Kawau Island Precinct (Sub-Precinct B) Under the PAUP, and the Company Also Has Properties in Harris Bay in the Sub-Precinct a (Rural and Coastal Settlements Zone)

In the matter of: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan To: The Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Under the Resource Management Act 1991 Submitters: Zakara Investments SUB 6534

TOPIC 081 PRECINCTS – KAWAU ISLAND Statement of Evidence by Dr Mark Bellingham, February 2016

SUMMARY STATEMENT

1. Zakara Investments Ltd own 927ha of land in two titles on the south-east of Kawau Island (Figure 1 below). The two properties are zoned Rural Conservation zone and Kawau Island Precinct (sub-precinct B) under the PAUP, and the Company also has properties in Harris Bay in the Sub-precinct A (Rural and Coastal Settlements Zone).

2. Zakara seeks a new “Hauraki Gulf Islands Zone” for Kawau and adjacent islands, as the planning context for all of Kawau varies so significantly from the underlying zones that the precinct fails the fundamental test in the Panel’s precinct guidelines “When the proposal changes most of the underlying zone, a new zone should be created instead of a precinct.”1

3. Zakara supports the carry-over of the Auckland District Plan Rodney Section (ADPRS) rural subdivision rules into the Unitary Plan for the Kawau Island, in the PAUP Subdivision section of the Activities Table. I note there are no rules accompanying these subdivision activities and Zakara have submitted appropriate rules.

1 Interim Guideline: Best Practice approaches to re-zoning, precincts and changes to the RUB ; Independent Hearing Panel; Dated 31 July 2015

TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 1 Figure 1: Zakara Investments properties on south-east Kawau Island

4. Zakara supports the identification of Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) on Kawau Island, and the provision for Transferable Rural Sites from the Rural Conservation zone and the Kawau Island Precinct.

5. Zakara proposes the following changes to the precinct rules and other linked sections of the PAUP:

5.1. Adaption of the ADPRS subdivision provisions for the Protection of Natural Areas, including the SEA and wetland tables (Tables 8 & 8b) from Council’s Closing Statement to the PAUP 056-057 Rural hearings,

TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 2 in place of ADPRS Rule 7.14.3.2.1 (b) and Rule 7.14.3.3.2 (b), the bush and wetland area/site tables respectively.

5.2. Confirmation that the Assessment of Native Bush and Significant Natural Areas 7.14.3.2.2(b) and Wetlands 7.14.3.3.3 rules in the RDPRS shall continue to apply to SEAs proposed for protection in the Kawau Precinct. This is necessary as no SEAs on Kawau are mapped in the PAUP maps. This provision is the same as that under the ADPRS rules and SNA identification process in Chapter 7 of the operative plan and the Appendices 7B and 7C.

5.3. A definition of SEAs (Significant Ecological Areas) in the PAUP is proposed in evidence to provide for the ecological assessment of areas not on the PAUP SEA maps and proposed for TRSS subdivision, without requiring a plan change to initiate their protection.

5.4. Mechanisms to provide for the transfer of bush and wetland protection transferable titles from the ADPRS to “Receiver” areas under the Unitary Plan.

5.5. A less restrictive activity status controlling the predominant living and visitor activities on Kawau, as recognised in the Auckland Plan (9.2.5 Desired Outcomes) “holiday and visitor-oriented activities, increasing tourism, and recreational opportunities consistent with a strong conservation ethic “.

6. The Sub-precinct B subdivision rules proposed by Zakara in submissions are the only mechanisms available (apart from public purchase) that will achieve the protection of the Kawau Island landscape and the enhancement of ecological values, with wallaby and possum control and eradication, as proposed in the precinct policies.

7. The underlying Rural Conservation subdivision rules may be appropriate for the Waitakere Ranges, but they provide no encouragement or incentives to

TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 3 Kawau landowners to protect and enhance the landscape and ecological values of their island.

8. A schedule of proposed rule changes in regard to the above is in Attachments 1-4.

INTRODUCTION

9. My name is Robert Mark Bellingham. I am a Senior Planner and Senior Ecologist with Terra Nova Planning Ltd.

10. I hold a PhD in Planning from Auckland University and I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute. I have been a practicing planning and ecological consultant for over 25 years. I have also lectured in Environmental Planning at Auckland and Massey Universities. I have served on the Ministerial Advisory Committees for the Review of Protected Area Legislation (1989-90) Oceans Policy (2002-4), and as an Auckland Regional Councilor. My full qualifications and experience is in my EIC for the 011 hearing.

