(Consultant Planner to NPDC) Subject: Resource Consent Application to E

To: The Independent Commissioner From Cate Southworth (Consultant Planner to NPDC) Subject: Resource consent application to establish and operate a commercial accommodation activity on part of a rural property located at 1838 Egmont Road, Inglewood. Meeting Date: 11-12 November 2020 File Reference: LUC19/47473 Property ID: 108673

Applicant: Deborah and Gregory How

Property Address: 1838 Egmont Road, Inglewood Legal Description: Lot 2 DP 392802 Site Area: 47.4574 ha Environment Area: Rural Environment – Operative District Plan (ODP) District Plan Overlays: - Volcanic Hazard (H3) Overlay - Energy Pipelines traverse the site in a north west – south east direction - Statutory Acknowledgement Area (Te Atiawa) - Local Road 100km/h – Egmont Road - Collector Road 100km/h – Peters Road - Waiwhakaiho River is a Priority Water Body - There is an unformed paper road directly adjacent to the application site, to the east of the proposed commercial accommodation activities. Proposal: Land use consent to establish and operate a commercial accommodation activity within the Rural Environment (comprising 10 x two bedroom chalets, 24 powered motorhome parking spaces, and an amenity building that consists of shared kitchen/ablution facilities and a reception and store room on the ground floor and a three bedroom managers residence on the floor above) on a property containing an existing dwelling, farm buildings and rural farming activities.

Date Lodged: 12 March 2019

Liardet St, Private Bag 2025, New Plymouth 4342, New Zealand Phone: 06-759 6060, Fax: 06-759 6072, Email: [email protected]

Activity Status: The Proposal is a Fully Discretionary Activity in accordance with the following Rules of the ODP: - Rule Rur12 (Maximum number of habitable buildings) - Rule Rur16 (Setbacks from road boundaries) - Rule Rur93 (Vehicle access point / intersection sight lines) - Rule Rur94 (Parking) - Rule Rur101 (Traffic Generation) and - Rule Rur102 (Traffic Generation).

Note: This report sets out the advice of the reporting planner to the Independent Commissioner. This report has yet to be considered by the Commissioner, and the recommendation contained within the report is not the decision on the application. A decision will only be made after the Commissioner has considered the application, and heard the Applicant and any Submitters.

Table of Contents PART A – INTRODUCTION AND SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 5 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 5 1.1 Purpose of this Report ...... 5 1.2 My Qualifications and Experience ...... 5 1.3 Report Structure ...... 5 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE ...... 6 2.1 Legal Description and Site Area ...... 6 2.2 Location and Site Characteristics ...... 6 2.3 Existing Land Use Activities, Buildings and Access ...... 7 2.4 Existing Planting ...... 9 2.5 Surrounding Land Use Activities ...... 9 2.6 District Plan Zoning ...... 10 PART B SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL ...... 11 3.0 Description of The Proposal ...... 11 3.1 Proposed Commercial Accommodation Facility ...... 11 3.2 Proposed Vehicle Access ...... 12 PART C - CONSENT HISTORY ...... 14 4.0 THE RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION ...... 14 4.1 The Consent History ...... 14 4.2 Staff, Consultant and Agency Comments ...... 20 PART D DISTRICT PLAN ASSESSMENT ...... 21 5.0 OPERATIVE DISTRICT PLAN ...... 21 5.1 District Plan Weighting ...... 21 5.2 Operative District Plan Rules ...... 21 5.3 Overall Activity Status ...... 24 PART E – RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 ...... 25 6.0 SECTION 104 ASSESSMENT ...... 25 6.1 Assessment of Environmental Effects ...... 25 6.1.1 Positive Effects...... 25 6.1.2 Rural Character and Amenity Effects ...... 26 6.1.3 Landscape and Visual Effects ...... 31 6.1.4 Transportation Effects ...... 35 6.1.5 Effects on the Adjacent Paper Road...... 36 6.1.6 Servicing Effects ...... 36

6.2 Matters Raised in the Submissions: ...... 37 6.3 Relevant Statutory Documents ...... 38 6.3.1 Operative District Plan Policy Framework ...... 38 6.3.2 Operative District Plan Assessment Criteria ...... 41 6.3.3 Proposed District Plan ...... 48 6.3.4 Taranaki Regional Policy Statement ...... 49 6.3.5 NES for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health 49 6.4 S104 Summary...... 49 PART F –CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ...... 50 7.1 Conclusion ...... 50 7.2 Recommendation ...... 50 7.3 Recommended Conditions for Land Use Consent LUC18/47473 ...... 51

Table of Figures Figure 1 Aerial Photo of the Application site and the surrounding rural area...... 6 Figure 2 Aerial Photo showing the existing access road and motorhome parking area (Source Google Maps) ...... 7 Figure 3 Aerial Photo showing the existing buildings, paper road and gas pipeline easement...... 8 Figure 4 View of the existing buildings, entrances and roadside planting at the corner of Egmont and Peters Road (taken from Peters Road) Source: Google Maps ...... 9 Figure 5 View of the existing roadside planting along Egmont Road (taken from Egmont Road) Source: Google Maps ...... 9 Figure 6 Excerpts from the ODP Planning Maps with the application site identified as a red star...... 10 Figure 7 Photo of the existing internal access road and camping activities...... 13 Figure 8 Alternative View of the existing access road and camping activities...... 13 Figure 9 Locations of the 3 submitters (shown as red stars) and the 3 additional parties that provided letters in opposition to the proposal (shown as blue stars)...... 15 Figure 10 Location of the Submitters Properties (identified as red stars) ...... 17

Appendices Appendix A – Peer Review of the Landscape and Visual Effects prepared by Richard Bain of Blue Marble.

PART A – INTRODUCTION AND SITE DESCRIPTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of this Report 1. This report has been prepared by Cate Southworth (Consultant Planner to NPDC), in accordance with Section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) to provide a planning assessment and a recommendation to the Independent Commissioner on the above resource consent application. This report is to provide a recommendation as to whether the resource consent be granted or refused and if granted what conditions it should be subject to. It is not a decision, and the recommendation should not be construed as such.

2. The report has been prepared on behalf of the New Plymouth District Council by Cate Southworth (Consultant Planner, Mitchell Daysh Limited) and has been reviewed and approved by Rowan Williams, NPDC Planning Lead.

1.2 My Qualifications and Experience 3. I, Cate Southworth, reside in Hamilton and am employed by Mitchell Daysh Limited as a Consultant Planner. I hold a Bachelor of Social Sciences Degree in Resources and Environmental Planning and a Post Graduate Diploma in Resources and Environmental Planning, both from the University of Waikato. I am a Full Member of the New Zealand Planning Institute, and have approximately 20 years’ experience as a practising planner, working within both local government and private planning consultancies. My experience includes resource consent preparation and processing and decision making on resource consents under delegated authority; as well as district plan preparation and general policy planning work.

1.3 Report Structure 4. This report has been prepared to assess the activities proposed as required under section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”). Specifically: • Part A provides an Introduction and a description of the site and the existing rural environment. • Part B describes the proposal. • Part C outlines the consent history (since the application was first lodged with Council). • Part D provides an assessment of the activity against the relevant provisions of the Operative New Plymouth District Plan. • Part E provides an assessment against the relevant provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991, including an assessment of potential environmental effects, the relevant policy framework and the matters raised in the submissions. • Part F sets out the key conclusions, recommendation, and suggested conditions (should the Commissioner grant consent to the application).

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 2.1 Legal Description and Site Area 5. The application site is comprised of one allotment held in a single fee simple Record of Title, and is legally described as Lot 2 DP 392802.

6. The application site has an area of approximately 47.46 hectares.

2.2 Location and Site Characteristics 7. Located north of the Egmont National Park boundary, and south-west of the Inglewood township, the application site is a rural property positioned on the south western corner of the Peters Road – Egmont Road intersection, and is bounded by three public roads as follows: • The site adjoins Peters Road along its northern boundary; and • Egmont Road and an existing unformed paper road along its eastern boundary.

8. The site adjoins an existing rural property (Lot 1 DP 404435) to the south; and the Waiwhakaiho River and an existing esplanade strip along the western boundary. Alfred Road is located on the western side of the Waiwhakaiho River.

9. The Waiwhakaiho River and its tributaries are subject to statutory acknowledgement to Te Atiawa.

10. Figure 1 is an aerial photo of the site and the surrounding rural area. The yellow lines denote the approximate boundaries of the application site.

Figure 1 Aerial Photo of the Application site and the surrounding rural area.

11. There is an existing gas pipeline easement that traverses through the north eastern corner of the site. The Easement Document identifies a strip of land 40 feet wide (12m) centred upon the axis of the First Gas pipeline, and prohibits any structures and cultivated or natural vegetation including trees and shrubs within the easement.

12. The Applicants agent has confirmed the location of the pipelines with First Gas and marked these out on site to ensure the activities proposed (including mitigation planting) do not encroach on to the existing gas pipeline easement. The location of the easement is identified as orange dashed lines in Figure 3.

2.3 Existing Land Use Activities, Buildings and Access Land Use Activities 13. The application states that the site is currently utilised for general farming purposes as an organic farming operation, including onsite composting and production of organic matter, and beekeeping.

14. The aerial photos on Google Maps indicate that an existing vehicle entrance on to Egmont Road, and the land adjacent thereto (including part of the adjacent paper road) have been utilised for commercial accommodation (motorhome and caravan parking) activities in the past. Figure 2 clearly shows an existing access road and motorhome parking bay area. The photos included as Figures 7 and 8 also denote the existing access road and accommodation activities (a caravan and cabin) in this location.

Access Road

Motorhome Parks

Figure 2 Aerial Photo showing the existing access road and motorhome parking area (Source Google Maps)

Existing Buildings 15. There are a number of existing buildings on the property. The existing buildings are located in the north-eastern corner of the site and comprise a herd home, haybarn, cowshed, implement shed, dwelling and storage shed. The existing buildings are visible in Figures 3 and 4.

16. The existing paper road (shown as two parallel white lines) and gas pipeline easement (shown as hatched orange lines) are also visible in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Aerial Photo showing the existing buildings, paper road and gas pipeline easement.

Existing Vehicle Accesses 17. The application site has access and frontage on to both Peters Road (along the northern boundary) and Egmont Road (to the east). Access is also available via the existing paper road that runs adjacent to the eastern site boundary.

18. The existing buildings onsite are accessed via three existing vehicle entrances on to Peters Road and a fourth entrance on to Egmont Road.

19. There is a fifth vehicle entrance located towards the southern end of the Egmont Road frontage, and immediately north of the unformed paper road, which is proposed to be utilised to provide access to the proposed commercial accommodation activities. The Applicants are proposing to retain (and upgrade) this existing vehicle entrance to provide the sole entry and egress point for the proposed commercial accommodation activities.

2.4 Existing Planting 20. Existing planting within the application site (comprising a combination of hedging and specimen trees) provides some physical separation and screening between the existing buildings and farming activities on site and the proposed commercial accommodation activities.

21. The existing planting includes a barberry hedge that extends along the Egmont Road boundary, and partially screens the application site from the adjacent public road and rural properties. A griselinia hedge has also been planted, which in time, will succeed the barberry.

22. Existing roadside planting along the Peters Road frontage provides additional screening with respect to the existing buildings and development in the north eastern corner of the property.

23. Figures 4 and 5 depict the existing roadside planting in the north eastern corner of the property (taken from Peters Road and Egmont Road) respectively.

Figure 4 View of the existing buildings, entrances and roadside planting at the corner of Egmont and Peters Road (taken from Peters Road) Source: Google Maps

Figure 5 View of the existing roadside planting along Egmont Road (taken from Egmont Road) Source: Google Maps

2.5 Surrounding Land Use Activities 24. Existing land use activities in the immediate surrounding area comprise of predominantly rural production related land uses (farming), and a small cluster of lifestyle allotments including the former Kaimiro Hall that has recently been converted into a residential dwelling. There are also existing commercial accommodation activities within the surrounding area, including the

Volcano View Café and Campground, located approximately 680m to the south, on the opposite side of Egmont Road (at 1917 Egmont Road).

2.6 District Plan Zoning 25. The application site is zoned ‘Rural Environment Area’ under the provisions of the Operative District Plan (“ODP”) - Planning Maps E4 and E5. The property is also identified as located within the Volcanic Hazard Overlay (H3) area. The surrounding properties are also zoned Rural Environment.

26. The planning maps do not identify any recorded Waahi Taonga/Sites of Significance to Maori or Archaeological Sites on the subject property.

27. Figure 6 is an excerpt from the ODP planning maps, showing the zoning of the application site and the land in the immediate surrounding area. The application site is identified with a red star. The blue hatched areas denote the Volcanic Hazard Overlay area and the green lines denote the energy pipelines that traverse through the application site. The existing paper road is also shown.

Excerpt from Planning Maps E4 Excerpt from Planning Maps E5 Figure 6 Excerpts from the ODP Planning Maps with the application site identified as a red star.

28. Egmont Road is identified as a Collector Road in Map 23.1 and Peters Road is a Local Road. Both roads have posted speed limits of 100km/hr.

