaeological Assessment of Proposed Boundary Adjustment Prepared for Mr and Mrs L. A. & S. E. Bluucher (sic). Unpublished report to L. A. & S. E. Blucher.

Keene, F., 1966. Between Two Mountains. A History of Whangarei. Whitcombe and Tombs, Auckland.

Keene, F., 1976. Milestones. Whangarei County Council’s First 100 Years. Northern Publishing Company.

Johnson, L. and Callaghan E. 2017. Archaeological Survey and Assessment of a Proposed Avocado Orchard, 3547B Far North Road (SH1), Motutangi, Auckland. Unpublished report to Mapua Avocados Ltd. Norther Archaeological Research. McGlone, M. S., 1999. The Polynesian Settlement of New Zealand In Relation To Environmental And Biotic Changes. In: New Zealand Journal of Ecology, Vol 12, (Supplement) 1989.

McNab, R. 1914. From Tasman to Marsden: A history of Northern New Zealand from 1642 to 1818. J Wilkie and Co, LTD. Dunedin.

Reed, A.H. 1956. The Story of Northland. Wellington.

Sutherland, C.F.; Cox, J.E.; Taylor, N.H.; Wright, A.C.S. 1979 Soil Map of Kaitaia Rawene area (Sheets N03/04/05). North Island. Scale 1:100 000 NZ Soil Bureau Map182.

Turton, H. H., 1878. Maori Deeds of Old Private Land Purchases in New Zealand, From the Year 1815 to 1840, with Pre-Emptive and Other Claims. George Didsbury, Government Printer, Wellington.

Waitangi Tribunal, 1997. Wai 45. Muriwhenua Land Report. Waitangi Tribunal/GP Publications, Wellington.

Geometria 2018 28
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Websites Accessed: NZAA (2009) Archsite, http://www.archsite.org.nz/. Accessed October 2016.

New Zealand Electronic Text Collection (NZETC). http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/

Papers Past, National Library of New Zealand. http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast

Te Ara Encyclopaedia of New Zealand. http://www.teara.govt.nz/en

Maps SO 18541-9 (1915) SO 24449 (1927)

Geometria 2018 29
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

11.0 Appendices Appendix 1: N03/268

NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

NZAA SITE NUMBER: N03/268

 
 
 SITE TYPE: Pa SITE NAME(s): Ruatuora

DATE RECORDED:

SITE COORDINATES (NZTM) Easting:1614384 Northing: 6140565 Source: CINZAS

IMPERIAL SITE NUMBER:N6/242 METRIC SITE NUMBER: N03/268

Scale 1:2,500

Finding aids to the location of the site

Brief description PA

Recorded features Unclassified

Other sites associated with this site

Printed by: russellgibb 07/07/2020

1 of 6

Geometria 2018 30
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

SITE RECORD INVENTORY NZAA SITE NUMBER: N03/268

Supporting documentation held in ArchSite

Printed by: russellgibb 07/07/2020

3 of 6

Geometria 2018 31
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

SITE RECORD HISTORY NZAA SITE NUMBER: N03/268

Site description Name added from SRF - 21/10/2013, Rick McGovern-Wilson

Condition of the site

Statement of condition

Current land use:

Threats:

Printed by: russellgibb 07/07/2020

2 of 6

Geometria 2018 32
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Printed by: russellgibb 07/07/2020

4 of 6

Geometria 2018 33
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Printed by: russellgibb 07/07/2020

5 of 6

Geometria 2018 34
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Printed by: russellgibb 07/07/2020

6 of 6

Geometria 2018 35
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Appendix 2: N03/640

NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

NZAA SITE NUMBER: N03/640

 
 
 SITE TYPE: Maori horticulture SITE NAME(s):

DATE RECORDED:

