Before the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel

BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER of Topic 081b Rezoning and Precincts (Geographic)

AND

IN THE MATTER of the submissions and further submissions set out in the Parties and Issues Report

STATEMENT OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF LARISSA BLAIR CLARKE ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL

TOPIC 081

081b-AUCKLAND COUNCIL-RODNEY- WARKWORTH/SNELLS- PRECINCT WAIMANA POINT (PLANNING)

26 JANUARY 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY ...... 3 PART A: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND ...... 6 2. INTRODUCTION ...... 6 3. CODE OF CONDUCT ...... 7 4. SCOPE ...... 7 5. INTERIM GUIDANCE FROM THE PANEL ...... 8 6. PAUP APPROACH TO PRECINCTS ...... 8 7. SECTION 32 AND 32AA ...... 10 PART B: OVERVIEW OF WAIMANA POINT PRECINCT ...... 11 8. CONTEXT...... 11 9. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK ...... 21 10. PAUP FRAMEWORK ...... 22 PART C: OVERVIEW OF SUBMISSIONS ...... 24 11. SUBMISSION THEMES ...... 24 12. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SUBMISSIONS ...... 27 PART D: ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS ...... 28 13. PRECINCT ASSESSMENT ...... 28 14. ANALYSIS OF PRECINCT PROVISIONS ...... 30 15. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP: INDICATIVE ROAD- GOLDSWORTHY BAY ...... 39 16. CONCLUSIONS ...... 39 ATTACHMENT A: CURRICULUM VITIM L CLARKE ...... 40 ATTACHMENT B: OPERATIVE PLAN MAP 63 ...... 41 ATTACHMENT C: TRACK CHANGES FOR WAIMANA POINT PRECINCT...... 42 ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF INDICATIVE ROAD TO BE REMOVED ...... 50

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

1. SUMMARY

1.1 My name is Larissa Blair Clarke. I am a Planner in the Unitary Plan Team within the ‘Plans and Places’ Division of the Chief Planning Office at Auckland Council. I am providing planning evidence for Auckland Council (Council) in relation to Topic 081 Geographic Rezoning and Precincts, in particular in relation to the Waimana Point Precinct located at the eastern end of Algies Bay in the Mahurangi Peninsular falling within the ‘Walkworth and Snells area’ for the purposes of rezoning.

1.2 My evidence considers both the purpose of the Waimana Point precinct in relation to the PAUP including the zone, Auckland wide and Overlay provisions; and consider submissions received by the Council in relation to the precinct

1.3 I support the retention of the Waimana Point Precinct subject to the amendments to the Precinct from the notified version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) set out in my evidence and represented in track changes at Attachment C.

1.4 The Waimana Point precinct originates from scheduled activity 329 in the Auckland Council Operative District Plan: Rodney Section 2011 (operative plan). The purpose of the precinct as set out in the PAUP as notified is to provide for the future development of the headland to accommodate residential development at a density considered suitable for the locality and not compromise the natural features or landscape values of the Waimana Point headland which is located to the east of Algies Bay.

1.5 This evidence discusses the evolution of the precinct into the PAUP, the changes sought by submitters in relation to the precinct and the amendments proposed by Council both in response to relief sought by submitters and in relation the best practice approach to precincts discussed in the evidence of John Duguid for Topic 080. With respect to those principles:

1.6 The precinct, underlain by the Large Lot zone is subject to the following overlays and mapped information:

(a) Site of value Mana Whenua- ID 1656 (as notified and as recommended by Council)

(b) Significant Ecological Area (Terrestrial) 2425 (Threat status and rarity) (as notified and as recommended by Council)

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

(d) Flood plain 1 % AEP (non-statutory);

(e) Auckland-wide natural hazards: Assessment would be required where slopes exceed 1:7 under H.4.11 ‘Natural hazards’ Auckland wide rules;

(f) Macroinvertabrate Community Index (MCI) (non-stat) area to the south of the site, part rural/ part urban land cover base.

1.7 The precinct reflects the development of the planning framework, resulting from community engagement through plan changes to the Operative Plan. It does not override any Overlays; the provisions of the Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) and the identified Site of Significance to Mana Whenua remain applicable to the precinct. In my view the purpose of the precinct cannot be achieved through the use of the underlying zone and Auckland-wide provisions alone.

1.8 I consider the underlying zone appropriate to apply in addition to the provisions included in the precinct, and therefore the creation of a new zone, or use of a different zone is not supported.

1.9 The structure of the precinct has been refined to include three sub-precincts within which density and subdivision site size are restricted.

1.10 The precinct provides for consideration of landscape matters including both the impacts of development of the prominent headland encompassed within the precinct and the impact of development as viewed from the surrounding areas including Algies Bay, Scandrett Regional Park, the coast and public roads. The main differences between the precinct and the Large Lot zones and Auckland-wide rules are set out in Table 1 below. This is reflected thought through the variation of the development controls in the Large Lot zone and Auckland- Wide subdivision provisions:

Main precinct provision Difference from PAUP provisions or group of changes

Objectives and policies Require consideration of important landscape and natural character values of the precinct. This differs

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

from the more generic consideration in the large Lot and Auckland wide subdivision provisions and is more restrictive in terms of the controls the policy supports.

Special Information Additional requirement that all Restricted Discretionary Requirement Activities (RDAs) activities provide a landscape plan.

Development

Activity table -Buildings Buildings including accessory buildings are all considered as RDA. This is more restrictive than the Large Lot zone and includes additional matters for discretion and assessment criteria.

Land use control- density More restrictive than the underlying zone, limitings the total number of dwellings within the precinct and sub- precinct areas.

Development Control- More restrictive than the underlying zone, requiring - Yards Requires a greater set back from any boundary with Lot 2 (being the esplanade reserve surrounding the precinct).

Development Control- More restrictive than the Large Lot zone, requiring - Height buildings in proximity (within 50m) to the ridgeline be less than 6m in height.

Subdivision

Activity table -Subdivision Subdivision within the Sub-precinct A and B will be considered as RDA under the precinct provisions. This is generally the same consent ‘status’ as the Auckland wide provisions. The precinct also includes include additional matters for discretion and assessment criteria which reflect the maters set in the policy framework.

Sub-precinct C will not provide for further subdivision with a non-complying activity status assigned to subdivision within this area of the precinct.

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

Restricted Discretionary More restrictive than the Auckland wide controls, limits Activity Subdivision the number of sites that may be created within each Controls sub-precinct area as a RDA.

1.11 Changes have also been made to the notified precinct provisions in order to remove duplication with the Auckland wide provisions and general correction of spelling and grammar.

1.12 One consequential change has been made as a result of the consideration of the precinct. This is the removal of a portion of indicative road located to the area of land at 65 Scandrett Road (Part Allot 8 PSH OF Mahurangi at Goldsworthy Bay). This change is made ‘out of scope’ and is a result of the removal of the requirement for an indicative road to be located within the precinct.

PART A: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 My name is Larissa Blair Clarke. I am a Planner in the Unitary Plan Team within the ‘Plans and Places’ Division of the Chief Planning Office at Auckland Council. I have provided evidence in relation to a number of Topics1. I have provided expert evidence in relation to ‘bespoke’ provisions sought by submitters in Topic 045 and 022. And more recently I have provided evidence in relation to Coastal precincts (Mt Wellington 1 New and Onehunga 3 New) for Topic 080.

2.2 Details of my qualifications and past experience are set out in Attachment A to my EIC for both Topic 039 and 022.

2.3 My evidence considers both the purpose of the Waimana Point precinct in relation to the PAUP including the zone, Auckland wide and Overlay provisions; and consider submissions received by the Council in relation to the precinct

2.4 The Waimana Point precinct originates from scheduled activity 329 in the operative plan. The purpose of the precinct is to control the development of the Waimana Point headland which is located to the east of Algies Bay. The precinct imposes additional controls which limit the number of buildings and sites and require a consideration of their location and layout within the precinct. This evidence discusses the evolution of

1 The hazardous substances provisions at B.6.4 within Topic 006 sustainably managing our natural resources; the hazardous substances objectives, policies, rules and associated assessment matters for Topic 039 Hazardous substances, Industrial and Trade Activities (ITAs) and Fills, and the objectives, policies, rules and matters for assessment in relation to natural hazards (coastal, land stability, wildfires) in Topic 022 Natural Hazards and Flooding.

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

the precinct into the PAUP, the changes sought by submitters in relation to the precinct and the amendments proposed by Council both in response to relief sought by submitters and in relation the best practice approach to precincts discussed in the evidence of John Duguid for Topic 080.

