Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
1 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
1 Contents 2 Section 6 Biodiversity and Significant Natural Areas ...... 6 2.1 Policy Direction ...... 6 2.1.1 Resource Management ...... 6 2.1.2 Central Government Policy ...... 7 2.1.3 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement ...... 8 2.1.4 Regional Policy Statement ...... 9 2.1.5 Thames-Coromandel District Council Biodiversity Strategy ...... 25 2.1.6 Council Directive ...... 26 2.1.7 2 March 2011 – Full Council meeting ...... 26 2.1.8 18 – 19 April 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting ...... 26 2.1.9 12 September 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting...... 27 2.2 Monitoring and Technical Reports ...... 27 2.2.1 Conservation Covenants ...... 27 2.2.2 Significant natural areas...... 29 2.2.3 Threatened Land Environments ...... 33 2.2.4 TCDC District Plan SNA Management Prioritisation Analysis ...... 33 2.2.5 Further Refinement of Prioritised Areas and Threshold Matrix ...... 38 3 Section 7 Coastal Environment ...... 40 1.1 Coastal Policy Statement policies ...... 40 3.1 Regional Policy Statement ...... 41 3.2 Council direction ...... 44 3.2.1 2 March 2011 – Full Council meeting ...... 44 3.2.2 18 – 19 April 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting ...... 44 3.2.3 18 September 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting...... 45 3.3 Monitoring and technical reports ...... 45 3.3.1 Coromandel Coastal Zone review ...... 45 3.3.2 Ecological assessment of natural character ...... 46 3.3.3 Waikato Perception Survey 2010 – Thames-Coromandel report ...... 46 3.3.4 Consolidated Landscape Assessment, Stephen Brown, 2011 ...... 47 3.3.5 3.4 Iwi management plan input – Whaia te Mahere Taiao a Hauraki Tangaroa Rerenga Wai Tai ...... 47 3.3.6 Additional Refinement of the Coastal Environment Line ...... 47 4 Section 8 Historic Heritage – Archaeology, Built Form, Sites of Significance to Maori ...... 48
2 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
4.1 Statutory Considerations ...... 48 4.2 The Resource Management Act ...... 48 4.3 Coastal Policy Statement ...... 49 4.4 Regional Policy Statement ...... 49 4.5 Council direction ...... 51 4.5.1 18 February 2011 – District Plan Review Committee ...... 51 4.5.2 2 March 2011 – Full Council meeting ...... 51 4.5.3 4 – 6 April 2011 – District Plan Review Committee ...... 51 4.5.4 Heritage Strategy 2008 ...... 52 4.6 Iwi management plan input – Whaia te Mahere Taiao a Hauraki ...... 52 4.7 Monitoring and Technical Reports ...... 52 4.7.1 Monitoring built heritage outcomes ...... 52 4.7.2 Heritage review project – summary report ...... 54 4.7.3 Heritage review project – thematic mapping and history ...... 54 4.7.4 Heritage review project – community board heritage studies ...... 54 4.7.5 Historic heritage and character areas ...... 55 4.7.6 Māori heritage of Thames ...... 55 4.7.7 Māori cultural impact assessment – Thames to Kopu Structure Plan ...... 56 4.7.8 Māori cultural impact assessment – Proposed Whangamatā Harbour Walkway ...... 56 4.7.9 Archaeological sites and areas ...... 56 4.8 Issues identified and recommendations ...... 57 5 Section 9 Landscape and Natural Character ...... 61 5.1 Coastal Policy Statement ...... 61 5.2 Regional Policy Statement ...... 63 5.3 Council direction ...... 64 5.3.1 2 March 2011 – Full Council meeting ...... 64 5.3.2 18 – 19 April 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting ...... 64 5.3.3 12 September 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting...... 66 5.4 Iwi management plan input – Whaia te Mahere Taiao a Hauraki ...... 66 5.5 Monitoring and Technical Reports ...... 66 5.5.1 Ecological assessment of natural character ...... 66 5.5.2 Coromandel Peninsula landscape assessment ...... 66 5.5.3 Waikato Perception Survey 2010 – Thames-Coromandel report ...... 67 5.5.4 Consolidated Landscape Assessment, Stephen Brown, 2012 ...... 68
3 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
5.5.5 Refinement of Maps ...... 68 5.5.6 High Natural Character –other Natural Character ...... 69 6 Section 10 Natural Hazards ...... 69 6.1 Resource Management Act ...... 69 6.2 Coastal Policy Statement ...... 70 6.3 Regional Policy Statement ...... 72 6.4 Council direction ...... 75 6.4.1 2 March 2011 – Full Council meeting ...... 75 6.4.2 4 – 6 April 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting ...... 75 6.4.3 18 – 19 April 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting ...... 76 6.5 Monitoring and Technical Reports ...... 76 6.5.1 Coastal hazard development setbacks ...... 76 6.5.2 Coastal hazard primary development setback review ...... 77 6.5.3 Future coastal erosion line review ...... 78 6.5.4 Integrating tsunami inundation modelling into land use planning...... 78 6.5.5 Hydrodynamic modelling of Whitianga tsunami overwash ...... 79 6.5.6 River flood modelling ...... 79 6.5.7 Peer Reviews of Future Coastal Protection Line ...... 80 Staff commissioned two reviews of the Future Coastal Protection Line during the Draft Plan to Proposed Plan process. The peer reviews were undertaken by Tonkin and Taylor and Dr. Mike Hilton of the University of Otago. The conclusions of the reviews (in brief) are: ...... 80 Tonkin and Taylor ...... 80 6.5.8 Response to Peer Reviews ...... 81 7 PC 3 – Variation 24 ...... 86 7.1 Statutory Directive ...... 86 7.1.1 Resource Management Act ...... 86 7.1.2 Waikato Regional Policy Statement ...... 86 7.2 Background Flooding Issues ...... 87 7.2.1 River Flood Modelling and Flood Hazard Categories ...... 88 7.2.2 Proposed Provisions ...... 89 7.2.3 Protection Works Proposed/Underway ...... 89 7.2.4 Flooding – the Wider Context ...... 89 8 Section 11 Significant Trees ...... 90 8.1 Statutory Background ...... 90
4 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
8.1.1 Resource Management Act 1991 ...... 90 8.1.2 Reserves Act 1977 ...... 92 8.1.3 The Proposed Regional Policy Statement 2010 (RPS) ...... 93 8.2 Council direction ...... 94 8.2.1 4 – 6 April 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting ...... 94 8.3 Monitoring and Technical Reports ...... 94 8.3.1 Heritage Strategy ...... 94 8.3.2 Tree Strategy ...... 95 8.3.3 Notable Trees Review Project ...... 95 8.3.4 Arborist STEM Assessments ...... 97
5 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
2 Section 6 Biodiversity and Significant Natural Areas
2.1 Policy Direction1
2.1.1 Resource Management The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), with its emphasis on sustainable management, means the Council has a responsibility to provide for the protection of areas of “significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna” as a matter of national importance (section 6(c), Resource Management Act 1991). The Council must give primacy to the provisions of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991, in particular Section 6(c): “the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna” (emphasis added). Because an area is “significant” based upon the evidence of scientific research, in terms of its vegetation and/or fauna habitat, this does not automatically lead to the conclusion that no activity can take place on the site. Rather, the Council may wish to exercise its statutory obligations to place controls on an activity and use of an area through the resource consent process, in order to maintain and protect the significant natural values of the District. Other parts of the Resource Management Act of direct relevance are:
Section 5(2)(a); “to sustain the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the foreseeable needs of future generations”;
Section 5 (2)(b); “to safeguard the life supporting capacity of ecosystems”; Section 7(d); “the intrinsic values of ecosystems”; and
Section 7(g); “any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources.” Section 6 requires that every policy, plan and resource consent must ensure that the matters of natural character, landscapes, biodiversity, public access, Maori culture and heritage, and historical heritage are recognised and provided for. It does not mean that the matter can just simply be considered and then discarded2. This applies even to relatively benign consented activities, such as building a farm bridge, and also to permitted activities such as fertiliser application or maintaining a farm race. While the onus is on statutory authorities to meet the requirements of Section 6, in practice any application for a resource consent cannot be in breach of the provisions of Section 6. An example is the application for the wind farm at Awhitu.3 One of the reasons this application was opposed was “landscape pollution”. While the Environment Court granted the consent, the cost of the opposition to the applicant would have been in the tens of thousands of dollars. In an Environment Court case regarding the further development of a sheep and beef farm in Gisborne, the Court found that the protection of indigenous vegetation outweighed any district, regional or national economic benefits that would be derived from the farm development.4
1 Kessels and Associates have kindly provided a draft report they did for Waipa District Council on the topic, some of the information in section 2.1.1 , 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 are based on this draft report. 2 Bleakley v ERMA [2001] NZLR 213. 3 Genesis Power Ltd v Franklin District Council (A148/2005) 4 Pine ridge
6 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
The decision-making functions of the RMA are undertaken by regional and district councils. District councils are responsible for the effects of land use, including subdivision5 and, as a result, have a key role in ensuring that the statutory requirements of section 6 are met, using methods such as rules. The RMA amendments of 2002 included new functions for regional and district councils – these were the protection, including methods, of indigenous biodiversity6 as well as the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystems in terms of water bodies and coastal water7. Both these subsections are closely aligned to section 6(c), which requires the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna. It is reasonable to assume that while district councils will remain the lead agency with regard to section 6(c), regional councils will take a greater role in the identification and protection of sites as a result of these changes.
2.1.2 Central Government Policy Biodiversity has a high profile in terms of policy input and legal interpretation, both nationally and internationally. Biodiversity loss is described in the State of New Zealand Environment Report8 as our most pervasive environmental issue. New Zealand’s response to this and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity was to develop the Biodiversity Strategy9 released in February 2000. The primary goal of the Strategy is to “turn the tide” on the decline of our biodiversity and to maintain and restore a full range of our remaining natural habitats and ecosystems and viable populations of all native species. The Strategy sets out a range of actions that are needed to initiate or improve progress to achieve these goals. The key point highlighted in the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (p. 126) is that the conservation of all New Zealand's significant indigenous natural vegetation requires protection on both public and private land. New Zealand's public conservation land does not contain the full range of our ecosystems. How we manage the ecosystems and indigenous species outside of protected areas, on crown land not managed for conservation purposes, i.e. private land and in freshwater environments is critical to halt the decline of New Zealand's biodiversity. Distinctive habitats and ecosystems in these areas continue to be at risk of declining condition and loss of their indigenous components. To address the issue of the decline of indigenous biodiversity the Government has put together a broad package of initiatives, including:
The biodiversity condition and advice funds;
Increased government funding for national programmes to assist landowners and increase the extent of formally protected areas (Nature Heritage Fund, Nga Whenua Rahui, and the QEII National Trust covenanting programme);
Enhancing capacity in local government;
Amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), which clarify the lead role of regional councils and the important role of territorial authorities in biodiversity conservation; and
5 Section 31 of the RMA. 6 Section 30(1)(ga). 7 Section 30(1)(c)(iiia). 8 Ministry for the Environment, The State of New Zealand’s Environment, 1997 9 Department of Conservation, The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy Our Chance to Turn the Tide, February 2000.
7 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
The preparation of a draft National Policy Statement on Biodiversity by the Ministry for the Environment has been put on hold at present. Nonetheless, ecologists have been developing suitable national guidelines for determining ecological significance and MfE have developed Environmental Domain guidelines for councils to use in formulation of district plan policy. A specific focus of government biodiversity policy has been that which occurs on private land. There is some ecological justification for this. Almost half of the public conservation land managed by DoC occurs in two mountainous environments that together comprise slightly less than 20% of New Zealand's total area. By contrast coastal plains and lowland and hill country environments are poorly represented in public conservation land. QEII, Nga Whenua Rahui and DoC covenants on private land cover 0.6% of New Zealand's total area and often protect the environments that are under- represented in public conservation lands. For this reason they make an important contribution to New Zealand's effort to maintain and restore a full range of remaining natural habitats and ecosystems, for example, 50% of the current protection for three land environments (inclining lowlands of the northern two-thirds of the North Island) is on private land (Walker et all, 2005). In 2000 a group led by John Kneebone produced the report “BioWhat”10 specifically looking at mechanisms to protect and preserve biodiversity on private land. While the report acknowledged that regulation had a place in biodiversity protection, it was forthrightly suggested that non- regulatory methods should be used first. This was on the basis that non-regulatory methods which encourage and support private landowners and would be more likely to produce better outcomes for biodiversity. However a review of councils has shown that 93% use regulatory methods as the primary means of achieving the requirements of Section 6(c).11
2.1.3 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement Relevant Policies 6: Activities in the coastal environment (1) In relation to the coastal environment: where appropriate, buffer areas and sites of significant indigenous biological diversity, or historic heritage value. 11: Indigenous biological diversity (biodiversity) To protect indigenous biological diversity in the coastal environment: (a)avoid adverse effects of activities on: (i) indigenous taxa that are listed as threatened or at risk in the New Zealand Threat Classification System lists; (ii) taxa that are listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources as threatened; (iii) indigenous ecosystems and vegetation types that are threatened in the coastal
10 Ministry for the Environment, Final Report of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Biodiversity on Private Land, August 2000. 11 A Snapshot of council effort to address biodiversity on private land: Report Back to Councils. Ministry for the Environment, 2004.
8 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix environment, or are naturally rare; (iv) habitats of indigenous species where the species are at the limit of their natural range, or are naturally rare; (v) areas containing nationally significant examples of indigenous community types; and (vi) areas set aside for full or partial protection of indigenous biological diversity under other legislation; and (b) avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects of activities on: (i) areas of predominantly indigenous vegetation in the coastal environment; (ii) habitats in the coastal environment that are important during the vulnerable life stages of indigenous species; (iii) indigenous ecosystems and habitats that are only found in the coastal environment and are particularly vulnerable to modification, including estuaries, lagoons, coastal wetlands, dunelands, intertidal zones, rocky reef systems, eelgrass and saltmarsh; (iv) habitats of indigenous species in the coastal environment that are important for recreational, commercial, traditional or cultural purposes; (v) habitats, including areas and routes, important to migratory species; and (vi) ecological corridors, and areas important for linking or maintaining biological values identified under this policy.
2.1.4 Regional Policy Statement Relevant Policies 4.2.13 Indigenous biodiversity In carrying out their resource management functions, local authorities shall maintain or enhance indigenous biodiversity. Territorial authorities shall be responsible for the control of the use of land to maintain indigenous biodiversity, excluding land in the coastal marine area and the beds of lakes and rivers, which shall be the responsibility of the Waikato Regional Council. 11.1.1 Maintain or enhance indigenous biodiversity Regional and district plans shall maintain or enhance indigenous biodiversity, including by: a) providing for positive indigenous biodiversity outcomes when managing activities including subdivision and land use change; b) having regard to any local indigenous biodiversity strategies developed under Method 11.1.10 [local indigenous biodiversity strategies]; and
9 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix c) creating buffers, linkages and corridors to protect and support indigenous biodiversity values, including esplanade strips to maintain and enhance indigenous biodiversity values. 11.1.2 Adverse effects Regional and district plans shall recognise that adverse effects on indigenous biodiversity within terrestrial, freshwater and coastal environments are cumulative and may include: a) fragmentation and isolation of indigenous ecosystems and habitats; b) reduction in the extent and quality of indigenous ecosystems and habitats; c) loss of corridors or connections linking indigenous ecosystems and habitat fragments or between ecosystems and habitats; ca) the loss of ecological sequences; d) loss or disruption to migratory pathways in water, land or air; e) effects of changes to hydrological flows, water levels, and water quality on ecosystems; f) loss of buffering of indigenous ecosystems; g) loss of ecosystem services; h) loss, damage or disruption to ecological processes, functions and ecological integrity; i) changes resulting in an increased threat from animal and plant pests; j) effects which contribute to a cumulative loss or degradation of indigenous habitats and ecosystems; k) noise, visual and physical disturbance on indigenous species, particularly within the coastal environment; and l) loss of habitat that supports or provides a key life-cycle function for indigenous species listed as 'Threatened' or 'At Risk' in the New Zealand Threat Classification System lists. 11.1.3 Remediation and mitigation Regional and district plans shall require that where loss or degradation of indigenous biodiversity is authorised, adverse effects are remedied or mitigated (whether by onsite or offsite methods). Remediation or mitigation must result in no net loss of the region's indigenous biodiversity. Methods include: aa) replacing the indigenous biodiversity that has been lost or degraded a) replacing like-for-like habitats or ecosystems (including being of at least equivalent size or ecological value); b) the legal and physical protection of existing habitat; or c) the creation of new habitat. Remediation or mitigation may occur off site if improved ecological outcomes will result.
10 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
11.1.7 Plan development Local authorities should consider (including when developing regional and district plans): a) offering incentives for indigenous biodiversity enhancements or protection; and b) using financial contributions and other economic instruments to maintain or enhance indigenous biodiversity. 11.1.9 Funding and assistance When preparing long-term plans and annual plans, local authorities should ensure that appropriate funding is provided for the protection and enhancement of indigenous biodiversity. This could include provision for: a) developing and implementing complementary biodiversity advocacy and protection programmes (including the development of on-site biodiversity plans) focused on landowner liaison and community partnership; b) the promotion of voluntary legal protection, restoration or enhancement of indigenous biodiversity, including through the operation of contestable funds, incentives, rates relief and grants; c) land acquisition; and d) biodiversity restoration and enhancement on public land such as local purpose reserves 11.1.9 Threatened species information Local authorities should liaise with the Department of Conservation and other relevant agencies to ensure location and distribution data for species listed as 'Threatened' or 'At Risk' in the New Zealand Threat Classification System lists are available when preparing and implementing regional or district plans. 11.2.2 Protect significant areas Regional and district plans shall: a) protect and where appropriate enhance areas of significant indigenous biodiversity; b) require that activities avoid the loss or degradation of areas of significant indigenous biodiversity, in preference to remedying or mitigating adverse effects; and c) require that any unavoidable adverse effects on areas of significant indigenous biodiversity are effectively remedied or mitigated through processes undertaken in the following priority: (i) replace like-for-like habitats or ecosystems (including being of at least equivalent size or ecological value); (ii) involve the creation of new habitat; (iii) develop or enhance areas of alternative habitat supporting similar ecology/significance; or (iv) involve the legal and physical protection of existing habitat. Any such remediation or mitigation must result in no net loss of the region's indigenous biodiversity and should relate as a first priority to the indigenous biodiversity that has been lost or degraded by the consented activity (whether by on-site or off-site methods).
