• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Variation 3- County Road Otaki Low Density Precinct Council Officer’s Right of Reply Friday 20 December 2019 In accordance with item 5 of Minute 2 from the Hearing Panel dated 4 December 2020 the Officers’ reply statement is provided in writing. 1. Case law 1.1 I note there is no reference to case law in the Section 42A report. I apologise for this and advise that decisions on plan changes and variations are discussed in the 2014 Colonial Vineyards case. A copy of the Environment Court decision for Colonial Vineyard Ltd vs Marlborough District Council 2014 NZEnvC 55 is appended to this reply statement as Appendix 1. 2. Responses to issues raised by the panel 2.1. Mangapouri Stream and clarification of any links to Ōtaki River The Mangapouri Stream is part of the Ōtaki River Catchment as it has connections to watercourses which join the Ōtaki River near the river mouth (aerial photo included as Appendix 2). 2.2. The Ngāti Raukawa Ōtaki River and Catchment Iwi Management Plan 2000 (Iwi Management Plan) The most relevant parts of the Iwi Management Plan are provided for completeness in Appendix 3. The rezoning proposal is generally consistent with the relevant objectives and policies in the Iwi Management Plan. In particular; the variation will implement Objective 4.1.5.1 and Policy 4.1.5.2 by protecting the ecological site (a Protected Natural Area in the Iwi Management Plan) which includes vegetation alongside the Mangapouri Stream; the proposal is generally consistent with the primary vision of the Iwi Management Plan in section 2.1.1 as the proposed rezoning was discussed on two separate occasions with Iwi representatives and no changes to the provisions were requested; it is considered that the proposed rezoning is consistent with policy 4.1.7.1 as additional housing provided by this rezoning is likely to support existing and new businesses in Ōtaki. 2.3 Treaty of Waitangi The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (section 8 of the RMA) have been taken into account during the preparation of the variation. This included working in partnership with iwi) by working with iwi and hapū in the development of the Variation. I can confirm the Council has a long standing partnership with Iwi (a Memorandum of Partnership between Council and the iwi authorities in the District in place since 1994), and their involvement in the development of the proposal has been in accordance with RMA Schedule 1 clauses 3(1)(d), 3B and 4A. I can also confirm that there are no significant sites or taonga identified as part of iwi discussions. 3. Response to Mr Hedger 3.1. Traffic and transportation issues The District Plan needs to include appropriate provisions to address any potential adverse effects on the environment. The inclusion of a traffic assessment in relation to County Road access is required as a direct result of increasing the number of vehicles using County Road to access residential areas. If consideration of the access onto County Road is not required by the Plan at the time of rezoning the land, the width of County Road would be difficult to address as part of subdivision as it will form part of the existing environment beyond the site of the subdivision. Other traffic issues such as intersection design, provision for pedestrians and cyclists and the location and design of any roads will be determined at the time of subdivision based on the existing rules in Chapter 11 of the Proposed District Plan. I recall Mr Hedger withdrew his other submission points verbally at the hearing. 4. Response to the written Statement/emails of K Shufflebotham 4.1 Background Ms Shufflebotham has requested that the property at 46 County Road not be included in this rezoning proposal. This 1.9ha property is located on the western corner of the precinct and has a separate driveway to other properties in the Precinct. The extent of the precinct if Ms Shufflebotham’s request is accepted is shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: Extent of the County Road, Otaki Low Density Precinct if 46 County Road is removed from the Precinct. The blue line indicates the location of the Mangapouri stream A copy of the request emails from Ms Shufflebotham was sent to all submitters. There were no comments received from other submitters in relation to this request. Scope to remove the property from the rezoning 5. Ms Shufflebotham’s reason for requesting that her land remain rural relates primarily to her desire to continue to keep a variety of domestic and farm animals on her land. The animals include chickens, which have some restrictions in residential zones (no more than 12 poultry and no roosters), and bees. 6. Ms Shufflebotham’s submission did not explicitly seek for her property to be removed from the precinct, but it did express concerns about her ability to keep animals if the land was rezoned. In earlier consultation on the draft rezoning proposal Ms Shufflebotham expressed her uncertainty about whether or not to be included in the rezoned land. She is correct that she was advised at that time that she could request to be removed from the rezoning at a later stage. 