11. I have read and agree to comply with the Environment Court’s Expert Witness Code of Conduct (Consolidated Practice Note 2006). This evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on some other evidence. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed.

ASSESSMENT

HAURAKI ISLANDS ZONE

12. The Kawau Island Precinct fails one significant matter in the Panel’s precinct guidelines; “When the proposal changes most of the underlying zone, a new zone should be created instead of a precinct”.

13. This is a significant factor that has not been addressed in Council’s

TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 4 evidence, as I consider that the precinct (and sub-precincts) as currently proposed in the PAUP has a completely different suite of objectives and policies to the underlying zones (Rural and Coastal Settlements and Rural Conservation).

14. Also, many of the precinct rules and activity status’ for the predominant activities on Kawau vary significantly from the two underlying zones, or are non-complying in the underlying zones (i.e. jetties, boat ramps and boat sheds). This has been compounded by the incremental changes to the underlying zones’ objectives, policies and rules, which has accentuated the differnces between the mainland Auckland parts of these zones and Kawau Island.

15. The Rural and Coastal Settlements zone rules reflect that this zone applies to mainland locations that are essentially retirement settlements area outside of the metropolitan area. The Rural Conservation Zone has been crafted primarily around environmental threats and activities in locations such as the Waitakere Ranges and Weiti Station. Neither planning context applies to Kawau, and this disparity is compounded by the Island’s unroaded state and access limited to water transport.

16. The crux is that most of the underlying zone objectives, policies and rules are not appropriate for Kawau Island. I consider a “Hauraki Gulf Islands Zone” is needed for Kawau and adjacent islands as the planning context for the eastern side of Kawau in particular, and the surrounding private islands in Kawau Bay, is fundamentally different from the Waitakere Ranges and Weiti Station (Rural Conservation). Similarly the nearby typical small coastal settlements like Buckletons and Baddeleys Beaches, or inland settlements such as Kaukapakapa or Hunua have no

TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 5 planning relationship with the dispersed coastal settlements on western Kawau.

17. The western and eastern parts of Kawau Island are more similar in planning terms to each other and the islands in Kawau Bay than mainland Auckland.

RURAL SUBDIVISION

18. The PAUP carries over the ADPRS subdivision rules into the Kawau Precinct. The precinct is referred to in the Kawau Activity Table in the Subdivision section, but the rules relating to it are absent, and these were drafted in the Zakara submission (6534-9, 10, 23, 24, 25) to fill this omission. Mr Traub’s evidence and strike-through has not engaged this issue, and proposes no changes to insert an appropriate set of rural subdivision rules and the Kawau Island Precinct Activity Table.

19. I have evaluated the subdivision rules proposed in the Zakara submission, relevant Council and other parties’ evidence for the 056-057 and 062 hearings, and particularly Council’s strike-through from the 056-057 Closing Statement. Additionally, I have also considered the Treaty Settlement subdivision provisions in associated precincts (Te Arai North & South, and Riverhead 2 & 4) with the Mana Whenua of those lands and their consultants. I have updated the rules as put forward in Zakara’s submission to reflect the significant advances and agreement that arose in the rural topic hearings. These are directly applicable to Sub-precinct B, which is about 75% of the island, and to Sub-precinct A.

20. I consider that a change to the transferable rural site subdivision process in the Auckland-wide subdivision rules H:5.2.3.3 (Attachment 1 - H:5.2.3.3.new 5 (new iii)). Also an explanation note is needed to clearly state that the TRSS provisions of the Unitary Plan apply to sites generated in the precinct from the protection of natural areas under the ADPRS.

TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 6 21. A rule reducing the Assessment Criteria applying to donor sites in TRSS is important. Council’s current practice is to have applicants demonstrate for donor sites that residential engineering and landscaping requirements can be met, when no development is occurring there, and the rural-residential subdivision is occurring on the receiving site. The changes proposed in Attachment 3 to the rural subdivision matters of discretion and assessment matters (H:5.2.3.3.4.1 & 2) should resolve this problem in the interpretation of the Unitary Plan.

SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATURAL AREAS

22. The proposed changes in my evidence updates the rules proposed in Zakara’s submissions for:

22.1. Subdivision for the Protection of Natural Areas in Kawau Sub-precinct B. This could be applied to Sub-precinct A also.

22.2. Transition of TRSS donor site entitlements from the ADPRS to the Unitary Plan. Without a transitional provision, I understand that the protective covenants linked to these donor site entitlements would lapse along with the donor sites. This would then necessitate landowners starting the consent process again under the Unitary Plan, which appears to be a significant waste of time and money for all parties involved. Council’s Northern Consenting team have advised me that they estimate there are likely to be 200-300 sites within the Rodney area.

22.3. Provide for “in situ” rural subdivision in Kawau Sub-precinct B, in its limited form has agreed in the Council’s strike-through from the 056- 057 Closing Statement.

22.4. I propose that the activity: Subdivision for significant land rehabilitation be deleted, as this provision in the ADP:RS has been unworkable through poor rule drafting.

TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 7 23. The Council has since proposed an “in situ” subdivision process (AC Closing Statement to the 056-057 Rural Hearing) and this could potentially affect all of the large properties in Kawau Sub-precinct B (ranging from 26ha to 713ha).

24. I note that the Council proposes removing the transferable title process for SEAs from Rural Conservation and consequentially the Kawau Sub-precinct B. I consider these changes to be contrary to the Panel’s Interim Guidance on Rural Subdivision (10 June 2015), in that in combination with the precinct rules, it effectively prevents subdivision in Sub-precinct B and prevents TRSS subdivision being used to protect and enhance identified significant ecological, landscape and natural character areas, which is contrary to the relevant objectives and policies.

25. I have been unable to review all of the final changes in Council’s evidence to the PAUP carry over of the ADPRS subdivision rules into precincts with Treaty Settlement agreements (Te Arai North & South, Omaha Flats, Riverhead 2 & 4). But I understand that most of these precincts have bespoke subdivision rules, different from each other and those prosed by Council in their closing statement to the 056-057 hearing.

26. The retention of Kawau as a donor area for TRSS subdivision, by carrying over the ADPRS provisions will accord with the RPS Biodiversity objectives and policies and the policies of the Kawau Precinct and sub-precincts e.g.:

RPS Objectives and Policies Objectives 1. Areas of significant indigenous biodiversity in terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal environments are protected from the adverse effects of subdivision use and development. 2. Indigenous biodiversity is maintained through protection and restoration in areas where ecological values are degraded, or where development is occurring.

TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 8 3. The protection and restoration of natural heritage features of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area and the Hauraki Gulf/Te Moana-nui o Toi/Tīkapa Moana is promoted. Policies Protecting and enhancing indigenous biodiversity 12. Protect and enhance biodiversity when undertaking new use and development by: a. using transferable rural site subdivision to protect SEAs 13. Enhance and restore indigenous biodiversity values and remedy, mitigate or offset adverse effects including by the: a. provision of further opportunities for threatened ecosystems and additional habitats for rare or threatened indigenous species e. improvement in the ecological quality of areas of indigenous biodiversity in the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area and the Gulf and its islands.

Sub-precinct B Policies 10. Limit the creation of residential sites with respect to position, number and size so as to avoid destruction of significant native bush and other natural features. 11. Limit activities which would require bush removal or the formation of public roads. IDENTIFICATION OF SEAs

27. No SEAs have been identified on the PAUP maps for Kawau Island. As SEAs have no definition as such or any overlay objectives, policies and rules that assist in defining them, an SEA within the Unitary Plan is mainly reliant on the mapped area in the plan and its listing in Appendix 5.1 or 6.1, generally linking it to SEA criteria.

28. Zakara has recently engaged an independent ecologist2 to assess the ecological significance of the indigenous forest, wildlife habitats and wetlands on their properties under the SNA criteria in the ADP: Rodney Section (Appendices 7B & 7C) and the revised PAUP SEA criteria (011 hearing strike-through). Most of the 940ha of Zakara’s Kawau properties

2 Alison Davis (Aristos Consultants Ltd) a EIANZ accredited Ecology Specialist

TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 9 qualifies under either SNA or SEA criteria. The Rodney DP failed to assess SNAs on Kawau, but the SNA criteria and a provision for independent SNA assessment allows suitable areas that were missed by Council or have improved since Council’s assessment to qualify.