11 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
11.2.3 Assess significance Where regional and district plans require an assessment of the significant indigenous vegetation and the significant habitats of indigenous fauna that have not been identified as significant indigenous biodiversity, the criteria in section 11A shall be used. The identification of the characteristics of any area will be undertaken prior to any modification of the area or site and will inform the decision making process as to whether the proposed activity or modification is appropriate. 11.3.1 Working with tangata whenua Local authorities should recognise tangata whenua relationships with indigenous biodiversity. This could include involving tangata whenua when identifying opportunities for re-creating habitat and providing opportunities for tangata whenua involvement in implementing indigenous biodiversity strategies. The Operative Waikato Regional Policy Statement (RPS), Section 3: Significant Resource Management Issues, Objectives, Policies and Methods, outlines WRC guidance to councils for indigenous flora and fauna habitats. The RPS recognises the following areas as being of regional importance in the Coromandel:
“The Coromandel Peninsula has significant areas of high quality forest, such as the Waitekauri forest, regenerating native forest, diverse coast and marine areas. The entire catchments of many streams in the Coromandel State Forest Park are amongst the most pristine in the Region, and are very important as habitat for native fish and the endangered brown teal. The Moehau ecological area in particular, supports an almost complete altitudinal sequence of plant and animal communities from near sea level to sub-alpine conditions. It is home to a number of rare or endangered endemic species (e.g. land snails, Archey's frog). The Coromandel estuaries are important ecological habitats, for example the Wharekawa Sandspit Wildlife Refuge is habitat for approximately 28 bird species. The RPS focuses on three key policies in relation to its biodiversity conservation obligations: Policy One: Avoid, Remedy or Mitigate Adverse Effects on Biodiversity;
Policy Two: Regionally Consistent Criteria For Use When Identifying Significant Areas; and Policy Three: Protection and Management of Indigenous Vegetation and Habitats of Indigenous Fauna. In its implementation methods the RPS places emphasis on environmental education and voluntary mechanisms for the protection of diversity and quality of habitat. Determination of Section 6(c) Habitats The RPS also places significant weight on ensuring that district councils use regionally consistent criteria when assessing ecological significance and Appendix 3 of the RPS provides those criteria. Given that the RPS criteria were first prepared in 2002, criterion 3 needed updating in recognition of the latest Department of Conservation threat classification ranking (Thames-Coromandel SNA report, Kessels et al., 2010). These updated criteria are shown as Table 2 and the justification for their use is explained in the following section. Ensuring that the existing characteristics that identify natural areas as significant indigenous vegetation and/or significant habitats of indigenous fauna are protected in an appropriate way from adverse effects
12 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix when using or developing natural and physical resources is an important aspect of the RPS. Thus robust methods to determine what is significant are considered to be critical for any district plan policy, if it is to be consistent with the RPS. The RPS criteria are based on the Whaley et al. (1995):
Representativeness: How representative is the area of the full range of ecological diversity in the present natural landscape;
Diversity and pattern: What is the diversity of the ecological units and pattern of vegetation types represented; Rarity/special features: Presence of locally or nationally threatened species or ecosystems;
Naturalness/intactness: Extent of indigenous species and natural communities in the area; Size and shape: Influence of size and shape of the area on ecological viability;
Inherent ecological viability/long-term sustainability: Will the features or the area maintain themselves in the long-term;
Buffering/surrounding landscape/connectivity: Extent to which an area is buffered from modifying influences. Distance from modifying influences and other natural areas; Fragility and threat: Threat process and agents, effects of proposed modification; and
Management input: Nature and scale/intervention necessary & restoration potential.
Despite a feature, or part of a feature being locally or regionally significant using the RPS criteria, it must also pass a higher threshold, in terms of ecological function and integrity when applying section 6(c).
Table 2 Updated RPS criteria to determine ecological significance under the RPS (refer to WRC Guidelines, (updated to take into account revised Threatened Species rankings)) 1. It is indigenous vegetation or habitat for indigenous fauna that has been specially set aside by statute or covenant for protection and preservation unless the site can be shown to meet none of Criteria 3-11. 2. It is indigenous vegetation or habitat recommended for protection by the Nature Heritage Fund, or Nga Whenua Rahui committees, or the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust Board of Directors, unless the site can be shown to meet none of Criteria 3-11. 3. It is vegetation or habitat that is currently habitat for indigenous species or associations of indigenous species that are: classed as ‘Threatened’ or ‘At Risk’ in New Zealand Threat Classification
13 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
System, or classed as ‘Data Deficient’ in New Zealand Threat Classification System, or endemic to the Waikato Region. Or It is habitat of importance for the conservation of a regionally threatened, or regionally at risk species (or genetically distinct population) within the Waikato Region. 3 (a). Internationally Significant: It is habitat for an indigenous species (or genetically distinct population) threatened with extinction (in the categories ‘Nationally Critical’, ‘Nationally Endangered’, or ‘Nationally Vulnerable’) and is endemic to the Waikato Region. Or It is a key habitat for the completion of the life cycle of species (or genetically distinct population) that migrate internationally and that would be threatened if these habitats were not sustained. Qualifying Thresholds: For a site to meet the criterion for international significance it must comprise significant habitat for a species (or genetically distinct population) on an international basis. This may include key sites for sustaining populations of international migrants. It must also provide natural habitat (see natural habitat definition below) for the species (or genetically distinct population), and/or the genetic entity must be indigenous to the site. 3 (b). Nationally Significant: It is habitat used on a regular basis by an indigenous species (or genetically distinct population) in the threat categories ‘Nationally Critical’, ‘Nationally Endangered’, or ‘Nationally Vulnerable’. Or It is one of the best quality examples, on a national basis, of habitats used on an ongoing basis by a species (or genetically distinct population) in the At Risk category in the New Zealand Threat Classification System (specifically ‘Declining’, ‘Recovering’, ‘Relict’, or ‘Naturally Uncommon’)12. Or It is a key habitat for the completion of the life cycle of a species (or genetically distinct population), in one of the threat categories above, that migrate nationally and that would be threatened if these habitats were not sustained. Qualifying Thresholds: Sites where low numbers are present on only a few occasions (and are unlikely to be important for the long-term viability of the species) do not meet this criterion. For a site to meet this criterion for national significance, it will be of importance for the viability of the species (or genetically distinct population) on a national basis. The site will provide natural habitat for the species (or genetically distinct population), and it
12 Until such time as new threat classification lists are published for all taxa, existing threat classifications (Hitchmough et al., 2007), based on the Molloy et al. (2002) system, will be utilised. Therefore this criterion would also apply to the best quality examples, on a national basis, of habitats used on a regular basis by a species in the ‘Serious Decline’ or ‘Gradual Decline’ categories of the Molloy et al. (2002) system.
14 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
will either be used on an ongoing basis, or be important for sustaining a population on a seasonal basis for key components of its lifecycle (e.g. feeding site), or be an important migratory site, breeding site, or over-wintering site. 3 (c). Regionally Significant: It is habitat of considerable importance for the conservation of an indigenous species (or genetically distinct population) in the ‘At Risk’ (‘Declining’, ‘Recovering’, ‘Relict’, and ‘Naturally Uncommon’) category, or is important habitat for a species that is endemic to the Waikato Region13. Or It is habitat of importance for the conservation of regionally threatened, or regionally at risk species (or genetically distinct population) within the Waikato Region, although the species is secure elsewhere. Assessment of whether a species is classified as at risk or threatened in the Waikato Region would have to be justified by several well qualified and experienced ecologists familiar with the species and ecology of the Waikato Region. Or Habitat considered (by several qualified and experienced ecologists) to be of importance for the sustainability of a ‘data-deficient’ species on a regional basis. Qualifying Thresholds: Sites where low numbers are present on only a few occasions and it is unlikely to be important for long-term viability of the species (or genetically distinct population) do not meet this criterion. For a site to meet this criterion for regional significance, the site will be of importance for the viability of a particular species (or genetically distinct population) on a regional basis. The site will provide natural habitat for the species (or genetically distinct population), and it will either be used on an ongoing basis, or be important for sustaining a population on a seasonal basis for key components of its lifecycle (e.g. feeding site), or be an important migratory site, breeding site, or over- wintering site. Small populations of threatened plants, not significant on a national basis, but in the categories Nationally Critical, Nationally Endangered, Nationally Vulnerable, may be placed in this category. 4. It is indigenous vegetation or habitat type that is under-represented (10% or less of its known or likely original extent remaining) in an Ecological District, or Ecological Region, or nationally. 5. It is indigenous vegetation or habitat that is, and prior to human settlement was, nationally uncommon such as geothermal, Chenier plain, or kaarst ecosystems. 6. It is wetland habitat for indigenous plant communities and/or indigenous fauna communities14 that has not been created and subsequently maintained for or in connection with: waste treatment; or wastewater renovation; or hydro electric power lakes;15
13 Until such time as new threat classification lists are published for all taxa, existing threat classifications (Hitchmough et al., 2007), based on Molloy et al. (2002) system, will be utilised. Therefore this criterion would also apply to the ‘Sparse’ or ‘Range Restricted’ categories of the Molloy et al. (2002) system. 14 Does not include exotic rush / pasture communities. 15 Does not include Lake Taupo.
15 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
water storage for irrigation; or water supply storage; unless in those instances they meet the criteria in Whaley et al. (1995). 7. It is an area of indigenous vegetation or naturally occurring habitat that is large relative to other examples in the Waikato Region of similar habitat types, and which contains all or almost all indigenous species typical of that habitat type.16 8. It is aquatic habitat17 that is a portion of a stream, river, lake, wetland, intertidal mudflat or estuary, and their margins, that is critical18 to the self sustainability of an indigenous species within a catchment of the Waikato Region and which contains healthy, representative populations of that species. 9. It is an area of indigenous vegetation or habitat that is a healthy and representative example of its type because: its structure, composition, and ecological processes are largely intact; and if protected from the adverse effects of plant and animal pests and of adjacent land use (e.g. stock, discharges, erosion), can maintain its ecological sustainability7 over time. 10. It is an area of indigenous vegetation or habitat that forms part of an ecological sequence, that is either not common in the Waikato Region or an ecological district, or is an exceptional, representative example of its type. 11. It is an area of indigenous vegetation or habitat for indigenous species (which habitat is either naturally occurring or has been established as a mitigation measure) that forms, either on its own or in combination with other similar areas, an ecological buffer, linkage or corridor and which is necessary to protect any site identified as significant under Criteria 1-10 from external adverse effects.
In determining whether a site is significant such as to require protection in terms of section 6(c), ecologists apply a set of criteria in conjunction with professional judgment. Two of the most widely accepted criteria are those detailed by Whaley et al. (1995) and by Norton & Roper-Lindsay (2004): Norton & Roper-Lindsay (2004): 1. Rarity and distinctiveness, i.e., the site supports a species that is: - known to be threatened, or - at its national distributional limit, or - endemic to the area, or - locally uncommon. 2. Representativeness, i.e., the site supports the ecosystem that is:
16 This criterion is not intended to select the largest example only in the Waikato Region of any habitat type. 17 Excluding artificial water bodies, except those created for the maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity or as mitigation for a consented activity. 18 Critical means essential for a specific component of the life cycle and includes breeding and spawning grounds, juvenile nursery areas, important feeding areas and migratory pathways.
16 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
- less than c. 10% of its former extent in the ecological district, or - a high-quality example of its type, where less than c. 20% of this ecosystem remains in the ecological district c.f. its former extent. 3. Ecological context, i.e., the site: - enhances connectivity between patches, or - buffers or similarly enhances the ecological values of a specific site of value, or - provides seasonal or “core” habitat for specific indigenous species. 4. Sustainability, i.e., a site is considered sustainable if: - key ecological processes remain viable or still influence the site, and - key ecosystems within the site are known to be or are likely to be resilient to existing or potential threats under some realistic level of management activity, and - existing or potential land and water uses in the area around the site could be feasibly modified to protect ecological values.
The Norton & Roper-Lindsay criteria can be viewed as a later iteration of, and advance on the Whaley et al. criteria, and have been referenced or applied in several Environment Court cases in recent years.19 Where a given feature passed the ‘threshold’ for consideration as meeting the RPS criteria in each case it will be a matter for a professional ecologist’s subjective assessment, on the basis of site evaluation and ecological context, whether that feature should be classified as “section 6(c) significant”.
Summary Environment Waikato RPS Criteria for Significant Indigenous Ecosystems
Specific Criteria
1 specially set aside by statute or covenant for protection and preservation
2 recommended for protection
3 currently habitat for indigenous species or associations of indigenous species that are threatened or endemic to the Waikato Region
4 under-represented (less than 10% of the known or likely original extent remaining) in an Ecological District, or an Ecological Region
5 nationally uncommon before human settlement
6 It is a wetland habitat for indigenous vegetation or fauna
19 See for example Upland Landscape Protection Society Inc v Clutha District Council C085/2008 and Long Bay-Okura Great Park Society Inc v North Shore City Council A078/2008
17 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
7 It is an area of indigenous vegetation or naturally occurring habitat that is large relative to other examples in the Waikato Region of similar habitat types, and which contains all or almost all indigenous species typical of that habitat type.
8 It is aquatic habitat that is a portion of a stream, river, lake, wetland, intertidal mudflat or estuary, and their margins, that is critical to the self sustainability of an indigenous species within a catchment of the Waikato Region and which contains healthy, representative populations of that species.
9 It is an area of indigenous vegetation or habitat that is a healthy, representative example of its type because: its structure, composition, and ecological processes are largely intact, and if protected from the adverse effects of plant and animal pests and of adjacent landuse (e.g. stock, discharges, erosion), can maintain its ecological sustainability over time. .
10 It is an area of indigenous vegetation or habitat that forms part of an ecological sequence that is either rare or not common in the Waikato Region or an ecological district, or is an exceptional, representative example of its type.
11 It is an area of indigenous vegetation or habitat for indigenous species (which habitat is either naturally occurring or has been established as a mitigation measure) that forms, either on its own or in combination with other similar areas, an ecological buffer, linkage or corridor, and which is necessary to protect any site identified as significant under Criteria 1-10 from external adverse effects.
Original Checklist for Assessing Relative Importance of an area of Significant Indigenous Vegetation or Significant Habitat of Indigenous Fauna This checklist was used for the WRC Assessment of Significant Natural Areas in the Thames- Coromandel District.
Crit. Reason for Significance Levels* Significance* International National Regional 1 Legally RAMSAR or WHS Ecological Area, Forest Other protected Sanctuary, National Park, Reserves Act or Cons. Act. Marine Reserve, Nature or a QEII covenant – Reserve, Scientific WMR- DoC Reserve 2 Recommende As a RAMSAR or As an Ecological Area, As another reserve type d for WHS Forest Sanctuary, under Reserves Act or protection National Park, Marine Cons. Act. or a QEII Reserve, Nature Reserve, covenant Scientific Reserve Ranked as a KES – 8221 SSWI site of high value20
20 Moynihan (1986)
18 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
3 Threatened Acutely threatened Acutely or chronically At risk threat category, species species that are threatened species range restricted or sparse Waikato endemic to the – bittern, banded kokopu Endemic Waikato species International Non-threatened Waikato migrants that would endemic be threatened if habitat was lost 4 Under- Best*** or only Good quality example of Good quality example of represented remaining, large nationally under- regionally under- ecosystem example of a suite or represented site (must represented site (must also sequence of also meet Crit. 9) meet Crit. 9) ecosystems. (For Relatively large but criteria 4, 5, 6, and 10, degraded example of sites in this category nationally under- would also be likely to represented site meet a number of Degraded, but Region’s other criteria and only remaining example (of form a complex of any size) ecosystems.) 5 Nationally Best*** or only Good quality example of Relatively large but uncommon remaining large a nationally rare type degraded example ecosystem example in NZ of a (must also meet Crit. 9) suite of ecosystems 6 Wetland Best*** or only Good quality example Relatively large but habitat remaining large (must also meet Crit. 9) degraded example example in NZ of a wetland type 7 Large example See notes below** See notes below** Good quality of wildlife representative example habitat ** (must also meet Crit. 9) 8 Aquatic See notes below** See notes below** The Region’s best or only habitat ** example of a good quality example (must also meet Crit. 9) 9 Representativ See notes below** See notes below** One of the Region’s best e example** examples 10 Uncommon or Best*** or only Good quality example One of the Region’s best exceptional remaining large of a nationally rare examples (must also meet ecological example of a suite or ecological sequence Crit. 9) sequence of
21 Wildland Consultants, (1999)
19 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
sequence ecosystems (must also meet Crit. 9) 11 Buffer - - Buffers a site that is of national or international significance
Notes for Table 3
If a site is not of international, national, or regional significance, but meets one of the 11 criteria, it is locally significant.
* Levels of significance are applicable to any site that is part of a larger area that qualifies under any criterion.
** A site that is significant as a large area of wildlife habitat, aquatic habitat or a representative example of its type, will only be of greater than regional significance if it also meets one of the other criteria for which national or international levels apply. For instance, if the site was also habitat for acutely threatened species, it would be assessed using Criterion 3 as well as Criteria 7, 8, or 9.
*** Sites that are the ‘best’ example of their type will also meet Criterion 9. For international significance such sites will also be likely to meet a number of other criteria and must form a complex of ecosystems.
20 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Updated Criteria Updated Criteria utilised in determining ecological significance under the WRC RPS have been justified in ‘Updated System for Evaluation of Ecological Significance in the Waikato Region, based on Townsend et al. (2008)’. Since the formulation of the WRC ecological significance criteria and their publication in the Waikato Regional Policy Statement, followed by publication of a technical guide on application of the criteria (EW and Wildland Consultants, 2002)22, a new threat classification system for New Zealand has been developed and published (Townsend et al., 2008)23, and new threat classification lists using this system have been published for bird species (Miskelly et al., 2008)24 and plant species (de Lange et al., 2009). Changes to the criteria in order to update them to the new threat classification system are presented below. For species that have not been reclassified in Miskelly et al. (2008)25 or de Lange et al. (2009)26, classifications in Hitchmough et al. (2007)27 should continue to be used within the original criteria set. Suggested changes to Table 1 (EW and Wildland Consultants, 2002) Old Text: It is vegetation or habitat that is currently habitat for indigenous species or associations of indigenous species that are: threatened with extinction, or endemic to the Waikato Region New Text: It is vegetation or habitat that is currently habitat for indigenous species or associations of indigenous species that are: classed as ‘Threatened’ or ‘At Risk’ in New Zealand Threat Classification System, or classed as ‘Data Deficient’ in New Zealand Threat Classification System, or endemic to the Waikato Region. or It is habitat of importance for the conservation of a regionally threatened, or regionally at risk species (or genetically distinct population) within the Waikato Region. Suggested changes to Table 2 (EW and Wildland Consultants, 2002)
22Environment Waikato and Wildland Consultants 2002: Areas of significant indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna in the Waikato Region. Guidelines to apply regional criteria and determine level of significance. Wildland Consultants Ltd Contract Report No. 536. Environment Waikato Technical Report TR2002/15. 32 p. 23Townsend, A.J.; de Lange, P.J.; Duffy, C.A.J.; Miskelly, C.M.; Molloy, J.M.; Norton, D.A. 2008: New Zealand Threat Classification System manual. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 36 p. 24Miskelly, C.M.; Dowding, J.E.; Elliott, G.P.; Hitchmough, R.A.; Powlesland, R.G.; Robertson, H.A.; Sagar, P.M.; Schofield, R.P.; Taylor, G.A. 2008: Conservation Status of New Zealand Birds, 2008. Notornis 55: 117-135. 25 Ibid. 26 Townsend, A.J.; de Lange, P.J.; Duffy, C.A.J.; Miskelly, C.M.; Molloy, J.M.; Norton, D.A. 2008: New Zealand Threat Classification System manual. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 36 p. 27Hitchmough, R., Bull, L.; Cromarty, P. (comps) 2007: New Zealand Threat Classification System lists - 2005. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 194 p.