2.5 In addition this evidence supports a consequential change to the ‘Indicative Roads’ layer in the PAUP, supporting the removal of a portion of Indicative road at 65 Scandrett Road, Mahurangi East (Part Allot 8 PSH OF Mahurangi).

3. CODE OF CONDUCT

3.1 I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note and that I agree to comply with it.2 I confirm that I have considered all the material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person.

4. SCOPE

4.1 I am providing planning evidence in relation to the Waimana Point precinct. Specifically in relation to the amendments proposed by Council to the provisions contained within the precinct.

4.2 In preparing this evidence I have relied on the Auckland-wide evidence of John Duguid for Topic 080 and Topic 081 which sets out the statutory framework, methodology, principles and section 32 evaluations used to guide the development and application of zones and precincts.

4.3 The following expert statements of evidence have been relied upon in preparing my evidence:

(a) Evidence Report of David Hookway and Austin Fox 26 January 2016 in relation to the rezoning of land within the Walkworth and Snells Beach area for topic 081;

2During my time at Harrison Grierson I prepared and lodged submissions to the PAUP on behalf of private clients and in a personal capacity on behalf of my household. I no longer represent or act for private clients, and have withdrawn my private submission, and therefore do not consider that I have a conflict of interest regarding the relief sought by some of the public submissions to the PAUP, and my ability to provide professional planning evidence in relation to Topic 039.

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

(b) Joint Statement of Evidence of Ryan Bradley, David Hookway, Austin Fox And Joe Jeffries on Behalf of Auckland Council (Planning - Rural And Coastal Settlements North) for Topic 016&017 RUB, dated 15 October 2015

(c) Statement Of Primary Evidence Of Stephen Kenneth Brown On Behalf Of Auckland Council (Landscape – Rural And Coastal Settlements North) for Topic 016 RUB North/West, dated 15 October 2015

4.4 I have discussed the Waimana Point precinct with; Mr Peter Vari, Team Leader Northern Area Plans Team, Auckland Council and representatives of Auckland Transport and Water Care Services Limited. In forming my view on I have relied on their advice.

4.5 I visited the site on the 22 of December 2015, and viewed the site from the surrounding environment including the Scandretts Regional Park and Algies Beach foreshore.

4.6 While no formal mediation or direct discussions have taken place in relation to this Precinct I have met with, and had discussions with the Submitters consultants Boffa Miskell and met with the submitter at the precinct on the 22 of December. In these meetings a number of matters were discussed and some common ground found in relation to a number of issues. Areas of disagreement were also more clearly understood as a result of this engagement.

5. INTERIM GUIDANCE FROM THE PANEL

5.1 I have read the Panel’s Interim Guidance directions available on the IHP website and in particular those relating to Chapter G: General Provisions (both Guidance statements), Natural hazards and Flooding, Best practice approaches to re-zoning and precincts, and Air Quality.

6. PAUP APPROACH TO PRECINCTS

6.1 The approach to precincts is detailed in the evidence of Mr Duguid.

6.2 In particular Mr Duguid sets out:

(a) the role of precincts;

(b) the Council's general approach to precincts;

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

(c) the review of existing precincts and standardising of the PAUP precinct framework that has been undertaken; proposed amendments to precincts outside the scope of submissions;

(d) the way in which submissions relating to precincts have been managed and are to be responded to in the Council's substantive evidence for Topic 080 and Topic 081.

I have read and generally agree with this evidence.

6.3 In relation to the Waimana Point precinct I make the following comment in parallel to the discussion of the Panels Guidance in Mr Duguid’s evidence.

(a) The role of the Waimana Point Precinct is to carry over the particular provisions developed for the urbanisation of this Point in the Algies Beach area in a manner which best reflected the detailed structure planning undertaken in relation to the point through the development of the Snells- Algies Structure Plan and Scheduled Activity under the operative plan. The provisions included in the Waimana Point precinct build on those of the underlying Large Lot zone to create a unique lot size and consideration of built form that is suitable in the context of the surrounding area and reflects the detailed site specific analysis. The use of a precinct in this context avoids the need for a unique zone, as developed under the operative plan.

(b) The Panels interim guidance3 included 10 key considerations which Mr Duguid sets out at paragraph 6.1 of his evidence. In relation to the Waimana Point precinct I have assessed the precinct against these principles in Part D of my evidence. I agree with Mr Duguid that in some instances it may be appropriate for a precinct to ‘override’ an Overlay, this is not supported, or required, in the case of the Waimana Point precinct. In relation to the use of a new zone in place of a precinct; I do not support this approach in relation to Waimana Point.

6.4 Part D of Mr Duguid’s evidence discusses the structural changes required in order to achieve alignment with the PAUP, reduce duplication and improve drafting. Out of scope amendments are proposed in relation to the Waimana Point precinct. These amendments are represented in yellow highlight in the text annexed as Attachment C and are discussed in section 13 and 14 of my evidence.

3 31 July 2015

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

7. SECTION 32 AND 32AA

7.1 As outlined in the Auckland Unitary Plan Evaluation Report (Evaluation Report), the Council has focussed its section 32 assessment on the objectives and provisions within the PAUP that represent significant changes in approach from those within the current operative Auckland RMA policy statement and plans. Whilst the Evaluation Report applies to the entire Unitary Plan, the report targets the 50 Topics where the provisions represent a significant policy shift from the current provisions.

7.2 The Waimana Point precinct addressed in this evidence is not specifically discussed in the Evaluation Report. The precinct provisions do not reflect a major policy shift from the operative plan and are evaluated in this evidence in accordance with s32 and s32AA.

7.3 I am also aware that as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in Environmental Defence Society Incorporated v New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited4 (the “King Salmon” decision) that there may not need to be an assessment of the objectives against the purpose of the RMA under section 32, and instead the assessment of appropriateness is against the NZCPS, insofar as the provisions relate to the coastal environment.

Section 32AA

7.4 Section 32AA requires a further evaluation for any changes that have been made to the PAUP since the initial section 32 evaluation reports were completed. Such an examination has been undertaken as part of the analysis of submissions of these provisions.

7.5 I consider that the provisions in relation to the Waimana Point precinct as annexed as Attachment C to this evidence are the most appropriate for achieving the purpose of the RMA and the matters in section 32 of that Act.

4 [2014] NZSC 38.

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

PART B: OVERVIEW OF WAIMANA POINT PRECINCT

8. CONTEXT

Location

8.1 The Waimana Point precinct is located at Waimana Point, on the northern side of the Mahurangi Peninsular and comprises the area of land within the ‘point’ between Algies Bay to the west and Goldworthy Bay to the east.

Figure 1: Waimana Point Precinct Location Diagram (Source: Auckland Council Geo Maps)

Precinct description

8.2 The precinct is defined by cadastral boundaries and is located entirely ‘on land’ and is separated from the coastal marine area by an esplanade reserve (Lot 2 DP 107531).

8.3 The Precinct is comprised an area of approximately 33.2470 hectares and is made up of a total of five (5) Lots and 1 jointly owned access Lot (JOAL) (Lot 6) refer to Figure 2 below:

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

(a) Lot 1 DP 340057 (1.133HA) owned by B & B Family Trust Limited a third party land owner;

(b) Lot 2 DP 340057 (12.8934HA), Lot 5 DP 147735 (3.1312HA), (JOAL-Lot 6 DP 147735 1/3 SH) owned by Barton John Isbey and Susan Alison Isbey;

(c) Lot 3 DP 147735 (7.367HA), total land area of 7.367ha (JOAL- Lot 6 DP 147735 1/3 SH), owned by Waimahana Limited, which I understand is associated with the Collier family;

(d) Lot 4 DP 147735 (8.7224HA), (JOAL-Lot 6 DP 147735 1/3 SH) owned by Jac Developments Limited which I understand to be associated with the Isbey Family;

The precinct is boarded on the seaward side by an esplanade reserve (Lot 2 DP 107531 (3.858HA).

Figure 2: Legal description (Source Council GIS Viewer)

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

8.4 I understand that the land was originally used as a farm and stock are still run on the property. The northern point of the property or Lot 3 contains the Waimana point Lodge which comprises visitor accommodation and a private residence (‘Collier residence’). Lot 2 contains one residential dwelling (‘Isbey Residence’), located to the west of the site in proximity to the eastern end of Algies Bay. Also located within Lot 2 is a smaller farm building.

8.5 Access to the site is provided from Martins Bay Road via a right of way over 31 Martins Bay Road (Lot 1 DP 67899 (19.0202HA)) the length of this access is approximately 1.1km to the southern boundary of the precinct. This unsealed access enters the precinct at the south eastern corner and splits in to two access ways, one culminating at the Isbey residence and the other running North/South to the west of and eventually along the ridge culminating at the Collier residence.