29. The SNA assessment for the Submitter’s property under the ADPRS then has led to a Protected Natural Area subdivision application for its 146ha Emu Point property on Bon Accord Harbour. The property is almost entirely indigenous forests and shrublands, with populations of North Island brown kiwi and North Island weka, and both species are nationally threatened.

30. The problem on Kawau is that if landowners like Zakara wish to have their properties identified as a SEA, then they will need to seek a private plan change (after two years), or wait for the Council to remedy this obvious deficiency in the plan maps as proposed by Mr Traub (15.5). On past performance I suspect this will take many years.

31. Zakara has proposed that a provision of the ADPRS be carried over to resolve this and promote SEA identification and protection on Kawau. A SEA assessment by a suitably accredited ecologist would satisfy the SEA requirements in the Unitary Plan, and particularly the Auckland- wide Vegetation Management rules H:4.3 and the Subdivision rules H:5.2.3.3. I have attached a proposed SEA definition which would satisfy this matter (Attachment A), without altering the thrust of agreed SEA provisions in the 011, 023, 056-057, and other hearings where a lack of SEA definition has been raised.

TRANSFER OF TRSS SITE ENTITLEMENTS FROM ADPRS TO THE UNITARY PLAN

32. Under the operative Rodney Plan subdivision rules, sites can be transferred from Kawau to Countryside Living Town zones. But the Auckland Council planners have allowed a two-stage TDR process to operate in Rodney as larger donor sites can accrue 30-50 transferable sites (as opposed to 1 or 2

TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 10 under the Franklin TDR process), and there are currently no sites left to receive donor sites in Rodney. Under the Rodney TDR process, transferable donor sites can be “parked” until receiver sites become available and Council keeps records of the donor sites being held by landowners.

33. I propose the carry-over of these donor sites into the Unitary Plan through the provisions I proposed in the 057 hearings (Attachment B).

34. Currently there is no provision to carry-over these subdivided donor sites into the receiver areas in the PAUP. I consider that Council’s PAUP rural planners may have been unfamiliar with the operation of the Rodney TDR process and that there are likely to be approximately 200-300 unassigned donor transferable sites.

35. I consider these rules may also be applicable to Sub-precinct A, where the application of TRSS could be beneficial in shifting development from a small number of larger, unroaded sites away from the coast and provide opportunities for the protection of SEA values on these sites.

ACTIVITY TABLE FOR KAWAU PRECINCT

36. I have reviewed the various Activity Tables applying to or proposed for Kawau Island, being:

 Rural & Coastal Settlements,

 Rural Conservation,

 Revised tables from the residential and rural hearings,

 Council’s evidence to 081b and

 Zakara’s PAUP submission.

I consider that the basis and reasons for Zakara’s submission that the rules are generally excessive in the Kawau planning context, and seeking changes, still apply.

TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 11 37. The island has a declining population, declining property prices and more than a third of the island properties are on the real estate market at any time. I consider that if the Auckland Plan objectives for the Islands zone are to be met for Kawau, then controls on residential buildings, visitor activities and accessory buildings and for these activities need to be lessened.

38. Dwellings: Zakara welcomes the permitted activity for dwellings in Sub- precinct B (from Discretionary) but building a dwelling is still a Restricted Discretionary Activity. Zakara seeks the removal of the rules as they apply additional and unnecessary rule overlays:

 Buildings or accessory buildings for any permitted activity in this table;

 Buildings or accessory buildings for any restricted discretionary activity in this table;

 Buildings or accessory buildings for any discretionary activity in this table;

Some larger properties house caretakers and long-term contractors on site, this is essential for pest and property management in this remote location. These would currently be a non-complying activity in both Sub-precincts (from the underlying zones) and I consider that they should be a Permitted activity at least in Sub-precinct B.