21 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Changes below relate to rows of the table where Criterion 3 is referred to in the left-hand column. Internationally Significant Old Text: Is it habitat for an indigenous species, which is threatened with extinction (in the categories Nationally Critical, Nationally Endangered, or Nationally Vulnerable) and endemic to the Waikato Region. New Text: It is habitat for an indigenous species (or genetically distinct population) threatened with extinction (in the categories ‘Nationally Critical’, ‘Nationally Endangered’, or ‘Nationally Vulnerable’) and is endemic to the Waikato Region. or It is a key habitat for the completion of the life cycle of species (or genetically distinct population) that migrate internationally and that would be threatened if these habitats were not sustained. Qualifying Thresholds For a site to meet the criterion for international significance it must comprise significant habitat for a species (or genetically distinct population) on an international basis. This may include key sites for sustaining populations of international migrants. It must also provide natural habitat (see natural habitat definition below) for the species (or genetically distinct population), and/or the genetic entity must be indigenous to the site. Nationally Significant Old Text Is it habitat for an indigenous species, which is under serious threat in the categories Nationally Critical, Nationally Endangered, Nationally Vulnerable, Serious Decline, or Gradual Decline? New Text It is habitat used on a regular basis by an indigenous species (or genetically distinct population) in the threat categories ‘Nationally Critical’, ‘Nationally Endangered’, or ‘Nationally Vulnerable’. or It is one of the best quality examples, on a national basis, of habitats used on an ongoing basis by a species (or genetically distinct population) in the At Risk category in the New Zealand Threat Classification System (specifically ‘Declining’, ‘Recovering’, ‘Relict’, or ‘Naturally Uncommon’)28. or
28 Until such time as new threat classification lists are published for all taxa, existing threat classifications (Hitchmough et al., 2007), based on the Molloy et al. (2002) system, will have to be considered. Therefore this criterion would also apply to the best quality examples, on a national basis, of habitats used on a regular basis by a species in the ‘Serious Decline’ or ‘Gradual Decline’ categories of the Molloy et al. (2002) system.
22 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
It is a key habitat for the completion of the life cycle of a species (or genetically distinct population), in one of the threat categories above, that migrate nationally and that would be threatened if these habitats were not sustained. Qualifying Thresholds: Sites where low numbers are present on only a few occasions (and are unlikely to be important for the long-term viability of the species) do not meet this criterion. For a site to meet this criterion for national significance, it will be of importance for the viability of the species (or genetically distinct population) on a national basis. The site will provide natural habitat for the species (or genetically distinct population), and it will either be used on an ongoing basis, or be important for sustaining a population on a seasonal basis for key components of its lifecycle (e.g. feeding site), or be an important migratory site, breeding site, or over-wintering site. Regionally Significant Old Text Is it currently habitat for an indigenous species that is threatened, in the categories ‘Sparse’ or ‘Range Restricted’, or endemic to the Waikato Region? New Text It is habitat of considerable importance for the conservation of an indigenous species (or genetically distinct population) in the ‘At Risk’ (‘Declining’, ‘Recovering’, ‘Relict’, and ‘Naturally Uncommon’) category, or is important habitat for a species that is endemic to the Waikato Region29. or It is habitat of importance for the conservation of regionally threatened, or regionally at risk species (or genetically distinct population) within the Waikato Region, although the species is secure elsewhere. Assessment of whether a species is classified as at risk or threatened in the Waikato Region would have to be justified by several well qualified and experienced ecologists familiar with the species and ecology of the Waikato Region. or Habitat considered (by several qualified and experienced ecologists) to be of importance for the sustainability of a ‘data-deficient’ species on a regional basis. Qualifying Thresholds Sites where low numbers are present on only a few occasions and it is unlikely to be important for long-term viability of the species (or genetically distinct population) do not meet this criterion. For a site to meet this criterion for regional significance, the site will be of importance for the viability of a particular species (or genetically distinct population) on a regional basis. The site will provide natural habitat for the species (or genetically distinct population), and it will either be used on an ongoing basis, or be important for sustaining a
29 Until such time as new threat classification lists are published for all taxa, existing threat classifications (Hitchmough et al., 2007), based on Molloy et al. (2002) system, will have to be considered. Therefore this criterion would also apply to the ‘Sparse’ or ‘Range Restricted’ categories of the Molloy et al. (2002) system.
23 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
population on a seasonal basis for key components of its lifecycle (e.g. feeding site), or be an important migratory site, breeding site, or over-wintering site. Small populations of threatened plants, not significant on a national basis, but in the categories Nationally Critical, Nationally Endangered, Nationally Vulnerable, may be placed in this category. Locally Significant Data deficient species will now meet Criterion 3 in Table 1. Therefore some sites, other than those that qualify as being regionally significant (see above), may now be locally significant as a result of providing habitat for Data Deficient species. Otherwise, no changes are necessary for the text of Table 2. Definitions for Waikato RPS criteria Natural Habitat: Indigenous vegetation or habitats similar to the pre-human environment(s) where the species (or genetically distinct population) was found for key components of its lifecycle. In most instances the site will have undergone adverse changes (e.g. as a result of invasive species, logging, reduction in size or loss of connectivity) but key elements of natural character will remain (site condition may also have improved as a result of intensive control of pest plants and animals). Natural habitat can, in some situations, move across a landscape over time due to natural changes (e.g. volcanism, active dunes, landslides, and geothermal manifestations). Ongoing Basis: A species (or genetically distinct population) utilises a site for key components of its lifecycle. For fauna, this includes habitats that comprise a key component for its survival, as a food source, breeding ground, roosting site, hibernating site, or site for other key natural behaviours for the species. For plants this would include a site where a species is well established (i.e. a population is maintained over several years), but it would not include a site where there is only one record of a species, which is unlikely to have established permanently at a site. Old records may be important for some biota, as many species may only be conspicuous during a particular season or not in every year. Indigenous to a Site: Naturally occurring at the site or reintroduced to a site where it formerly occurred naturally. The Application of Section 6(c) into District Plans The Environment Court has stated that to determine which areas are significant in terms of Section 6(c) and therefore should be protected, one must determine the extent to which the biodiversity resource in the district has already been diminished. Therefore, it is of national importance that the significant vegetation and fauna/ habitat in a district are protected.30 This means that a type of indigenous vegetation or habitat not often found within a particular district can be considered significant as per Section 6(c), even if that vegetation or habitat is relatively common in other districts in New Zealand. Controls on significant indigenous vegetation and habitat in terms of Section 6 (c) are primarily aimed at the prevention of clearance and disturbance.31 Nearly all district councils have such rules (93%) and 58% also have controls on areas not identified as significant.
30 Minister Conservation vs Western Bay of Plenty DC RMA 1331/95 (1996) 31 A Snapshot of council effort to address biodiversity on private land: Report Back to Councils. Ministry for the Environment, 2004.
24 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
An alternative response by district councils is not to include regulatory methods for the protection of significant indigenous areas and instead rely on education and advocacy to achieve protection. However, only four district councils have adopted this approach. Using non-regulatory methods for the protection of significant indigenous vegetation and habitats has generally been strongly opposed by conservation groups and agencies.32 The Courts, while being sympathetic to non-regulatory methods in achieving landowner support, have held that regulatory methods are required to provide a legal protection backstop.33
2.1.5 Thames-Coromandel District Council Biodiversity Strategy The Biodiversity Strategy was adopted by the Council in April 2008. The Council’s objective in developing a Biodiversity Strategy was to better define its key goals and approach to working with the District’s communities and other government agencies to improve biodiversity. The Strategy consolidates and re-focuses policies and actions already adopted by the Council and identifies and prioritises new actions. It consolidates the Council's strategic direction on biodiversity on the Coromandel Peninsula. Its emphasis is on indigenous species, particularly those plant and animal species which are special to the Coromandel Peninsula. Issues raised are: The current effectiveness of biodiversity provisions in the current Plan is questionable
Include a review of the conservation covenant subdivision rules contained within the Proposed District Plan as a 2nd tier priority for the District Plan Review
Develop an inter-departmental approach to the on-going establishment and monitoring of conservation covenants, including monitoring fees The Council is not aware of the state of the Coromandel Peninsula’s biodiversity and only holds limited biodiversity information
There is a lack of certainty around protection of native vegetation e.g. trees There is a lack of recognition and consideration of special biodiversity qualities worthy of protection and/or enhancement, particularly on private land It is unclear whether the Council’s conservation covenants are achieving positive biodiversity outcomes
Debate over whether the Council provides financial incentives to assist community groups and landowners to carry out biodiversity enhancing initiatives, and if so, to what extent
Have regard to biodiversity initiatives for particular parks and reserves, in keeping with the Reserves Strategy
There should be opportunities for further involvement in non-regulatory methods e.g. advocacy, information sharing and education, networking, etc.
Goals are:
32 For example the Department of Conservation and the Royal New Zealand Forest and Bird Society 33 Minister Conservation vs Western Bay of Plenty DC RMA 1331/95 (1996)
25 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
GOAL 1: Determine the state of the Coromandel Peninsula’s biodiversity GOAL 2: Contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of the District’s native biodiversity GOAL 3: Promote the restoration of native species to the District GOAL 4: Advocate for, collaborate with and support the wider community in the protection and enhancement of native biodiversity GOAL 5: Provide ongoing monitoring of the Council’s contribution to biodiversity management Actions relevant to the District Plan are:
Establish information-sharing protocols with Environment Waikato and the Department of Conservation
Prepare a database of the District’s biodiversity which is threatened or at risk, and make available to all Council staff and the wider community Review District Plan provisions relating to vegetation including conservation covenants and vegetation management
Investigate the implementation of a Biodiversity Overlay and/or Landscape and Environmental Enhancement Zone in conjunction with the District Plan.
2.1.6 Council Directive
2.1.7 2 March 2011 – Full Council meeting Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) are protected and/or enhanced as a result of subdivision, use and development
Indigenous biodiversity is maintained and/or enhanced
Provide for subdivision, use and development that enhances/benefits biodiversity values or contributes to ecosystem services/life supporting capacity (e.g. provision for ecological corridors).
2.1.8 18 – 19 April 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting While the current rules are good for “holding the line”, other methods are required for restoration and enhancement (for example, regulatory incentives)
There needs to be clear communication with landowners about significant natural areas and what it means for private ownership
It is important for SNA maps to be reasonably accurate, and to focus on unambiguous policies and objectives to make the cause for reasonable use Ensure objectives and policies clearly reflect the hierarchy of SNAs over 'other' areas of indigenous biodiversity
Ensure policies identify the need for adequate buffering to be provided to SNA from adjoining activities
26 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Identify SNAs by mapping them in the District Plan and include rules to ensure most activities with the potential to adversely affect an SNA (e.g. vegetation clearance or ground disturbance) are a non-complying activity
Retain (with amendments) 'blanket' protection rules for 'other' areas of indigenous biodiversity that allow for the continued use of existing activities but requires consent for clearance or disturbance beyond these as a discretionary activity
Ensure subdivision of sites including a SNAs requires appropriate consideration and protection of the SNAs (e.g. subdivision should be non-complying)
Ensure adequate protection is given to SNAs by way of a buffer or set back standard for adjoining activities. Ensure rules for activities such as earthworks which may have an adverse impact on an SNA are aligned with other SNA rules (e.g. earthworks affecting an SNA should be discretionary or non-complying) Ensure conservation lot subdivisions are clearly targeted to the protection or areas where the greatest 'wins' can be achieved
2.1.9 12 September 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting Preliminary/courtesy letters need to be sent to landowners potentially affected by the landscape and biodiversity overlays
2.2 Monitoring and Technical Reports
2.2.1 Conservation Covenants Hamish Kendal. (2010). Targeting biodiversity protection in the Thames-Coromandel district plan – analysis of the performance of conservation covenants. Natural Solutions – Marine & Terrestrial Ecologists Ltd. Coromandel. The current District Plan contains rules relating to the creation of 'conservation lots':
one additional (conservation) lot in the Rural Zone as a controlled activity one additional (conservation) lot in the Coastal Zone as a discretionary activity
two additional (conservation) lots as a discretionary activity in both the Rural and Coastal Zones Qualifying standards for the creation of conservation lots:
at least 20 ha of qualifying area to be protected or two discrete features at 5 ha each
at least 5 ha of contiguous existing bush, natural feature, landscape, estuarine area, etc. two additional lots allowed per parent title
certification required from independent expert legal protection through covenant (either Council or QEII)
27 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
In 2006 the Council commissioned a contractor with extensive background in the Coromandel's ecology to visit all of the conservation covenants registered between the Council and landowners. This work was completed in 2006, with an update study being completed in June 2008. Observations from the 2006 and 2008 conservation covenant monitoring studies included:
116 original landowner/Council conservation covenants were entered into between 1989 and 2008 - covering 1,457ha of privately owned land
from the 116 original landowner/Council covenants there are now 259 landowners with covenant management responsibilities in general, the number of covenants per year is increasing slightly (continued demand) and average covenant size is declining threatened bird/plant species known to be present in approximately 28% of all covenants
covenant monitoring in 2006 indicated a decline trend in 43% of “at risk” covenants if no improvements were made to current inputs covenant monitoring in 2006 indicated overall covenant condition and landowner commitment was likely to decrease over time without regular contact/inputs Wider observations from the conservation covenant monitoring studies and associated work that was undertaken/completed in relation to the upcoming District Plan review (i.e. work on 'significant natural areas', 'natural character' and 'landscape') included:
potential for covenant tool to be used more effectively - to target specific areas, corridors, streams, etc.
need for better information about areas to target need to think about rule ‘thresholds’ (i.e. lot size) and cumulative impacts (e.g. on landscape, etc.)
need to think about ways of getting better outcomes (e.g. covenant conditions, transferable development rights, etc.)
potential to motivate a large number of landowners need for careful balance – additional development in exchange for protection
need to think about what values are to be protected/have priority over other values (need good information) Since 2008 additional covenant monitoring work has been undertaken, as part of an ongoing covenant monitoring programme, and in 2010 a report was prepared to consolidate the findings of this monitoring. The report "Are Covenants Working?" was subsequently received in August 2010 with the key findings being:
337 Development Covenants covering 3,373 ha have been generated over 20 years through District Council policy Half of the Development Covenants encompass ecosystems that are already well protected within the District
28 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Many of the TCDC covenants are in poor condition, often because the restoration planting of a natural feature had failed, although this has improved with more recent covenants 22 nationally threatened species have been observed in Development Covenants and others have yet to be detected; all covenants provide habitat for threatened species Covenant objectives need to plainly outline how district biodiversity objectives are to be achieved so that adherence can be clearly monitored and enforced
Enforcement can be assisted by revising the fines for breaches of covenants, and integrating rates relief into a system of monitoring covenant objectives
A TCDC Biodiversity Representative is essential to monitor covenants and support covenantors as well as advocate for biodiversity generally The District Plan has fallen short of its ‘limited to moderate’ capability to sustainably manage natural resources with respect to the legal protection that has been provided Many of the threats to biodiversity values that Development Covenants protect can be addressed by improving planning and design of subdivisions, particularly the fragmentation of natural features Transferable Development Rights policy would allow better identification of appropriate land use and natural feature protection on a wider scale than property boundaries
Threatened Environments (i.e. those environments with less than 30% representation and 20% protection) occur principally outside of the DoC estate in the developed coastal zone
More effective biodiversity management can be achieved by targeting the restoration and protection of under-represented ecosystems in the District Plan
District-wide biodiversity datasets are now available to assist with prioritising biodiversity restoration and protection It was noted that (at the time of writing the report) there were 98,922 ha of land with biodiversity value legally protected in the Thames-Coromandel District (i.e. 45% of the District land area). The legal protection consisted of land within QEII covenants (1,929ha), Department of Conservation estate (91,119ha), TCDC scenic reserves (224ha), Nga Whenua Rahui kawenata (2,277ha) with a further 3,373ha of land within TCDC Development Covenants.
2.2.2 Significant natural areas Kessels, G., et. al. (2009). Significant Natural Heritage of the Thames-Coromandel District – Draft II Volume I. Kessels & Associates Ltd., Natural Solutions Marine & Terrestrial Ecologists Ltd., Red Admiral Ecology. Hamilton. This Waikato Regional Council study aims to prioritise areas for biodiversity management based on different ecosystems. Kessels & Associates, in conjunction with Natural Solutions and Red Admiral Ecology did a largely desk-top exercise to give background information for this. The report describes existing habitats of indigenous flora and fauna (natural areas) in the Thames-Coromandel District, their features and their ecological value, as part of a wider Waikato Region study.
29 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Only indigenous terrestrial and freshwater wetland natural areas were assessed as part of this inventory although some coastal ecosystems were partly assessed where not mapped as part of any other WRC natural feature assessment project. A GIS-based dataset was prepared which incorporates the following attributes: 1. Defines the existing spatial information of natural areas; 2. Describes key vegetation types; 3. Assesses the management requirements, ownership status and assigns a biodiversity ranking to spatial units derived from their contributions to national and regional biodiversity goals. The natural areas which meet the appropriate ranking criteria have been termed “Significant Natural Areas” or SNAs. The extent of each vegetation type was determined from aerial imagery and ground truthing and compiled in a database by a separate contractor. Kessels & Associates reviewed the vegetation dataset and checked accuracy of the line work. Information used to determine the location and extent of SNA sites included all available biological datasets, past reports and inventories, key legal and ecological boundaries, (e.g. DoC, QEII, Council covenants, existing Protected Natural Area polygons, ecological district boundaries and flora/fauna species record points). A threatened flora and fauna species dataset was researched and prepared. The eleven ecological significance assessment criteria of Appendix Three of the Waikato Regional Policy Statement (RPS) were used to determine whether a site was of “International”, “National”, “Regional”, “Local” or “Likely” significance (Refer to Section 32 Part IV A Appendix section 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 ). A site was classified as ‘Unknown’ where there was insufficient information to assess significance. The study area includes four mainland ecological districts within Thames-Coromandel District (i.e. Colville, Thames, Tairua and Mercury Islands) covering some 229,869 ha of land, including offshore islands. The larger part of the Waihi Ecological District as well as the Hauraki Ecological District are covered by the WRC report titled “Natural Heritage of the Hauraki District” (April 2009). Coromandel stands out from most other ecological regions in the Waikato for having a diverse and unique array of fauna and flora species. Floristically, this diversity can be attributed to the overlapping of northern and southern elements of New Zealand’s indigenous flora. However, large portions of the once extensively forested peninsula has been cleared or strongly modified by human activity. Fauna, however, gives the Coromandel a special position in the Waikato Region (and indeed New Zealand) by providing habitat for a special array of indigenous birds, lizards, frogs and terrestrial invertebrates. Why these species have survived in the Coromandel when they have become extinct in other parts of the Waikato may be largely attributed to the large and interconnected fragments of indigenous forests, wetlands and scrublands, combined with a relatively late entry of mammalian pests – particularly possums. A total of 107 nationally threatened species (51 flora species and 56 fauna species) have been recorded as being present within the Thames-Coromandel District. While many of these threatened species are found solely within the Mercury Islands ED a diverse and abundant threatened fauna also exists on the mainland.