PART B SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL

3.0 Description of The Proposal 3.1 Proposed Commercial Accommodation Facility 29. The application seeks resource consent approval to establish and operate a commercial accommodation activity at the subject property, comprising: • 24 powered sites for motorhomes; • 10 fully self-contained two-bedroom chalets; and • a two storey building containing shared toilets, showers, kitchen and laundry facilities, and a reception area and store room on the ground floor; and staff accommodation (a 3 bedroom residential unit) on the first floor.

30. The activities are proposed in an area of the property previously used for rural farming (grazing) purposes. The activities are proposed to be clear of the existing gas pipeline easement and adjacent paper road.

31. The proposed commercial accommodation activity is to be known as the ‘North Egmont Retreat’ and will target visitors to the nearby Egmont National Park. The facility is proposed to operate 24 hours a day, all year round.

32. Table 1 provides a description of the various buildings and features that are proposed as part of the development:

Table 1 Summary of the Proposal

Building/Area: Description: Chalets • Ten single storey chalets are proposed towards the western side of the proposed Commercial Accommodation site. • All 10 chalets have an identical floor plan and external appearance. • The external cladding and design will be a log cabin style, with a recessive colour scheme. • Each chalet is approximately 88m2 in area and comprises 2 bedrooms, a bathroom, toilet and open plan living, kitchen and dining area. A laundry area is also proposed within each chalet. • Each chalet will accommodate up to four people. • The chalet buildings have a maximum height of 5m and are orientated to be north-west facing, with views of Mount Taranaki available to the south west. • Two carparking spaces are provided for each chalet (located adjacent to each chalet). • The chalets (and associated vehicle entrance, access road and parking spaces) are located entirely within the application site. • Two of the chalets encroach into the 30m minimum setback requirement with respect to the adjacent paper road (at 14m and 24m setbacks).

Powered • 24 powered motorhome sites are proposed towards the south- Motorhome sites eastern side of the proposed Commercial Accommodation site.

• The motorhome sites have been positioned in three bays along the internal access road. • The proposed motorhome sites (and associated vehicle entrance and access road) are located entirely within the application site (and clear of the adjacent paper road). Shared Ablution/ • A two storey building is proposed towards the northern end of Kitchen and Staff the proposed Commercial Accommodation site (in the centre Accommodation of the proposed internal access road loop). Building • The proposed building has a footprint of approximately 163m2 (and a total floor area of 310m2). • Ground Floor: A shared utilities and ablutions area (providing toilet, shower and kitchen facilities and an external laundry area), and a reception and storeroom are proposed on the ground floor and will be accessible to all guests. • First Floor: The first floor will be utilised as a Managers residence (and comprises of a three bedroom fully self- contained residential unit). • Pedestrian access is proposed between the chalet and motorhome sites and the shared ablution/kitchen building. • The external cladding and design of the proposed building will match that of the chalets (a log cabin style on the ground floor and weatherboards above, all with a recessive colour scheme). • The building is located entirely within the application site and complies with the 30m minimum setback requirement from the adjacent paper road.

3.2 Proposed Vehicle Access 33. Access to the proposal is via an existing vehicle entrance on to Egmont Road that is located towards the southern end of the Egmont Road front boundary.

34. The existing vehicle access will be upgraded to comply with the relevant entrance design standards, and will provide dual entry/egress to the proposed development.

35. An internal one-way ring road is proposed to provide access to the proposed development. The proposed internal access road is located entirely within the application site (and clear of the adjacent paper road).

Figure 7 Photo of the existing internal access road and camping activities.

Figure 8 Alternative View of the existing access road and camping activities.

PART C - CONSENT HISTORY

4.0 THE RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION 4.1 The Consent History 36. Application Lodged: The application was originally lodged with Council in March 2019, and was allocated to Council Planner Zane Wood for processing. Mr Wood undertook the initial review and notification assessment and placed the application on hold pending a s.92 request for further information.

37. Council were unable to locate copies of either the notification assessment or the s.92 request for further information at the time this 42A report was prepared.

38. Section 37 Extension: On the 17th April 2019 Council issued an extension to the timeframe for the processing of the resource consent application pursuant to Sections 37 and 37A of the RMA.

39. Further Information Request: Council requested further information under s92 of the RMA on 01 April 2019.

40. I understand that additional information was sought with respect to the following: - Building locations (Council queried the setbacks of Chalets 1-3 from the adjacent paper road); and - Design of the vehicle access (Council sought amendments to the design and location of the proposed access).

41. Council were unable to locate a copy of the further information request at the time this report was prepared.

42. Notification Decision: The application was limited notified (twice) to the three properties located closest to the area of the application site on which the commercial accommodation activities are proposed.

43. Council were not able to locate a copy of the original notification decision at the time this report was prepared.

44. The First Limited Notification: The application was limited notified on the 24th May 2019 to the following three properties: 1) 1835 Egmont Road (Karl and Andrea Mischeski) – a rural lifestyle property to the east, located on the opposite side of Egmont Road; 2) 1870 Egmont Road (Michaela Stevenson and Zane O’Neill) – a rural lifestyle property to the south east, located on the opposite side of the unformed paper road; and 3) 1878 Egmont Road (Pamela Cordery) – a rural property further to the south, also located on the opposite side of the unformed paper road.

45. Submissions: All three parties lodged submissions in opposition to the proposal.

46. In addition, three letters in support of the submissions in opposition to the proposal were received from the following parties who were not served notice of the application: • Sonja Barrett and Richard Malster (1828 Egmont Road) • Tahnee Pillette and Shaun Huggard (14 Peters Road); and • Peter and Maureen Van Blerk (1821 Egmont Road).

47. Figure 9 shows the locations of the three submitters properties (identified as red stars) and the properties of the three additional parties who provided letters in support of those submissions (identified as blue stars).

Figure 9 Locations of the 3 submitters (shown as red stars) and the 3 additional parties that provided letters in opposition to the proposal (shown as blue stars).

48. Application Placed on Hold: At the close of the submission period the Applicants requested that the application be placed on hold to allow them time to consider the submissions that were received in conjunction with the further information request from Council. The application was suspended pursuant to Section 91A of the RMA.

49. Further Information Response and Amendments to the Application: The Applicants provided a formal response to the further information request on 20 September 2019. The response also included amendments to the application including the addition of an upper floor (for staff accommodation) above the proposed shared kitchen/ablutions building, and amendments to the original Landscape Recommendations and Plans.

50. Additional information was also submitted in response to the matters raised in the submissions (including the preparation of a Lighting Plan to demonstrate compliance with the applicable Lighting Standards, and a noise prediction report to demonstrate compliance with the applicable Noise Standards).

51. The further information response comprised: • Building locations - Response to NPDC and change from original application: The site layout was amended to increase the proposed setback from the adjacent paper road. An amended site plan (with an increased setback of 17.5m) was submitted as Appendix A of the further information response. • Detailed vehicle access - Response to NPDC and change from original application: A detailed design for the Type H entranceway was submitted as Appendix B of the further information response. The further information response also “confirms that the inside entrance of the site is wide enough to allow for a motor home sized vehicle (11m) to turn on the ‘interior track’ of the site, from the road, in one movement. The design confirms that the vehicle access to be constructed onto Egmont Road is a Heavy Vehicle type crossing with a sealed surface and demonstrates that there will be clear visibility from 5m back from the edge of seal in either direction as vehicles leave the site. The access also provides for dual entry and exit for a motor home sized vehicle. The plan outlines boundary hedges to be trimmed to maintain required sight distances. Upgrades to the existing access will be undertaken to achieve the above design should consent be granted”. • Utilities Building/Living Quarters Addition – Change from original application: The applicant sought to amend the application by adding a first floor to the proposed shared kitchen and ablution building, to be used as staff living quarters. A revised Floor Plan and Elevation were submitted as Appendix C to the further information response and dated 01/09/2019. An assessment of environmental effects of the proposed changes was also included as Appendix D in the further information response (as an addendum to the original application). • Landscape Plan – Change from original application: The original landscape plans and recommendations have been amended to incorporate the changes to the site layout (affecting chalets 1-3) and the addition of a first floor (and staff accommodation) above the proposed shared kitchen/ablutions building. The amended Landscape Assessment and Plans were submitted as Appendix F of the further information response. • Light Emission – Response to submissions: In response to concerns raised by submitters, a Lighting Firm was engaged to provide a report on recommendations around lighting to ensure compliance with the District Plan rules in the Rural Environment Area. • Noise – Response to submissions: In response to concerns raised by submitters, Marshall Day Acoustics were engaged to provide an acoustic assessment for the proposal. Their report (included as Appendix E of the further information response) concludes that noise generated from the proposed activity would comply with the relevant District Plan noise standards.

52. Second Limited Notification: Based on the above changes to the original application, the Council Planner (Zane Wood) made a decision to renotify the application on a limited notified basis to the same three properties that were originally notified (the owners of 1835, 1870 and 1878 Egmont Road). The amended application was limited notified on 4 October 2019.

53. Council staff were unable to locate a copy of this second notification decision at the time this report was prepared.

54. Submissions Received: The Council letter dated 4 November 2019 confirms that two submissions were received, both in opposition to the proposal.

55. Submissions were received from the following persons: • Karl and Andrea Mischeski of 1835 Egmont Road; and • Michaela Stevenson and Zane O’Neill of 1870 Egmont Road

56. In addition, several of the surrounding property owners and/or occupiers also signed the submission in opposition by Karl and Andrea Mischeski.

57. The following addresses are noted in the list of signatures, and are additional parties that that were not served notice but who have also expressed opposition to the proposal: • 1800 Egmont Road; • 1828 Egmont Road; • 14 Peters Road; and • 1821 Egmont Road.

58. Figure 10 shows the location of the two submitters (identified as red stars).

Figure 10 Location of the Submitters Properties (identified as red stars)

59. Both submitters are seeking that the application be declined, and wish to be heard in support of their submission(s).

60. Pre Hearing Meeting: A Pre-Hearing Meeting was held at the New Plymouth District Council offices on 26th February 2020. The following parties were in attendance: • Campbell Robinson, Future Proof Planning Ltd (Meeting Chair/Facilitator) • Nicola Laurenson (Consultant Planner on behalf of New Plymouth District Council) • Gregory and Deborah How (The Applicants) • Scott Grieve (Legal Counsel for the Applicants) • Andrea Mischeski (submitter from 1835 Egmont Road); and • Sonia Barrett (a support person for the submitter)

61. No agreement could be reached between the submitters and the Applicants at the Pre-Hearing Meeting. The parties disagreed that the effects of the development could be successfully mitigated through redesign of the scheme, and the application was scheduled for a Council Hearing.

62. Clarification regarding the use of the adjacent paper road: On 18th May 2020 Council sent a letter to the Applicants, seeking clarification with respect to how the Applicants propose to utilise the adjacent paper road as part of their application.

63. The application both as originally lodged and subsequently amended in the further information response, proposed to site part of the proposed internal access road, eight of the proposed powered motorhome parking sites and a significant amount of the proposed mitigation planting within the paper road. However, the application did not include any detail with respect to the legal mechanism proposed to utilise the adjacent paper road as part of the development. For example, an Encroachment License is normally required to occupy a paper road for a period greater than five years (and can be either approved or declined by Council).

64. Clarification was also sought with respect to whether the proposal is consistent with the Freedom Camping Bylaw (as the application sought to impose a daily tariff/fee on motorhomes parked on a public paper road).

65. Meeting to discuss the Use of the Adjacent Paper Road: A Meeting was held at the New Plymouth District Council offices on Tuesday 9th June 2020 (at the request of the Applicants) to discuss those matters raised in my letter dated 18th May 2020. The following parties were in attendance: On behalf of the Applicants: • Scott Grieve Grieve (Legal Counsel for the Applicants) • Cam Twigley (Consultant Planner for the Applicants) • Gregory and Deborah How (The Applicants) On behalf of NPDC: • Rowan Williams (Planning Lead, NPDC) • Debbie Taplin (Development Engineer Lead, NPDC) • John Eagles (Network Management Lead - Transportation, NPDC) • Michelle Wiltshire (Network Access Officer – Transportation, NPDC) • Philip McKay (Consultant Planner for NPDC) – via zoom

• Cate Southworth (Consultant Planner for NPDC) – via zoom.

66. The Applicants agreed to amend the application so that all of the activities associated with the commercial accommodation facility are located entirely within the application site (and clear of the adjacent paper road). The application was effectively placed on hold pending receipt of the amended application and plans.

67. Amended Application: The application was subsequently amended to effectively ‘relocate’ the proposed commercial accommodation activities to the west, so that they are located entirely within the Applicants property (and clear of the adjacent paper road). The amended site layout also includes provision for a pull in bay for vehicles for check in purposes, and a revised floor plan for the utilities/managers accommodation building that includes a reception/office and storeroom area on the ground floor.

68. The following additional information (including updated reports and plans) was received on 31 July 2020: - An updated Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment for 1844 Egmont Road, New Plymouth prepared by Natural Capital and dated 30 July 2020 that also includes the following plans: • L1.01 - Landscape Framework Masterplan (dated 20 July 2020) • L1.02 – Receptors (dated 20 July 2020) • L1.03 – Landscape Mitigation Zones (dated 20 July 2020) - Updated plans for the shared ablution/kitchen and staff accommodation building (which now includes a reception/office area on the ground floor) comprising three Sheets, Labelled Ps Sheets 1 – 3. - An updated noise assessment prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics dated 30 August 2019 submitted as Appendix E to the s.92 further information response dated 20 September 2019; and - An updated Lighting Plan prepared by Zumtobel Group labelled ‘North Egmont Retreat – 1844 Egmont Road, Kaimero’ and dated 5/03/2020.