39. Camping Grounds: Their proposed removal from the Activity Table will change their status to non-complying in Sub-precinct A, and restricted discretionary in Sub-precinct B. I consider that restricted discretionary would be appropriate across the entire Precinct.

40. Commerce: The predominant commercial activities, visitor accommodation, visitor activities. Zakara sought restricted discretionary for visitor accommodation and I consider this is still appropriate for the

TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 12 entire precinct. But for visitor activities the underlying zone status is non- complying in Sub-precinct A and Discretionary in Sub-precinct B. If landowners wanted a walking track across part of the island this would be a non-complying activity in the settlement areas. I consider that Restaurants and Cafes are Non-complying in both Sub-precincts (from the underlying zones) and should be provided for at least in Sub-precinct A.

41. I have attached an amended strike-through including these activities - Attachment C.

Note: underline = new activity, bold= new activity status, Councl’s strike- throughs adopted unless noted

TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 13

ATTACHMENT : TRSS Rules (Note: underline = 057 change in evidence, double underline=Zakara change, strike- through=057 change in evidence, double strike-through =Zakara change).

Proposed strike-through amendment to Auckland –wide Subdivision Rural Rule H:2.3.3.4 (As amended to Rule 5 on page 38 of the strike-through in the AC Closing Statement to the 056-057 Rural hearing) 45. Transferable rural site subdivision: Controls for transferable rural site subdivision through amalgamation of donor sites a. Prior to amalgamation of donor sites, all donor sites must possess all of the following elements as applicable: i) Donor sites must be abutting and one of the two donor sites must be vacant (i.e. not contain a dwelling) ii. be located on land within any one or more of the following zones: within the Rural Production, Mixed Rural, Rural Conservation or Rural Coastal zones • Rural Production • Mixed Rural • Rural Coastal • Rural Conservation • Future Urban ii contain entirely at least 90% elite land or at least 90 % prime land (i.e. Classes 1-3). iii have a net site area of between greater than 9,9999m2 for Kawau Island Subprecinct B or the Rural Conservation Zone. iv have been either: in existence; or shown on an approved scheme plan of subdivision which would, if given effect to, create sites under an Auckland Council legacy district plan that could become a TRSS donor site under these rules. v. ii. not be comprised of part or all of a closed road, road severance, or designation vi.iii. have a minimum net site area of one hectare (as detailed above) unless the site is one that has been created by a subdivision consent granted by the territorial local authority (in which case no minimum net site area applies) vii. iv. for every two donor sites being amalgamated, once amalgamated, not result in more than one dwelling per 40ha v.either be: • separately recorded on the Council Valuation Roll and exist when the application is made, or

TOPIC 081 Precincts Kawau EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham FEBRUARY 2016

• shown on an approved scheme plan of subdivision which would, if given effect to, create sites that could be used under these rules.

TOPIC 081 Precincts Kawau EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham FEBRUARY 2016

ATTACHMENT 2: New Subdivision rules for Sub-precinct B (K:5.20.4.2) (PAUP Tables 8 & 8b inserted, text changes underlined and struck-through)

4.2.1 Subdivision for the protection of natural areas 1. For any subdivision for the protection of natural areas the following applies: a. The subdivision provisions in clause 3.1.1 and clause 3.1.2 below can be utilised in combination or individually. Where these clauses are used in combination the application must show that there is no overlap of the areas to be protected. b. The subdivision must meet the criteria in appendix 11.5.9.4. 4.2.1.2 Subdivision of sites for the protection of native bush and Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) 1. The area for subdivision must be located within a SEA or meet the criteria in appendix 11.5.9.1. 2. Number of sites a. The number of rural residential sites created from protecting SEA’s or native bush meeting the criteria in appendix 11.5.9.1 must not exceed the limits specified below:

Table 1 (Replaced with Table 8 and 8b (AC Closing Statement strike-through version)

Table 8: Maximum number of new sites for transfer from the protection of SEA Protection of SEA

A (in ha) B (in ha) C (in ha) D

Total minimum Total minimum Total minimum Maximum number area of SEA area of SEA area of SEA of new sites for indigenous wetland required threatened transfer that can vegetation to be legally ecosystems or be created in required to be protected to threatened species accordance with legally protected produce no more to produce no columns A and B to produce no than the number more than the and C combined. more than the of new sites in number of new number of new column D sites in column D sites in column D