SITE COORDINATES (NZTM) Easting:1613984 Northing: 6140764 Source: CINZAS

IMPERIAL SITE NUMBER:N6/489 METRIC SITE NUMBER: N03/640

Scale 1:2,500

Finding aids to the location of the site

Brief description DITCH SYSTEM

Recorded features Ditch, Drain

Other sites associated with this site

Printed by: russellgibb 07/07/2020

1 of 3

Geometria 2018 36
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

SITE RECORD HISTORY NZAA SITE NUMBER: N03/640

Site description

Condition of the site

Statement of condition

Current land use:

Threats:

Printed by: russellgibb 07/07/2020

2 of 3

Geometria 2018 37
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

SITE RECORD INVENTORY NZAA SITE NUMBER: N03/640

Supporting documentation held in ArchSite

Printed by: russellgibb 07/07/2020

3 of 3

Geometria 2018 38
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Appendix 3: N03/798

Geometria 2018 39
AAE: Shorttail Orchards, Motutangi

Geometria 2018 40
x x x

x x x

Notes: It is absolutely necessary that this approval and agreement from the NZ Transport Agency is obtained as a matter of priority before commencing any upgrade works on the State highway, as no works on the State Highway may commence until the approval for the works has been given.

This response is the NZ Transport Agency’s current view of the situation. Please note that if this application is put on hold for any length of time and resubmitted at a later date, the NZ Transport Agency’s may need to review its comments in the light of any traffic, safety, planning, or policy change. ¾

21 July 2020

Northland Planning Development

Attention: Alex Billot By Email: [email protected]

Dear Alex

EXPERT ADVICE OF HERITAGE NEW ZEALAND POUHERE TAONGA ON SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL

3351 FAR NORTH ROAD, PUKENUI (LOT 1 DP 515576 & LOT 2 DP 429744)

Thank you for consulting Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga on the proposal to subdivide the property situated at 3351 Far North Road, Pukenui. Our comments and recommendations are as follows:

1. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (formerly New Zealand Historic Places Trust) is an autonomous Crown Entity with statutory responsibility under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPTA) for the identification, protection, preservation and conservation of New Zealand’s historical and cultural heritage. Heritage New Zealand is New Zealand’s lead agency for heritage protection. 2. Heritage New Zealand is an affected party for places identified as historic heritage. 3. Historic heritage is a matter of national importance under Section 6(f) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA). The definition of historic heritage under Part 2 of the RMA includes archaeology. Under section 104(1) of the RMA, a territorial authority must consider Part 2 matters (which includes section 6(f)) when making a decision on an application. Therefore, effects on archaeological sites must be taken into account by council when assessing a consent application. 4. Section 2 of the HNZPTA defines an archaeological site as:

a) any place in New Zealand, including any building or structure (or part of a building or structure), that—

(i) was associated with human activity that occurred before 1900 or is the site of the wreck of any vessel where the wreck occurred before 1900; and

(ii) provides or may provide, through investigation by archaeological methods, evidence relating to the history of New Zealand; 5. The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 provides protection for all archaeological sites, whether recorded or not. It is unlawful to modify or destroy an archaeological site without the prior authority of Heritage New Zealand. By

careful project design, it is frequently possible to avoid any such modification. However, where avoidance of an archaeological site is not possible, an Archaeological Authority will be required. An Authority is also required if there is reasonable cause to suspect that an archaeological site may be modified or destroyed. All applications for Archaeological Authorities must be made to Heritage New Zealand. 6. The property owner has obtained an archaeological assessment of effects report from Geometria Limited, dated 7 July 2020. The “Recommendations of that report are as follows: x No authority is required for the proposed subdivision. x Archaeological assessment of any future residential changes to Lot 3 or Lot 5, or land use change in Lot 2 is recommended. x Updates to all site record forms, including rectifying the duplicate site record form issue with N03/78 will be undertaken. 7. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga accepts and adopts and recommends that the “Recommendations” of the 7 July 2020 Geometria Limited report be followed as no earthworks are proposed as part of this subdivision.

Please contact the writer if you have any queries regarding this matter.

Yours sincerely

Ross Baker

Planner

Planner | Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga | PO Box 836, Kerikeri 0245 | PH: (64 9) 407 0470 | MOBILE: 027 351 9843 | EMAIL: [email protected]