69. Assessment of the Landscape and Visual Effects: Following a review of the additional information provided (and advice from Richard Bain, Landscape Architect), Council requested further detail/clarification regarding the potential landscape and visual effects. This information was requested in an email dated 17 August 2020.

70. The following additional information was received on 25 September 2020, in response to the email dated 17 August 2020: - An Assessment of Landscape and Visual Effects, including a detailed description and assessment of the local area and the receiving environment prepared by Natural Capital dated 25 September 2020. - An assessment of Amenity Effects prepared by BTW. - A Management Plan and Rules and Conditions of Occupancy for the proposed Retreat. - A Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures and the Construction Timetable.

71. The peer review prepared on behalf of Council by landscape architect consultant Richard Bain of Blue Marble is based upon this latest set of information and plans.

4.2 Staff, Consultant and Agency Comments 72. Development Engineering: The application has been circulated to Council’s Development Engineering Team for comment. Subsequently, Debbie Taplin, Council’s Development Engineer Lead and John Eagles, Councils Network Management Lead – Transportation have provided comments on matters relating to traffic, vehicle access, vehicle manoeuvring, use of the adjacent unformed paper road and servicing.

73. Legal: Council’s Property Lawyer, Meghan Pinfold has provided comments with respect to the proposal to utilise part of the adjacent paper road for the proposal (no longer proposed).

74. Te Atiawa: The Waiwhakaiho River and its tributaries adjoin the subject property along the western boundary. These waterbodies are subject to Statutory Acknowledgement to Te Atiawa introduced by the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Act 2016.

75. Te Atiawa were advised of the application in a letter dated 13 March 2019. On 11 May 2020 I contacted Sarah Mako at Te Atiawa to confirm whether they had any comments with respect to the application. Ms Mako provided a formal response from Te Atiawa in an email dated 2 June 2020.

76. Councils Planning Lead (R Williams) has confirmed that these comments have no statutory weighting with respect to the limited notified resource consent application.

77. Blue Marble: Richard Bain from Blue Marble Landscape Architects (‘Blue Marble’) has peer reviewed the landscape and visual assessments submitted with the application on behalf of Council. A copy of this peer review is attached as Appendix A.

PART D DISTRICT PLAN ASSESSMENT

5.0 OPERATIVE DISTRICT PLAN 5.1 District Plan Weighting 78. The application was lodged with the New Plymouth District Council in March 2019, which is prior to the notification of the Proposed District Plan (“PDP”). (The PDP was publicly notified on 23 September 2019).

79. As this application had already been lodged at the time of notification of the PDP its status is determined under the Operative District Plan as per RMA section 88A(1A).

80. For the record the subject site is zoned Rural Production under the PDP and is subject to several overlays, being: (i) Volcanic Hazard Area (ii) Significant Waterbodies (iii) Gas Transmission Pipeline Corridor

81. The Operative New Plymouth District Plan (Operative 15 August 2005) (the ‘ODP’) is therefore the only district plan that requires assessment with respect to determining the status of the application.

82. The status of this application is therefore determined under the ODP in accordance with RMA section 88A(1A) and is a Fully Discretionary Activity as set out in the sections below. 5.2 Operative District Plan Rules 83. The site is located within the Rural Environment Area of the ODP and is also located within the Volcanic Hazard Overlay (H3) area.

84. The proposal requires resource consent in accordance with the following ODP Rules:

Table 2 District Plan Rules Assessment

Rule Description Activity Status Rur Rule 12 Refers to the maximum number of habitable Fully buildings per site and states that up to three Discretionary. habitable buildings shall be permitted provided there is an available area allocation within the site of no less than 20ha per habitable building. Failure to comply is Fully Discretionary.

The application seeks to construct 10 self contained chalets and a three-bedroom unit managers residence (11 habitable buildings) on the property. There is also already an existing dwelling on the site.

The proposal will therefore result in a total of 12 habitable buildings.

Rur Rule 16 States that the minimum building setback from the Restricted road boundary for any building shall be 30m. Discretionary Alternatively, a setback of 10m to less than 30m is provided for as a Restricted Discretionary Activity.

All buildings have been sited so that they are setback at least 30m from the Egmont Road front boundary. However, two of the proposed chalets are less than 30m from the boundary with the adjacent paper road (from which a 30m minimum setback is also required). The two chalets closest to the adjacent paper road are setback 14m and 24m respectively. Rur Rule 93 States that a vehicle access point must comply Restricted with the conditions for a permitted activity in Part Discretionary A in Appendix 23, and includes minimum sightline and separation distance requirements. Failure to comply is Restricted Discretionary.

The proposal does not comply with the 250m minimum sight line requirement (a collector road with more than 200 vehicles per day) with respect to vehicles entering and exiting the site from the south. Sightlines of approximately 150m are proposed.

The proposal also does not comply with the 250m minimum separation distance requirement with respect to intersections. The access is located approximately 95m from the Peters Road – Egmont Road intersection and 210m from the Lepper Road - Egmont Road intersection (and is therefore less than 250m from both of these intersections).

The proposed access is more than 10m from any adjoining access point, and therefore complies with the minimum spacing required between vehicle access points. However, the failure to comply with the minimum sightline and separation distance requirements requires resource consent as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. Rur Rule 94 States that parking must comply with the Restricted conditions for a permitted activity as specified in Discretionary Part B in Appendix 23.

In accordance with Table 23.9 the following carparks are required: • Campground: 1 space per tent or caravan site; plus whichever is the greater of 1 space per unit or 1 space per 25m2 gross habitable floor area, plus 1 space per 2 staff; • Commercial Accommodation: Whichever is the greater of 1 space per 25m2 of GHFA or 1 space per unit, plus 1 space per 2 staff. • Dwelling House: 4 or fewer bedrooms – 2 carparks Based on the above, a total of 61 carparks would be required (24 for the motorhomes; 35 for the cabins (880m2/25 = 35.2) and 2 carparks for the staff accommodation (assessed as a 3 bedroom dwelling). A total of 46 onsite carparking spaces are proposed (24 for the motorhomes, 2 carparks per chalet (20) and 2 staff carparking spaces for the staff dwelling). The proposal therefore does not comply with the minimum onsite carparking requirement.

The failure to provide the required carparks requires resource consent as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. Rur Rule 101 Relates to traffic generation and refers to the Restricted maximum daily trip generation (measured in Discretionary vehicle equivalent movements) over a 24 hour period. Up to 50 vehicles per day is provided for as a permitted activity where the relevant requirements in Appendix 27 are met. More than 50 per day is Restricted Discretionary.

The application states that the proposed commercial accommodation activities and existing activities on site are expected to generate a maximum of 120 VEM’s over a 24 hour period. Rur Rule 102 Relates to the average traffic generation over a Restricted seven-day period and provides for 30 per day as a Discretionary permitted activity. More than 30 per day is Restricted Discretionary except as specified in Appendix 27, Part F, 27.11.

The application states that the proposed commercial accommodation activities and existing activities on site are expected to generate a maximum average of 120 vehicle equivalent movements over a seven-day period.

5.3 Overall Activity Status 85. Applying a bundling approach, whereby the most restrictive activity status is applied overall to the application, the proposal requires resource consent approval as a Fully Discretionary Activity under the provisions of the ODP.

PART E – RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

6.0 SECTION 104 ASSESSMENT 86. A consent authority must have regard to a number of matters under section 104 of the Resource Management Act when considering an application for resource consent and any submissions received. Those considerations include the actual and potential effects of an activity on the environment, the relevant and proposed and / or operative district plan, regional plan or other relevant statutory document, and any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

87. The following sections include an assessment of all of the relevant considerations under s104 of the RMA under the following headings: • Assessment of Environmental Effects; • Matters Raised in the Submissions; and • Relevant Statutory Documents.

6.1 Assessment of Environmental Effects

88. The following assessment of the environmental effects of the proposed activity includes matters that are relevant to the breaches of various rules and performance standards and the relevant Assessment Criteria in the ODP.

89. Those effects requiring further examination are discussed under the following headings: • Positive Effects • Rural Character and Amenity Effects • Landscape and Visual Effects • Transportation Effects • Effects on the Adjacent Paper Road • Servicing Effects

6.1.1 Positive Effects Application 90. The application includes a specific section on positive effects (section 4.1 of the original application). They are identified as the provision of commercial accommodation within 3km of Egmont National Park, supporting the tourism economy and assisting with addressing the issue of freedom camping.

Assessment 91. I concur that the proposal has the potential to result in positive effects insofar as it seeks to provide a commercial accommodation facility within close proximity of Egmont National Park, and will therefore provide visitors to the area with a greater choice in accommodation facilities. However, I do not agree with the Applicant, that the establishment of the proposed commercial accommodation activity will specifically address ‘the issue of freedom camping’. It is my understanding that these are two separate activities. Freedom campers seek free accommodation and are therefore unlikely to use a commercial accommodation facility that incurs a nightly tariff.

Summary 92. In summary, the proposal has the potential to have positive effects on both the Applicants and the wider community. It will enable the Applicants to diversify their existing land use activities to provide for their economic and social wellbeing and is compatible with the existing farming activities onsite (which will continue to operate on the balance of the subject property). The proposal will have positive effects on the wider community insofar as it will provide visitors to the area with a greater choice of accommodation facilities in close proximity of the Egmont National Park.

6.1.2 Rural Character and Amenity Effects Application 93. The application includes a specific section on effects on Rural Character and Amenity (Section 4.2 of the application). Specifically, the application refers to the description of Rural Character provided within the Introduction to the Rural Environment Area (Page 241 of the ODP) and recognises the proximity of the application site to Egmont National Park, and the significance of this natural landscape.

94. The application also includes a Landscape and Visual Assessment for the proposed development (assessed under the heading of ‘Landscape and Visual Effects’ in the Section below).

95. Various mitigation measures are proposed as part of the application to retain the existing rural character and amenity as far as practicable, including landscape planting and restrictions regarding the location and design of the proposed buildings (including restrictions in relation to chalet height, cladding, external lighting and fencing).

Assessment 96. The Act defines amenity values as “those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes”.

97. The ODP identifies the importance of spaciousness, dominance of open space over built form, scale bulk and height as aspects of rural character.

98. The character of the surrounding area is predominantly rural and exhibits a mixture of small rural lifestyle blocks (utilised predominantly for residential and lifestyle activities) and larger rural landholdings utilised for general farming activities.

99. Both submitters have identified the potential effects on rural character and amenity as a potential concern. For example, Karl and Andrea Mischeski of 1835 Egmont Road describe the area as ‘a Rural Environment Area where they enjoy a quiet, peaceful lifestyle’. They have identified the introduction of artificial lighting, the number of additional habitable buildings proposed, noise and vehicle movements as aspects of the proposal that have the potential to impact on the existing rural character. Michaela Stevenson and Zane O’Neill of 1870 Egmont Road have raised concerns with respect to their privacy. These matters are discussed below.

100. Those aspects of the proposal that have the potential to adversely impact on Rural Character and Amenity are discussed below under the following headings: • Number of Habitable Buildings, • Building Setbacks, • Building Height, • Noise, • Lighting and • Traffic.

Number of Habitable Buildings Assessment 101. A trigger for the Discretionary Activity status of the application is the proposals inability to comply with the maximum permitted number of habitable buildings.

102. On a rural property with an area of 47ha only two habitable buildings are permitted. However, the proposal will result in a total of 12 habitable buildings on the subject property (10 chalets, the managers 3-bedroom unit and the Applicants existing dwelling).

103. The residential density proposed is therefore much greater than that provided for within the Rural Environment provisions of the ODP. It is also greater than existing land use patterns in the immediate surrounding rural area.

104. The proposal will create a consolidated residential development within the existing Rural Environment at a density greater than anticipated in the Rural Environment, and therefore has the potential to adversely impact upon rural character and amenity values.

105. Blue Marble have assessed the effects of the proposal on existing rural character and amenity values and conclude that the proposal will result in a substantial change in character. However, the proposal ‘is commensurate with current trends and community expectations – particularly around tourism’. Blue Marble conclude that, subject to the proposed mitigation planting being undertaken (and the requirement for a Landscape Management Plan) the proposal ‘is unlikely to create adverse landscape and visual effects on rural character and amenity’.

Proposed Mitigation 106. The following mitigation measures are proposed to minimise adverse effects associated with exceedance of the number of habitable buildings: • Landscape Planting: Landscape planting is proposed within the application site, to assist in screening the proposed buildings from the adjacent rural properties and public roads, and to soften the appearance of the overall development. Conditions are recommended to ensure that the landscaping achieves its purpose within an acceptable timeframe, and is undertaken in accordance with the Landscape and Visual Assessment (and the recommendations of Blue Marble). Conditions with respect to the height, width, timing and maintenance of the proposed plantings are also recommended.