5.0ha 0.5ha plus a 20m 3.0 1 buffer

10ha to 15ha 1.0ha plus a 20m - 2

TOPIC 081 Precincts Kawau EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham FEBRUARY 2016

buffer

15 plus ha to 20ha - - 3

For every 10 ha - - 1 new site for increment of SEA every 10ha of (indigenous SEA (indigenous vegetation) which vegetation) - with is protected no limit. beyond the protection of 20ha

7. In-Situ (non-transferable) Subdivision Protecting or Restoring SEA The following controls apply to in-situ non-transferable subdivision protecting or restoring SEA (consisting of Indigenous vegetation) a. The maximum number of new sites from the protection or restoration of SEA (consisting of indigenous vegetation) shall not exceed those in Table 8b.

Table 8b: Maximum number of new sites from protection and restoration of SEA (consisting of indigenous vegetation) In-situ (non-transferable) Subdivision Protecting or Restoring SEA (consisting of Indigenous Vegetation)

A (in ha) B

1. Total minimum area of existing SEA Maximum number of new sites that can (consisting of indigenous vegetation) be created in accordance with column A. required to be legally protected; or 2. Total area of restoration planting to be added to an existing SEA (consisting of indigenous vegetation)

5ha 1

10 to 15ha 2

Greater than 15ha 3

4.2.1.3. Location of SEAs or native bush and specified building area a. The SEA or native bush must be entirely within an individual parent site. b. If the SEA or native bush is within a rural residential site:

TOPIC 081 Precincts Kawau EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham FEBRUARY 2016

i. any land to be used for building and access must not compromise any native vegetation ii. if there is less than 1500m² available for building or access that is not covered in native trees, the maximum combined size of the specified building area and any access ways is 1500m2 4. Area to be protected a. All native bush and SEA on the parent site, up to the upper limit specified in the relevant row of the table at clause 3.1.1.1, must be protected. 5. Minimum site size a. The minimum rural residential site size is 1ha where the protected native bush or SEA sits within the balance site. b. The minimum rural residential site size is 2.15ha (comprised of a 2ha protected area and a 1500m2 specified building area and access way) where the protected native bush or SEA is to be contained within the new rural residential site. c. The minimum balance site size is 1ha. 6. Maximum site size a. The maximum rural residential site size is 2ha where the protected native bush or SEA remains on the balance site. b. If the protected native bush or SEA does not remain on the parent site, the maximum rural residential site size is the protected area plus the specified building area. 7. Access and frontage a. Each site must have a minimum frontage of 6m. Up to five sites may gain frontage over a jointly owned access site, or right of way at least 6m wide. 8. Design a.If more than 5 rural residential sites are created, they must be clustered in one or more groups. b. Each group must share an access from a road, accessway or the coast. c. Specified building areas and access ways must not be located within a SEA, native bush or wetland. d. Each rural residential site must comply with the riparian margin protection standards in appendix 11.5.9.3. 4.2.2.1 Subdivision of sites for protection of wetlands 1. All applications based on protecting significant wetlands meet the acceptance criteria set out in the guidelines in appendix 11.5.9.2. 2. Number of sites

TOPIC 081 Precincts Kawau EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham FEBRUARY 2016

a. The number of rural residential sites created from protecting wetlands must not exceed the limits specified below:

Table 2 (Replaced with Table 8 and 8b above (AC Closing Statement strike-through version))

3. Location of protected wetland, and site for dwelling a. The area of the wetland to be protected must either: i. remain entirely within the balance site or ii. be contained entirely within the rural residential site, provided that the building area for building and access (1500m²), must not require or result in the removal or destruction of native bush and trees or compromise in any manner any other feature to be protected as far as practicable. 4. Minimum site size a. The minimum rural residential site size is 1ha where the protected wetland is within the balance site, or where the protected wetland is to be contained within the rural residential site. b. The minimum balance site size is 1ha. 5. Maximum site size a. The maximum rural residential site size is 2ha where the protected wetland is to remain on the parent site. b. Where the protected wetland is to be contained within the rural residential site, the maximum site size is the greater of: i. the size of the protected area together with a 1500m² specified building area and access area or ii.1ha. 6. Access and frontage a. Clause 3.1.1.6 above applies. 7. Design a. Clause 3.1.1.7 above applies