8.6 Within the precinct more established vegetation is located within the gully to the south of the Isbey residence and on the eastern side of the precinct, to the south of the Collier residence. Re-vegetation of the north eastern area of the central ridge line and has been undertaken by the landowners and appears well established.

8.7 The Point as a prominent feature is identified in the operative plan and in the PAUP as being subject to a Pa site. The scheduled activity (in the operative plan) also identifies middens adjacent to the precinct within the esplanade reserve/ coastal marine area.

Servicing for Wastewater, Stormwater and Potable water

8.8 The precinct area cannot be considered serviced for wastewater, with regard to the recent information provided by Watercare, as this precinct area is outside the ‘area of benefit’ for the Snells Beach/Algies Bay wastewater network area. All wastewater servicing is therefore required to be provided on site. The site sizes are required to be upward of 4000m2, according to the evidence provided by Mr Alexander William Ormiston5 for the residential topic, In order to be of a suitable size to provide for onsite wastewater servicing.

8.9 Additional no potable or stormwater networks have been identified within or servicing the precinct area.

5 On Behalf Of Auckland Council (Engineering – Density In The Rural And Coastal Settlement Zone) for topic 059 Residential objectives and policies; 060 Residential activities; 062 Residential development controls; and 063 Residential controls and assessment

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

Waimana Point precinct in the PAUP

8.10 As notified the Waimana Point precinct is represented as one precinct area with an underlying zone of Large Lot. An area of Future Urban Zone (FUZ) is located to the south east of the precinct area. The area to the south is zoned Countryside Living and to the east is Rural Coastal Zoned land (refer to Figure 3).

Figure 3: Location of Precincts and Zones PAUP viewer (as notified)

8.11 The purpose of the precinct as set out in the PAUP as notified is to provide for the future development of the headland to accommodate residential development at a density considered suitable for the locality and not compromise the natural features or landscape values of the prominent point.

8.12 Specific controls apply within the precinct and in relation to the two ‘areas’ (A and B) within the precinct. The controls are designed to recognise and manage Subdivision and development within these areas. The track changes version of the provisions are annexed in Attachment C.

8.13 The underlying zoning of land in the precinct is the Large Lot zone. As set out in the Evidence Report of David Hookway and Austin Fox 26 January 2016 in relation to the rezoning of land within the Walkworth and Snells Beach area for topic 081, no change to the underlying zone is proposed.

PAUP Context

8.14 The following Overlays, mapped constraints or layers apply to the Waimana Point precinct in the PAUP as recommended by Council:

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

Overlays

(a) Site of Value Mana Whenua- ID 1656 (as notified and as recommended by Council)

(b) SEA (Terrestrial) 2425 (Threat status and rarity) (as notified and as recommended by Council)

Mapped non-statutory information

(d) Flood plain 1 % AEP (non-statutory);

(e) Auckland-wide Natural hazards: ‘Land which may be subject to land instability’ would require assessment where slopes exceed 1:76;

(f) MCI (non-stat) area to the south of the site, part rural/ part urban land cover base.

Figure 4: Location of Overlays and mapped constraints as supported by Council (Source: Council GeoMaps viewer)

6 (a) The site is underlain by the Allochthonous Rocks according to GNS Viewer- described as the Mangakahia Complex which would otherwise apply the 1:3 slope angle (Late Cretaceous to Early Eocene) however due to the potential for Allochthonous materials would require assessment where slopes exceed 1:7 under H.4.11 ‘Natural hazards’ Auckland wide rules;

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

8.15 The Precinct is not subject to any mapped ridgelines, landscapes or other identified character areas or features.

8.16 The wider area (Mahurangi Peninsula) however is subject to the following High Natural Character (HNC) and Outstanding Natural Landscapes (ONL):

(a) To the east- Area of HNC 62 Mullets Point

(b) To the east ONL- 39 Scandrett Regional Park – Martins Bay

(d) To the west Outstanding Natural Feature (ONF) ID2 Algies Beach melange

(e) To the west ONF ID 187 Snells-Algies point shore platform.

Figure 5: Location of ONL/HNC (Source: Council Geomaps)

8.17 In Mr Stephen Browns evidence on behalf of Council for Topic 016 North/West RUB he discusses the extent of urban development with respect to Snells and Algies Bay and the other rural coastal settlements of the Mahurangi Peninsula. At Paragraph 68 of his EIC he discusses the location of the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) (or in this case the separation between urban and rural zoning) in relation to the area to the east of Snells and Algies Beaches:

“To the south, immediately beyond Algies Bay, the situation is slightly more variable: Goldsworthy Bay has been physically and aesthetically depleted by decades of pastoral farming,

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

although it retains a powerful landform and highly expressive character. This part of the coastline shares its outlook across Kawau Bay with Scandretts Bay and the regional park stretching through to Martins Bay (Annexures 29 & 30). As a result, any significant residential expansion into this stretch of coastline would, sooner or later, impact on the values of the regional park and ONL38….”

8.18 Mr Brown goes on, in paragraph 70 and 71 to discuss the encroachment of urban development in Snells and Algies areas in relation to the ONLs and HNCs in proximity to the urban areas:

“Although it is doubtful that development on the periphery of either Snells Beach or Algies Bay would encroach on, or directly affect, any of the ONLs and HNC Areas, apart possibly from ONL38 / HNC58 and ONL39 / HNC62, it would still affect perceptions of the wider environment, including less dramatic and expressive tracts of farmland and coastal margins that help to ‘glue’ the wider landscapes of Kawau Bay and the Mahurangi Harbour together.

Spreading future residential development out would, almost inevitably, produce the sort of effects just described. Instead, I consider it preferable to consolidate development within that part of the landscape already shaped and modified by existing development, in particular between both current settlements and the Mahurangi Estuary. This would retain the distinctive ridge / hill country ‘bookends’ north of Snells Beach and south of Algies Bay, and limit further intrusion into the coastal landscapes of the Mahurangi Harbour to that area already exposed to the rear of both existing suburbs. Accordingly, I support the alignment of the RUB at the northern end of Snells Beach and the southern end of Algies Bay as now proposed by Auckland Council.”

History of the development in the Algies Bay area

8.19 In establishing my understanding of the history of development relevant to the Waimana Point precinct I have reviewed Councils ‘hard copy’ files, the operative plan and relied upon the advice of Council officers7 and other experts8 who have had previous involvement with development in this area of the Mahurangi Peninsular.

8.20 As discussed in section 11 of the Joint statement9 of Mr Bradley, Mr Hookway, Mr Fox and Mr Jeffries for Topic 016&017 the Snells and Algies Beach areas was the subject of a Structure Plan adopted by former Rodney District Council in October 1999. The Structure Plan proposed for inclusion in the Rodney District Plan was the

7 Mr Vari, Team Leader North West Planning, Plans and Places, Joint Evidence of Ryan Bradley, David Hookway, Austin Fox and Joe Jeffries On Behalf Of Auckland Council (Planning - Rural And Coastal Settlements North) for Topic 016&017 dated 15 October 2015 8 Bridget Gilbert (Consultant Landscape Architect) 9 Joint Evidence of Ryan Bradley, David Hookway, Austin Fox and Joe Jeffries On Behalf Of Auckland Council (Planning - Rural And Coastal Settlements North) for Topic 016&017 dated 15 October 2015

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

subject of submissions from the Isbey and Collier Families which resulted in the evolution of the scheduled activity..

8.21 The Structure Plan initially proposed a Structure Plan Zone of ‘L4’ to the southern area of the precinct and retained General Rural zone to the north of Waimana Point, refer to Figure 6. Through the Plan Change Process the Isbey and Collier families submitted that the retention of General Rural zoning to the north of Waimana Point was not supported and a lower density residential zone was sought to apply to the Point as a whole. The Landscape Protection Residential Zone was sought by the submitters in preference to the more intensive zoning which Council proposed. This was considered by the Hearings commissioners and subsequently by Council. As a result the ‘Landscape Protection zone’ was applied and is now included in Map 63 of the operative plan.