• Building Design and External Cladding: The proposed cabins are of a modest size (88m2) and their external appearance and design (log cabin design and recessive colour scheme) will minimise the potential visual effects associated with the addition of this many buildings on the subject property. Blue Marble have confirmed that the buildings will not be visually dominant when viewed from the adjacent rural properties and public roads. Conditions are recommended with respect to the external appearance and design of the proposed buildings. • Building Height: All buildings comply with the 8m maximum permitted building height. The chalets are single storey, with a maximum height of 5m, and the shared kitchen/ablution and managers residence building has a maximum height of 8m. All buildings have been positioned on site to comply with the applicable height in relation to boundary requirement. No adverse overshadowing effects or loss of sunlight effects are therefore anticipated with respect to the adjacent rural properties and public roads. • Conditions regarding the maximum number of habitable buildings and motor home parks (10 chalets, 24 motorhome parks and a shared kitchen ablution building with a managers residence above), the use of the proposed buildings (restricted to commercial accommodation activities as opposed to permanent private residential occupation), and the maximum size of each chalet are also proposed.

Summary 107. Based on the conclusions within the Blue Marble peer review, and the mitigation measures proposed both within the application, and the Blue Marble recommendations, in my opinion the site is able to accommodate the number of habitable buildings proposed without adversely impacting upon rural character and amenity.

Building Setbacks Assessment 108. The District Plan stipulates a minimum building setback of 30m from a road boundary and 15m from a side or rear boundary. The ODP setbacks seek to maintain rural character, streetscape and privacy within the rural environment.

109. All buildings have been positioned to comply with the minimum setback with respect to the Egmont Road front boundary, and the side boundaries. The locations of the proposed buildings therefore afford the development sufficient set back from the adjacent formed public road and adjacent rural properties.

110. However, two of the proposed chalets do not comply with the 30m minimum setback requirement from the adjacent unformed paper road. The proposal to site the two chalets within the minimum setback has the potential to adversely impact upon rural character and amenity, particularly if the paper road were to be formed and utilised.

111. Councils Development Engineer has been consulted with respect to the proposed building setback encroachment, and has given approval for two of the chalets to be setback a minimum distance of 14m and 24m from the adjacent paper road (as shown on the latest set of plans). Councils Development Engineer is satisfied that the proposal to site the buildings in this location (along with the mitigation measures proposed) will not result in any adverse effects with respect

to the adjacent paper road. The proposal will not impair public access to the adjacent paper road or result in any adverse traffic safety effects with respect to the adjacent paper road.

Proposed Mitigation 112. The following mitigation measures are proposed to minimise any adverse effects associated with the proposal to site two of the chalets within the minimum building setback requirement from the paper road: • Landscape Planting: Evergreen planting is proposed on the eastern side of both chalets (in the area between the chalets and the adjacent paper road), to assist in screening the proposed chalets from the adjacent paper road, and provide privacy for guests utilising the chalets. A landscape buffer is also proposed along the length of the boundary adjoining the paper road (and will screen the access road and associated traffic from the adjacent paper road). Conditions are recommended with respect to the height, width, timing and maintenance of the proposed planting to ensure that adequate screening is provided with respect to the adjacent paper road. • Building Design and External Cladding: Each cabin is of a modest size (88m2) and their external appearance and design (log cabin design and recessive colour scheme) will ensure that the buildings are not visually dominant when viewed from the adjacent paper road. • Building Height: The chalets are single storey and comply with the applicable maximum height and height in relation to boundary requirements. The buildings will not result in any adverse overshadowing effects or loss of sunlight with respect to the adjacent paper road.

Summary 113. For the reasons outlined above, and relying on the expertise and recommendations of Councils Development Engineer, and Blue Marble, I consider that the proposal to site two of the proposed chalets within the minimum building setback will not adversely impact upon the rural character and amenity of the adjacent paper road. The setbacks proposed are considered appropriate for the size of each chalet, the landscape planting that is proposed, and the existing rural character in this location. Locating two of the chalets within the building setback will not impair public access to the adjacent paper road, or result in any loss of sunlight or overshadowing effects with respect to the adjacent paper road. The proposed landscape planting will assist in screening the development from the paper road, and maintaining the existing rural character and amenity.

Building Height Assessment 114. The District Plan stipulates a maximum building height of 8m for habitable buildings. A maximum building height is required to ensure buildings do not adversely affect the character and visual amenity of the rural area, particularly the dominance of open space over built form, the privacy of adjoining sites, and overshowing and loss of sunlight for adjoining properties.

115. All buildings comply with the maximum permitted height and daylighting requirements: • The proposed chalets are single storey, with a maximum height of approximately 5m; and • The proposed shared kitchen/ablutions and managers residence building is two storey, with a maximum height of 8.0m.

116. No overshadowing or loss of sunlight effects are therefore anticipated with respect to the adjoining properties.

Summary 117. No adverse effects on rural character and amenity are anticipated with respect to the height of the proposed buildings.

Noise Assessment 118. The proposal to establish and operate a commercial accommodation activity within the existing rural environment has the potential to adversely impact on existing noise levels, and the associated rural character and amenity values.

119. The application includes an acoustic assessment prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics, that assesses the noise effects associated with the proposal. The acoustic assessment has been updated to reflect the changes to the site layout and the latest proposal.

120. The acoustic assessment concludes that the proposal will comply with the applicable Rural Environment noise standards.

121. Conditions are proposed to ensure that the noise effects associated with the proposed commercial accommodation activities comply with the applicable construction noise and operational noise standards on an ongoing basis. A noise monitoring condition is also proposed to measure noise once the activities are operational onsite.

Summary 122. For the reasons outlined above, and relying on the expertise of the Acoustic Engineer, no adverse noise effects are anticipated with respect to the proposal. The noise levels are anticipated under the District Plan (and able to be appropriately managed through the conditions of consent). In my opinion, no adverse noise effects are therefore anticipated with respect to rural character and amenity.

Lighting Assessment 123. The establishment of a commercial accommodation facility within an existing rural environment has the potential to result in adverse lighting effects, particularly during the night time hours.

124. The applicants have confirmed that low level lighting (with respect to lux output) is proposed to minimise the potential for adverse lighting effects.

125. The application includes a Lighting Plan that assesses the lighting effects associated with the proposal. The Lighting Plan confirms that all lighting associated with the proposal will comply with the relevant district plan lighting standards.

Proposed Mitigation 126. The following mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate the potential for adverse lighting effects to occur onsite: • Low Level Lighting: All exterior lighting will be low level lighting in accordance with the Lighting Plan submitted with the application, to ensure compliance with the applicable ODP lighting standards. • Design of the Access Road: The access road has been designed / orientated to minimise the potential lighting effects from traffic headlights. Landscape planting is proposed along the side and front of the access road, to screen any traffic headlights from view, and the initial part of the driveway is orientated parallel with Egmont Road to minimise the potential for headlight nuisance effects.

Summary 127. For the reasons outlined above, and relying on the expertise of the Lighting Engineer, I consider any lighting effects associated with the proposal to be minor, or as anticipated under the District Plan (and able to be appropriately managed through the conditions of consent). No adverse artificial lighting effects are therefore anticipated with respect to rural character and amenity.

Traffic 128. The traffic effects associated with the proposal are assessed below.

Summary – Rural Character and Amenity 129. In summary, I consider that the proposal will only adversely detract from the character and amenity of the surrounding area and the submitters properties to a minor degree. However, in my opinion the mitigation measures proposed will address the concerns raised by both submitters and ensure that any adverse effects on character and amenity are acceptable.

6.1.3 Landscape and Visual Effects The Application 130. The application seeks to change the nature of the existing land use activities at the subject property from rural farming activities to commercial visitor accommodation activities. There will be a visual change to the activities onsite as a result of the proposal, particularly due to the increase in the number of habitable buildings onsite, and the additional parking areas, internal access road and traffic that is proposed.

131. The application includes a specific section on Landscaping (Section 3.7 of the application). Specifically, the application proposes to retain the existing roadside planting, and undertake additional landscape planting within the application site to mitigate the landscape and visual effects associated with the proposed development. The application states (on Page 7) that the Applicants are committed to undertaking the recommended planting as part of the application. A Landscape and Visual Assessment was also prepared for the application and submitted as further information (discussed below).

132. The change in use of the site from rural to commercial, will constitute a visual change to the surrounding environment, including the submitters properties (located to the north and east of the site).

133. Both submitters have identified visual effects as a potential concern. Michaela Stevenson and Zane O’Neill of 1870 Egmont Road have concerns with respect to their privacy, while Karl and Andrea Mischeski of 1835 Egmont Road have concerns with respect to the visual effects of the proposed activities.

Assessment 134. The potential landscape and visual effects associated with the proposal are discussed below.

135. The application includes a Landscape and Visual Assessment prepared by Natural Capital. Specifically, the Applicants engaged Erin Griffith of Natural Capital to assess the landscape and visual effects associated with the proposal, and to provide landscape recommendations and plans for the development. The Landscape and Visual Assessment has been updated to reflect the changes to the site layout and the latest proposal (including the addition of living quarters above the utilities building, and relocating all of the proposed activities so that they are located entirely within the application site, as opposed to also being sited within the adjacent paper road). Further amendments were also made in response to the peer review by Blue Marble.

136. Various areas of landscape planting is proposed as part of the proposal (as detailed within the Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment, and the plans that accompany the aforementioned assessment). The proposed mitigation planting includes: Perimeter Planting: - Maintaining the existing barberry hedge that runs along Egmont Road (to provide privacy and screening from the road for guests); - Maintaining an existing griselinia hedge along the inside of the barberry hedge (which in time will succeed the barberry). - Planting the southern boundary with a combination of flax, white flowering camelia and koromiko towards the internal ring-road. This planting will extend along the entirety of the southern boundary and provide surety of screening between neighbouring properties and the subject site to a height of 2-3m. - The northern boundary of the ring-road will be established with a 3-4m wide vegetative buffer. Internal Planting: - Additional planting is also proposed within the proposed commercial accommodation site, including an amenity garden at the eastern head of the ring-road, and an avenue of specimen trees around the internal perimeter of the open space. - A central buffer is also proposed between the western most motorhome bays and the chalet area (and as described within the ‘Landscape Recommendations -Planting’ section of the Landscape Assessment).

137. Blue Marble were engaged to peer review the Landscape and Visual Assessments submitted with the application, and provide an assessment of the landscape and visual effects associated with the proposed development

138. The Blue Marble peer review states: Landscape Effects - There is no explicit discussion about the appropriateness (in terms of landscape character) of a camp-style development that will change the site from spacious to containing eleven buildings and twenty four campervan sites; rather, the assessment states that the site “provides ample space to establish effective vegetative screening/softening (with the exception of the gas pipelines). Other elements to reduce, avoid and/or mitigate potential adverse effects are likely to include design and development controls, earthworks controls, bulk, height and colour controls, and lighting controls.” - The inference is that with mitigation measures, landscape eﬀects will be acceptable, based predominantly on the notion that once vegetation is established the development will not be appreciably perceptible by those outside the site. While I agree that the proposed design controls and planting will render the site relatively invisible, there will nonetheless be a substantial change in character. To some extent this change is anticipated by increased tourism to the area, and there are other recent projects around the maunga that similarly seek to provide tourist accommodation. Therefore, the proposal while a change from historical or current landuse, is commensurate with current trends and community expectations - particularly around tourism.

- Cumulative eﬀects are assessed, concluding that “the increase in building density from the proposal can, with mitigation, be absorbed into the area and does not represent an adverse cumulative eﬀect”.

- Amenity eﬀects are assessed referring the definition of amenity in the RMA and reference to previous school activity in the area, noise assessment undertaken by others and lighting impacts designed to preserve the night sky.

Visual Eﬀects - Chapter 9,0 identifies private receptors and the local area. Each private receptor is described and assessed, and mitigation methods listed. There are five private parties assessed, 1878 Egmont Road, 1870 Egmont Road, 1835 Egmont Road, 1828 Egmont Road, and 14 Peters Road. Public view from Peters Road, Egmont Road, and the unformed paper road are also assessed.

- Only one receptor (1870 Egmont Road), is assessed as having an overall significance of eﬀect greater than very low. This receptor is assessed as very-low to low.

- All of the receptors apart from one (Peters Road) rely on mitigation to reduce eﬀects.

- The assessment of private receptors is thorough and complete. The narrative matches my own understanding of impacts on these properties, and I agree with the significance eﬀects ratings.

- The assessment from public roads includes Egmont, Peters, and the unformed paper road.

- The assessment from these public locations is through and reasoned. The assessment matches my own understanding of impacts from the roads and I agree with the significance eﬀects ratings.

139. The Blue Marble peer review recommends: - The project relies heavily on planting mitigation. As a condition of consent, Planting Plans and a Landscape Management Plan should be provided to council prior to approval prior to development.

- In my opinion the Landscape Mitigation Plan should be the guiding plan for site bulk and location, layout, circulation, and vegetation.

- Taking point 2 above into consideration, in my opinion, with the Landscape Mitigation Measures recommended in the Natural Capital Assessment of Landscape and Visual Eﬀects, the proposal is unlikely to create adverse landscape and visual eﬀects on rural character and amenity. Summary 140. In summary, for the reasons outlined above, and relying on the expertise and recommendations of Blue Marble, I consider any landscape or visual effects associated with the proposal to be minor and able to be appropriately managed through the conditions of consent.

141. The existing and proposed landscape planting will assist in softening the appearance of the proposed buildings and screen the development from the adjacent public road and neighbouring rural properties, including both of the submitters’ properties. The location of the proposed activities entirely within the application site (as opposed to also occupying part of the adjacent paper road) will further assist in providing adequate separation and physical distance between the commercial accommodation activities and the submitters properties.