TOPIC 081 Precincts Kawau EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham FEBRUARY 2016

Attachment 3: Rural Subdivision Matters of Discretion & Assessment Criteria Insert new Matters of Discretion rule: H:5.2.3.3.4.1 (7) Fencing and legal protection for TRSS subdivision donor sites. Insert new Assessment Criteria rule: H:5.2.3.3.4.2 (7) Fencing: Whether any fencing of SEA or wetland areas, and revegetation areas, undertaken to an appropriate standard to be stock proof, around the perimeter of the area. This can be waived, where it can be shown that: (i) physical obstacles such as cliffs or rivers already provide sufficient protection from stock and animals; (ii) fencing would detrimentally affect the area to be protected; (iii) the natural features is of a type that would not be damaged by stock and animals and fencing otherwise unnecessarily. Legal protection: Whether any area of natural significance, wetlands, bush and wildlife habitat are legally and physically permanently protected as part of the subdivision.

(Note: text changes underlined and struck-through).

TOPIC 081 Precincts Kawau EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham FEBRUARY 2016

ATTACHMENT 4: SEA definition Significant Ecological Area (SEA) An area of indigenous vegetation and/or indigenous fauna habitat that meet at least one of the SEA criteria or sub-criteria in Appendix 5.1 (Terrestrial) or Appendix 6.1 (Coastal). Includes:  Areas listed in Appendices 5.1 and 6.1 and mapped on the Unitary Plan map SEA overlays  Areas assessed as meeting the SEA criteria or sub-criteria in Appendix 5.1 (Terrestrial) or Appendix 6.1 (Coastal) by an accredited ecologist and accepted by Council as part of a consent application or plan change application. (Note: all new text).

TOPIC 081 Precincts Kawau EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham FEBRUARY 2016

Attachment 5: Revised Kawau Precinct Activity Table Note: underline = new activity, bold= new activity status, Councl’s strike-throughs adopted unless noted.

Activity Activity status

Sub-precinct Sub-precinct B A

Boat building, repairs and servicing RD RD

Buildings or accessory buildings for any permitted activity in this table P RD

Buildings or accessory buildings for any restricted discretionary activity in RD D this table

Buildings or accessory buildings for any discretionary activity in this table D D

Buildings and facilities on shore associated with water based tourist RD RD activities

Earthworks P P

Greenhouses up to 50m2 P P

Greenhouses > 50m2 RD RD

Mineral exploration Pr NC

Mineral extraction activities Pr NC

Mineral prospecting Pr NC

Parks field structures P P

Vegetation alteration and removal P P

Commerce

Tourist and visitor activities P P

Retail up to a maximum floor area of 200m2 RD RD

Restaurants accommodating a maximum of 50 people RD RD*

Restaurants accommodating over 50 people NC NC

TOPIC 081 Precincts Kawau EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham FEBRUARY 2016

Community

Care centres P P

Community facilities accommodating a maximum of 100 people D NC

Community facilities accommodating more than 100 people NC NC

Healthcare services D NC

Organised sport and recreation P P

Informal recreation and leisure P P

Temporary activities P P

Residential

Dwellings P P

Home occupations P P

Visitor accommodation accommodating a maximum of 30 people, but RD RD excluding camping grounds

Visitor accommodation accommodating over 30 people RD RD

Camping grounds (note struck-through in Council evidence) RD RD

Retirement villages P NC

Rural

Rural commercial services excluding animal breeding or boarding D D

Animal breeding or boarding NC NC

Forestry P P

Conservation forestry P P

Worker accommodation P

Subdivision

Subdivision for the protection of natural areas RD RD

Subdivision for significant land rehabilitation

TOPIC 081 Precincts Kawau EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham FEBRUARY 2016

Subdivision for public open space and reserves, and network utilities C C

Subdivision of low intensity settlement sites RD NC

Transferable rural site subdivision (from Kawau Id to mainland Auckland) RD RD

Boundary adjustments and boundary relocations RD RD

All other subdivision NC NC

TOPIC 081 Precincts Kawau EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham FEBRUARY 2016