30 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
As part of the SNA ranking process, past records of threatened indigenous species were included. However, many species, such as NZ kaka and NZ falcon, are highly mobile and have large territories and vast home ranges. It is difficult to predict where these species may utilise suitable habitats throughout a year so that habitat utilisation is probably much broader than specific points in time as shown on a database. Other cryptic fauna species, such as the two indigenous frog species and longtail bats, are regularly being discovered in new sites and habitats as ecological investigations for resource consents/scientific research are conducted in conjunction with improved survey methods and technology. The SNA database needs to be regularly updated to reflect this. Special fauna found on the Coromandel Peninsula include:
Coromandel Striped Gecko – Indeterminate: First reported on the Coromandel in 1997, there have been six confirmed observations recorded since. Little is known about this species which is only found on the Coromandel. Most of these lizards have been found in areas of low regenerating scrubland with a dense groundcover and in the vicinity of dwellings/ settled areas.
Archey’s Frog - Critically Endangered: This species can also be found at altitudes from 500 m above sea level down to about 200 m above sea level in scrubland areas that have a thick groundcover.
Hochstetter’s frog - Nationally at Risk: Genetic work is presently in progress which may identify a regionally distinct taxa for this cryptic little frog. This species resides in a wide range of habitat on the Coromandel Peninsula. They prefer small native forest stream margins and seepage areas. They are also observed in the terrestrial environment throughout forested areas and also in grasslands on the top of the Coromandel Range. They can also be found in pine forest and some persist in logged areas.
Northern NZ Dotterel – Nationally vulnerable: Presently known to be nesting at about 43 distinct sites. This endemic wader bird prefers clear open areas on beaches, especially near stream mouths and also sand spits on the larger harbours. They will also utilise areas of low grass near beaches, shell banks and even nest on areas that have been developed, such as waterways and golf courses. North Island Brown Kiwi (Coromandel Taxon) – Nationally threatened: - Still found throughout many lowland forest fragments within Northern Coromandel. Abundances are highest in low and high altitude scrublands. Kiwis are also present in several commercial production forests and in this situation tend to prefer areas that have a mix of pine and native forest fragments (especially when part of a gully system). Kiwi can also utilise pasture near forest margins for feeding. The key results of this study are
Sites of International Ecological Significance dominate the statistics. Well over half the area of SNAs is ranked as being of International Significance, which is a reflection of the exceptionally high biodiversity values of the Peninsula as a whole.
31 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
While many SNAs have low vegetation values, compromised by weeds and animal pests, they provide habitat for a diverse range of indigenous fauna, including core breeding habitat for many nationally threatened species.
While the majority of mature indigenous forest types are protected within Department of Conservation (DoC) administered Crown land, any coastal forests and wetlands that are left are mostly found on unprotected private land and are in a severely degraded and fragmented state.
561 Significant Natural Areas were identified comprising of 787 separate sub-sites covering an area of 134,737 ha. The Thames-Coromandel District covers an area of 229,869 ha. This equates to 59% of the District being classified as a Significant Natural Area. Of the 134,737 ha, an area of approximately 68,076 ha was ranked as being of International significance, 27,020 ha as being of National significance, 30,782 ha as Regional significance, and 8,535 ha as being of Local significance (Figure 5). Approximately 38% (51,417 ha) of these areas are privately owned.
The Department of Conservation administers approximately 61% (82,236 ha) of the area identified as SNAs. 1,084 ha (0.81%) fall within TCDC Reserves.
Protected, privately owned SNAs equate to some 7,209 ha, comprising of 2,225 ha of Nga Whenua Rahui covenants, 3,612 ha QEII National Trust Open Space covenants and 1,372 ha TCDC administered Reserves Act covenants. Manuka and/or kanuka shrublands are largely found within private land – some 74%. Scrubland ecosystems provide habitat for many threatened fauna and fauna species, such as kiwi and the coastal vine Sicyos australis.
424 ha, or 82%, of remnant SNA ranked freshwater wetlands are found on unprotected private land. Recommendations in the report include In terms of ecological restoration and management priorities, shoring up buffers and recreating corridors by replanting, fencing fragments from stock and weed/animal pest control are absolutely essential if these significant natural areas are to survive in the Coromandel landscape. Formal legal protection of SNAs on private land will protect investments made in restoration and sustain biodiversity for those ecosystems least protected in the current protected natural area network – particularly those systems found within coastal, lowland and semi-coastal bioclimatic zones and freshwater wetlands. The knowledge base of the extent and abundance of many threatened species within the Thames- Coromandel District is limited and often dated. Effective management cannot be undertaken without a thorough knowledge of the species for which management is being aimed. Surveys for a suite of threatened fauna and flora species, particularly on private land, should be a priority for future studies.
32 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
2.2.3 Threatened Land Environments34 The Threatened Environment Classification is a combination of three national databases: Land Environments New Zealand (LENZ), classes of the 2nd Land Cover Database (LCDB2) and the Protected Areas Network (PAN-NZ).
The classification combines this information into a simple and practical GIS tool that focuses attention on areas in which much indigenous vegetation has been cleared and only small proportions are legally protected.
The Threatened Environment Classification uses indigenous vegetation cover as a surrogate for indigenous biodiversity, which includes indigenous ecosystems, habitats, and communities; the indigenous species, subspecies and varieties that are supported by indigenous vegetation; and their genetic diversity. It uses legal protection as a surrogate for the relative vulnerability of indigenous biodiversity to pressures such as land clearance, extractive land uses, and the effects of fragmentation. The Threatened Environment Classification is therefore most appropriately applied to help identify places that are priorities for formal protection against clearance and/or incompatible land uses, and for ecological restoration to restore lost species, linkages and buffers. Environment Waikato have subsequently overlaid information on existing land/vegetation cover along with information on legal protection to determine 'threatened environments' within Thames- Coromandel District. From this work it has been found that a large portion of 'acutely threatened' and 'chronically threatened' environments (e.g. coastal wetlands, dune lands, coastal forest, freshwater wetlands, etc.) are on private land and that these are currently unprotected.
2.2.4 TCDC District Plan SNA Management Prioritisation Analysis The Council engaged Kessels&Associates to assist with the preparation of the Plan in terms of meeting its Resource Management Act (RMA) obligations to identify and protect significant habitats of indigenous fauna and flora and enhance biodiversity values. Following the WRC suggestion for district councils to further refine the findings of the WRC SNA report with the purpose of making the most efficient and effective use of the information received. The SNA Management Priority Identification process was undertaken by desktop GIS sieve analysis using the latest version of the Waikato Regional Council (WRC) SNA database in order to identify which SNAs are most appropriate to focus incentive initiatives in the District Plan. SNAs were then sieved and grouped into a number of sub-categories, based on their protection status, their ownership, their size, their relationship with landscape ecological criteria (such as bioclimatic zones and National Priority 1 status), and their “threat status” and vulnerability to modification. This document accompanies a GIS layer (i.e. shapefile) entitled “TCDC_SNA_Priority_21Dec2011”, an Excel spreadsheet document entitled “TCDC_SNA_Priority_Assessment_Data_19Jan2012”, and a map entitled “Priority_SNA_Map_23Dec2011. The objective of this exercise was primarily to assist the Council in developing policy in the Plan around those SNA which it considers to be most in need of regulatory and incentive measures (e.g. unprotected wetland or coastal forest SNAs on private land within the coastal zone) and/or have
34 http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/resources/maps-satellites/threatened-environment-classification, accessed 8/05/2013
33 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix different sets policy objectives/rules/incentive measures for each sub-category depending on their management requirement. The report also provides background policy information to the development of this approach, further information on sites where confidence is low on the underlying data sets, an analysis of SNA ‘slivers’ and outlines potential applications of the priority SNA for management approach in the development of the Plan. The prioritisation process implements what is referred to as Stage B of the SNA identification for the Waikato Region and uses the following recommendations (WRC SNA report): “..once an area has been identified as being significant, the following factors should be taken into account when determining protective management methods including the allocation of resources:
positive landowner management initiatives, e.g. covenanted areas; current uses, e.g. incremental change through agricultural practices; relative significance (based on the characteristics that make an area significant): Attribute levels of significance on a District level (concentrate on the matters that also contribute to overall biodiversity, ecosystem and intrinsic values according to s. 30, s. 5(b) and 7(d) of the RMA; threats to the characteristics that make the area significant (including relative vulnerability to threats); the effectiveness of management options to address threats; availability of resources; and the use of non-regulatory methods.”
Kessels&Associates used a catchment based methodology and accordingly utilised the data from the Focus Restoration Management Group’s study: “Biodiversity Restoration Corridors: Thames- Coromandel District” (Kendal et al 2011) as well as all existing WRC databases and reports (e.g. Kessels et al, 2009). The Prioritisation Process The original report can be referred to for more details. Key steps in the process were the following: In summary the method contains two steps. Step 1 is a sieve analysis of the Metadata set in GIS to determine if an SNA qualifies for priority management in the District. Step 2 is an analysis of each of those priority management SNA to determine its ranking – ‘High’, ‘Medium’ or ‘Low’. Figure 1 is a flow chart which schematically shows how “Priority TCDC SNA for Management” sites were determined.
34 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Figure 1 Prioritisation Process
Step 1 GIS Sieve Analysis The principal inputs required were:
WRC SNA GIS Database; Property boundaries and land tenure layer; WRC Biodiversity Restoration Corridor GIS layer for TCDC;
35 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
National Priority 1 layer (i.e. at LENZ Level 4 (i.e. 500 showing land environments with 20% or less remaining indigenous vegetation); and Coastal Bioclimatic Zone layer. The process can be summarised as follows: Sieve out all publically administered SNAs (e.g. DOC and TCDC, including protected public) land from the SNA database.
Sieve out all privately owned and unprotected locally significant SNAs less than 0.5 ha in size. The remaining SNAs shall be categorised as those that lie within High or Medium Priority River Corridor Catchments for biodiversity restoration as identified by Focus Group on behalf of WRC, with all other SNAs being discarded unless they trigger the next sieving analysis. Those SNAs which do not lie within targeted High or Medium priority catchments for restoration shall be sieved through the National Priority 1 or Coastal Bioclimatic Zone layer, with all remaining sites being discarded. Step 2: VTR Analysis (Vulnerability, Threats, Restoration Potential) Each “Priority TCDC SNA for Management” was then assessed in terms of three criteria: Vulnerability to modification – how robust or sensitive it is (e.g. Pohutukawa forest is very sensitive to possum browsing), whether it is legally protected or not, whether or not vulnerable threatened species are present at the site. Threats it faces (such as stock access, weeds and animals pests, as well as human interference (for example drainage of a wetland site)). Restoration Potential: Factors considered in this criterion are the site’s ability to becoming a largely self-sustaining ecosystem after suitable restoration measures have taken place and/or how well connected it is with other SNAs in the locality. Each site shall then be ranked as High, Medium or Low site for priority management within the District and colour coded on the GIS layer for ease of identification. Objectives of Prioritisation Process The outcomes produced from this exercise provide the Council with a refinement of the WRC SNA GIS and Excel database which allows mapping and spatial/numerical analysis of these sub-categories to: 1. produce a GIS dataset for the District Map of those SNAs in most urgent need of managements support; 2. a quantitative tool to determine lot yield scenarios as a result of various potential environmental protection lot rules; and 3. qualification of potential biodiversity improvement outcomes for the District in terms of specific locations where greatest biodiversity and threatened habitats gains could be achieved.
36 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Level of Confidence Attribute The accuracy of the data for each SNA is dependent on the accuracy of the data sets they were derived from. For example, the protection status of an SNA depended upon the accuracy of the QEII, DoC conservation land, and Thames-Coromandel District Council Reserves and Covenants data sets; and the accuracy of the classification of vegetation types is primarily based on the accuracy of WRC’s underlying vegetation data set. However, many attributes were recorded based on anecdotal ecological knowledge of the area, with additional support from existing literature and reports. Since this was primarily a desk-top exercise, most of the sites have not been surveyed in the field and little is known of their composition other than that derived from limited and often outdated data and interpretation of aerial photography (Kessels et al 2009). Therefore, during the SNA determination an attribute called “Confidence in Significance” was used to indicate the confidence in the accuracy of the significance allocated to a site. In general, where reports of the site existed, or the site was personally known to staff, the confidence level was considered “high”. Where the main vegetation type could be confidently determined, but other aspects such as health or species composition could not, the confidence level was considered “medium”. Where the main vegetation type could not be confidently determined (e.g. indigenous vs. exotic scrub), or where indigenous sub canopy tiers could reasonably be expected to be present under an exotic canopy (e.g. willow wetlands) confidence levels were generally considered “low”. This attribute is particularly useful when prioritising sites for further field surveys, where those sites with “high” confidence rankings should be considered lowest in priority for field checks. In order to determine how many ‘Low Confidence’ Local SNA sites are situated within the priority SNAs for management data set analysis of ‘Low confidence’ sites in relation to the RPS criteria they triggered was undertaken. This indicated that a total of 26 SNA sites were found to be contained in the dataset where there is low confidence in the underlying attributes. The report recommends that these 26 local SNA sites should be targeted for field inspection to confirm or otherwise their values and possible reassessment of their ecological ranking and management requirements. Recommendations This is a summary of the recommendations for restoration made in the report:
o Avoid or reverse removal of existing habitat o Avoid loss or removal of key species o Avoid grazing of wetland and forest fragments and fight animal pests to protect regenerating trees and shrubs o Animal pest control is one of the core restoration requirements o Shingle beaches, dunes and offshore islands need both feral and domestic pest control to protect threatened birds, lizards and invertebrates o Ideally areas should be legally protected through covenanting
Specific recommendations are provided for each Ecological District Coleville The Moehau being the most ecologically significant mainland locality within the Coromandel Ecological Region will particularly benefit from buffering, restoration planting (to restore ecological
37 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix connections where necessary) with particular emphasis of managing coastal margins and stream edges. Mercury Island The Mercury Islands are unique in the Waikato Region, largely being managed by DoC, Iwi and benevolent private landowners for the protection of an array of threatened animals and plants. Every encouragement and effort should be made to assist them in managing these islands as the contribution they make to the special biodiversity flavour of New Zealand cannot be over- emphasised. Thames The middle and lower altitude areas are largely situated on unprotected private land. Pine dominated scrublands on steep ridges are habitat for kiwi and native frogs, which makes most of these areas internationally significant SNAs. Landowner support to legally protect these areas and implement pest control is priority one. These areas would benefit from further monitoring of threatened species. Tairua Linking the Coromandel Ranges with the lower lying shrublands and coastal forest and wetlands is of high priority particularly around Tairua, Pauanui and Opoutere. The Incentive Threshold Matrix Kessels&Associates have worked with the conservation lot subdivision rules in the operative Plan for many years. Based on their experience with these rules and the drafting of the WRC SNA report they have provided a Matrix to guide decision making on areas to be set aside for each priority level. It is important to understand that any ha-yields are to be interpreted and implemented within the context of other factors and constraints for development. The report provides detail on how areas with rare and endangered species have been acknowledged. A catchment based SNA layer The report canvasses an opportunity to further group SNAs into management priority sub-categories thus creating a Coromandel specific set of SNAs. This would better reflect the catchment and threatened habitat type based approach applied in the prioritisation process.
One of the benefits would be that areas that are currently outside the prioritised categories (many of the small ‘national priority one SNAs’ which sit close together could be targeted for restoration. An example given in the report is one additional title in return for 2-5 ha of restoration planting and weed/animal control to link and buffer these areas.
2.2.5 Further Refinement of Prioritised Areas and Threshold Matrix Staff have done additional work on the basis of the prioritisation report received from Kessels and Associates. Prioritised areas were analysed from a planning perspective including consideration of the Plan’s ‘Settlement Development and Growth’ chapter and relevant policies. Areas that have major
38 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix infrastructural constraints or where development is not anticipated because of either natural hazards or other high natural values have been excluded. Significance International National Regional Local Priority High 1 ha 2 ha 4 ha 10 ha Medium-high 2 ha 4 ha 10 ha 14 ha Medium 5 ha 10 ha 14 ha 20 ha It should be noted that the Kessel’s recommendation was for thresholds half the area shown above, plus larger thresholds for Medium-low and Low priority sites. Staff doubled the recommended thresholds, not for biodiversity reasons, but because the locations of the international, national significance and high priority sites are in areas sensitive to ribbon development along the coast. They might create undesirable demand for Council services, and possibly be contrary to NZCPS policy. For low priority areas, the thresholds were so large (15 ha +) that there was little economic incentive for protection. The high, medium-high and medium priorities are where we want to direct conservation lots.
The ha-threshold Matrix has been adjusted to better reflect the fact that if areas that are quite common in terms of their ecological values are set aside for conservation lot subdivision, these areas will need to be considerably larger than if the ecological value protected is higher.
39 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
3 Section 7 Coastal Environment
1.1 Coastal Policy Statement policies
1: Extent and characteristics of the coastal environment (1) Recognise that the extent and characteristics of the coastal environment vary from region to region and locality to locality; and the issues that arise may have different effects in different localities. (2) Recognise that the coastal environment includes: (d) areas at risk from coastal hazards; (e) coastal vegetation and the habitat of indigenous coastal species including migratory birds; (f) elements and features that contribute to the natural character, landscape, visual qualities or amenity values; (g) items of cultural and historic heritage in the coastal marine area or on the coast; (h) inter-related coastal marine and terrestrial systems, including the intertidal zone; and (i) physical resources and built facilities, including infrastructure, that have modified the coastal environment. 3: Precautionary approach (1) Adopt a precautionary approach towards proposed activities whose effects on the coastal environment are uncertain, unknown, or little understood, but potentially significantly adverse. (2) In particular, adopt a precautionary approach to use and management of coastal resources potentially vulnerable to effects from climate change, so that: (a) avoidable social and economic loss and harm to communities does not occur; (b) natural adjustments for coastal processes, natural defences, ecosystems, habitat and species are allowed to occur; and (c) the natural character, public access, amenity and other values of the coastal environment meet the needs of future generations. 6: Activities in the coastal environment (1) In relation to the coastal environment: (i) set back development from the coastal marine area and other water bodies, where practicable and reasonable, to protect the natural character, open space, public access and amenity values of the coastal environment.