142. With respect to the submitters’ properties, the property at 1835 Egmont Road is located on the opposite side of Egmont Road to the application site, and (based on the Receptors Plan L1.02 submitted with the Landscape and Visual Assessment), the existing dwelling is setback approximately 43m from the application site, and 153m from the nearest campervan parking space. The proposed kitchen/ablution and managers residence building is setback approximately 140m. The existing barberry hedge along the road frontage and the additional planting proposed within the application site will assist in screening the proposed activities from the submitters property.

143. The submitter’s property at 1870 Egmont Road is located to the south east of the application site, and on the opposite side of the adjacent unformed paper road. The existing paper road affords adequate separation between the application site and the submitters property. Based on the Receptors Plan L1.02 submitted with the Landscape and Visual Assessment, the existing dwelling on the submitter’s property is setback approximately 97m from the boundary with the application site, and 111m from the nearest chalet. Landscape planting is proposed in the area between the proposed chalet and the site boundary, to screen the chalet from the submitter’s property. Additional landscape planting is also proposed along the eastern side of the application site (the area adjoining the proposed access road), to screen the internal access road and motorhome parks from the submitter’s property.

6.1.4 Transportation Effects The Application 144. The application seeks to establish and operate a commercial accommodation activity within the existing rural environment. The application includes an assessment of the potential traffic and roading effects associated with the proposal, and an assessment of the proposed vehicle access.

145. The application seeks to utilise an existing vehicle entrance on to Egmont Road. The existing vehicle entrance does not comply with the minimum sight line and separation requirements, and requires upgrading to comply with the applicable entrance standards.

146. The failure to comply with the required sight line and separation distance requirements is a Restricted Discretionary Activity.

Assessment 147. Councils Development Engineer has assessed the transportation related effects associated with the proposal, including the anticipated traffic volumes and the location and standard of the proposed entrance.

148. Traffic: The Development Engineer is satisfied that Egmont Road and the surrounding roading network, has capacity to accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes.

149. Access: The Development Engineer is satisfied that the existing vehicle entrance can be upgraded to provide suitable dual access and egress for the proposed development.

150. Parking: The Development Engineer is satisfied that adequate onsite parking is able to be provided.

151. The following mitigation measures are proposed by the applicant to minimise any potential adverse traffic and roading related effects:

• Access: The existing vehicle entrance will be upgraded to provide safe access/egress to the proposed development. The upgraded entrance will provide the sole access/egress to the proposed development. A condition regarding the upgrade and formation of the existing entrance is proposed. Some of the existing roadside vegetation either side of the existing vehicle entrance requires removing to improve sightlines and visibility at the entrance. A condition to this effect is recommended. • Internal Access Road: The internal access road will be designed to the appropriate Council standards, and formed in an all-weather and dust free surface to minimise the potential for dust nuisance. The internal access road has also been aligned to reduce the potential for adverse traffic safety effects caused by vehicle headlight glare from vehicles exiting the commercial accommodation facility (the first 20m of the driveway is parallel to Egmont Road). • Parking Spaces: The number of parking spaces proposed is appropriate for the scale of the activity, and the anticipated number of motor vehicles to be associate with the accommodation activities. However, a condition requiring the provision of two additional carparks is also proposed to provide appropriate visitor parking onsite. All of the proposed parking spaces are now (following the latest information from the applicant) located entirely within the application site, and will be formed to the appropriate standard, and

screened from the adjacent rural properties and public roads by the proposed landscape planting. The proposed parking spaces have been spread out over the site (as opposed to a single large asphalted parking area which would potentially have a greater impact on rural character and amenity). The proposed carparks have been sited adjacent to the buildings they are associated with, and are also screened by the existing and proposed landscape planting onsite. Conditions regarding the location and formation of the proposed parking spaces are recommended.

Summary 152. For the reasons outlined above, and relying on the expertise of Councils Development Engineer, I consider that the proposal will not have any adverse transportation related effects with respect to rural character and amenity and traffic safety.

6.1.5 Effects on the Adjacent Paper Road The Application 153. The application has been amended so that all of the proposed commercial accommodation activities (including the entrance, internal access road, motorhome parking and proposed mitigation planting) are now sited entirely within the application site (as opposed to also within the adjacent paper road).

154. However, two of the proposed chalets are still sited within 30m of the adjacent paper road (at 14m and 24m respectively) and therefore encroach into the 30m minimum building setback requirement.

155. Landscape planting is proposed along the eastern sides of both chalets, to screen the proposed buildings from the adjacent paper road, and the rural lifestyle properties located on the opposite side of the paper road (one of whom is a submitter in opposition to the proposal).

Assessment 156. Councils Roading Engineer has reviewed the amended site layout, and the proposal to ‘relocate’ all of the commercial accommodation activities to entirely within the applicants property, and is satisfied that the latest site layout will not adversely impact upon the adjacent paper road.

157. In my opinion, no adverse effects are anticipated with respect to the proposal to site two of the chalets within the minimum building setback from the adjacent paper road.

6.1.6 Servicing Effects The Application 158. The application includes a summary of the proposed infrastructure and servicing arrangements.

Assessment 159. Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the application, and is satisfied that the proposal can be provided with suitable infrastructure and services by onsite methods.

160. Overall, it is concluded that any adverse effects of site servicing can be appropriately mitigated.

6.2 Matters Raised in the Submissions: 161. Two submissions were received, both in opposition to the proposal. Submissions were received from Michaela Stevenson and Zane O’Neill of 1870 Egmont Road and Karl and Andrea Mischeski of 1835 Egmont Road.

162. The submission by Michaela Stevenson and Zane O’Neill of 1870 Egmont Road is in opposition to the proposal for the following reasons: • They do not want that much activity near their home or family; and • They want to retain their privacy.

163. The submission by Karl and Andrea Mischeski of 1835 Egmont Road is in opposition to the proposal for the following reasons: • Potential Impacts on Rural Character: The area is a Rural Environment Area where they enjoy a quiet, peaceful lifestyle. There are no street lights or footpaths. • The Camp Ground Regulations 1985 require artificial lighting to be provided which will change the rural character of the environment. • They do not agree with Section 4.1 of the application (that the proposal will reduce problems with freedom camping). Freedom campers do not want to pay for the use of sites. The camp will be a commercial venture and will therefore have limited impact on freedom camping. • They are opposed to the number of dwellings proposed, and the potential for these houses to be used as temporary housing. • The visual effects and its impact on rural character. The addition of 10 chalets, camper vans and trees will alter their existing open views of the landscape. • The noise effects and its impact on rural character. The additional people (tourists) will create noise at all times of the day and night, altering the existing rural character. • Vehicle Movements – The Vehicle Equivalent Movements (VEM’s) stated in the application may have been underestimated, particularly in relation to the chalets, which are likely to have more than one vehicle associated with each chalet. The VEM’s would therefore be higher than estimated. • The suggestion that vehicle movements would be ‘predominantly during daytime hours’ is queried. Travellers arrive and depart at all times of the day and night, and traffic during the late hours would be more than negligible. • The lack of information / detail with respect to the ability of the site to accommodate effluent disposal and grey water generated from the proposal (including from people showering, washing laundry and dumping their onboard waste from motorhomes). • Potential traffic safety issue from slower campers accessing Egmont Road from the site and motorists travelling along Egmont Road; and conflict between vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. • The proposal contravenes the current rural environment area, adversely affecting character and amenities and is inconsistent with the intent of the Regional Policy Statement. • Kaimiro is a ‘rural’ zoned community made up of ten families within a 500m radius of the proposed site. The proposal will adversely impact on the quality and characteristic of the existing rural character. • The effects of rubbish generated on site (attracting rodents and being in close proximity to the boundary of the National Park). • Potential effects on birdlife due to the increased noise, light, waste and people.

• Stress on existing pets and animals. • Potential safety and security issues for the surrounding neighbours. • Whether there is an actual demand for the proposed activities (given that there are already 9 advertised places to accommodate tourists in the surrounding area. • Potential impact on their property values due to the change in rural character.

Assessment 164. I am satisfied that the revised design (siting all of the activities entirely within the Applicant’s property) and the additional mitigation measures proposed (particularly the recessive building designs and landscape planting) will adequately address the concerns raised by the submitters. The various technical reports submitted as further information to the application confirm that the proposal complies with the applicable noise and lighting standards, and as such will not adversely impact upon the existing rural character and amenity values. The revised site layout (and landscape planting) affords adequate separation, screening and privacy between the application site and the submitters properties. The Management Plan for the Retreat further addresses some of the concerns raised by the submitters.

6.3 Relevant Statutory Documents 6.3.1 Operative District Plan Policy Framework The following District Plan objectives and policies are applicable to the application, and are assessed below: • Rule Rur 12 – Policies 1.1 and 4,4 • Rule Rur 16 – Policies 1.1 and 4.3 • Rule Rur 93 – Policies 4.3, 4.7, 20.1 and 20.7 • Rule Rur 94 – Policies 1.1, 4.3, 4.8 and 20.2 • Rule Rur 101 – Policies 1.1, 4.8 and 20.3; and • Rule Rur 102 – Policies 1.1, 4.8 and 20,3. Amenity, Health and Safety Objective 1 To ensure activities do not adversely affect the environmental and amenity values of areas within the district or adversely affect existing activities. Policy 1.1 Activities should be located in areas where their effects are compatible with the character of the area. Assessment 165. I consider that the application is consistent with the above objective and policy framework. The Landscape and Visual Assessment submitted with the application and the peer review undertaken by Blue Marble both confirm that the proposal ‘is unlikely to create adverse landscape and visual effects on rural character and amenity’. The activities have been sited to afford adequate separation from existing activities on the surrounding rural properties. The peer review also confirms that the proposal to change from the historical farming activities onsite to tourism is compatible with current trends and community expectations – particularly around tourism and in the Rural Environment near to the National Park.

Objective 4 To ensure the subdivision, use and development of land maintains the elements of RURAL CHARACTER. Rural Character is defined in the ODP as:

RURAL CHARACTER is the combination of elements that make an area ‘rural’ rather than ‘urban’. Rural areas are typically distinguished by a dominance of openness and rural practices over man made structures not related to the primary use. RURAL CHARACTER includes the key elements of Spaciousness, Low density, Vegetated, Production Orientated, Working Environment, Rural Based Industry and Rural INFRASTRUCTURE. The elements of RURAL CHARACTER are further defined under these categories in the reasons to Issue 4. Policy 4.3 Control the density, scale, location (including on-site location) and design of activities by; a. Imposing a maximum HEIGHT for all buildings to allow for rural uses to operate. b. Providing a maximum area that can be covered by BUILDINGS to control the effects of larger scale activities on small sites. c. Requiring BUILDINGS to be setback from the ROAD BOUNDARY in order to maintain spaciousness. d. Requiring BUILDINGS to be setback from the SIDE BOUNDARY to maintain separation between BUILDINGS and related activities. e. Providing for the RELOCATION of BUILDINGS to ensure they are reinstated. f. Requiring landscaping (planting and screening) to mitigate the effects of: (i) OUTDOOR STORAGE areas visible from an adjoining RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT AREA or New Plymouth entrance corridor and; (ii) VEHICLE parking either visible from the ROAD or an adjoining RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT AREA or New Plymouth entrance corridor; (iii) of large SUBSTATIONS and SWITCHING STATIONS. g. Imposing controls on the size, HEIGHT, location, content, number and duration of ADVERTISING SIGNS. h. Imposing controls on the quantity, composition and reinstatement of EXCAVATION and FILL to ensure adverse effects are mitigated.

Policy 4.4 Control the density, HEIGHT and on-site location of HABITABLE BUILDINGS by: a. Allowing additional HABITABLE BUILDINGS at appropriate densities and of a size that maintain Spaciousness and a Low Density, Production Orientated environment, while allowing some flexible living opportunities. b. Allowing HABITABLE BUILDINGS to a maximum HEIGHT that allows typical residential use to occur. c. Requiring HABITABLE BUILDINGS to be setback from the SIDE BOUNDARY to ensure privacy between dwellings and separation from other rural uses.

Policy 4.7 BUILDINGS, plantation forests and SHELTER BELTS should not adversely affect adjoining properties by shading. Policy 4.8 Activities within the rural environment should not generate traffic effects that will adversely affect RURAL CHARACTER and the intensity of traffic generation should be of a scale that maintains RURAL CHARACTER. Assessment 166. The Landscape and Visual Assessment submitted with the application and the peer review undertaken by Blue Marble both confirm that the proposal ‘is unlikely to create adverse landscape and visual effects on rural character and amenity’.

167. All buildings comply with the applicable performance standards relating to maximum height of buildings, and the minimum setback requirement with respect to the Egmont Road boundary. Further, Councils Development Engineer has advised that the siting of the two chalets within the minimum setback from the adjacent paper road does not create any adverse effects on the paper road. All buildings are therefore sufficiently set back from the external site boundaries to retain a dominance of open space and adequate separation from the rural farming activities in the surrounding rural area. The balance of the application site will continue to be utilised for general farming activities and will therefore retain its rural character. The proposed mitigation planting will assist in screening the proposed buildings and the associated access road and parking areas from the adjoining public roads and surrounding rural properties. The proposal is therefore consistent with Policy 4.3 above.