Figure 6: Snells-Algies Structure Plan

8.22 The zoning of Waimana Point through the incorporation of the Structure Plan into the District Plan lead to further discussions with the Isbey and Collier families and the eventual development of the Scheduled Activity 329 incorporated into the Rodney District Plan in 2006. The Scheduled activity provides for the comprehensive development of the Point and is premised on the protection of the landscape values

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

of the Point in relation to the surrounding area. The rules, matters for assessment and the associated concept plan (refer to Figure 7) contained the following features:

(a) Indicative roads both Council roads and private access ways;

(b) Landscape requirements;

(d) Protection of cultural heritage sites;

(e) Setbacks from the coastal edges;

(f) Concept plan for density- determining location, building platforms and site size within ‘areas’ of the precinct;

Figure 7: Appendix 14P Operative District Plan Concept plan for Scheduled Activity 329

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

Goldsworthy Bay

8.23 Development within the Goldsworthy Bay area is provided for through the Special 10 (Goldsworthy Bay Marine Recreation) Zone in the operative plan. Providing for the establishment of an integrated holiday, recreation and residential area providing for up to 45 ‘household units’ and 45 ‘accommodation units’ and associated activities10. Through the PAUP process the land formally zoned Special 10 has been zoned Rural Coastal zone, reflecting the continued absence of provision for marina activities within the coastal marine area at this location. In my opinion the replacement of the Special 10 Zone with Rural Coastal zone (which provides for dwellings as RDA and more than 2 dwellings is considered a non-complying activity) in the PAUP reflects a significant change to the extent of urbanisation provided for or which might be anticipated within the area east of Algies Bay.

Surrounding area

8.24 In the operative plan the precinct is bounded by ‘Countryside Living Town’ to the south, and ‘Future Urban’ to the south east (refer to Figure 8 below). The Martins Bay Road ridge provides a separation between these more ‘urban’ areas and the ‘East Coast Rural Zone’ to the south.

Figure 8: Operative District Plan- Map 63

10 Note: The rules of the Special 10 Zone require that all consents for the marine-based component of the development be achieved prior to the land-based activities; if this ‘rule’ is not met then development is not provided for.

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

9. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

9.1 The Waimana Point precinct located on the northern side of the Mahurangi Peninsula is located on the coast within the Hauraki Gulf. The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) had not come into effect when scheduled activity 329 was included in the operative plan.

9.2 Key themes of the NZCPS which are of particular relevance to the zoning of this area include:

(a) Activities in the coastal environment;

(b) Walking access;

9.3 The relevant objectives and policies of the NZCPS which are of particular relevance to the Waimana Point precinct include:

(a) Objectives 2, 4, 6 and Policy 6, in relation to activities in the coastal environment and Natural character;

(b) Objective 4 and Policy 19 in relation to walking access;

9.4 Policy 6 of the NZCPS requires a consideration of activities, including built development within the coastal environment. 6(c) encourages the consolidation of existing settlements and urban areas to avoid sprawling or sporadic patterns. In this respect, the precinct locates development within the Algies Bay area in proximity to existing development. When considered in the context of the Snells-Algies Structure Plan this provided for a consolidated area of development which included Goldsworthy Bay. I discuss the changes to the land use provided for in Goldsworthy Bay further at section 8 of my evidence. The precinct provisions recognise the prominent nature of the Waimana Point headland and reflect this through additional consent requirements and controls limiting development within the northern most area of the precinct. I consider the planning history to this area has long envisaged its use for urban development. The retention of the precinct in the PAUP implements

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

this ‘urbanisation’ but with appropriate controls that recognise the valuable features within this area of the coastal environment.

9.5 Consistent with Policy 19 the precinct provides for an opportunity for public walking access from Algies Bay to Goldsworthy Bay.

9.6 The precinct includes setback controls to provide for the further separation of built development from areas which may be subject to coastal hazards.

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000

9.7 The Waimana Point precinct is located within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park area11. I do not consider the precinct to conflict with sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. The precinct limits further subdivision within the area of the precinct containing a cultural heritage site and seeks to ensure development occurs in a manner which is sensitive to the coastal location.

10. PAUP FRAMEWORK

Regional Policy Statement

10.1 Key sections of the PAUP Regional Policy Statement (RPS), as proposed to be amended by the Council, which need to be considered and given effect to include:

(a) Chapter B.2 Enabling Quality Urban Growth

(i) B.2.2 Quality built environment; Objective 1, Policies 1, 4 and 5;

(ii) Chapter B.2.5 Rural and coastal towns and villages; Objectives 1, 2 and 3 and Policy 1;

(b) Chapter B.4.3 Natural Heritage:

(i) B.4.3.1 Natural Character of the Coastal Environment: Objective 1, Policy 4;

(ii) B.4.3.2 Landscape, natural features, volcanic viewshafts and height sensitive areas: Objective 5, Policy 7, Policy 9.

(i) B6.7 Natural hazards, Objective 1 and Policies 8, 9 and 12.

11 As mapped in schedule 3 of that Act

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

(d) Coastal B7 Sustainably managing our coastal environment:

(i) B.7.1:Objective 1, 2A, 5 and Policies1, 2, 6 and 9.

(ii) B.7.2 Public access and open space in the coastal environment: Objective 1, Policy 1;

(iii) B.7.4 Managing the Hauraki Gulf/Te Moana Nui o Toi/Tīkapa Moana: Objective 1, 3, 6, and 7.

(e) Chapter B8.1 sustainably managing our rural environment: Objective 3, Policies 3 and 4.

10.2 In terms of urban growth the precinct is located within the existing urban area of the Algies Bay settlement. This rural coastal town currently does not have a RUB and the precinct seeks to further control development on existing urban zoned land at a scale that reflects the relevant infrastructure constraints and responds to the environment. The precinct achieves a quality built environment by providing for subdivision at a scale that supports a diverse range of living opportunities while requiring the development to respond positively to its environment, and achieving a high standard of built form.

10.3 Chapter B.4 addresses the natural character of the coastal environment and landscapes and natural features. The Waimana Point precinct has prominent coastal geography, and although the Point is not identified in the PAUP as a mapped landscape, policies referring to ‘other’ landscapes form a relevant consideration.

10.4 Similar to the requirements of the NZCPS the risk of adverse effects associated with natural hazards, including coastal hazards is not to be increased.

10.5 Chapter B.7 provides a policy framework for activities, including subdivision and development within the coastal environment. These objectives and policies are relevant in relation to the location of development in coastal areas, management of adverse effects from this development, management of public access within/and to the coastal environment and the interface between the RPS and the HGMPA.

10.6 With respect to the rural environment, the precinct borders rural coastal land, and therefore matters of reverse sensitivity and the further urbanisation of rural land are relevant considerations in this context.

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

PART C: OVERVIEW OF SUBMISSIONS

11. SUBMISSION THEMES

11.1 A total of 14 submission points from two submitters have been received requesting relief in relation to the precinct. Five of the submission points are from the Auckland Council submission (5716) while nine are from the Isbey and Collier families (7307) who are the majority land owners and only submitter identified in relation to the Waimana Point precinct.

11.2 I note that two submission points12 have been received in relation to this area through Topics 016 and 017, these points have been addressed in Topic 016 RUB North in the Joint Statement of Evidence Of Ryan Bradley, David Hookway, Austin Fox And Joe Jeffries On Behalf Of Auckland Council - Planning - Rural And Coastal Settlements North, dated 15 October 2015. No change was recommended to the location or extent of urban development in the immediate area of the precinct.

11.3 The following points were included in the Auckland Council submission. They can largely be split into two themes: Amendments to the precinct rules and development controls; and amendments to the objectives, policies, rules and precinct plan to implement Auckland Transport design requirements. I will address these points along with my analysis of the precinct provisions in Part D below.

(a) “Amend K5.51.1 Activity Table, to include 'Buildings and accessory buildings' as a restricted discretionary activity”. (5716-1254)

(b) “Add a new development control [in K5.51.3], as follows: '3.2 The maximum height of any building within 50m of the principle ridge along the peninsula shall be 6m.'” (5716-1255)

(c) “Add the following objective [in F5.51] to read: Development and/or subdivision within the precinct facilities a transport network that: a. integrates with, and avoids adverse effects on the safety and efficiency of, the transport network of the surrounding area, including any upgrades to the surrounding network; b. facilitates transport choices by providing for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport facilities, and vehicles; c. is designed and constructed in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of Auckland Transport and any relevant code of practice or engineering standards” (5716-1336)

12 5277-310 and 5280-312

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

(d) “Add the following policy [in F5.51] to read: 1. Require subdivision and/or development within the precinct (including any framework plans) to provide for a transport network that: a. as a minimum, is in accordance with the transport network elements shown on the precinct plan(s); b. supports safe and efficient movement of pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and vehicles; c. is designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of Auckland Transport and any relevant code of practice or engineering standards” (5716-1405)

(e) “Amend and update the precinct provisions that relate to transport typologies and design (including cross sections) to ensure they meet the requirements of Auckland Transport and any relevant code of practice or engineering standards.” (5716-1472)

11.4 The Isbey and Collier families have also made submissions in relation to the Waimana Point precinct. The general theme of the submission is overall support for the precinct, a request to further consider roading linkages associated with the precinct and inclusion of specific provisions and plans to reflect the scheduled activity in the Operative District Plan. Submission point 1 generally supports the objectives and policies of the Large Lot zone, which was subject to a separate hearing topic. The submission points from the submission point pathway are set out below. I will address these submission points alongside my analysis of the provisions in Part D below.