40 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
7: Strategic planning (1) In preparing regional policy statements, and plans: (b) identify areas of the coastal environment where particular activities and forms of subdivision, use and development: (i) are inappropriate; and (ii) may be inappropriate without the consideration of effects through a resource consent application, notice of requirement for designation or Schedule 1 of the Act process; and provide protection from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development in these areas through objectives, policies and rules.
3.1 Regional Policy Statement Relevant Policies 4.1.7 Managing the coastal environment Local authorities should: a) recognise and manage the coastal environment as an integrated unit; and b) recognise the special context of the coastal environment, including the recognition that it has particular values and issues that are of regional and national significance and that impact on the wellbeing of the Waikato region, including: (i) its contribution to the regional and local economy; (ii) its cultural values and association, including historic heritage; (iii) its value as a pātaka kai; (iv) its public nature; (v) its amenity values, including its contribution to open space; (vi) its dynamic and hazardous nature; (vii) the difficulty in containing adverse effects due to its inter-connected nature; (viii) its potential for renewable energy generation; (ix) its ecological diversity and indigenous biodiversity values; (x) the use of the coastal marine area as the receiving environment for land-based discharges of sediment and contaminants and its sensitivity to them; and (xi) its potential for mineral resources. 6.2 Planning for development in the coastal environment Development of the built environment in the coastal environment occurs in a way that:
41 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix a) ensures sufficient development setbacks to protect coastal natural character, public access, indigenous biodiversity, natural physical processes, amenity and natural hazard mitigation functions of the coast; b) protects hydrological processes and natural functions of back dune areas; c) has regard to local coastal character; d) allows for the potential effects of sea level rise, including allowing for sufficient coastal habitat inland migration opportunities; e) protects the valued characteristics of remaining undeveloped, or largely undeveloped coastal environments; f) ensures adequate water, stormwater and wastewater services will be provided for the development; g) avoids increasing natural hazard risk associated with coastal erosion and inundation; h) has regard to the potential effects of a tsunami event, and takes appropriate steps to avoid, remedy or mitigate that risk; i) avoids ribbon development along coastal margins; j) does not compromise the function or operation of existing or planned coastal infrastructure; and k) provides for safe and efficient connectivity between activities occurring in the coastal marine area and associated land-based infrastructure. 6.2.1 Planning for development in the coastal environment Local authorities shall give effect to this policy through provisions in plans, and should give effect to the policy when developing growth strategies, structure plans and other development planning mechanisms. 6.2.3 Coastal development setback (new development) Regional and district plans shall require that, unless there is a functional need for it to be otherwise, new development along the coast be sufficient distance from the coastal edge to allow for the following: a) preserving natural character values; b) avoiding natural hazards; c) protecting the values associated with marine water quality; d) maintaining and enhancing public access to public areas; e) natural ecosystem functioning; and f) natural functioning of physical processes, including the ability of natural features such as wetlands, beaches and dunes, to migrate inland, and including the projected effects of climate change. 12.4.2 Amenity value of the coastal environment
42 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Regional and district plans shall ensure that the amenity values of the coastal environment are maintained or enhanced, including by: a) recognising the contribution that open space makes to amenity values and providing appropriate protection to areas of open space; b) maintaining or enhancing natural sites or areas of particular value for outdoor recreation; c) employing suitable development setbacks to avoid a sense of encroachment or domination of built form, particularly on areas of public open space and along the coastal edge; d) avoiding forms and location of development that effectively privatise the coastal edge and which discourage or prevent public access to and use of the coast; e) recognising that some areas derive their particular character and amenity value from a predominance of structures, modifications or activities, and providing for their appropriate management; f) ensuring the removal of derelict or unnecessary structures within the coastal marine area; g) encouraging appropriate design of new structures and other development to enhance existing amenity values; h) maximising the public benefits to be derived from developments; i) ensuring public access to public areas is enhanced where practicable; and j) recognising the role of esplanade reserves and strips in contributing to public open space needs. 12.4.3 Enhance public values in the coastal environment Local authorities should seek to incorporate the enhancement of public amenity values, including when undertaking works and services or preparing or reviewing growth strategies, structure plans, or regional and district plans. 12.6.1 Restrictions on public access Regional and district plans shall identify the circumstances when it is appropriate to restrict public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers and provide for alternative routes, where practicable, in the coastal environment, in accordance with Policy 12.6. 12.6.3 Other mechanisms for restricting vehicle use in the coastal environment Local authorities should: a) collaborate with tangata whenua, the Department of Conservation, NZ Police and other agencies and stakeholders to identify and address issues arising from the use of vehicles in sensitive areas of the coastal environment, including the foreshore, beaches and dunes; and b) consider the appropriateness of imposing restrictions on vehicle use using mechanisms such as: (i) district plan rules regarding accessways and roading; and (ii) local or regional bylaws.
43 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
12.6.1 Regional and district plans Regional and district plans shall: a) provide for the enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers by: (i) identifying areas where it is appropriate; or (ii) establishing criteria to enable assessment through resource consent processes of when it would be appropriate; and (iii) including provisions to ensure it occurs in appropriate circumstances and locations; b) recognise that activities which result in: (i) lowering of the beach face and loss of a high-tide beach, either immediately or over time; and (ii) loss (either in whole or in part) of existing lawful public access to and along the coastal marine area, including to beach areas from adjacent land; are inappropriate in terms of effects on public access to and along the coastal marine area; c) require that where subdivision, use or development requires a restriction on public access they should provide for, or contribute to, the provision or enhancement of public access elsewhere; and d) avoid adverse effects of activities on access to, use and enjoyment of surf breaks of national significance for surfing.
3.2 Council direction
3.2.1 2 March 2011 – Full Council meeting Adopt a precautionary approach towards proposed activities in the coastal environment.
Identify parts of the coastal environment where particular activities are inappropriate. Promote restoration or rehabilitation of the natural character of the coastal environment.
3.2.2 18 – 19 April 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting Develop objectives and policies specific to the coastal environment Policies to be detailed enough to provide guidance regarding which activities/effects are considered acceptable in the coastal environment (outside of settlements) and which activities/effects are unacceptable in the coastal environment. Include a specific policy regarding activities that may have an effect on the Whangamata Bar.
Review/amend extent of Coastal Zone to better reflect extent of coastal environment in undeveloped areas.
Ensure Coastal and Coastal Amenity Zone objectives and policies also include reference to the coastal environment. Identify the extent of the coastal environment on planning maps. Make provision for papakainga, marae and associated activities in the coastal environment.
44 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Ensure coastal environment policies and subdivision design guidance notes the importance of the provision of access to the coast and the need to protect existing public open space in the coastal environment.
Require a coastal development setback in undeveloped areas that addresses coastal hazards, natural character, amenity, open space and public access (e.g. 100m).
3.2.3 18 September 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting Noted that coastal environment objectives and policies need to be strong and clear.
3.3 Monitoring and technical reports
3.3.1 Coromandel Coastal Zone review Forsyth, H. (2010). Coromandel Coastal Zone Review. Site Environmental Consultants Ltd. Auckland. The Council commissioned the Coromandel Coastal Zone Review to provide an overview of the present pattern and character of the Coromandel Coastal Zone and the coastal settlement and housing within it. It compares present coastal land use and settlement patterns and character with that anticipated by the current Plan, and draws out principles to assist with policy development within the Plan review. The review found that the current Plan contains a comprehensive range of landscape and settlement policy, and assessment criteria that consider the potential effect of development on existing coastal and settlement values. The potential rehabilitation of the coastal environment is a key consideration of the consent of coastal development. However the majority of this policy applies to coastal subdivision and housing, while most new development is in the Coastal Village and Coastal Residential policy areas, and where a lower design threshold applies. The assessment of coastal settlement and housing considered that approximately 73% of existing coastal settlement met the pattern and form anticipated by the current Plan. The other 27% of sites had a range of issues that included:
The appropriateness of the settlement location. Off-site effects of the development on surrounding coastal and settlement values.
Scale and form of the development and the structures within it. Associated site effects of accessways, earthworks and vegetation removal. The Report's recommendations include: 1. Landscape management To take a strategic approach in identifying valued areas of coastline, and to divide the coastline into smaller administrative areas.
To distinguish between developed and undeveloped areas of the coastline in policy application.
45 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
2. Policy
To provide definitions of landscape and natural character that draw on the recent District Assessments of Landscape and Natural Character and reflect the relevant sections of the RMA and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
To provide for transferrable development mitigation measures, to enable the rehabilitation and protection of shoreline features within existing areas of settlement and other coastal areas. 3. Guidelines To develop non-binding regulatory design guidelines for subdivision and housing development, and mitigation planting. 4. Rules and standards
To make housing within Coastal Residential policy areas a restricted discretionary activity on the basis of non-regulatory guidelines for subdivision and housing development, and mitigation planting.
To make provision for 400 m2 lot sizes within Coastal Residential policy areas as a restricted discretionary activity on the basis of a comprehensive development plan. To make the location of access ways a restricted discretionary activity where visible within the coastal environment.
To restrict retaining wall heights to 1.5 m when visible within the coastal environment. To restrict excavation to a maximum depth of 2 m for benching platforms when visible within the coastal environment.
3.3.2 Ecological assessment of natural character Dahm, J., Graeme, M., Kendal, H. (2010). Coromandel Peninsula – Ecological Assessment of Natural Character. Focus Resource Management Group. Coromandel. While most of this report deals with the District's natural character, the authors also reviewed the RMA, NZCPS, Regional Council and case law definition of the coastal environment, and from this proposed a Coromandel-specific definition based on a 'bioclimatic zone' following criteria: below 200 m altitude (where coastal forest species occur), and less than 1 km inland on exposed land and less than 0.5 km inland for sheltered areas (e.g. estuaries) as the extent to which coastal wind and dynamics affect landform and vegetation.
3.3.3 Waikato Perception Survey 2010 – Thames-Coromandel report Dennis, J. (2010). Waikato Community Outcomes 2010: Thames – Coromandel Summary Report. International Research Consultants Ltd. Auckland. Respondents were asked questions about the environment they live in. The following responses relate to the coastal environment. Development on coastline is adequately managed: Very satisfied: 13% Satisfied: 37%
46 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Very unsatisfied: 16% Unsatisfied: 27%
3.3.4 Consolidated Landscape Assessment, Stephen Brown, 2011 The original Stephen Brown Landscape Assessment was reviewed and refined through targeted site visits. The Consolidated Landscape Assessment was used for the Plan’s Planning Maps.
3.3.5 3.4 Iwi management plan input – Whaia te Mahere Taiao a Hauraki Tangaroa Rerenga Wai Tai 3.a) Protect and restore coast, beach and estuarine habitats and ecosystems in the Hauraki tribal region.
3.3.6 Additional Refinement of the Coastal Environment Line Following consultation staff identified key issues arising around the Coastal Environment Line. A workshop was held with relevant experts (landscape, mapping, ecology, representatives from WRC) and the following points of refinement were determined: Refine the area that defines the Coastal Environment using the following criteria:
a) Generally follow the Stephen Brown line; b) Include peninsulas and coastal natural character contiguous with the coastline, as drawn by Natural Solutions, inland of the Stephen Brown line; c) Exclude Residential Zone, Commercial Zone and Industrial Zone unless:
- There are coastal hazard lines, in which case the Future Coastal Protection Line should be adopted; - There is Coastal Marine Area interaction such as wharfs, stopbanks, carparks etc.; - There are coastal wetlands, estuarine areas, dunes and canals;
d) Include recreation land along the coastline; e) Include roads where they serve areas seaward of development; and f) Be reasonable and practical e.g. no 'islands' of rural land surrounded by coastal environment.
Map the Coastal Environment as an Overlay. Rezone all Coastal Zone land to Rural Zone. Move the Coastal Living Zone into the Residential Area policy framework.
For more information on consultation and District Plan Review Committee decisions refer to Section 32 Part III A Consultation, section 9.
47 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
4 Section 8 Historic Heritage – Archaeology, Built Form, Sites of Significance to Maori
4.1 Statutory Considerations The Council’s mandate for archaeological site protection falls under the RMA, Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (HGMPA) and the Reserves Act. The relevant provisions of these Acts are discussed in detail in the Built Heritage Section 32 report. The following points are supplementary to that report. The provisions of the RMA and HGMPA can be used to protect archaeological values on privately and publicly owned land, whereas the Reserves Act deals with land that is in public ownership and largely controlled by the Council, Environment Waikato (EW) and the Department of Conservation. In addition, the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) has a statutory role under the Historic Places Act 1993 (HPA) to administer a consenting process for the modification, damage or destruction of all archaeological sites predating 1900.
4.2 The Resource Management Act Under the Resource Management Act (RMA), the Thames-Coromandel District Council (TCDC) is obliged to protect historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development as a matter of national importance (section 6(f)). The definition of historic heritage provided in section two of the RMA is as follows:
“historic heritage” – (a) means those natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures, deriving from any of the following qualities: i. archaeological: ii. architectural: iii. cultural: iv. historic: v. scientific: vi. technological; and (b) includes – i. historic sites, structures, places, and areas; and ii. archaeological sites; and iii. sites of significance to Maori, including wahi tapu; and iv. surroundings associated with the natural and physical resources:
As highlighted, the definition explicitly recognises natural and physical resources having archaeological qualities (or values), including archaeological sites, as aspects of historic heritage to be protected. Archaeological values exist in the urban, rural and coastal environments and can be associated with, for instance, buildings, gardens, landscapes and soils. Archaeological sites are the physical evidence of past human activity and incorporate a wide array of features and remains, such as pa, settlement and industrial sites, gold mines, tracks and trails, wharves, middens, places of burial, and shipwrecks. A point to note is that the RMA definition above does not restrict consideration of archaeological sites to those that predate 1900, as is the case under the HPA. This suggests that post-1900 archaeological sites can be identified and protected by District Plan provisions.
48 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
The surroundings associated with archaeological sites are another aspect to be considered. For instance, the extent of a site is not always readily observed, as sub-surface archaeological deposits can be present beyond any identifiable surface features. As well, there can be a number of related sites in proximity to each other, such as settlement, food storage, gardening and industrial sites, which together constitute an archaeological area or landscape. In these cases, identifying the surroundings of individual sites and groups of sites can result in greater recognition and protection of archaeological values.
4.3 Coastal Policy Statement Relevant Policies 17: Historic heritage identification and protection Protect historic heritage in the coastal environment from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development by: (a) identification, assessment and recording of historic heritage, including archaeological sites; (b) providing for the integrated management of such sites in collaboration with relevant councils, heritage agencies, iwi authorities and kaitiaki; (c) initiating assessment and management of historic heritage in the context of historic landscapes; (d) recognising that heritage to be protected may need conservation; (e) facilitating and integrating management of historic heritage that spans the line of mean high water springs; (f) including policies, rules and other methods relating to (a) to (e) above in regional policy statements, and plans; (g) imposing or reviewing conditions on resource consents and designations, including for the continuation of activities; (h) requiring, where practicable, conservation conditions; and (i) considering provision for methods that would enhance owners’ opportunities for conservation of listed heritage structures, such as relief grants or rates relief.
4.4 Regional Policy Statement Relevant Policies 10.1.3 Identification and assessment The Regional Heritage Inventory shall identify known sites, structures, areas, landscapes or places of historic or cultural heritage that require protection from inappropriate subdivision, use and development for inclusion in relevant regional or district plans. In doing so regard shall be had to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust register of historic places, historic areas and waahi tapu areas. The criteria provided in section 10A shall form the basis of any new assessment of historic and cultural heritage. 10.2.3 Maintaining or enhancing tāngata whenua relationships with their rohe
49 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Local authorities should work with tāngata whenua to identify opportunities to maintain or enhance their relationship with their rohe through recognition, protection, maintenance or enhancement of Māori cultural landscapes and should provide for these within regional and district plans. This may include:
the use of traditional place names; protection, enhancement and restoration of mauri;
the use of appropriate plant species; appropriate access (use and enjoyment) for tāngata whenua; and
incorporation of traditional or sympathetic design elements. 10.3.1 Protect historic and cultural heritage from inappropriate subdivision use and development Regional and district plans shall provide for the protection of historic and cultural heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. Mechanisms may include: a) heritage alert layers; b) accidental discovery protocols; c) cultural value assessments and/or cultural impact assessments; d) conservation and open space covenants; e) heritage orders; f) financial and other incentives; and g) bonds and conditions of consent. 10.3.2 Inappropriate subdivision, use and development In determining whether an activity is inappropriate, regional and district plans shall require that regard is given to: a) the character and degree of modification, damage, loss or destruction of heritage qualities; b) the duration and frequency of effect; c) the magnitude or scale of any effect on heritage qualities; d) the opportunities available to remedy or mitigate pre-existing or potential adverse effects on heritage qualities; e) the probability of damage to immediate or adjacent heritage qualities; f) the degree to which unique or special materials and/or craftsmanship are retained; g) whether the activity will lead to cumulative adverse effects on historic and cultural heritage; h) whether the relationships between distinct elements of a historic place, site or area will be maintained; i) whether the relationships between sites or areas of historic and cultural heritage to other sites or areas of historic and cultural heritage will be maintained; j) the irreversibility of adverse effects on heritage values including:
50 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
(i) the loss of unique or rare features; (ii) opportunities for remediation; (iii) the costs and technical feasibility of remediation or mitigation; (iv) the relocation of heritage away from its original site or context; (v) the loss of value or integrity of historic places, sites or areas through lack of appropriate maintenance and management; and (vi) a significant reduction in the value of the historical, cultural and spiritual associations with historic and cultural heritage resources which are held by tangata whenua and the wider community; and k) the resilience of heritage qualities or places to change including: (i) the ability of the feature to assimilate change; and (ii) the vulnerability of the feature to external effects. l) effects on the surroundings associated with significant heritage places and areas; and m) the requirement to retain the operational function of nationally and regionally significant
transport infrastructure.
4.5 Council direction
4.5.1 18 February 2011 – District Plan Review Committee A register needs to be kept of significant Māori cultural sites, managed and protected by perhaps using 'silent files'. The register needs to be accurate and bring in existing information from other processes.
4.5.2 2 March 2011 – Full Council meeting Identify, protect and enhance historic heritage. Manage the effects of subdivision use and development to maintain historic heritage and integrate with new development where appropriate.
4.5.3 4 – 6 April 2011 – District Plan Review Committee Provisions specifically relating to character areas will not be included in the Draft Plan.
Consideration be given to the preparation of non-regulatory design guides for character areas in consultation with community boards. Use the District Plan Directions and the associated Possible District Plan Provisions as the basis for proceeding with preparation of the Draft Plan. Landowners need certainty around Māori [cultural] site identification. If a rule is to affect private land then landowners should be advised where their land is affected. This comes back to specificity around identification of sites. Facilitate the identification of sites of cultural significance to tangata whenua and link the objectives and policies within the tangata whenua section regarding protection of wāhi tapu and other sites of cultural significance with rules relating to general activities.