168. Policy 4.4 above aims to control the density, height and location of habitable buildings within the Rural Environment. The proposal is consistent with Policy 4.4 in my opinion insofar as it will enable for the establishment of a commercial accommodation activity whilst retaining adequate separation and screening from other rural uses.

169. Blue Marble have confirmed that the proposal (including the addition of 10 chalets and a managers residence) is ‘unlikely to create adverse landscape and visual effects on rural character and amenity’.

170. The application site has an area of approximately 47 hectares and the proposed commercial accommodation activities will occupy less than 3ha of the site. The balance of the property (44ha) is still large enough to be utilised for a range of productive rural activities. The balance land also provides physical separation and buffers between the proposed commercial accommodation activities and the adjacent rural and rural lifestyle properties. The ability of the balance of the property to still be utilised for rural farming activities is consistent with the policy direction of the OPD for the Rural Environment and policies 4.3 and 4.4 in particular.

171. All of the proposed habitable buildings comply with the maximum height requirement, and the minimum setbacks with respect to side boundaries. As such, it is considered that the proposal will retain privacy to neighbouring dwellings (including the submitters dwellings) and separation from other rural uses. The fact that the application site adjoins a paper road provides additional separation from other rural uses. The proposal is therefore consistent with Policy 4.4 above.

172. Policy 4.7 aims to ensure buildings do not adversely affect adjoining properties by shading. All of the proposed buildings comply with the maximum permitted height and height to boundary requirements. No loss of daylighting or overshadowing effects are therefore anticipated with respect to the adjoining properties. The proposal is therefore consistent with Policy 4.7.

173. Councils Development Engineer has reviewed the application and is satisfied that the proposal will not generate traffic effects that are likely to adversely affect rural character. The proposal is therefore consistent with Policy 4.8.

174. I therefore consider that the application is consistent with objective 4 and its associated policy framework.

Traffic and Transport Issue 20: Adverse effects of activities on the safe and efficient operation of the district’s road transport network. Objective 20 To ensure that the road transportation network will be able to operate safely and efficiently. Policy 20.1 The movement of traffic to and from a SITE should not adversely affect the safe and efficient movement of VEHICLES, both on-SITE, onto and along the ROAD TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. Policy 20.2 The safe and efficient operation of the ROAD TRANSPORTATION NETWORK should not be adversely affected by land use activities that have insufficient or substandard parking or loading areas. Policy 20.3 Potential conflict between VEHICLES, pedestrians and cyclists moving on the ROAD TRANSPORTATION NETWORK should be minimised to protect the safety and efficiency of ROAD and footpath users. Assessment 175. Councils Development Engineer has reviewed the application and has assessed the traffic related effects associated with the proposal. The Development Engineer is satisfied that the proposal will not adversely affect the safe and efficient operation of the district’s road transport network. Egmont Road has capacity to accommodate the additional traffic volumes anticipated. The existing vehicle entrance can be upgraded to provide safe access to the application site and this should be set as a condition of consent if granted. The clearance of some roadside vegetation will be required to ensure safe sightlines in either direction, which should also be set as a condition of consent if granted. All access, parking and loading areas are proposed to be formed to the appropriate Council standards. In my opinion the proposal is therefore consistent with the above objective and policies.

Summary 176. Overall, I consider the proposal to be generally consistent with the ODP policy framework for the rural environment.

6.3.2 Operative District Plan Assessment Criteria 177. The latest information submitted for the application includes an assessment of the proposal against the relevant Assessment Criteria in the Rural Environment Chapter of the ODP. I concur with the assessment provided that the proposal is generally consistent with the Rural Environment assessment criteria. Additional assessment is provided in Table 3:

Table 3 Assessment Criteria

District Plan Rule Matters to be considered Assessment Rule Rur12 1. The effects of the increased The landscape and visual Maximum Number number of HABITABLE effects peer review undertaken of Habitable BUILDING(S) on the elements of by Blue Marble has assessed Buildings RURAL CHARACTER. the effects associated with the 2. The effects of the additional increased number of habitable HABITABLE BUILDING(S) on buildings. The peer review

the character of the area concludes that the proposal is particularly in terms of unlikely to create adverse spaciousness, the dominance of landscape and visual effects on open space over built form, scale, rural character and amenity. bulk and HEIGHT. The proposed mitigation 3. The design and location of the planting will assist in screening additional HABITABLE the development (including the BUILDING(S) on the SITE. additional habitable buildings) 4. Whether the placement and from view. The buildings are location of the additional sufficiently setback from the HABITABLE BUILDING could external site boundaries to result in it being subject to retain the rural character inappropriate subdivision (particularly spaciousness and applications. open space). 5. Whether the larger size of the No subdivision is proposed as second HABITABLE BUILDING, part of the application. and/or the increased separation However, the density of between the HABITABLE development that is proposed BUILDINGS will result in the would not be compatible with second HABITABLE BUILDING the rural subdivision being used independently from the provisions. The habitable first HABITABLE BUILDING, buildings ae not directly and consideration towards associated with the productive mitigation factors, e.g. shared land use. The proposal is access points, services and therefore not entirely consistent facilities. with (6) – (8). Nevertheless, as 6. The extent to which the area that the habitable buildings are the HABITABLE BUILDING is proposed to be laid out as would located is able to be subdivided in be expected of holiday park the future and the extent to which chalets, and not as independent the future boundary of the area that rural lifestyle dwellings they do the HABITABLE BUILDING is not lend themselves to future located will meet the conditions subdivision or to being operated permitted for the HABITABLE independently. BUILDING. 7. To what extent the additional HABITABLE BUILDING supports the existing HABITABLE BUILDING(S) on the SITE and the extent to which it is intended to operate independently. 8. The relationship of the additional HABITABLE BUILDING to the surrounding land use and whether it is associated directly to a productive land use. 9. The extent to which the additional HABITABLE BUILDING(S) will adversely affect OUTSTANDING or REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPES. 10. The extent to which the additional HABITABLE BUILDING(S) will adversely affect the natural

character of the coastal environment. 11. Any adverse visual effects on the New Plymouth entrance corridor. 12. The ability of existing topography or vegetation to mitigate any adverse visual effects of the additional HABITABLE BUILDING(S) on the RURAL CHARACTER. 13) The ability to mitigate adverse visual effects of the additional HABITABLE BUILDING(S) on the character of the area through screening, planting, boundary treatment, BUILDING design, the use of materials, colour, reflectivity and BUILDING location. Rule Rur 16 1) The effect of the reduced setback The proposal complies with the Minimum building on the ability to maintain RURAL required setbacks with respect setbacks – road CHARACTER. to the adjacent rural property boundary 2) Consideration of landscaping, and the formed public roads. BUILDING/housing type and scale Councils Development (including HEIGHT), and Engineer is agreeable for two of boundary treatment, to remedy or the chalets to be sited within the avoid the effects of the reduced minimum setback with respect setback. to the adjacent paper road. No 3) The adverse effects of reduced adverse effects on rural setback on: - the streetscape of the character are anticipated as a area; - the privacy and outlook of result of the non-compliance adjoining SITES; and - the with the building setback visibility for traffic leaving the requirement. Various SITE. mitigation measures are 4) Any adverse visual effects on the proposed (including building New Plymouth entrance corridors. design and landscape planting) 5) The extent to which the reduction to remedy any effects in the setback is necessary due to associated with the reduced the shape or natural and physical setback. The proposal is features of the SITE. therefore consistent in my 6) The ability of existing topography opinion with criteria (1),(2) and or vegetation to mitigate any (7). adverse visual effects on the I do not consider the proposal to streetscape. be entirely consistent with (8) 7) The ability to mitigate adverse insofar as none of the buildings effects of the reduced setback on have a direct relationship with adjoining SITES and the the immediate surrounding land streetscape through screening, uses (farming). However, the planting, boundary treatment and buildings do have a direct alternative BUILDING design, the relationship with the wider use of materials, colour and environment, insofar as they are reflectivity. intended to provide overnight 8) The relationship of the proposed accommodation for guests use of the BUILDINGS with the visiting the Egmont National surrounding land uses, and whether Park (located nearby).

it is in keeping with RURAL CHARACTER. 9) Whether the protection and reuse of a Category A heritage BUILDING or item mitigates the adverse effects of the reduced setback. 10) Consideration towards the location of other BUILDINGS on the SITE and whether the new BUILDING is ancillary to an existing BUILDING that was established as a permitted activity. 11) Whether the BUILDING has any characteristics, such as moving parts, which may give rise to adverse effects such as SHADOW FLICKER and what alternative locations are available. 12) Where the use of a SITE is for RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY GENERATION ACTIVITIES, the alternative locations and methods that have been considered to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects, recognising: - the practical constraints associated with RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY GENERATION ACTIVITIES; and - the environmental benefits of RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY GENERATION ACTIVITIES. Rule Rur 93 1. Whether the VEHICLE ACCESS Councils Development Vehicle Access POINT is sufficiently removed Engineer has assessed the Point from an intersection having regard location of the proposed vehicle to traffic volumes on the roads, the entrance and is satisfied, Rule Rur 94 85th percentile speed of subject to the imposition of Parking VEHICLES on ROADS and any conditions on the consent, that other factors that will prevent the relevant assessment criteria congestion and confusion between are complied with. VEHICLES turning at the VEHICLE ACCESS POINT or at the intersection. 2. Whether there is a need to separate entry and exit points in order to reduce potential traffic confusion or congestion. 3. Whether the physical form of the ROAD will minimise the adverse effects of inappropriate access manoeuvres, for example whether the ROAD offers good visibility, the presence of solid median to stop right hand turns, or a flush median to assist right hand turns.

4. Whether particular mitigation measures such as an acceleration or deceleration lane are required due to the volume of and speed of VEHICLES on the ROAD. 5. Any cumulative effects of extra VEHICLE ACCESS POINTS on the function of the ROAD BOUNDARY in terms of its position in the ROADING HIERARCHY. 6. Whether the speed environment on the ROAD, as determined by the 85th percentile speed data, is such that the sight distance standards in the plan can be safely reduced. 7. The types of VEHICLES serving the SITE, their intensity, the time of day the SITE is frequented and the likely anticipated VEHICLE generation. 8. Whether parking provided on a separate SITE is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 9. Whether it can be demonstrated that a less than normal incidence of traffic generation and associated parking, LOADING or STANDING SPACES will be required by the proposal. 10. Whether it is physically practicable to provide the required parking, LOADING, STANDING, QUEUING and/or MANOEUVRING SPACES in the SITE in terms of existing location of the BUILDINGS, DEFINED RETAIL FRONTAGE, and access to the ROAD, or topography. 11. Whether the parking, LOADING, STANDING, QUEUING and/or MANOEUVRING SPACES will be required for use outside of peak traffic, cyclist or pedestrian flows. 12. Whether the design, grade or formation of the alternative construction of parking, LOADING or STANDING SPACE, or DRIVEWAY will assist in managing any actual or potential adverse effects that arise. 13. The adverse effects of using parking, LOADING or STANDING SPACES for

manoeuvring and/or QUEUING SPACE. 14. Whether a significant adverse visual or nuisance effect on the character and amenity of the surrounding area will occur as a result of not providing the required parking, LOADING, STANDING, QUEUING and/or MANOEUVRING SPACE or access in the required manner. 15. The adverse effects on the safety of people, both on and off the SITE, due to not providing the required parking, LOADING, STANDING, QUEUING or MANOEUVRING SPACE, VEHICLE ACCESS POINT or DRIVEWAY and/or inappropriate design or construction of these. 16. The extent to which the safety and efficiency of the ROAD TRANSPORTATION NETWORK would be adversely affected by parking, loading, MANOEUVRING and/or queuing vehicles due to inappropriate design or construction. 17. Whether the protection and reuse of a Category A heritage BUILDING or item mitigates the adverse effects of reduced number of parking, LOADING, and/or STANDING SPACES and the provision or reduction of QUEUING and/ or MANOEUVRING SPACES. 18. The adverse effects of the activity on New Plymouth entrance corridors and any proposed measures to minimise the adverse effects. 19. The effect on the ability to maintain RURAL CHARACTER. 20. The effect on the rural ROAD HIERARCHY. 21. Where the use of a SITE is for RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY GENERATION ACTIVITIES, the alternative locations and methods that have been considered to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse eff ects, recognising: - the practical constraints associated with RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY

GENERATION ACTIVITIES; and - the environmental benefi ts of RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY GENERATION ACTIVITIES Rule Rur 101 1. The ability to mitigate the adverse As above Traffic Generation effects of extra traffic generation to Rule Rur 102 and within the SITE. Traffic Generation 2. The extent to which any increase in the number or pattern of traffic movements will affect the safety or convenience of any ROAD or RIGHT OF WAY, including the time of day/ night that the additional traffic movements occur and/or their concentration at any particular point. 3. The extent to which any increase in the number or pattern of traffic movements is likely to adversely affect the amenity values of nearby residential properties and in particular the likelihood for increased noise resulting in sleep disturbance. 4. The extent to which the increase in the pattern of traffic movements is not in keeping with RURAL CHARACTER and whether the use is in an appropriate location and of an appropriate scale for the area. 5. Any adverse effects on the safety and efficiency of the ROAD TRANSPORTATION NETWORK and ROAD users. 6. The type and intensity of increased vehicles using the ROAD and how this may adversely impact on the quality and maintenance requirements of the ROAD pavement, taking into consideration the need for a ROAD maintenance agreement to address matters such extraordinary repair work, widening or resurfacing to and within the SITE. 7. The effect on the rural ROAD HIERARCHY and whether additional traffic generation increases the use of the road beyond what is expected for its status. 8. Where the use of a SITE is for RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY GENERATION ACTIVITIES, the alternative locations and methods

that have been considered to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects, recognising: - the practical constraints associated with RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY GENERATION ACTIVITIES; and - the environmental benefits of RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY GENERATION ACTIVITIES.