(a) “Retain precinct, specifically provisions regarding the requirement for a Comprehensive Development Plan, landscape/vegetation led rules, esplanade reservation around the entire point and across the point connecting Algies Bay and Scandretts/Goldsworthy beaches, protection for archaeological features (Historic Heritage Plan), natural resource provisions (Natural Resource Plan), notional roading proposals linking adjoining lands (Built Environment Plan), acceptance of the need to work within reports done by Tonkin and Taylor and the public waste water pipeline between Algies Bay and Martins Bay”. (7307-2)

(b) “Include original operative Concept Plan.” (7307-3)

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

(d) “Replace 6.1 Matters of Discretion [under K5.51.6] with the clearer operative plan rule 2. See submission for wording [page 3/4].” (7307-5)

(e) “Include provision for pedestrian linkage between the beaches”. (7307-6)

(f) “Amend to show the east/west Council road on the "Built Environment Plan" and don't show only part of it on the Precinct Plan”. (7307-7)

(g) “Amend to show the existing wastewater pipeline across Waimana Point and adjoining land on the "Infrastructure Plan"”. (7307-8)

(h) “Amend to show a "Plan" which shows notional pedestrian linkage”. (7307-9)

(i) “Consider implementation of notional roads on the "Infrastructure Plan" for Waimana Point to ensure active zoning and infrastructure requirements match”. (7307-10)

Further submissions

11.5 There are no further submissions in relation to the Isbey and Collier families submissions. Further submitters to the Auckland Council submission points are generally considered to be ‘pro-forma’ further submission points and include three13 further submitters in support, one support in part14 and two that oppose15. Submissions in opposition to the inclusion of transport objectives, policies and design details16 are The National Trading Company of New Zealand Limited (2963), and Fletcher Residential Limited (3505).

11.6 The Isbey and Collier families17 are also further submitters in this respect to submission point 5716-1405 set out at paragraph 11.3(d) above. The key element which the submitters opposed in relation to this policy was subsection (a). The Isbey and Collier families preferring the use of ‘in general accordance with’ in relation to the precinct plan, as opposed to the directive language in the Council’s submission point. This was sought to enable flexibility in the final detailed design of road placement responding to site specific constraints18.

13In support: 3079 - John Sanderson, 3412 - Waiheke Island Community Planning Group Incorporated, 3748 - David Lourie; 14 Support in part: 2279 - Jenny and Eamon Holdings Limited; 15 Oppose: 347 - K Vernon, 3038 - Lyn Hume 16 5716-1336, 5716-1405, 5716-1472 17 FS 2877 - Isbey and Collier Families, 18 Page 3 FS 2877 - Isbey and Collier Families,

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

Meetings with submitters

11.7 Several without prejudice discussions have been held between Council19 (and its experts20) and the submitter/submitter’s representatives2122. In my opinion these meetings were of benefit to define and understand areas of agreement and those of where differences remain. I refer to these discussions alongside analysis of submission points and precinct provisions below.

12. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SUBMISSIONS

12.1 As outlined in Mr Duguid’s evidence, a number of amendments are proposed which are, or may be, out of scope of the submissions. This is to ensure:

(a) That the most appropriate PAUP method is used to address the precinct matters, where matters are addressed elsewhere in the PAUP matters are not unnecessarily repeated in the precinct;

(b) The removal of duplication following a comparison review of the precinct to the amended PAUP position as proposed in the Council’s closing statements to the Panel;

(d) Consistency in the organisation and terminology of all precincts; and

(e) Objectives and policies provide a sufficient level of detail, direction and support in relation to the outcomes anticipated in the precinct and the scope of the assessment matters;

12.2 I have proposed a number of amendments to the precinct to address matters stated above or to correct minor technical or editorial errors. There are no particular submissions to which these amendments respond. All amendments are shown in my track changes attached as Attachment C and these ‘out of scope’ changes are made to correct spelling and grammatical errors, implement best practice precinct formatting and remove duplication with the Auckland-wide provisions, such as those which apply to the design of wastewater and stormwater systems.

19 Mr Peter Vari (Team Leader Auckland Council), Ms Larissa Clarke (Planner Auckland Council) 20 Ms Bridget Gilbert (consultant Landscape Architect) 21 Ms Jo Young (consultant Planner Boffa Miskell), Mr Peter Hall (consultant Planner, Boffa Miskell) 22 17 December, 22 December, 23 December

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

PART D: ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS

13. PRECINCT ASSESSMENT

Independent Hearings Panel’s Best Practice Approach to Precincts

13.1 As discussed in section 6 of my evidence the precinct should be assessed in relation to the best practice principles outlined in Mr Duguid’s evidence at Paragraph 6.1, as follows:

(a) I believe that the purpose of the precinct is clearly articulated in the precinct provisions and is justified in terms of the purpose of the RMA and this is achieved through the use of RMA controls in a district plan policy framework.

(b) The precinct reflects the history of planning relating to the precinct;

(d) The purpose of the precinct cannot be achieved through the use of the underlying zone and Auckland-wide provisions alone;

(e) The purpose of the precinct could be achieved through applying for a resource consent under the operative plan. The relevant policy framework to guide such a consent process would not be present in the PAUP without incorporation of the precinct provisions as proposed in his evidence;

(f) As discussed below, I consider the underlying zone appropriate to apply in addition to the provisions included in the precinct, and the creation of a new zone is not supported;

(g) The precinct is not subject to any relevant existing resource consents providing for the scale of development which the precinct seeks to address;

(h) The structure of the precinct has been refined to include three sub-precincts within which density and subdivision site size are restricted;

(i) The precinct boundaries follow property boundaries and include three main landowners; and

(j) The precincts use the definitions in the PAUP and does not seek to define any new terms.

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

Alternatives to a precinct

13.2 As set out at section 8, the Waimana Point precinct reflects the development potential provided through Scheduled Activity 329 in the operative plan. Through the rationalisation of zones into the PAUP, Large Lot was chosen to best represent the zone in the operative plan.

13.3 This area of land is intended for residential style development. Consequently it is appropriate that a ‘residential’ zone applies to reflect this. Site range from 4000m2 to 8000m2 while the northern area of the Point is not to be subject to any further subdivision. In the northern area where further subdivision is not provided for, I am of the view that a spot ‘rural’ zone used to achieve this would be an inappropriate tool as it does not reflect the land use or the significance of this area in terms of the landscape/feature values.

13.4 The Rural Coastal zone has been applied to rural coastal settlements which are un- serviced, however, this is not an isolated settlement on its own but an extension to an existing urban area. Therefore I do not consider the Rural Coastal zone to be an appropriate alternative. The application of the Countryside Living zone to the precinct area with the precinct controls overlaying this providing for site sizes of 4000m2 would not, in my opinion, be consistent with the objectives and policies of the Countryside Living zone. Should the overall site size be closer to 10,000m2 (1 ha) then this zone may provide a possible alternative, however the objectives and policies primarily focus on the rural character and would not, on their own, reflect the coastal nature of the precinct area.

13.5 In my view no zone included in the plan as notified or as a result of amendments through the hearing process, is suitable on its own to reflect this lot size and density of development.

13.6 As I have stated in section 8 above, the change in zoning of the land to the east of the precinct (Goldsworthy Bay) represents a significant change to the context in which the development within Waimana Point was initially considered. Given the opportunity to look at the development of this area from the outset an alternative development scenario which reflects the enduring rural coastal character of the land to the east would, in my opinion, be preferable.

13.7 The precinct has been transferred to the PAUP from the operative plan . As a result the density and location of lots in the precinct is based on that developed in the

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

context of the Snells-Algies Structure Plan. While a fresh approach to planning in this area may take a different approach, the precinct should be retained to ensure that the benefits (resulting from providing for the development of this area) are retained and the provisions in the PAUP best reflect the feature/values/site specific characteristics that were identified through the development of Scheduled Activity 329.