51 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
4.5.4 Heritage Strategy 2008 The Council has recognised that the protection of heritage is an important issue facing the Coromandel Peninsula. The Community Outcome states “The Peninsula’s long and rich history is valued and preserved.” They strongly emphasise that heritage buildings and sites are preserved, and that a coordinated and supportive approach to heritage protection is undertaken and oral, written and physical heritage is identified, collected and preserved. The Council’s objective in developing a Heritage Strategy is to identify, collect and preserve the District’s oral, written and physical heritage and have a coordinated and supportive approach to heritage management. Through the Strategy the Council aims to strengthen the existing policies within the reviewed Plan and prioritise new actions to ensure that positive heritage outcomes are achieved. The Strategy consolidates the strategic direction and the contribution of the Council in regards to heritage protection on the Coromandel Peninsula.
4.6 Iwi management plan input – Whaia te Mahere Taiao a Hauraki Papatuanuku 3.c) Ancestral taonga valued by Hauraki Whänui are actively protected from the impacts of growth in the Hauraki tribal region. Rongomatāne 3.a) Wāhi tapu and cultural heritage sites are being protected from use and development in the Hauraki tribal region. Rongomatāne 3.b) The relevant statutory agencies and resource developers and users are working with Hauraki Whänui to protect wähi tapu and cultural heritage sites. Rongomatāne 3.c) Hauraki whänui have the lead responsibility for managing the protection, preservation and use of wāhi tapu and cultural heritage sites, places and landscapes of importance to Hauraki Whänui.
4.7 Monitoring and Technical Reports
4.7.1 Monitoring built heritage outcomes Mason, G. (2009). Monitoring Built Heritage Outcomes in the Thames-Coromandel District: An Evaluation of District Plan Effectiveness. Inform Planning Ltd. This study looked at the effectiveness of the heritage provisions of the current Plan. Properties where resource consent had been applied for were visited by an architectural historian. The historian assessed consent outcomes against the relevant design criteria in the current Plan. Each consent was given an overall score for whether the outcomes had enhanced, maintained or impacted negatively on the heritage values of the subject property. Observations from the report include: For Thames: 18% of consents enhanced heritage values.
36% of consents maintained heritage values (i.e. there was no discernible impact). 46% of consents led to a loss of heritage values, although the values lost were largely minor and reversible. In comparison, resource consents for Coromandel led to a greater loss of heritage values:
52 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
9% of consents enhanced heritage values.
22% maintained heritage values. 69% led to a loss of heritage values. A number of factors were found to have influenced the monitoring results, both positively and negatively.
Summary of Factors Influencing District Plan Implementation Promotes Successful Impedes Successful Implementation Implementation
Plan Quality Large number of scheduled Gaps in the regulatory framework buildings and several HPAs mean some activities do not require identified. consent and/or effects on heritage are not fully considered. Rules require resource consent for a range of activities. Prescriptive implementation guidance limits the Council's ability to fully Design criteria provide guidance assess effects. to owners and the Council. Unreliable fact base bringing into question the significance of scheduled buildings.
Capacity and Staff involved in discussions with Reactive response to resource consent Willingness of owners at an early stage. applications. the Council Skilled staff able to accurately Inexperience and/or lack of awareness appraise effects. about heritage among planners. Decision-makers committed to Lack of incentives and education achieving quality outcomes. initiatives to support regulatory methods. Staff and decision-makers able to persuade owners to amend Lack of monitoring and enforcement. plans.
Capacity and Personal motivation to protect Cost-based approach to commercial Willingness of heritage values. development. Owners Willing to undertake early Lack of regard for and/or awareness discussions with the Council. of heritage values. High quality applications from Poor applications from unskilled appropriately skilled advisors. advisors, or DIY attempts from property owners.
Council/ All the factors in this column. All the factors in this column. Owner
53 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix relations
Development Significant heritage values. Large-scale projects. Characteristics Small-scale projects. Subdivision patterns. Subdivision patterns
A number of recommendations were made to strengthen the Plan's quality and its implementation, relating to: internal consistency, regulatory framework, relationship between Plan sections, implementation guidance, fact base, monitoring and enforcement, non-regulatory incentives, and education.
4.7.2 Heritage review project – summary report McEwan, A. (2010). TCDC Heritage Review Project – Consultant's Summary Report 2010. Heritage Consultancy Services. Hamilton. This report presents the recommendations made by Dr Ann McEwan of Heritage Consultancy Services in regard to the Council's historic heritage identification and management. The report addresses key historic heritage management issues of identification and protection, interpretation and integration, analyses the current planning framework, and recommends increased protection of the District’s historic heritage resources through the Plan and specific Reserve Management Plans. The study brings together the Coromandel Peninsula Thematic History, five individual Community Board heritage studies, the Monitoring Built Heritage Outcomes report and Photographic Portfolio, and historic heritage research and analysis.
4.7.3 Heritage review project – thematic mapping and history McEwan, A. (2009). TCDC Heritage Review Project – Coromandel Peninsula Thematic Mapping and History 2009. Heritage Consultancy Services. Hamilton. The report was the result of a comprehensive project to review provisions in the current Plan relating to built/historic heritage, especially Plan provisions and heritage registers. The report is organised around the following themes: peopling the land, developing economies, governing the Coromandel, building communities,
4.7.4 Heritage review project – community board heritage studies McEwan, A. (2010). TCDC Heritage Review Project – Community Board Heritage Studies: Thames, Coromandel/Colville, Mercury Bay, Tairua/Pauanui, Whangamata. Heritage Consultancy Services. Hamilton. The report was the result of a comprehensive project to review provisions in the current Plan relating to built/historic heritage, especially Plan provisions and heritage registers. The report is organised around the following themes: peopling the land, developing economies, governing the Coromandel, building communities and mind and body. For each community board area there is a separate Community Heritage Study with buildings, sites and places identified and assessed in accordance with the District Thematic Framework. In total, approximately 220 heritage buildings, sites and places have been identified for consideration in the District, within the following community board areas: Thames (78),
54 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Coromandel-Colville (105), Mercury Bay (21), Tairua-Pauanui (7), and Whangamata (7). All buildings and sites that are currently registered, and those that are proposed for registration, have been thoroughly researched.
4.7.5 Historic heritage and character areas McEwan, A., Schroder, J. (2010). Thames-Coromandel District Council Historic Heritage and Character Areas Mapping. Heritage Consultancy Services and Urban Opera. Hamilton. The report provides a summary of proposed historic heritage and character areas that are considered worthy of recognition, retention and management in the District. Preliminary recommendations are provided within the report to give direction to the ways in which historic heritage values and character elements may be managed through the Plan and its associated mechanisms. Prior to this exercise, the Council had commissioned work that evaluated the urban form, design and density of the eight reticulated settlements of the District and commissioned a detailed report to identify historic heritage values, particularly historic buildings, in the District. This study underpins the historic heritage and character area assessment. This assessment delineates areas broadly recognised for their historic heritage and character values, but is not an individual assessment of each site or building within that grouping. It is not intended to provide definitive techniques for the management of historic heritage and character values, although some recommendations are made that address particular aspects of these values. The study focuses on the main settlements that might be subject to urban growth in the District including Thames, Whangamata and Whitianga. Areas that may be at risk from redevelopment, including the smaller, more accessible coastal bach settlements, and those areas considered to be of value as future historic heritage and character areas are also assessed. Future historic heritage and character assessment of other small coastal communities is recommended.
4.7.6 Māori heritage of Thames McEnteer, J., Turoa, T. (1993). Nga Taonga o Te Kauaeranga (Māori Heritage of Thames). Thames. In early 1992, the Thames Community Board was keen to implement some aspects of the Thames Heritage Study and its associated landscape plans. Part of the brief for Boffa Miskell Partners required an initial assessment of the scope and significance of Māori heritage. Boffa Miskell commissioned the authors to prepare this independent report on Māori heritage matters. The report's objectives were:
Review existing reports to establish which of the heritage features already identified have value or sensitivity to Māori and identify gaps in our knowledge.
Identify sites, areas and features of significance to Māori in the Thames township, especially Grahamstown. Offer suggestions, consider incentives, mechanisms and/or rules within the RMA and the Historic Places Act to deal with the issues of protection raised in the study. Focus on the Grahamstown area to identify, confirm, list and categorise primary Māori heritage features.
55 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
4.7.7 Māori cultural impact assessment – Thames to Kopu Structure Plan Ngāti Maru Runanga. (2009). Māori Cultural Impact Assessment: Thames to Kopu Structure Plan. Thames A report undertaken to highlight issues relevant to Ngāti Maru regarding the Kopu to Thames Structure Plan and to also identify the relationship Ngāti Maru has with that area. The report includes areas of historic heritage, cultural and spiritual significance to Ngāti Maru shown on a map.
4.7.8 Māori cultural impact assessment – Proposed Whangamatā Harbour Walkway Kennedy, N. (2009). Proposed Whangamatā Harbour Walkway – a Māori Cultural Impact Assessment. Te Rangahau o Ngāti Whanaunga. Whangamata. The purpose of this Māori Values Assessment (MVA) is to provide the Council with a description of the tikanga and values of Ngäti Whanaunga relating to the proposed walkway, an assessment of how it might impact on these, and advice as to how this might be prevented. The report recounts the history of Whangamatā, along the edges of which are known to be some of the earliest places occupied by Mäori in Aotearoa. It goes on to describe the centuries old relationship of Ngäti Whanaunga with Whangamatā. The means by which Ngäti Whanaunga has come to retain none of its ancestral lands at Whangamatā is considered, as is the relevance of Treaty claims and the likelihood that these will restore ownership to Ngäti Whanaunga of substantial lands around Whangamatā. Some historic detail is also provided regarding the particular lands over which the walkway is intended. Section Two of the MVA is concerned with the walkway proposal. It identifies the initial route proposed, and considers issues arising out of this. Section Three provides guidance on identified issues and concerns; including means by which offence to tikanga can be avoided, and a walkway built that will serve the community without additional destruction of Ngäti Whanaunga taonga. Section Three explores opportunities presented by the proposed walkway. Of particular importance appears to be the potential for the walkway to reinstate a glimpse of the historic significance of Whangamatā to tāngatā whenua, and means by which this might be achieved are recommended.
4.7.9 Archaeological sites and areas Furey, L. (2011). Identification of Archaeological Sites for Scheduling in the Thames-Coromandel Draft District Plan. CFG Heritage. Auckland. The definition of archaeological sites is pre-1900 and able to be investigated using archaeological methods. Archaeological sites can be on the Historic Places Register or wahi tapu area. Scheduling in the Plan adds another layer of protection. The schedule identifies significant places on the Coromandel Peninsula, some of which are of national significance. Proposed scheduled built heritage places (pre-1900) will also be archaeological sites. It is important to include curtilage as part of the scheduled area. Rules for built heritage may need to include the need for an archaeological assessment (subject to scale of modification) and application to the Historic Places Trust for an authority to modify. The archaeological schedule includes Maori and European sites, but is not representative of all site types. Few pa sites are identified. This leaves an opening for iwi to nominate places of cultural significance. The focus was on places with high scientific or landscape value which might not otherwise be included for protection under the Plan. The sites cover a range of occupation periods.
56 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Areas and sites are sometimes in reserves, conservation land and private property:
Otautu Bay (pa/terraces/midden/ possible gardens) mixed land ownership. Landscape was an important consideration here.
Sarah’s Gully (2 early settlement sites/pa) Opito (early settlement sites)
Opito (early settlement site/stone quarry/pa/garden boundaries/WW2 radar station) Recommended scheduled sites and areas indicate a desire to protect a coherent group of sites from development. Nationally significant group of sites at Opito and Sarah’s Gully are best treated collectively rather than individually. Archaeological areas in close proximity to and based around significant sites might also have archaeological evidence.
4.8 Issues identified and recommendations A number of key issues arise in relation to archaeological site identification and protection in the District. They include: 1) the dual consenting process of the RMA and HPA; 2) outdated and inaccurate information about recorded sites; 3) incomplete knowledge about the District’s archaeological heritage; and 4) the need to recognise Maori cultural values. Dual Consenting Process of the RMA and HPA A consenting process under the HPA, administered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT), makes it illegal to modify, damage or destroy an archaeological site without NZHPT’s authority. An issue is therefore how to avoid duplication of roles between TCDC acting under the RMA and NZHPT acting under the HPA. Ultimately, the two Acts have a different focus in protecting sites - the HPA provides ‘blanket’ protection to all pre-1900 archaeological sites simply by virtue of their age, not their archaeological significance. The HPA is also somewhat ‘passive’ in its protection; an archaeological authority is applied for when a landowner has decided to undertake an activity that will modify, destroy or damage an archaeological site. As the vast majority of authorities are granted, the goal is to recover information from sites before it is lost. In contrast, the RMA allows councils to be proactive and discerning in identifying archaeological values and sites of significance. The goal is to protect the most significant sites by ensuring they remain unaffected by land use activity. The application of rules controlling the effects of activities known to damage sites enables councils to consider in advance the effects of development proposals and alternatives, and to require landowners to avoid or minimise adverse impacts. Outdated and Inaccurate Information The bulk of archaeological sites in the District were recorded many years ago and the information they contain is now outdated. Significant development has occurred in the District over the past 20- 30 years, often in places having a high concentration of archaeological sites (such as near coastal dunes). It is therefore likely that many recorded sites have been damaged or destroyed in the development process. However, as there is no regular monitoring programme to assess the condition of archaeological sites over time, and as the Council declined to participate in the New Zealand Archaeological Association site recording upgrade project, the old record forms remain the only information available in many instances.
57 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Also, the plotting of recorded sites on GIS systems and planning maps is fraught as their location is often approximate, not exact. This means that sites that appear to be on one landowner’s property may in fact be on their neighbour’s land. This inaccuracy is problematic when trying to apply district plan rules to specific land use activities. Incomplete Knowledge Large areas of the District have not been surveyed by an archaeologist, including offshore islands which were inhabited and utilised extensively by early Maori and European settlers. This means that there will be numerous unrecorded sites which landowners, TCDC and NZHPT are unaware of. These sites are particularly vulnerable to being damaged or destroyed. Obviously the significance of unrecorded sites is unknown – some may possess significant archaeological values that warrant scheduling on the District Plan. Maori Cultural Values The identification and protection of sites that have significant archaeological values may also be valued by tangata whenua given that many sites relate to the past activity of their ancestors. It is also probable that tangata whenua will value other sites that do not warrant protection for their archaeological values. It is important, therefore, that the Council undertakes a process with tangata whenua to identify sites of significance to Maori and to decide upon the appropriate means of protection.35 Field Assessment Given that there is no monitoring data available, a field trip was conducted over two days in December 2010 to assist with the review of the District Plan archaeological provisions.36 The objective was to view a representative range of archaeological sites in the District, including highly significant ones, and to observe past and present land uses that have impacted, or have the potential to impact, negatively on archaeology. This field trip, as well as analysis of the District Plan archaeological provisions37 and provisions in other district plans, have informed the proposed framework of the Plan. Recommendations for Identification and Scheduling Sites having significant archaeological values should be identified on the Plan’s Heritage Schedule. The Historic and Cultural Heritage Assessment Criteria in Environment Waikato’s Proposed Regional Policy Statement may be used to provide a framework for assessing the significance of sites. Only those sites that meet the assessment criteria should be scheduled, with all other sites being subject to the archaeological authority provisions of the HPA. In other words, the only overlap in the consenting processes administered by TCDC and NZHPT would be for those significant archaeological sites identified on the District Plan Heritage Schedule. Sites proposed for scheduling should be visited and record forms updated to include their current condition and geographic extent (i.e. the area surrounding the site to be included on the schedule). The boundaries of the sites should be recorded using GPS to ensure they are accurately plotted on the Council’s GIS system and District Planning maps.
35 TCDC are aware of this matter and are taking steps to engage with local Maori about it. 36 Present both days were Louise Furey (CFG Archaeology Ltd) and Greg Mason (Inform Planning Ltd). Nicola Read (TCDC Policy Planner) and Ann McEwan (Heritage Consultancy Services) were present on the 1st day. 37 See McEwan (2010) pp.26-31; and Mason and McEwan (2008) pp.26-36 for further details.
58 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
As well as identifying specific sites, archaeological areas comprising a group of sites should be scheduled. Opito Bay on the East Coast of the Peninsula represents one such area and further research may identify other areas significant enough to protect. Archaeological areas contain sites that have an historical as well as spatial association. In other words, the sites included in an archaeological area reflect a range of human activities that occurred in order to sustain the inhabitants. For instance, Opito Bay has defended pa, settlement sites, industrial sites (for making stone implements), gardening sites, food storage etc. Together these sites form a nationally important archaeological landscape and their protection as a group is necessary to ensure the full history of Opito Bay is fully recognised. Recommendations for Protection During the field assessment there was evidence of a range of activities that had actually or potentially damaged archaeological sites including: 1. Subdivision and subsequent development, particularly residential settlements behind or on coastal dune systems. 2. Creation of tourist facilities, such as carparks at Hot Water Beach and Te Karo Bay. 3. Planting and removal of trees and other vegetation. 4. Fencing. 5. Construction/upgrade of roads/tracks.
Other activities known to have potentially damaging effects on archaeological values, as identified in a range of district plans and best practice guidance from the NZHPT,38 include: 1. Earthworks for a range of activities 2. Erection of buildings, structures and signage 3. Storage of vehicles, machinery or materials 4. Landscaping 5. Discharge of stormwater or wastewater 6. Installation and maintenance of services both under and above ground (e.g. waste water, communication systems, power supply). The District Plan currently includes a rule controlling activities such as these which will cause the modification, damage or destruction of an archaeological site. This wording (i.e. modification, damage or destruction) is consistent with the wording in the HPA with regard to archaeological authorities and it is considered appropriate to retain it in the District plan for consistency. This wording is also widely used in other district plans. It is proposed, however, that the existing rule be made into two rules to distinguish between modification and damage as a discretionary activity and destruction as a non-complying activity. This takes into account the differing degree of impact between modification and damage, where an archaeological site or area would be impacted in part,
38 New Zealand Historic Places Trust (2007). Sustainable Management of Historic Heritage, Guide No.3: District Plans. Wellington: NZHPT
59 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix and destruction, where the significant archaeological values associated with the site would be largely or entirely lost. It is further proposed that the existing rule relating to earthworks in the vicinity of an archaeological site be deleted and instead include explicit reference to earthworks in the rule relating to modification, damage or destruction. The extent of archaeological sites and areas identified on the District Plan Heritage Schedule should include the surroundings deemed necessary to ensure the entire site/area is subject to the rules, thus negating the need for terms such as 'in the vicinity of'. It is also proposed to include detailed policies to assist applicants and TCDC planning staff to assess the likely effects of activities that might modify, damage or destroy an archaeological site. A new rule that specifically deals with subdivision of land that contains an archaeological site is also proposed. This is to ensure that the effects of subdivision on archaeological sites is taken into account when deciding upon aspects such as position of boundaries, building sites, accessways, landscaping etc. Again, detailed policies enable a full assessment of effects arising from subdivision applications. Finally, it is proposed to include a permitted activity rule relating to the 'maintenance' of archaeological sites and areas. This is to provide for activities that are currently being undertaken, such as stock grazing, cultivation, maintenance and minor upgrade of existing buildings etc. provided that the intensity of the activity remains the same or less. Activities aimed at caring for archaeological values, such as weed control are also provided for. Where the permitted standards are not met, a resource consent would be required as a discretionary activity. The wording for this rule has come from best practice guidance provided by NZHPT.39 Information for Landowners Large areas of the District have not been surveyed, including the offshore islands and it is likely that sites of archaeological significance have yet to be recorded. Therefore, it is proposed that the following information is provided in the Archaeological provisions as policies: the process to follow under the Historic Places Act 1993 if landowners want to modify, damage or destroy a recorded archaeological site; the process to follow if landowners accidentally disturb an archaeological site.