178. Overall, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the applicable ODP assessment criteria.

6.3.3 Proposed District Plan

179. Under the Proposed District Plan the application site is zoned ‘Rural Production Zone’ and is located within a volcanic hazard area. The online planning maps identify the following notations as applicable to the subject property: • The existing Gas Transmission Pipeline and Gas Transmission Pipeline Corridor are identified. • Peters Road is identified as a Local Road and Egmont Road as a Collector Road.

180. The policy framework for the Rural Production Zone is generally consistent with the policy framework for the Rural Environment Area in the Operative District Plan. The objectives and policies relate to the efficient use of productive land and resources to support a range of production orientated and resource dependent activities; and maintain rural character and amenity.

181. However, Objective RPROZ-O3 seeks to ensure ‘The role, function and predominant character of the Rural Production Zone is not compromised by incompatible activities.’.

182. The associated Policy (Policy RPRPZ-P3) seeks to ‘Avoid activities that are incompatible with role, function and predominant character of the Rural Production Zone and/or activities that will result in: 1. Reverse sensitivity effects and/or conflict with permitted activities in the zone; or 2. Adverse effects, which cannot be avoided, or appropriately remedied or mitigated, on: a. Rural character and amenity values; b. The productive potential of highly productive soils and versatile rural land. Incompatible activities include …. visitor accommodation…’.

183. The above policy therefore specifically identifies ‘visitor accommodation’ as an incompatible activity in the Rural Production Zone.

184. ‘Visitor Accommodation’ is a Non-Complying Activity in the Rural Production Zone in accordance with Rule RPROZ-R29.

185. ‘Camping Grounds’ are a Restricted Discretionary Activity in the Rural Production Zone in accordance with Rule RPROZ-R18. However, failure to comply with the Rural Production Zone Effects Standards defaults ‘Camping Ground’ activities to a Discretionary Activity in the Rural Production Zone.

186. The policy frameworks within the Proposed District Plan is potentially more restrictive than the Operative District Plan. However, for the purposes of this application, greater weight has been given to the ODP provisions, given the date at which the application was first lodged, and that submissions are yet to be heard on the PDP.

6.3.4 Taranaki Regional Policy Statement 187. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions in the Regional Policy Statement for Taranaki. Specifically, the proposed landscape mitigation planting will improve and enhance biodiversity, and maintain amenity values.

6.3.5 NES for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health 188. The Applicant has confirmed that there is no evidence that the property has contained an activity listed on the HAIL and the site is not listed on the Taranaki Regional Council’s Register of Selected Land Uses (RSLU). Pastoral farming is not a HAIL activity. Accordingly, the proposal to utilise an area of the property that has previously been utilised for pastoral farming for the proposed commercial accommodation activities is permitted in terms of the NESCS.

6.4 S104 Summary Effects (s104(1)(a)) 189. Actual and potential effects on the environment have been outlined in the sections above of this report. Conditions of consent can be imposed under s108 of the RMA as required to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects.

Relevant District Plan Provisions (s104(1)(b)(vi) Operative District Plan 190. The proposal is a discretionary activity. In my opinion the information and plans submitted with the application and review of that information on behalf of the NPDC confirms that it meets the intent of the objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan and can be considered to be promoting sustainable management under Part 2 of the RMA.

191. The applicable assessment criteria listed under the Rural Environment section of the Operative District Plan are assessed within the application and discussed above. My assessment concludes that the proposal is overall, consistent with the relevant assessment criteria for the Rural Environment.

192. An assessment of the proposal against the relevant objectives and policies is provided above. My assessment concludes that the proposal is overall, consistent with the Rural Environment policy framework.

PART F –CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

7.1 Conclusion 193. The proposal is to enable Deborah and Gregory How to establish and operate a commercial accommodation activity on part of their property located at 1838 Egmont Road, Inglewood.

194. The land use consent is assessed as a Discretionary Activity under the provisions of the Operative District Plan due to the proposals inability to comply with the maximum number of habitable buildings for a Rural Environment, and the failure of the existing vehicle entrance to comply with the minimum sight line requirements amongst other matters.

195. My assessment of the environmental effects of the proposal has concluded that (with the mitigation measures proposed) any actual and potential effects of the proposal will be minor in terms of rural character and amenity.

196. The proposed mitigation planting will assist in screening the proposed development from the adjacent public roads and both of the submitters properties, and the proposed building designs (including the use of recessive colours and materials, log cabin designs and restrictions regarding building height and colour) will similarly limit the visual effects associated with the addition of a number of habitable buildings within the existing rural environment. The proposed mitigation will, in my opinion provide appropriate mitigation with respect to rural character and amenity values.

197. As the proposal can be considered to be generally consistent with the objectives and policies, approval of the application in my opinion would not undermine the integrity of the District Plan. Nor do I consider it likely to create an unacceptable precedent effect for future applications which exceed the habitable building rules of the Rural Environment.

198. In accordance with Section 104B of the RMA, Council may grant or refuse the application, and if it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108.

199. Should the commissioner choose to grant the application, I recommend conditions be imposed as set out below.

7.2 Recommendation 200. That: a) The report of Cate Southworth – Consultant Planner, be received; and b) In consideration of Sections 104 and 104B, and pursuant to Sections 104B and 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the New Plymouth District Council approves the land use application LUC19/47473 by Deborah and Gregory How to establish and operate a commercial accommodation activity on part of their property located at 1838 Egmont Road, New Plymouth, subject to the inclusion of the attached conditions.

Report and Recommendation by: Cate Southworth Consultant Planner Date: 13 October 2020

7.3 Recommended Conditions for Land Use Consent LUC18/47473 Recommended Conditions

For the avoidance of doubt, the commercial accommodation activities authorised under this consent comprise: - 10 chalets; - 24 powered motorhome parks; and - A shared kitchen/ablution building with a manager’s residence above

And are sited entirely within the application site, clear of the adjacent unformed paper road and the existing gas pipeline easement that traverses through the property.

1. In accordance with approved plans 1.1 The commercial accommodation activity shall be carried out in accordance with the information and plans submitted in support of application number LUC19/47473, including the further information and amended plans received 17 April 2020, 29 April 2020, 31 July 2020, 4 August 2020, 5 August 2020, 14 August 2020, 25 September 2020; and including the following:

• The Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment prepared by Natural Capitol dated 25 September 2020; • The Landscape Framework Masterplan (Plan L1.01) prepared by Natural Capitol; • The Receptors Plan (Plan L1.02) prepared by Natural Capitol; • The Landscape Mitigation Zones Plan (Plan L1.03) prepared by Natural Capitol. • The Lighting Plan prepared by J Cudby, zumtobel group, Revision C dated 13 August 2020 • The Acoustic Report prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics dated 7 August 2020 • The application AEE report prepared by BTW, including the additional information and plans received as further information • The Rules of Occupancy and Management Plan for the Retreat prepared by BTW and submitted as further information on 25 September 2020

unless otherwise altered by the consent conditions. Copies of the approved plans are attached. In the case of inconsistency between the application and the conditions of this consent, the conditions of consent shall prevail.

2. Monitoring 2.1 Pursuant to Section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Consent Holder shall pay the actual and reasonable costs incurred by the New Plymouth District Council when monitoring the conditions of this consent.

2.2 The Consent Holder shall notify Councils’ Planning Monitoring Officer at least 10 working das prior to the commencement of activities associated with this consent.

3. Review of Consent Conditions 3.1 That the New Plymouth District Council may give notice pursuant to Section 128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 of its intention to review the conditions of this resource consent at any time for the following purposes:

(i) to review the effectiveness of the conditions of this resource consent in avoiding or mitigating any adverse effects on the environment from the exercise of this resource consent particularly rural character and amenity, hours of operation, on‐site parking, transportation, noise, lighting, visual and amenity effects, and landscape planting and screening and if necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate such effects by way of further or amended conditions; or (ii) to address any adverse effect on the environment which has arisen as a result of the exercise of this consent; or (iii) if necessary and appropriate, to require the holder of this resource consent to adopt the best practicable option to remove or reduce adverse effects on the surrounding environment due to the commercial accommodation activities; or (iv) to review the adequacy of and the necessity for monitoring undertaken by the consent holder.

4. Noise Construction Noise 4.1 That the noise level from construction activities (i.e. construction of the buildings, earthworks and construction of any internal access roads and parking areas) shall comply with and be assessed in accordance with the provisions of New Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999 “Acoustics – Construction Noise’.

Operational Noise 4.2 That the noise level from activities undertaken onsite (i.e. any noise effects associated with the commercial accommodation activities and including onsite traffic noise) shall comply with the following noise levels • Maximum noise levels measured at the notional boundary within the Rural Environment Area:

• On any day: 7am-10pm: L10 50dBA

• 10pm – 7am: L10 45dBA and Lmax 70dBA And shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of New Zealand Standard NZS 6801:1991 “Measurement of Sound and NZS 6802: 1991 Assessment of Environmental Sound.

Advice Note: Despite the Conditions above, the consent holder has a duty to adopt the best practicable option to ensure that the emission of noise from that land does not exceed a reasonable level in accordance with Section 16 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

5. Use of the Buildings 5.1 All buildings and outdoor areas associated with the application shall be utilised solely for commercial accommodation activities, as described within the application. Specifically (and for the avoidance of doubt): (i) The ten chalet buildings shall only be utilised for short term commercial accommodation; (ii) The 24 powered motorhome spaces shall only be utilised for short term commercial accommodation; and (iii) The shared ablution/kitchen and staff accommodation building shall only be utilised as shared kitchen, bathroom and laundry facilities, and a reception area and store room on the ground floor, and as a three bedroom managers residence on the floor above.

6. External Cladding and Appearance of Buildings and Water Tanks 6.1 That the exterior cladding and roofing materials for all buildings associated with the commercial accommodation activities (including the 10 chalets, the shared amenities and managers residence building and water tanks) shall be finished in recessive colours with a reflective value less than 35%. This applies to any downpipes and window joinery. The consent holder shall submit the colour scheme for the buildings and water tanks to New Plymouth District Council’s (‘NPDC’) Planning Lead for certification prior to the issue of a building consent by Council.

6.2 The exterior design of all buildings shall resemble a ‘log cabin’ design, as detailed in the application. The consent holder shall submit the final plans for all buildings to the NPDC Planning Lead for certification prior to the issue of a building consent by Council.

6.3 Water tanks shall be sited so that they are either: i) clustered together and set within a densely vegetated grove so that views of the tanks are obscured when viewed from off site; or ii) where individual water tanks are located adjacent to the chalets themselves, their locations shall be set inconspicuously, partially buried and vegetated so that views of the tanks are obscured when viewed from off site.

7. Maximum Building Height 7.1 All buildings shall comply with the following maximum heights: (i) The chalet buildings shall have a maximum height of 5.0 metres; and (ii) The shared kitchen / ablutions and managers residence building shall have a maximum height of 8.0 metres.

Advice Note: Building Height is measured in accordance with the Operative District Plan definition for Height.

8. Building Location 8.1 All buildings shall be sited so that they are: (i) at least 30m from the boundary with Egmont Road; and (ii) at least 30m from the boundary with the unformed paper road; apart from two chalets located in the south – eastern corner of the development, that shall be setback a minimum distance of 14m and 24m respectively from the unformed paper road; and (iii) clear of the existing gas pipeline easement.

Advice Note: There is an existing gas pipeline easement that traverses through the site and is subject to various legal encumbrances as noted on the Record of Title for the subject property.

9. Lighting and Glare 9.1 All lighting shall be in accordance with the Lighting Plan prepared by J Cudby submitted with the application, and shall be selected, located, aimed, adjusted and screened as to ensure that glare resulting from the lighting does not create a nuisance to any occupants of properties beyond the application site boundary.

9.3 All external lighting shall be hooded and cast down. No floodlights or point sources of light shall be permitted.

10. Fences 10.1 No solid or urban style fences shall be erected onsite where they are visible from a public road or neighbouring property.

11. Signage 11.1 All signage associated with the commercial accommodation activities shall be located entirely within the application site, and shall comply with the District Plan requirements relating to signage.

11.2 Appropriate low intensity internal signage shall be installed, and maintained by the Consent Holder to clearly identify the following: (i) The one way traffic flow within the internal access road, (ii) The locations of each of the chalets, motorhome parks, shared ablution and kitchen and laundry facilities, the reception area; and (iii) the areas available for onsite parking.