14. ANALYSIS OF PRECINCT PROVISIONS

14.1 The main differences between this proposed precinct and the zone and Auckland- wide subdivision controls are:

(a) Additional consent requirement for new buildings and subdivision to consider landscape matters and the impact on the Point both internally (to the precinct) and with respect to the wider environment;

(b) Land use control for density applying within the Large Lot zone limiting the number of dwellings within the total precinct area and with the three sub precincts;

(c) Limiting subdivision potential within the precinct and sub-precinct areas from that which would be provided in the Auckland-wide controls;

(d) Development controls which impose additional height and yard restrictions setting development back from the coastal edge (further than required by the zone) and ensuring that additional height limitations apply to the ridgeline within the site;

(e) A further information requirement for landscaping to be established and maintained within the precinct;

(f) Requirements for walkway access to be established in indicative locations within the precinct;

Scope for amendments to precinct provisions

14.2 Submission points have been summarised above and provide scope for many of the amendments made to the precinct provisions. As discussed in section 12 there are also areas where amendments are not supported by submission points and are considered out of scope; these are represented in Yellow Highlight. The matter of scope is discussed in the following sections. The Isbey and Collier submission is

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

considered to provide scope for many of the amendments supported by Council as this submission sought the inclusion of many of the provisions from the operative plan.

Purpose of the Waimana Point Precinct Objective 1 and Policy 1

Analysis

14.3 As discussed above the Large Lot zone is considered the most appropriate residential zone for the precinct. The Large Lot objectives and policies, and those of the ‘general’ residential objectives and policies, set a framework for considering, built form, amenity, effects on neighbouring sites, access, choice and growth.

14.4 As notified, the precinct included one objective and one policy23 which had been developed for the precinct as there were no specific objectives or policies associated with the precinct in the operative plan. I support the amendments proposed to the Objective 1 and Policy 1 to better reflect the outcome sought for the precinct and the tools implemented through the precinct provisions to achieve this.

Submissions

14.5 The Isbey and Collier submission seek to retain the precinct and seek the reflection of the plans and requirements included in the operative plan. The amendments to Objective 1 and Policy 1 generally reflect the key aspects of the precinct included in the operative plan and confirm these in the policy framework.

Amendments/ response

14.6 Objective 1 has been amended to reflect the importance of the landscape in this context and include reference to the surrounding rural and coastal environment. I consider this appropriate as it reflects the intention of the controls in the precinct to limit density and consider the built design, placement and landscaping of subdivision and development in this environment. No submissions have sought this amendment. However, I view the amendment as providing additional clarification and direction to the intent of the precinct which reflects the scheduled activity in the operative plan.

23 Objective The objectives are as listed in the Large Lot zone in addition to that specified below: 1.The landscape and natural character values of Waimana Point headland is protected.

Policy The policies are as listed in the Large Lot zone in addition to that specified below: 1.Locate and design development to minimise the visual impact of buildings, roads and earthworks on Waimana Point and retain landscape and natural character values.

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

1. The important landscape and natural character values of Waimana Point headland and surrounding coastal and rural environment is protected from the adverse effects of subdivision and development is protected.

14.7 Policy 1 has also been developed to reflect the tools utilised to achieve Objective 1 including reference to subdivision as well as development, and including as ‘subsections’ reference to the manner in which the objective is to be achieved. These subsections also directly link to the rules, controls and matters for assessment contained within the precinct provisions and reflecting the Scheduled Activity 329 in the operative plan. I consider the addition of the subsections to reflect the rules and matters for assessment added to reflect those included in the scheduled activity and as sought for inclusion by submission points.

1. Locate and design subdivision and development to minimise the visual impact of buildings, roads access and earthworks on Waimana Point and retain landscape and natural character values by:. a. limiting the number of Lots and dwellings within the precinct to 32; b. not allowing subdivision in sub-precinct C; c. controlling site sizes in sub-precincts A and B; d. setting buildings back from ridgelines and coastal edges; e. control colour of and light reflectivity from buildings; and f. requiring landscaping to mitigate the effects of built development.

Public access Objective 2, Policy 2

Analysis

14.8 Public access is not a matter that is generally included in the objectives and policies of the residential zones and is included within the Auckland-wide subdivision provisions as a consideration for the use of esplanade reserves/strips and the provision of pedestrian access within development and through road design. Pedestrian access is generally considered in relation to the occupants of a subdivision as opposed to the wider environment. The opportunity offered through the development of the Waimana Point headland provides the potential for public pedestrian access to Goldsworthy Bay, which is otherwise inaccessible except by water (CMA). This is, in my view, a significant positive outcome provided by the precinct applying in this location. The requirement for pedestrian access was included in the operative plan and was not clearly brought through into the PAUP.

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

Submissions

14.9 The Isbey and Collier submission seeks to “Include provision for pedestrian linkage between the beaches24”.

14.10 I consider that this submission point is supported through Councils proposed version of the precinct and that the addition of an objective and policies in relation to this is appropriate.

Response/amendments

14.11 I support the inclusion of the proposed inclusion of a new objective and policy designed to support the public access provided by the precinct between Algies Beach and Goldsworthy Bay. In addition to the objectives and policies, amendments have been made to the precinct plan, matters for assessment and discretion to reflect this theme within the precinct.

Objective 2. Public access between the coastline in Goldsworthy Bay and Algies Bay is provided for and supported through the development of the precinct.

Policy 2. Require the provisions of public pedestrian access that traverses the precinct to provide a connection from Algies Bay to Goldsworthy Bay.

Transport Design requirements

14.12 The Council submission seeks inclusion of an objective and policy to reflect the portion of indicative road within the southern area of the precinct. It also includes a requirement to include any relevant transport typologies to support this. It is my understanding that the inclusions sought would generally mirror the design standards required for new public road and was proposed to reflect the location of a portion of indicative road within the precinct.

14.13 As discussed earlier the change to the land use anticipated within the Goldsworthy Bay area removes the need, or likely opportunity, to include a roading connection through this portion of land connecting back to Scandrett Road to the east. As a result Auckland Transport have advised that they no longer require a public road connection to be established within the precinct which would have connected to this portion of indicative road to the east (in the Overlay).

14.14 Access to the precinct and the implementation of public roads is a matter that the submitter has also raised for consideration25. In both the Snells-Algies Structure Plan

24 (7307-6)

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

and in the PAUP as notified, indicative roads are proposed in relation to the precinct. The indicative roads within the FUZ zone to the west continue to provide an indication of a potential road linkage for the precinct.

14.15 At present the site achieves access from Martins Bay Road via an easement over the land to the west (zoned FUZ). I understand that a subdivision of Lot 10 DP 320528 to the south of the site also has the potential to bring a public roading connection closer to the precinct (refer to Figure 9 below). This was discussed with submitters at the meeting in 22 December 2015. I understand from the submitter’s consultants26 that the subdivision has not yet achieved its section 224(c) certificate and therefore the potential linkage has not yet been vested with Council.

Figure 9: location of subdivision to the south of the precinct (Source: GIS Viewer)

14.16 In my view there are several access options that may provide access to the precinct. To my knowledge no transport assessments have been undertaken in relation to the use of the existing right of way, the use of the extended area of public road proposed to the south of the site or in relation to the presence of a public road to be located within the FUZ land to the west of the precinct. According to the Auckland-wide Subdivision provisions and that of the other Auckland-wide rules (such as the Transport provisions), it is likely that consent to establish dwellings within, or the subdivision of the precinct will be required as a Discretionary Activity. This is due to

25 (7307-10) 26 Boffa Miskell (also confirmed by Councils GIS system)

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

the use of an access way to serve in excess of 30 lots or dwellings. The ability to provide a suitable roading connection is a matter which may ultimately inform the internal design of the precinct. This remains a matter which will need to be further investigated through a consent process and will likely require collaboration with neighbouring landowners. I do not consider that amendments to the provisions within the precinct are required to address this matter.

Rules, Controls and assessment matters

Analysis

14.17 As notified the Waimana Point precinct included an activity table, land use controls and development controls. These apply to both subdivision and development. The controls reflected aspects of the scheduled activity but did not accurately reflect all of the matters which formed the concept plan. It is important to note that compliance with the concept plan was one of the key requirements for the development of the precinct. Due to the concept plan only being translated through into the PAUP in part, some aspects of the plan have been brought through as ‘controls’ instead.

14.18 Overall density, setbacks and height controls from ridgelines, the coastal esplanade reserve and a requirement for assessment of subdivision and new buildings are all matters which the concept plan controlled. These have been replaced through a combination of controls, inclusions in the precinct plan and matters for discretion and assessment.

Submissions

14.19 The Auckland Council submission sought the inclusion of 'Buildings and accessory buildings27' as a RDA in the activity table. Council also sought the addition of a new development control: '3.2 The maximum height of any building within 50m of the principle ridge along the peninsula shall be 6m.'28

14.20 The Isbey and Collier submission sought that the matters included in the operative plan scheduled activity were retained or included in the PAUP. This included reference to the original concept plan (including the indicative lot layout, public access routes, vehicle access routes, setbacks, landscape areas, easements for services, identification of historic heritage sites and a reflection of the site analysis and design already undertake as a part of the scheduled activity process).