In addition it is proposed that the following information be provided on the District Plan maps to inform landowners about the presence or likely presence of archaeological sites: the location of all recorded archaeological sites within the Thames-Coromandel District; the locations where unrecorded archaeological sites are most likely to be present (such as the early town centres of Thames and Coromandel, ridge lines, dune systems and headlands);
Providing this information for landowners is considered necessary because it is inevitably through the development process that sites are modified, damaged or destroyed and the obvious contact point for landowners is the Council. Therefore the most obvious way landowners will be informed about the presence or likelihood of archaeological sites on their land is via the Council and District Plan.
39 New Zealand Historic Places Trust (2007). Sustainable Management of Historic Heritage, Guide No.3: District Plans. Wellington: NZHPT
60 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
5 Section 9 Landscape and Natural Character
5.1 Coastal Policy Statement Relevant Policies 6: Activities in the coastal environment (1) In relation to the coastal environment: (h) consider how adverse visual impacts of development can be avoided in areas sensitive to such effects, such as headlands and prominent ridgelines, and as far as practicable and reasonable apply controls or conditions to avoid those effects. 13: Preservation of natural character (1) To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and to protect it from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development: (a) avoid adverse effects of activities on natural character in areas of the coastal environment with outstanding natural character; and (b) avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects of activities on natural character in all other areas of the coastal environment; including by: (c) assessing the natural character of the coastal environment of the region or district, by mapping or otherwise identifying at least areas of high natural character; and (d) ensuring that regional policy statements, and plans, identify areas where preserving natural character requires objectives, policies and rules, and include those provisions. (2) Recognise that natural character is not the same as natural features and landscapes or amenity values and may include matters such as: (a) natural elements, processes and patterns; (b) biophysical, ecological, geological and geomorphological aspects; (c) natural landforms such as headlands, peninsulas, cliffs, dunes, wetlands, reefs, freshwater springs and surf breaks; (d) the natural movement of water and sediment; (e) the natural darkness of the night sky; (f) places or areas that are wild or scenic; (g) a range of natural character from pristine to modified; and (h) experiential attributes, including the sounds and smell of the sea; and their context or setting. 14: Restoration of natural character Promote restoration or rehabilitation of the natural character of the coastal environment, including by : (a) identifying areas and opportunities for restoration or rehabilitation; (b) providing policies, rules and other methods directed at restoration or rehabilitation
61 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix in regional policy statements, and plans; (c) where practicable, imposing or reviewing restoration or rehabilitation conditions on resource consents and designations, including for the continuation of activities; and recognising that where degraded areas of the coastal environment require restoration or rehabilitation, possible approaches include: (i) restoring indigenous habitats and ecosystems, using local genetic stock where practicable; or (ii) encouraging natural regeneration of indigenous species, recognising the need for effective weed and animal pest management; or (iii) creating or enhancing habitat for indigenous species; or (iv) rehabilitating dunes and other natural coastal features or processes, including saline wetlands and intertidal saltmarsh; or (v) restoring and protecting riparian and intertidal margins; or (vi) reducing or eliminating discharges of contaminants; or (vii) removing redundant structures and materials that have been assessed to have minimal heritage or amenity values and when the removal is authorised by required permits, including an archaeological authority under the Historic Places Act 1993; or (viii) restoring cultural landscape features; or (ix) redesign of structures that interfere with ecosystem processes; or (x) decommissioning or restoring historic landfill and other contaminated sites which are, or have the potential to, leach material into the coastal marine area. 15: Natural features and natural landscapes To protect the natural features and natural landscapes (including seascapes) of the coastal environment from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development: (a) avoid adverse effects of activities on outstanding natural features and outstanding natural landscapes in the coastal environment; and (b) avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy, or mitigate other adverse effects of activities on other natural features and natural landscapes in the coastal environment; including by: (c) identifying and assessing the natural features and natural landscapes of the coastal environment of the region or district, at minimum by land typing, soil characterisation and landscape characterisation and having regard to: (i) natural science factors, including geological, topographical, ecological and dynamic components; (ii) the presence of water including in seas, lakes, rivers and streams; (iii) legibility or expressiveness—how obviously the feature or landscape demonstrates its formative processes; (iv) aesthetic values including memorability and naturalness; (v) vegetation (native and exotic);
62 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
(vi) transient values, including presence of wildlife or other values at certain times of the day or year; (vii) whether the values are shared and recognised; (viii) cultural and spiritual values for tangata whenua, identified by working, as far as practicable, in accordance with tikanga Māori; including their expression as cultural landscapes and features; (ix) historical and heritage associations; and (x) wild or scenic values; (d) ensuring that regional policy statements, and plans, map or otherwise identify areas where the protection of natural features and natural landscapes requires objectives, policies and rules; and (e) including the objectives, policies and rules required by (d) in plans.
5.2 Regional Policy Statement 12.1.1 Protect values of outstanding natural features and landscapes Regional and district plans shall identify and provide for the protection of the values and characteristics of outstanding natural features and landscapes, including those of regional significance identified in section 12A (Table 12-1). 12.3.1 District and regional plans Regional and district plans shall: a) recognise that different levels of natural character exist within the coastal environment and inland water bodies and their margins; ab) map or otherwise identify areas of high natural character in the coastal environment using the criteria in section 12C (Table 12-3); b) ensure activities are appropriate with respect to the level of natural character, including particularly those activities that: (i) alter the natural appearance and functioning of beach and dune systems, or wetlands, lakes or rivers (and their margins); (ii) damage or remove areas of indigenous vegetation; (iii) introduce man-made elements/structures where none were previously present or obvious; or (iv) introduce man-made elements/structures into a modified area which results in a significant change to natural character; and c) have particular regard to the following: (i) protecting the special values of inland water bodies, estuaries and bays, beaches and dune systems, including the unique physical processes that occur within and between them; (ii) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of fresh water aquatic, coastal and marine ecosystems; (iii) maintaining or enhancing indigenous biodiversity and the functioning of ecosystems; (iv) location, design and form of the man-made elements/structures and any mitigation measures necessary or proposed;
63 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
(v) protecting natural functioning of physical processes over a 100-year timeframe; and (vi) protecting geological features. 12.3.2 Enhance natural character where compromised Local authorities should identify opportunities to enhance, restore or rehabilitate the natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins where it has been compromised, including when undertaking works and services or preparing or reviewing growth strategies, structure plans, or regional and district plans. In particular, opportunities to achieve the following should be considered: a) the removal of derelict or unnecessary structures; b) restoration or enhancement of natural elements; c) enhancement of water quality; d) modification of existing development to be less intrusive; and e) de-reclamation of redundant reclaimed land. 12.4.1 Maintain and enhance areas of amenity value Regional and district plans shall ensure areas of particular amenity value to regional or local communities are appropriately recognised and the qualities and characteristics for which they are valued are maintained or enhanced.
5.3 Council direction
5.3.1 2 March 2011 – Full Council meeting Outstanding landscapes are protected.
Providing for subdivision, use and development that protects the values of outstanding landscapes.
The values that contribute to amenity landscapes are protected. Providing for subdivision, use or development that results in the maintenance or enhancement of amenity values.
Natural character values of the coastal environment, wetlands, rivers and their margins are protected.
Providing for subdivision, use or development that results in the restoration and/or enhancement of natural character values.
5.3.2 18 – 19 April 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting Policies for the District Plan review should focus on threatened environments rather than being too general, as natural ecosystems are central to the values that underpin quality of life and tourism in the District.
There is a need to focus on the national biodiversity strategy and for the District Plan review to focus on the under-represented ecosystems and threatened species/habitats.
64 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Amend existing objectives and policies to require the protection of outstanding landscapes and the maintenance or enhancement of amenity landscapes. Ensure policies identify the need for adequate assessment of adjoining activities to ensure they do not detract from the values that contribute to a landscape being classed as outstanding.
Identify outstanding and amenity landscapes by mapping them in the Draft Plan.
Include rules to ensure activities with the potential to adversely affect outstanding landscapes (e.g. vegetation clearance or earthworks) are a non-complying activity. Surface mining may become a prohibited activity.
New buildings/structures (including houses) in an outstanding landscape become a restricted discretionary activity, with associated assessment criteria regarding design, siting etc.
Ensure subdivision of sites including an outstanding landscape requires appropriate consideration and protection of the landscape values present (e.g. subdivision = non- complying).
Subdivision of sites including an area identified as an amenity landscape will retain its existing activity status (e.g. discretionary in the Rural and Coastal Zone) with assessment of the effects of the subdivision on the amenity landscape required via the policies.
Create a new section and include new objectives and policies to require the protection of areas of high natural character and promoting the restoration of natural character.
Ensure policies identify the need for adequate assessment of adjoining activities to ensure they do not detract from the values that contribute to an area being classed as having high natural character.
Identify areas of high natural character by mapping them in the District Plan. Include rules to ensure activities with the potential to adversely affect areas of high natural character (e.g. vegetation clearance or earthworks) are a non-complying activity.
New buildings/structures (including houses) in an area of high natural character become a restricted discretionary activity, with associated assessment criteria regarding design, siting etc.
Ensure subdivision of sites including an area of high natural character requires appropriate consideration and protection of the landscape values present (e.g. subdivision = non- complying).
Promote restoration of natural character of the coastal environment by identifying suitable areas and opportunities by way of reference documents to the District Plan (e.g. WRC maps of priority ecological corridors, list of threatened environments etc.) and providing for 'conservation covenant' type subdivision incentives as a discretionary activity where these areas are to be restored or rehabilitated.
Include detailed policies/guidance outlining where and how restoration and rehabilitation of natural character should be targeted.
65 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
5.3.3 12 September 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting Preliminary/courtesy letters need to be sent to landowners potentially affected by the landscape and biodiversity overlays.
5.4 Iwi management plan input – Whaia te Mahere Taiao a Hauraki Papatuanuku 3.a) Peat lands, wetlands and dunelands are protected and restored as ecological, cultural and economic resources of Hauraki Whänui. Paptuanuku 3.b) Riparian margins of rivers and streams in the Hauraki tribal region are protected and restored.
5.5 Monitoring and Technical Reports
5.5.1 Ecological assessment of natural character Dahm, J., Graeme, M., Kendal, H. (2010). Coromandel Peninsula – Ecological Assessment of Natural Character. Focus Resource Management Group. Coromandel. This report identifies and assesses the ecological natural character values of the coastal environment and freshwater ecosystems within the District. Natural character is assessed in terms of both ecology (the viable functioning of natural processes) and experience (the attributes of “naturalness”). It complements the Significant Natural Areas (SNA) project. The ecological assessment of natural character involved identification of the following ecosystems within the District:
sand dunes gravel and boulder beaches
coastal wetlands
coastal forest inland wetlands
rivers The natural processes, features and ecological functioning that underpin the visual impression of natural character for each of these ecosystems is outlined. Human activities and influences that can modify the various ecosystems are also discussed. The assessment of ecological natural character considers the intactness, functioning and resilience of the ecosystems and the levels of disturbance to natural features and processes. Criteria are developed for each ecosystem to identify and map areas of high ecological natural character within the District. This assessment was undertaken as a desktop exercise using existing information and data bases, and field inspections were then undertaken at a selection of sites to ground truth the assessment criteria. The mapping was standardised at a scale of 1:10,000 (unless otherwise stated) reflecting limitations of data and budget relevant to this study.
5.5.2 Coromandel Peninsula landscape assessment (2008). Coromandel Peninsula Landscape Assessment. LA4 Landscape Architects Ltd. Auckland.
66 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
LA4 carried out a landscape assessment of the landscape value of, and potential management strategies for, the landscape of the Coromandel Peninsula. More specifically, in order to help the Council to meet its obligations under the RMA, the landscape assessment set out to:
Identify landscape units and landscape categories on the basis of consistent character, and describe their main physical characteristics. As part of that process, LA4 have included aspects of the history of the land, both Maori and Pakeha, particularly in terms of their effects on landscape.
Assess landscape values in order to identify natural character values; landscape quality including aesthetic, heritage and rarity values; iconic landscapes or landscape features.
Determine the landscapes’ visual absorption capability and its vulnerability to change taking into account different viewing audiences and user groups – leading to an evaluation of overall sensitivity to subdivision, use and development or change in general.
Come to conclusions about the values and sensitivities of all the units and categories. Develop a landscape ranking – for example - Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Landscapes - Landscapes of district wide significance. Work with Gravitas to co-ordinate the processes associated with establishing wider public perceptions of landscape values.
At a later stage of the process LA4 to provide input into the formation of objectives and the Peninsula landscape assessment review. Brown, S. (2011). Coromandel Peninsula Landscape Assessment. Stephen Brown Environments Ltd. Auckland. This report is a peer review of the landscape assessment of the Coromandel Peninsula completed by LA4 Landscape Architects in September 2006, with input from Harry Bhana (resource management consultant) and Gravitas Research & Strategy Ltd. The LA4 study set out to identify a range of landscape categories (17) associated with different levels of sensitivity to modification based on the initial identification and delineation of some 61 landscape character units across the entire Peninsula, then grouping of these units into landscape categories – reflecting different sensitivity levels – derived from the evaluation of each unit employing a range of criteria. This review explores both the methodology employed in that assessment and the application of it to identify outstanding and other landscapes across the Coromandel Peninsula. It also addresses the scale of landscape units delineated by LA4 and the resulting implications of both the findings and scale of landscape units in respect of future management of the Council’s landscape resource.
5.5.3 Waikato Perception Survey 2010 – Thames-Coromandel report Dennis, J. (2010). Waikato Community Outcomes 2010: Thames – Coromandel Summary Report. International Research Consultants Ltd. Auckland. Respondents were asked questions about the environment they live in. The following responses relate to landscape and natural character.
67 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
People appreciate natural value of coast, beaches: Very satisfied: 40% Satisfied: 45% Very unsatisfied: 3% Unsatisfied: 7% Protection given to special landscape features: Very satisfied: 25% Satisfied: 48% Very unsatisfied: 3% Unsatisfied: 20% Community treatment of natural assets: Very satisfied: 15% Satisfied: 52% Very unsatisfied: 10% Unsatisfied: 22% What makes the District unique or special? (one response only) Natural features/beauty (beaches, mountains, rivers etc.): 54.8%
5.5.4 Consolidated Landscape Assessment, Stephen Brown, 2012 During the review of the District Plan it became apparent that the information gathered through the previous landscape reports needed to be reviewed, reassessed and pulled together into one consolidated document. The consolidated landscape assessment reviewed the maps and targeted ground-truthing was undertaken to ensure that the maps were accurate to a level to make them useful for the District Plan Overlay Maps. Landscape values were assessed according the following steps: Step 1: assessment of 'Key Landscape Factors/Variables' with reference to the modified Pigeon Bay natural science factors, aesthetic values and expressiveness factors, together with its 2D compositional characteristics and 3D spatial structure; Step 2: assessment of 'the landscape as a whole', related to research into public perception of landscapes and their values, and Step 3: 'rating', an assessment of the landscape in terms of key thresholds that help determine whether it is an outstanding or amenity landscape, with reference to the relevant Environment Court decisions.
5.5.5 Refinement of Maps Following consultation on the Draft Plan comments were received to refine the landscape and natural character maps to better reflect the situation on the ground. Specific requests have been referred for review to Stephen Brown Environments Ltd and a number of refinements have subsequently been made (e.g. for land that was previously identified as outstanding in a residential area at Ferry Landing, an area of land previously identified as outstanding at Opito Bay, etc.).
For the review of the natural character overlay requests have been bundled and referred to Natural Solutions Ltd.
68 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
5.5.6 High Natural Character –other Natural Character The three guiding documents, the Resource Management Act (RMA), Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) each use different terms when referring to natural character (i.e. RMA = natural character, RPS = pristine and outstanding, NZCPS = high). The RMA directive is preservation of natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands, lakes, rivers and their margins. The RPS requires the District to map high natural character in the coastal environment.
The approach in the Plan is consistent with both the RMA and the RPS in that areas of high natural character have been identified and mapped. The policy framework is then used to place additional emphasis on natural character in the Coastal Environment.
6 Section 10 Natural Hazards
6.1 Resource Management Act There is a statutory mandate and good guidance on the treatment of Natural Hazards in the planning process. In particular section 74 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) requires that the Council, when considering a change to a Plan, have regard to the provisions of Part 2 of the Act, its functions under Section 31, and its duties under Section 32, and Section 75. Part 2 of the RMA outlines the purpose and principles of Resource Management in New Zealand. Section 5 of Part 2 states that the Act’s purpose is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources meaning managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while: (a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and (b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and (c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment. In terms of natural hazards this directive seeks to limit development to the assimilative capacity of the land and, where choice exists, avoiding problems that might occur. In situations where the option of avoidance is not available the question that must be asked is how much mitigation or remediation is necessary and the degree to which, notwithstanding these, residual risks can be tolerated. As much as these are questions of law, they are also questions communities need to consider and resolve for themselves. Section 7 of the Act lists “other matters” that local authorities must have particular regard to which includes; (b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources (g) Any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources Section 8 of the Act requires the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to be taken into account.
69 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
The Council’s primary mandate for being involved in land use planning around Natural Hazards stems from Section 31 of the Act which describes Council’s responsibilities and tasks including: "(a) the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies and methods to achieve the integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district. (b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development or protection of land, including for the purpose of- (i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; …”. Section 75 (3) of the Act also states that a District Plan must give effect to – (a) any national policy statement; and (b) any New Zealand coastal policy statement; and (c) any regional policy statement Therefore any change or proposed change to the District Plan must give effect to the Regional Policy Statement with regards to natural hazards.