7. I consider the request to be excluded from the Precinct is a modified version of the submission request “would like to make sure that I can keep my sheep, chooks, horses, donkeys or any other livestock also bees” and therefore is within scope of her submission. Effect of removing this property from the precinct 8. The request to remove this property from the Precinct will result in 46 County Road remaining in the Rural Plains Zone, which is the same zone as the adjacent land to the south of the property. The exclusion of this site would make it more difficult to develop the precinct comprehensively, rather than as subdivisions of the individual properties and would result in less housing being possible overall in the Precinct. 9. It is also clear that whether or not 46 County Road is included in the Precinct, it is not likely to be developed while owned by Ms Shufflebotham. 10. I have prepared a brief section 32AA analysis for this request to exclude 46 County Road from the rezoning in Appendix 5 which looks at the costs and benefits of the requested change. Recommendation in relation to this request 11. I consider that the request can be accommodated if the panel considers the submission provides scope for such an amendment to the precinct extent. Overall conclusion 12. Overall my conclusion is that the Variation as recommended is the most appropriate method to give effect to the Proposed District Plan’s objectives in relation to this land. 13. Mr Mbona and Ms Rushmere have also confirmed that there is no information received since they prepared their statements of evidence that would cause them to change the opinions they expressed in their statements. Emily Thomson 22 December 2019 Appendices Appendix 1: Decision for the Colonial Villas Case Appendix 2: Aerial photo showing the connected streams (drains and streams shown as blue lines) Appendix 3: Relevant extracts from The Ngāti Raukawa Iwi Management Ōtaki River and Catchment Appendix 4: Email correspondence with Iwi representatives Appendix 5: Section 32AA analysis Appendix 1: Decision for Colonial Villas BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Decision No. [2014] NZEnvC 55 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 IN THE MATTER of an appeal under clause 14 of the First Schedule to the Act BETWEEN COLONIAL VINEYARD LIMITED (ENV-2012-CHC-108) Appellant MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J R Jackson Environment Commissioner J R Mills Environment Commissioner A J Sutherland Venue: Blenheim Hearing dates: 9 to 13 and 16 and 17 September 2013. (Final submissions received 24 October 2013). Appearances: N Davidson QC and M J Hunt for Colonial Vineyard Limited S F Quinn and M Booth for Marlborough District Council Q AM Davies and D P Neild for New Zealand Aviation Limited and The Marlborough Aero Club (under s274) M Radich for Trustees of the Carlton Corlett Trust (under s274) Date of Decision: 14 March 2014 Date ofissue: 14 March 2014 DECISION 2 A: Under section 290 of the Resource Management Act 1991: (1) the appeal is allowed; (2) the decision of the Marlborough District Council dated 31 July 2012 1s cancelled; and (3) Plan Change 59 as notified is approved subject to the changes stated in the Reasons below. B: Subject to C, the parties are directed to discuss the proposed policies, maps and rules and if possible to lodge an agreed set by Wednesday 30 April 2014. C: Under section 293 the council is directed to consult with the parties over the urban design principles included in Mr T G Quickfall' s Appendix 4 and to lodge its approved version for approval by the Environment Court by 30 April2014. D: Leave is reserved for any party to apply for further directions (tmder section 293 of the RMA or otherwise) if agreement cannot be reached. E: Costs are reserved. REASONS Table of Contents Para 1. Introduction [1] 1.1 The issue: should the land be rezoned residential? [1] 1.2 The vineyard and its landscape setting [2] 1.3 Plan Change 59 [8] 1.4 What matters must be considered? [17] 1.5 The questions to be answered [22] 2. Identifying the relevant objectives and policies [25] 2.1 The Marlborough Regional Policy Statement [25] 2.2 The Wairau Awatere Resource Management Plan [29] 2.3 NZS 6805 : the Air Noise Standard [45] 2.4 Plan Changes 64 to 71 [52] 3.

Load more

  72

Copy Link