27 (5716-1254) 28 (5716-1255)

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

Response/ amendments

14.21 The scheduled activity provided for both subdivision and buildings as a RDA. The Council submission point seeks to include this requirement in the PAUP. I support this amendment to the provisions and the expansion upon the term ‘buildings’ to provide greater clarity for plan users between the activity table in the Large Lot zone and the aspects of that which are varied in the precinct. The amended activity table is set out at Attachment C.

14.22 The Council submission point seeks the inclusion of an additional land use control to further limit the height of buildings in proximity to the principle ridgeline within the precinct. I support the inclusion of this control to reflect the site specific characteristics of the precinct and ensure that development is appropriately managed in this location.

14.23 The Isbey and Collier submission seeks alignment with the provisions included in the scheduled activity. The elements of this which have resulted in amendments to the precinct from the notified version are:

(a) Better reflection of the density and location of development provided for in the concept plan including the creation of ‘sub-precincts’ to reflect the areas named A and B. Provision of controls to reflect the anticipated land use and subdivision potential within the north of the point deemed sub-precinct C;

(b) Inclusion of matters contained within the operative plan matters for discretion and assessment matters, including reference to the surrounding environment, the use of colour and light reflective materials for buildings within the precinct;

(c) Inclusion of a special information requirement to reflect the key role landscaping plays in the mitigation of effects associated with the development of the precinct.

14.24 Amendments have been made to the controls, matters for discretion and assessment to reflect these issues. In addition the matters for discretion and assessment are split into two in order to provide a set of matters applicable to building and those applicable to subdivision. While this gives rise to some duplication it better reflects the scheduled activity and more clearly differentiates those matters which are applicable to each activity. For example, the provisions of public access being a process enabled through the subdivision of land.

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

Precinct plan

Analysis

14.25 As notified the precinct plan contained two areas, A and B within the precinct and an indicative road. Refer to Figure 10 below.

Figure 10 Waimana Point precinct as notified in the PAUP

14.26 Amendments are proposed to expand area A (now referred to as sub-precinct A) to include all of the other areas of land within Lots 1, 2, 5 and a portion of Lot 4, and to develop a sub-precinct C to contain the land to the north of the point. This will better

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

enable accurate consideration of site sizes throughout the precinct and provide flexibility for the implementation of the density controls. An indicative walkway proposes access being provided via the use of ‘an appropriate legal mechanism’ such as an easement. This has been clarified within the precinct provisions so that it is clear that a separate parcel of land is not intended to be created to accommodate the public accessway, and therefore vested with Council. I understand the submitters prefer this approach. With respect to the removal of the indicative road, refer to section 14.12-14.16 above.

Additional matters

14.27 The Isbey and Collier submission also sought the inclusion of easements for the wastewater pipeline which traverse the southern portion of the site and reference to the Tonkin and Taylor geotechnical investigations which were previously undertaken for the site.

14.28 Watercare have confirmed they have no requirement for the additional protection of the trunk sewer traversing the site to be included in the precinct. There are other processes in place designed to manage works in proximity to services and as a result I do not support the inclusion of any mapping or reference to this pipeline in the precinct provisions. This is a matter which can be addressed through other means and is included as a consideration in the Auckland-wide subdivision provisions in the PAUP.

14.29 Including reference to the geotechnical report is not a matter that I have further discussed with the submitter or their representatives. As specific building platforms and accessways are not proposed in the precinct plan, the inclusion of specific geotechnical considerations associated with this level of detail has little merit. Detailed design for any accessways is still to be undertaken and given the consent requirements associated with buildings within the precinct, specific geotechnical matters may be more appropriately addressed through the consent process.

14.30 Having regard to the requirements of section 32 and 32AA of the RMA and the other statutory criteria of the RMA outlined in the evidence of Mr Duguid and the matters raised by submitters, I consider that the proposed set of provisions as marked up in Attachment C are appropriate because:

(a) They clarify the relationship between the precinct provisions and the Zone, Auckland-wide and Overlay controls;

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

(b) Remove duplication with other sections of the PAUP;

(c) Better reflect are more clearly implement the Scheduled Activity as included in the operative plan including requirements for landscaping, pedestrian access and a consideration of new buildings within the precinct.

15. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP: INDICATIVE ROAD- GOLDSWORTHY BAY

15.1 As discussed above in paragraphs 14.12-14.16 the inclusion of the requirement for public roads in the precinct plan is no longer required. Also as discussed at section 8 the land use anticipated for the Goldsworthy Bay area no longer provides for residential style development which would require additional public road access. As a result I propose the removal of the portion of indicative road shown in the ‘indicative road’ Overlay as set out in Attachment D.

15.2 No submissions have been identified seeking this deletion, however, I consider that the removal of the indicative road within the Waimana Point precinct warrants this out of scope change. This section of road, without links through the precinct will be un- connected from the proposed road network to the west and its retention in the PAUP does not, in my opinion, amount to a sustainable use of resources with respect to this portion of land.

16. CONCLUSIONS

16.1 I have considered the submissions received on the Waimana Point precinct. I consider that the objectives, policies, rules, and special information requirements, including the amendments proposed by Council as set out in Attachment C to my evidence, most appropriately meet the purpose of the RMA.

Larissa B Clarke

26 January 2016

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

ATTACHMENT A: Curriculum Vitim L Clarke

Career Summary July 2014- present Auckland Council (Plans and Planner Places, Unitary Plan Team) June 2013- July 2014 Harrison Grierson Planner October 2011-June 2013 Auckland Council Compliance officer (Northern resource consenting and compliance) March 2011- October 2011 Auckland Council Planning information (Northern resource consenting and advisor compliance): Karl Majurey Architects Limited: Personal assistant: November 2010 planning/project

manager.

Qualifications Bachelor of Planning (second class, first division Honours), University of Auckland - Graduated 2011

Affiliations New Zealand Planning Institute - Student member since 2010

- Graduate Member since 2011.

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

41 ATTACHMENT B: OPERATIVE PLAN MAP 63

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

ATTACHMENT C: TRACK CHANGES FOR WAIMANA POINT PRECINCT

Editorial notes:

Council's proposed changes are shown in strikethrough and underline

Black text changes record amendments proposed in track changes version

Yellow highlighted text changes record amendments that are considered to be outside the scope of submissions

Grey highlighted text changes records amendments that are consequential amendments from previous hearings/evidence. Any additional changes to consequential amendments are highlighted in pink.

Numbering of this precinct will be reviewed as part of the overall review of the UP numbering protocols.

PART 2 - REGIONAL AND DISTRICT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES» Chapter F: Precinct objectives and policies»

5 North» 5.51 Waimana Point

The objectives and policies of the underlying Large Lot zone apply in the following precinct unless otherwise specified. Refer to planning maps for the location and extent of the precinct. Precinct description The Waimana Point precinct is located at the northern end of the Mahurangi Peninsula, between Algies Bay and Goldsworthy Bay. The purpose of the precinct is to ensure that development will not compromise the natural features landscape values of this prominent point and to provide opportunities for public access. The precinct differs from the underlying Large Lot zone in that it introduces additional controls and requires a less dense pattern of development . Future sSubdivision and development associated services must be undertaken in a manner which reflects the location and values of the headland and accords done in accordance with the Precinct plan 1. 32 buildings or sites are provided for within the precinct. Development of buildings within the precinct are required to be limited in height, set back from the coastal edge, and include landscape planting. Subdivision is subject to additional controls within; sub precincts A and B whereas subdivision in sub precinct C is not provided for . A requirement for public access is included to provide pedestrian access to Goldsworthy Bay to the east. The underlying zoning of land within this precinct is Large Lot zone. Refer to the planning maps for the location and extent of the precinct. Objective The objectives are as listed in the Large Lot zone in addition to that specified below: The underlying Large Lot zone and Auckland-wide objectives apply in this precinct, in addition to those specified below.

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

2. Public access between the coastline in Goldsworthy Bay and Algies Bay is provided for and supported through the development of the precinct. Policy The policies are as listed in the Large Lot zone in addition to that specified below: The underlying Large Lot zone and Auckland-wide policies apply in this precinct, in addition to those specified below.

PART 3 - REGIONAL AND DISTRICT RULES» Chapter K: Precinct rules»

5 North» 5.51 Waimana Point

The activities, controls and assessment criteria in the underlying Large Lot zone and Auckland-wide rules apply in the following precinct unless otherwise specified below. Refer to the planning maps for the location and extent of the precinct.