12. Consumption of Liquor 12.1 No sale or consumption of liquor shall be permitted at the site that would require authorisation under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

13. Access and Parking Access 13.1 The existing vehicle entrance shall be upgraded to the Standard specified in the Council’s Land Development & Subdivision Infrastructure Standard and located as shown on the plan prepared by BTW (drawing no 180139-01 Sheet 2 Rev-12).

13.2 Any excavation that takes place within the road reserve during this development shall require an approved Corridor Access Request (CAR). Refer to the “National Code of Practice for Utility Operators’ Access to Transport Corridors” for additional information. Applications can be made via the website www.beforeUdig.co.nz or 0800 248 344. A CAR along with a Traffic Management Plan must be submitted a minimum of 5 working days before an operator intends to start work for minor works or 15 working days for major works and project works. All costs incurred shall be at the applicant’s expense.

Internal Access Roads 13.3 The internal access roads shall be formed as shown on the BTW plans 180139-01, Sheets 1 and 2 Rev 12, to an all weather standard, and shall include adequate provision for manoeuvring.

Onsite Parking 13.4 Provision shall be made for at least 49 onsite parking spaces within the commercial accommodation site, comprising as follows: i. at least 20 carparks for the chalets (2 carparks per chalet), ii. at least 24 powered motorhome parks, iii. at least 2 carparks for the managers dwelling;

iv. at least one short term parking space adjacent to the Reception Area for vehicles to park while guests are checking in to the facility; and v. at least 2 onsite visitor parking spaces.

13.5 The required parking shall be located as indicated on the Landscape Framework – Masterplan prepared by Natural Capital (Plan L1.01 dated 20 July 2020); and shall be clearly delineated. All parks shall be designed and formed to the applicable Council standards.

13.6 The visitor parks shall be accessible from the internal access road, clearly delineated, and designed and formed to the applicable Council standards.

14. Landscape Planting 14.1 Landscape Planting shall be undertaken in accordance with the following plans prepared by Natural Capital, and submitted with the application: • Landscape Masterplan (L1.01), dated September 2020. • Landscape Mitigation Plan (Plan L1.02), dated September 2020,. • Landscape Mitigation Zones Plan (Plan L1.03) dated 24 September 2020

14.2 Planting Plans including plant species location, quantity, and size at time of planting, and a Landscape Management Plan shall be provided to NPDC and certified by the Planning Lead, prior to the commercial accommodation activities commencing onsite.

14.2 The required landscape planting shall be maintained thereafter for the duration of the consent.

14.3 The required landscape planting shall be undertaken within the timeframes specified within the application and as shown on the Landscape Mitigation Zones Plan (L1.02). That is: (a) all planting included in the pink diagonal striped hatch shall occur within the first year of operation post granting of consent; and (b) .All other planting shall be in undertaken prior to the commercial accommodation activities commencing and shall be a minimum height of 2.0m to provide visual screening with respect to the commercial accommodation activities, and to soften views of the development and integrate it with its receiving environment.

14.4 The existing barberry hedge along the Egmont Road boundary shall be retained for the duration of the consent, at a height no less than two metres; or replaced with similar hedge species that can reach a minimum height of two metres within three years. Trimming of the hedge is permitted where required to achieve complying sight distances for the vehicle entrance.

15. Utilities and Services Water 15.1 All habitable buildings shall be provided with an appropriate water supply in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code.

Sewage

15.2 All habitable buildings shall be provided with appropriate on-site septic treatment for sewage.

Stormwater 15.3 Any stormwater effects shall be appropriately managed onsite. Stormwater shall be disposed of in a way that does not create a nuisance to neighbouring land and/or property.

Damage to council assets

15.4 The owner, builder/developer or appointed agent responsible for building/development work must repair, to the satisfaction of Council, damaged roads, channels drains, vehicle crossings and other assets vested in council adjacent to the land where the building/construction work takes place. Safe and continuous passage by pedestrians and vehicles shall be provided for. Footpath or road shall be restored to the Council’s satisfaction as early as practicable. Developers are required to pay for any damage to the road or street that results’ from their development. The developer must employ a council approved contractor to carry out such work.

15.5 All costs in meeting the conditions of these requirements shall be met by the applicant unless otherwise stated.

Advice Notes: It is recommended for any residential building constructed in the rural area to provide for a fire fighting water supply and access to this system that complies with the New Zealand Fire Service Firefighting Water Supplies Code of Practice SNZ PAS 4509:2008.

16. Complaints Register 16.1 The consent holder shall maintain a register for all complaints received by the consent holder. The register shall record: a) the date, time and duration of the event that is likely to have resulted in the complaint. b) the likely cause of the event and any factors which includes is severity’ c) The weather conditions at the site at the time of the complaint. d) The nature and timing of any measures implemented to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects; and e) The steps taken or proposed to prevent reoccurrence of the event and similar events. The register shall be made available to the New Plymouth District Council at all reasonable times. Complaints received by the consent holder shall be forwarded to the Planning Lead, NPDC as soon as practicable and within a maximum of 5 days of the complaint(s) being received.

[email protected] 0274 960 275

Studio 4 34 Egmont Street, New Plymouth, 4310 www.bluemarble.co.nz

MEMO

Project: LUC19/47473 North Egmont Retreat - 1844 Egmont Road, Kaimiro

To: Cate Southworth - Senior Consultant, Mitchell Daysh for NPDC

From: Richard Bain - Principal Landscape Architect, Bluemarble

Date: 5 October 2020

Subject: Peer Review of Assessment of Landscape & Visual Effects

PEER REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL AMENITY EFFECTS.

1. ASSESSMENT REVEIW I have been engaged by New Plymouth District Council to carry out a peer review of the Assessment of Landscape and Visual Eﬀects (LVE) report dated 25 September 2020 prepared for D & G How by Natural Capital - authored by Erin Griﬃth. The LVE has been received as part of the Response To Section 92 Request. I have carried a site visit, read the application and its amendments (including submissions).

2. REVIEW METHODOLOGY My review methodology examines to what extent the landscape and visual eﬀects assessment has covered the following matters: a) Landscape matters in the Operative and Proposed District Plans; b) Description of the existing landscape context;

bluemarble c) Description of the proposed development; d) Viewing catchment and viewing audience; e) Preparation of photos or simulations that reflect the viewing audience; f) Ranking of landscape and visual effects; g) Proposed landscape and visual mitigation; h) Conclusions about anticipated landscape and visual effects. Do the conclusions of the assessment identify the areas of public concern, issues arising out of the statutory documents, and does the overall conclusion reflect the findings of the assessment?

3. PEER REVIEW a) Landscape matters in the Operative and Proposed District Plan District Plans; The Natural Capital Assessment of Landscape and Visual Eﬀects provides a full assessment of landscape matters in the Operative District Plan (ODP) and Proposed District Plan District Plan (PDP). Explicit reference and assessment is made against Issues 1 & 4 of the ODP as well as the rural subdivision and development design guidelines. Relevant Objectives and Policies of the PDP are listed and a statement describing to what extent the proposal is consistent with them. Taiao Taiora landscape matters are also listed and assessed.

The reference to statutory documents is thorough, clear and explicitly assessed. b) Description of the existing landscape context; Landscape context is described under three headings - Context, which describe the site’s location, Settlement Patterns, that describe historical development, and Landform, Land Features, Land Cover, Waterbodies that lists the relevant aspects of each. Land use Capability is also assessed, which focuses on soils.

The site’s main characteristics and settlement history are fully described, and matches my own analysis and understanding of the site. c) Description of the proposed development; The proposal is brieﬂy described and lists the basic physical components of the proposal as; • 24 motorhome bays 8m x 10m including parking space, grassed area, and hard standing for picnic table / bbq etc;

bluemarble • 1 x 2 storied log cabin styled amenity complex including dwelling above (incl. 2 parking spaces); • 10 x log chalets (2bd); • Water will be rain harvested and UV treated. • Wastewater will be collected and treated with the intention to apply to planted areas around the site, subject to detailed engineering design.

There is also a description of the site layout with a full description of how the ring road will function. There is also a brief description of the design values that inform the sites’ layout and circulation.

With regard to the design of the built elements, these are shown in Appendix 2.0. Plans, and elevations of the cabins and amenities building are provided as well as precedent images. These provide a clear understanding of what the built elements within the site will look like. d) Viewing catchment and viewing audience; Chapter 8.1 covers the viewing catchment and viewing audience. A visual baseline is deﬁned (with a set of baseline photographs) that identiﬁes areas where the development may be visible. The visual baseline is through and clearly shows where visibility may occur. An illustrative visual baseline is also included that provides an understanding of built form in the area.

From my visit to the site and surrounding area, I agree that the receptors selected are those that fall within the view catchment, and are therefore appropriate receptors to specifically assess. e) Preparation of photos or simulations that reflect the viewing audience; Plans showing the address and position of each receptor is provided as well as a precise distances from the site. Supporting photographs are provided within the assessment of each receptor. f) Ranking of landscape and visual effects; Landscape Effects Landscape effects are assessed with five elements of rural character referenced with regard to sensitivity to change. There is no explicit discussion about the appropriateness (in terms of landscape character) of a camp-style development that will change the site from spacious to

bluemarble containing eleven buildings and twenty four campervan sites; rather, the assessment states that the site “provides ample space to establish eﬀective vegetative screening/ softening (with the exception of the gas pipelines). Other elements to reduce, avoid, and/or mitigate potential adverse eﬀects are likely to include design and development controls, earthworks controls, bulk, height and colour controls, and lighting controls.”

The inference is that with mitigation measures, landscape eﬀects will be acceptable, based predominantly on the notion that once vegetation is established the development will not be appreciably perceptible by those outside the site. While I agree that the proposed design controls and planting will render the site relatively invisible, there will nonetheless be a substantial change in character. To some extent this change is anticipated by increased tourism to the area, and there are other recent projects around the maunga that similarly seek to provide tourist accommodation. Therefore, the proposal while a change from historical or current landuse, is commensurate with current trends and community expectations - particularly around tourism.

Cumulative eﬀects are assessed, concluding that “the increase in building density from the proposal can, with mitigation, be absorbed into the area and does not represent an adverse cumulative eﬀect”.

Amenity eﬀects are assessed referring the deﬁnition of amenity in the RMA and reference to previous school activity in the area, noise assessment undertaken by others and lighting impacts designed to preserve the night sky.

Visual Effects Chapter 9,0 identifies private receptors and the local area. Each private receptor is described and assessed, and mitigation methods listed. There are five private parties assessed, 1878 Egmont Road, 1870 Egmont Road, 1835 Egmont Road, 1828 Egmont Road, and 14 Peters Road. Public view from Peters Road, Egmont Ropad, and the unformed paper road are also assessed.

Only one receptor (1870 Egmont Road), is assessed as having an overall signiﬁcance of eﬀect greater than very low. This receptor is assessed as very-low to low.

All of the receptors apart from one (Peters Road) rely on mitigation to reduce eﬀects.

The assessment of private receptors is thorough and complete. The narrative matches my own understanding of impacts on these properties, and I agree with the signiﬁcance eﬀects ratings.

bluemarble The assessment from public roads includes Egmont, Peters, and the unformed paper road. The assessment from these public locations is through and reasoned. The assessment matches my own understanding of impacts from the roads and I agree with the significance effects ratings. g) Proposed landscape and visual mitigation; References to proposed mitigation is woven through the assessment with a set of all the measures in Chapter 11.0 Mitigation Measures. The recommended measures as split into Design Controls, which cover matters such as building heights, cladding reflectivity values, lighting and fencing, and Landscape Mitigation that references two appendices to the LVE - The Landscape Mitigation Plan and Landscape Mitigation Zones plan. I note that the recommendation is that these plans shall be used as the basis for all “landscape mitigation planting”. In my opinion the Landscape Mitigation Plan should also be used as the basis for site layout and circulation as the Landscape Mitigation Plan is an holistic plan that integrates all aspects of site development.

The Landscape Mitigation Zones plan and plant list provide a clear basis on which to undertaken planting to mitigate potential eﬀects.

h) Conclusions about anticipated landscape and visual effects. Do the conclusions of the assessment identify the areas of public concern, issues arising out of the statutory documents, and does the overall conclusion reflect the findings of the assessment? The conclusion reiterates that the assessment has covered matters of context and refers to views from the Egmont National Park which are appended to the LVE. The overall conclusion clearly reflects the findings of the assessment and references the appropriate ODP and PDP matters. Emphasis is on mitigation measures, and I agree that the measures are appropriate.

The LVE concludes that taking “the preceding assessment into consideration, along with proposed mitigation measures, and advice from other experts, the development can proceed with a very low level of adverse eﬀect, if any, to the experience of rural character from roads, receptors, or any other associative connection with the site”.

In my opinion, this conclusion logically arises from, and is consistent with the assessment.

bluemarble Reviewer Recommendations 1. The project relies heavily on planting mitigation. As a condition of consent, Planting Plans and a Landscape Management Plan should be provided to council prior to approval prior to development.

2. In my opinion the Landscape Mitigation Plan should be the guiding plan for site bulk and location, layout, circulation, and vegetation.

3. Taking point 2 above into consideration, in my opinion, with the Landscape Mitigation Measures recommended in the Natural Capital Assessment of Landscape and Visual Eﬀects, the proposal is unlikely to create adverse landscape and visual eﬀects on rural character and amenity.

Please contact me anytime if you wish to discuss any aspect of this review.

Richard Bain

Landscape Architect

bluemarble