The rules in this section implement the objectives and policies in Chapter F, section 5.51.

1. Activity table The activities in the Large Lot zone apply in the Waimana Point precinct unless otherwise specified in the activity table below.

Activity table 1 - Waimana Point Precincty Activity Activity status Sub-precinct A Sub-precinct B Sub-precinct C Development Buildings RD RD RD

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

New buildings and additions to RD RD RD buildings accommodating activities that are not defined as dwellings Accessory buildings RD RD RD Subdivision Subdivision RD RD NC

2A. Notification

1. Infringements of the development controls listed in clause 3 below; Yards and Height, considered as a restricted discretionary activities, will be subject to the normal tests for notification under the relevant sections of the RMA. 2. Land use controls 1. The land use controls in the Large Lot zone and Auckland-wide land use controls apply in the Waimana Point precinct unless otherwise specified below. 2.1 Density 1. The number of dwellings in the precinct must not exceed 32. a. Sub-precinct A shall contain no more than 15 dwellings; b. Sub-precinct B shall contain no more than 16 dwellings;

2. Development that does not comply with the clause above is a non-complying activity. 3. Development controls 1. The development controls in the Large Lot zone apply in the Waimana Point precinct unless otherwise specified below. 3.1 Yards

1. Buildings must not locate be located within 50m of the esplanade reserve legally described as Lot 2 DP 107531.

3.2 Height

1. The maximum height of any building within 50m of the ridge along the peninsula shall be 6m

4. Subdivision land use control Subdivision in the Waimana Point precinct must meet the The subdivision controls in the Auckland wide rules – subdivision apply in the Waimana Point precinct unless otherwise specified below. and the controls specified below:

4.1 Restricted discretionary activity controls

1. Subdivision must be carried out in accordance with the Precinct Plan: 1, in particular a. within area sub-precinct A, the minimum site size for subdivision is 8000m² net site area;

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

b. within area sub-precinct B, the minimum site size for subdivision is 4000m2 net site area; c. site boundaries must be in the locations identified as 'proposed cadastral/site boundaries' d. roads must be constructed in the locations identified as 'proposed roads' e. public access ways must be constructed and provided for by way of an appropriate legal mechanism, providing access between the points identified in the precinct plan in the locations identified as' proposed public access'.

2. Subdivision within the Waimana Point precinct must not result in the creation of more than 32 sites.

a. within sub-precinct A, the maximum number of sites must not exceed 15 sites in total;

b. within sub-precinct B, the maximum number of sites must not exceed 16 sites in total; Note: Sub-precinct C contains 1 site only.

3. Subdivision that does not comply with clause 1 above will be considered as a Discretionary activity; Subdivision that does not comply with clause 2 above will be considered as a Non-complying activity.

5. Assessment - Restricted discretionary activities

5.1 Matters of discretion

1A. For buildings (including accessory buildings) that are a restricted discretionary activity the council will restrict its discretion to the following matters, in addition to the matters specified in the underlying Large Lot zone and the Auckland wide rules: a. Location, extent, and composition of landscape planting including provision for maintenance. b. Siting, height, design and external appearance of buildings c. Landform modification required

1. For subdivision that is a restricted discretionary activity in the Waimana Point precinct, the council will restrict its discretion to the following matters, in addition to the matters specified in the Auckland wide rules including those in section H.5 subdivision: a. natural features impacts on the character of Waimana Point and surrounding landscape including the degree of landform modification, retention of existing vegetation required in relation to the configuration of lots and the location of building platforms.

b. walking the establishment and management of public access c. wastewater treatment d. stormwater e. the location, extent and maintenance of landscaping f. site layout including the location of access.

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

5.2 Assessment criteria

1A. For buildings (including accessory buildings) that are a restricted discretionary activity the following assessment criteria apply in addition to the matters specified in the underlying Large Lot zone and the Auckland wide rules:

a. Whether the location, prominence, and height of buildings and accessory buildings minimises their potential visual impact on ridgelines, the coastal margin and on views to the precinct from the Scandrett Regional Park, Public Roads and the coast.

b. The suitability of landscape planting to achieve:

i. protection of ridgelines from the impacts of buildings,

ii. visual separation between buildings,

iii. screening of buildings from within and outside of the precinct

iv. whether there are overall amenity benefits and restoration and enhancement of riparian margins and vegetation habitats and whether areas of indigenous coastal or riparian vegetation are retained.

c. Whether the external colour of any buildings and accessory buildings limits impacts on the coastal environment by the use of recessive and non-reflective colours.

d. Whether the design and location of buildings will require a minimum of visible modification to the natural landform, contours or ridgelines following landscaping and reinstatement of the site.

2. For subdivision that is a restricted discretionary activity in the Waimana Point precinct, the following assessment criteria apply in addition to the criteria specified in the Auckland wide rules including those in section H.5 subdivision:

1. natural features Impacts on character of Waimana Point and surrounding landscape a. The configuration of sites, access roads and riparian margins and the location and prominence of building platforms should ; minimise their potential visual impact on sensitive the ridgelines, ;minimises impacts on other sites and on views from surrounding public areas such as the Scandrett Regional Park, Algies Bay and the coast; major roads, protects and retains areas of existing indigenous coastal vegetation, heritage resources and perennial streams and ephemeral streams. b. The configuration of sites and location of building platforms sites within the sites precinct should respond to the natural contours and ridgelines to minimise the area and volume of earthworks. 2. Walking Public access a. The development proposal should make Application for subdivision within Sub- precincts A and B shall construct a public pedestrian access, in general accordance with the location represented in the precinct plan. An appropriate legal mechanism, to provide provision for public walking access around and across traversing the headland as shown on the demonstrated on Precinct Plan shall be provided1. Such a mechanism An appropriate legal mechanism must should provide for development use and maintenance of the public walking access the links.

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

3.Wastewater treatment a. The sites should be suitable for onsite disposal of wastewater and the wastewater treatment systems are a sustainable solution designed for disposal of effluent with minimum adverse effects, including effects on any adjacent houses 4. Stormwater a. Any new roads and stormwater control methods should: i. minimise modifications to existing natural drainage systems and avoid crossings and fish barriers where possible ii. achieve hydrological neutrality and minimise impervious areas to the greatest extent possible iii. employ appropriate methods to detain and treat stormwater before dispersal into waterways including appropriate use of swales. 5. Landscaping a.The landscape plan should be respond to the proposed site location and orientation taking into account appropriate to mitigate the visual impacts of subdivision and development on adjoining sites, on views from public areas such as Scandrett Regional Park, Algies Bay and the coast public roads and adverse effects on the natural character of the coast as well as opportunities to enhance the landscape amenity of the area.

b. Landscape planting should be provided to achieve: i. protection of sensitive ridgelines from the impacts of buildings ii. visual separation between buildings iii. screening of dwellings from impacting on adjoining reserve areas, other sites and on views from public roads iv. overall amenity benefits and restoration and enhancement of riparian margins and vegetation habitats.

6.Layout a. Whether it is necessary to reduce the number of sites and/or alter the layout of roads access, servicing and sites from that shown on Precinct Plan 1 to achieve better sustainable management of resources, reduced potential adverse effects of development and appropriate protection of the area’s environment and landscape amenity.

6. Assessment - Development / subdivision control infringements

6.1 Matters of discretion

The council will restrict its discretion to the general matters set out in clause 2.3 of the Auckland-wide General provisions and clause 5.4 of the Auckland-wide subdivision rules below for the relevant development control infringement

6.2 Assessment Criteria

The council will consider the assessment criteria in clause 2.3 of the Auckland-wide General provisions for development control infringements and clause 5.4 of the Auckland-wide subdivision rules for subdivision applications.

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

7. Special information requirements 1. All restricted discretionary consent applications must provide a landscape plan specifying the location, extent, composition and proposed ongoing maintenance of landscaping associated with the proposed subdivision or development within the precinct. An application for subdivision must be accompanied by: a. a sub-catchment management plan b. a wastewater assessment c. a detailed landscape plan for the area of the overlay in general accordance with Precinct Plan 1.

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

8. Precinct plan

Precinct plan 1

Sub-Precinct C

Sub-Precinct A

Sub-Precinct B

Remove indicative Road

Remove Key and replace with: ----- Indicative public pedestrian access

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)

50 ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF INDICATIVE ROAD TO BE REMOVED

Portion of ‘Indicative Road’ to be removed

Consented Subdivision R54141

081b Ak Cncl – Rodeny - Walkworth/Snells – Precinct - Waimana Point- Planning (L. Clarke)