6.2 Coastal Policy Statement Relevant Policies 3: Precautionary approach (1) Adopt a precautionary approach towards proposed activities whose effects on the coastal environment are uncertain, unknown, or little understood, but potentially significantly adverse. (2) In particular, adopt a precautionary approach to use and management of coastal resources potentially vulnerable to effects from climate change, so that: (a) avoidable social and economic loss and harm to communities does not occur; (b) natural adjustments for coastal processes, natural defences, ecosystems, habitat and species are allowed to occur; and (c) the natural character, public access, amenity and other values of the coastal environment meet the needs of future generations. 24: Identification of coastal hazards (1) Identify areas in the coastal environment that are potentially affected by coastal hazards (including tsunami), giving priority to the identification of areas at high risk of being affected. Hazard risks, over at least 100 years, are to be assessed having regard to: (a) physical drivers and processes that cause coastal change including sea level rise; (b) short-term and long-term natural dynamic fluctuations of erosion and accretion; (c) geomorphological character;
70 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
(d) the potential for inundation of the coastal environment, taking into account potential sources, inundation pathways and overland extent; (e) cumulative effects of sea level rise, storm surge and wave height under storm conditions; (f) influences that humans have had or are having on the coast; (g) the extent and permanence of built development; and (h) the effects of climate change on: (i) matters (a) to (g) above; (ii) storm frequency, intensity and surges; and (iii) coastal sediment dynamics; taking into account national guidance and the best available information on the likely effects of climate change on the region or district. 25: Subdivision, use, and development in areas of coastal hazard risk In areas potentially affected by coastal hazards over at least the next 100 years: (a) avoid increasing the risk of social, environmental and economic harm from coastal hazards; (b) avoid redevelopment, or change in land use, that would increase the risk of adverse effects from coastal hazards; (c) encourage redevelopment, or change in land use, where that would reduce the risk of adverse effects from coastal hazards, including managed retreat by relocation or removal of existing structures or their abandonment in extreme circumstances, and designing for relocatability or recoverability from hazard events; (d) encourage the location of infrastructure away from areas of hazard risk where practicable; (e) discourage hard protection structures and promote the use of alternatives to them, including natural defences; and (f) consider the potential effects of tsunami and how to avoid or mitigate them. 26: Natural defences against coastal hazards (1) Provide where appropriate for the protection, restoration or enhancement of natural defences that protect coastal land uses, or sites of significant biodiversity, cultural or historic heritage or geological value, from coastal hazards. (2) Recognise that such natural defences include beaches, estuaries, wetlands, inter-tidal areas, coastal vegetation, dunes and barrier islands. Policy 27 Strategies for protecting significant existing development from coastal hazard risk (1) In areas of significant existing development likely to be affected by coastal hazards, the range of options for reducing coastal hazard risk that should be assessed includes: (a) promoting and identifying long-term sustainable risk reduction approaches including the relocation or removal of existing development or structures at risk;
71 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
(b) identifying the consequences of potential strategic options relative to the option of ‘do-nothing’; (c) recognising that hard protection structures may be the only practical means to protect existing infrastructure of national or regional importance, to sustain the potential of built physical resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; (d) recognising and considering the environmental and social costs of permitting hard protection structures to protect private property; and (e) identifying and planning for transition mechanisms and timeframes for moving to more sustainable approaches. (2) In evaluating options under (1): (a) focus on approaches to risk management that reduce the need for hard protection structures and similar engineering interventions; (b) take into account the nature of the coastal hazard risk and how it might change over at least a 100-year timeframe, including the expected effects of climate change; and (c) evaluate the likely costs and benefits of any proposed coastal hazard risk reduction options. (3) Where hard protection structures are considered to be necessary, ensure that the form and location of any structures are designed to minimise adverse effects on the coastal environment. (4) Hard protection structures, where considered necessary to protect private assets, should not be located on public land if there is no significant public or environmental benefit in doing so.
6.3 Regional Policy Statement Relevant Policies 4.1.14 Incorporating effects of climate change Local authorities should, and regional and district plans shall, recognise and provide for the projected effects of climate change, having particular regard to: aa) historic long-term local climate data; a) projected increase in rainfall intensity, taking account of the most recent national guidance and assuming a minimum increase in temperature of 3°C by 2090 (relative to 1990 levels); and b) projected increase in sea level, taking into account the most recent national guidance and assuming a minimum increase in sea level of 0.8m by 2090 (relative to 1990 levels). 4.2.11 Natural hazards For the purposes of avoiding or mitigating natural hazards, territorial authorities shall be responsible for the control of the use of land except for the following, which shall be the responsibility of the Waikato Regional Council: a) the control of the use of land in the coastal marine area and the beds of lakes and rivers; and b) the control of structures in primary hazard zones. 13.1.1 Risk management framework
72 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Regional and district plans shall incorporate a risk-based approach into the management of subdivision, use and development in relation to natural hazards. This should be in accordance with relevant standards, strategies and plans, and ensure that: a) new development is managed so that natural hazard risks do not exceed acceptable levels; b) intolerable risk is reduced to tolerable or acceptable levels c) the creation of new intolerable risk is avoided; and d) any intolerable risk as a result of existing use and development is as low as reasonably achievable; and e) where intolerable risk remains, the risks will be managed until an acceptable level is achieved. 13.2.1 Control of subdivision within areas of intolerable risk District plans shall control subdivision to avoid creating demand for new structures within high risk flood zones and primary hazard zones, and areas at high risk of coastal hazard. 13.2.1A Identification of areas of coastal hazard risk and high risk flood zones District plans shall identify the location of areas: a) potentially affected by coastal hazards, prioritising the identification of those areas as high risk; and b) affected by high risk flood hazard. 13.2.4 Control of use and development (high risk flood zones and areas of high coastal hazard risk) Regional and district plans shall ensure that use and development within high risk flood zones and areas of high coastal hazard risk is appropriate, including by avoiding the placement of structures or development where these would be vulnerable to a natural hazard event or would place a community at intolerable risk. These include: (i) habitable structures; (ii) significant community infrastructure such as hospitals and emergency services; and (iii) lifeline utilities. 13.2.5 Control of development within a floodplain or coastal hazard area Subdivision, use and development can only occur in a floodplain with an annual exceedance level of 1% (where the floodplain does not match the definition of being a High Risk Flood Zone) or in an identified potential coastal hazard area (not being a High Risk Coastal Hazard) area where: aaa) it is essential infrastructure, and: i) it cannot be located elsewhere; ii) it will not increase the risk of or from natural hazard; or: a) appropriate assessment of the risks has been undertaken and these risks will not exceed acceptable levels;
73 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix aa) appropriate assessment of the likely effects has been undertaken, including the effects of any new structure or fill on the diversion of overland flows or any consequential increased runoff volumes; ab) the creation of a new, or exacerbation of an existing hazard, including those off site, and any adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated; b) any adverse effects of a 1% annual exceedance probability flood event on habitable buildings are avoided or mitigated; ba) has been designed and located to minimise the level of coastal hazard risk over its intended lifetime; and d) any hazardous substance stored as part of the development, or during the construction, or found on or near to the site, will not create a hazard. 13.2.6 Control of subdivision, use and development (residual risk zones) District plans shall identify residual risk zones and shall control subdivision, use and development within these zones so that residual risk is minimised. In doing so, particular regard shall be had to: a) the level of service provided by the structural defences; b) the physical, environmental and financial sustainability of the structural defences over a period of at least 100 years; c) the impact caused by an overwhelming or a structural failure of protection works; and d) a reduction in the ability of a community to respond to and recover from a natural hazard event. 13.2.7 Control of subdivision, use and development for other natural hazards and associated risk Regional and district plans shall control subdivision, use and development outside primary hazard zones, high risk flood zones, floodplains and residual risk zones to ensure: a) they do not create or exacerbate natural hazard risks elsewhere; b) they are appropriate by considering: (i) the likelihood that defensive structures or works will be required to protect the activity from the effects of natural hazards; (ii) the vulnerability of the activity to the effects of natural hazards; (iii) the potential for adverse effects on the wider local and/or regional community; and (iv) whether or not the development is consistent with a growth strategy or structure plan; and c) the role of natural features to avoid or mitigate natural hazards should be recognised and maintained or enhanced. 13.3.1 Planning for readiness, response and recovery Local authorities should consider the potential effects of high impact, low probability natural hazard events and address these, including by: a) where possible avoiding new development in high risk hazard areas (for example, tsunami run-up areas). Development that may be directed away from such areas could include:
74 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
(i) residential, commercial and industrial uses (especially those involving hazardous materials); (ii) lifeline utilities; and (iii) emergency services facilities including police, hospital and fire services; b) using other land use planning measures where it is not feasible to restrict land uses to open- space uses. These may include controlling the type of development and uses allowed in hazard areas, and avoiding high value and/or high occupancy uses to the greatest degree possible; c) for tsunami risk, considering site-specific mitigation measures aimed at slowing, blocking, or redirecting water, or raising structures and habitable areas above the expected level of inundation; d) avoiding or restricting the location of facilities such as hospitals, schools and other facilities that may be difficult to evacuate quickly in areas at risk from tsunami, lahars, lava and pyroclastic flows, and debris avalanches; e) liaising with civil defence and lifeline utility agencies; and f) designing safeguards for critical community networks (for example, water supply).
6.4 Council direction
6.4.1 2 March 2011 – Full Council meeting Ensure a precautionary approach is taken when assessing natural hazards and associated risks.
Adopt a risk management approach which includes avoiding new development in areas subject to 'high' risk from hazards (where there is potential for significant risk to people or property).
Manage or mitigate hazards in areas subject to lower risk from hazards or where the hazard has a long return time (e.g. tsunami).
Take into account the effects of climate change when assessing hazard risk.
6.4.2 4 – 6 April 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting Cooks Beach and Wentworth catchments will need to be included with flood hazard overlays and modelling for the Plan review.
The preference is to include 'triggers' for development in non-modelled flood areas and to include the use of the 'triggers' in the Plan review.
New flood hazard terminology in the Plan needs to have clear definitions as there is potential legal risk to the Council with the use of certain terms (e.g. meaning of 'defended'). The Council has a responsibility to ensure that there is reduced risk to property and to avoid loss of life, and to make the best use of information to inform the community.
Focus on non-RMA type measures in tsunami planning until the associated tsunami models are robust and defensible.
Non-statutory methods/tools to assist in the flooding hazards work. Non-statutory methods can be referred to the Council for discussion and consideration.
75 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Adopt a risk management approach which includes avoiding new development in areas subject to 'high' risk from hazards (where there is potential for significant risk to people or property).
Manage or mitigate hazards in areas subject to lower risk from hazards. Take into account the effects of climate change when assessing hazard risk.
Use the District Plan Directions and the associated Possible District Plan Provisions as the basis for proceeding with preparation of the draft Plan, with the proviso that non-statutory methods of planning be included in the draft Plan.
6.4.3 18 – 19 April 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting Issues of coastal erosion and setbacks need to be highlighted on LIMs, Certificates of Title etc. so that property owners are made aware that they need to rebuild landwards, and therefore liability rests with property owners.
The cost for communities to undertake dune restoration needs to be reduced. Sea walls need to be avoided because of high costs and adverse environmental effects.
Performance standards in the Plan are needed to reduce the need for resource consents.
Development seaward of the primary coastal hazard development setback - area where people and property are at risk from current storm events. Development in these areas should generally be avoided and for this reason most land use activities and subdivision would be a non-complying activity. Development between the primary and secondary coastal hazard development setback - the secondary development setback is the area considered at risk in the future as a result of climate change effects and sea level rise. Generally land use activities would be restricted discretionary to enable assessment of activities but still allow development if it is considered appropriate. Subdivision creating additional lots in these locations would be a discretionary activity to enable thorough assessment and, if necessary refusal, before additional development is allowed in the coastal hazard area.
Setback for undeveloped areas - the 2002 Coromandel Beaches report includes a 'setback for undeveloped areas' at specific beaches. It is recommended that such a development setback (e.g. 100m) be applied at all undeveloped beaches.
Focus on avoidance of hard engineering protection structures unless necessary to protect key infrastructure such as the Thames Coast Road (e.g. seawall = non-complying, backstop wall = discretionary).
The coastal hazard setback information will be included in the District Plan Planning Maps as 'overlays'.
6.5 Monitoring and Technical Reports
6.5.1 Coastal hazard development setbacks Dahm, J., Munro, A. (2002). Coromandel Beaches – Coastal Hazards and Development Setback Recommendations. Environment Waikato. Hamilton.
76 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
This report identified primary (areas subject to current risk) and secondary (areas subject to risk in the next 50 – 100 years as a result of climate change and sea level rise) coastal hazard setbacks. The report also identified a setback for undeveloped areas. These setbacks are currently implemented via the Building Act and in circumstances where a resource consent enables their assessment. There are no rules in the current District Plan relating to coastal setbacks.
6.5.2 Coastal hazard primary development setback review Dahm, J., Gibberd, B. (2009). Coromandel Beaches - Coastal Hazards Review of Primary Development Setback at Selected Beaches. Focus Resource Management Group. The draft Natural Hazards Variation/Plan Change as notified for informal comment in early 2007 proposed to introduce rules relating to these setbacks into the District Plan. However due to comments received it was decided to proceed with the flooding aspect of the variation/plan change and review the primary development setback. The primary development setback (PDS) was reviewed where it impacted on private property. The assessment concluded that the review sites on the eastern Coromandel appear to be in dynamic equilibrium, with no significant long-term trend for erosion or accretion. The erosion assessment therefore focused on the maximum likely erosion associated with dynamic shoreline fluctuations. The review has reduced the existing PDS at most sites, particularly where there was limited information at the time of the earlier study. Checks of the revised PDS confirm that houses located behind this line would not have been affected by erosion over at least the last 50 – 60 years. At most sites, the revised PDS appears to be at least 10 m landward of the worst measured erosion. The revised PDS is judged to provide protection against 100-year return period erosion for existing sea level. The revised PDS is sufficiently reduced at most sites to provide for reasonable use of existing residential sections and thereby to significantly reduce the requirement for site-specific reports. There are some restricted locations where the setback still extends significantly into private properties. In most cases, there is little to no potential for further seaward adjustment of the PDS without sacrificing critical safety factors. Site specific erosion management strategies will therefore be required to provide for safe use of these properties. These areas include extensive lengths of beach at Whitianga and limited areas (usually <3-4 properties) at Whangamata, Tairua and Hahei. There may however be some limited areas where the setback is still overly precautionary and could be further reduced by more detailed investigation. Where this could be relevant it is discussed in more detail in the body of the report (e.g. southern end of Wharekaho Beach). The review has reduced the PDS at most sites on western Coromandel beaches. In limited areas however, the PDS still extends deeply within some properties. Sustainable management of coastal hazards in these areas will require site specific coastal hazard management strategies to complement the PDS and minimum floor levels. Existing measures (e.g. seawalls; placement of dredged sediment) provide reasonable interim protection at most of these sites. These limited areas occur at all four sites and are discussed in more detail in the text of the report. The review has also highlighted that existing raised coastal margins and stopbanks are vulnerable to erosion in many areas. Loss of such areas would markedly increase exposure to coastal flooding. Over time, site specific strategies will also be required to address this risk.
77 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
6.5.3 Future coastal erosion line review Dahm, J., Gibberd, B. (2012). Review of Future Coastal Erosion Line for Coromandel Beaches. Focus Resource Management Group. The secondary setback (future coastal erosion line) shows the extent of land affected by coastal erosion with a 1% AEP in 100 years' time, as a result of predicted sea level rise. As the previous estimate was made in 2002 and was not overly specific (as no rules applied to that area), it was due for a review. The review used the Ministry for the Environment 2008 guidance on sea level rise planning, which was sourced from NIWA's New Zealand interpretations of International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data. This guidance states that local authorities should plan for sea level rise of 0.8 m to 2090, and 0.1 m for every decade after 2100. The Regional Policy Statement states that the Plan shall assume a minimum increase in sea level of 0.8m by 2090 (relative to 1990 levels). The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement requires coastal hazard planning to look at least 100 years into the future. The authors separate the Coromandel beaches into west coast beaches, pocket beaches (those with headlands on either side), and barrier spit beaches. For west coast beaches, the future coastal erosion area remains the same as the current coastal erosion area. Ongoing erosion and sedimentation here are likely to offset the effects of sea level rise on coastal erosion in the long- term. However coastal inundation is likely to become more of a problem. For pocket beaches, the future erosion line is set back 20 m from the current coastal erosion extent, and for barrier spit beaches the setback is 30 m. However for beaches or portions of beaches that have erosion-resistant materials rather than holocene sands underneath them, the setback is reduced to 10 m. A 10 m setback is also given for areas where there is no current coastal hazard setback line. There is still considerable uncertainty about the degree of sea level rise that will happen. Recent research is suggesting that due to ongoing man-made greenhouse gas inputs and changes to the natural environment, sea level rise will be greater than expected. Alternatively, future climatic or engineering solutions may stabilise sea levels. This assessment of sea level rise at least provides some consideration of future expected hazards, based on reasonable assumptions and their application to specific beaches. This should reduce, or at least limit, the increase in cost to future generations to deal with coastal erosion.
6.5.4 Integrating tsunami inundation modelling into land use planning Saunders, W., Prasetya, G., Leonard, G. (2008). New Zealand's Next Top Model: Integrating Tsunami Inundation Modelling into Land Use Planning. Draft GNS Science Report. This report provides guidance to land use planners and decision makers on how tsunami inundation modelling can be included into land use planning. After a brief overview of tsunami basics, Figure 6 presents a decision tree for including tsunami risk into land use planning, and forms the basis for this report. The purpose of this figure is to lead the decision maker through a process of tsunami modelling, risk assessment, review of data quality and inclusion into LIM’s, emergency management, and land use planning. The report makes clear that a basic 'bathtub' model showing water heights purely based on ground contours is not sufficient for land use planning. A computer model that incorporates wave direction
78 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix and height, topographical barriers, surface friction (buildings etc. that block the water) and other variables needs to be used to determine the actual tsunami risk, before Plan rules can be designed. For this reason, the Plan does not contain rules constraining land development at this stage.
6.5.5 Hydrodynamic modelling of Whitianga tsunami overwash Prasetya, G., Healy, T., de Lange, W. (2009). Sensitivity Model Test of Hydrodynamic modelling of tsunami overwash of Whitianga Township. University of Waikato. Hamilton. Scientific studies commissioned by the Thames Coromandel District Council and the Waikato Regional Council between 2002 and 2006 indicate that a large earthquake event along the Tonga- Kermadec Trench represents the most significant local tsunami source for the East Coast of the Coromandel Peninsula. The areas identified as having greater risk from the impacts of a local or regional tsunami are Mercury Bay (especially Whitianga) and the open coast from Otama Beach to Port Charles and out to Great Mercury Island (especially Whangapoua and Port Charles). Local source tsunami will occur with less than one hour warning so there may be no or very little time for official warnings and evacuations to occur. Natural warnings i.e. strong or prolonged ground shaking may be the only warning. The Hydrodynamic study by the University of Waikato and Environment Waikato shows that a very large earthquake event (magnitude 9.3) from the Tonga-Kermadec Trench is capable of producing a series of waves with maximum wave heights of up to 18 metres. Scientific modelling suggests that these types of events may happen about once every 700 years. Evidence from historical tsunami deposits suggests that a very large event from a local source last occurred in the 1500’s. A large earthquake event (magnitude 9) from the Tonga-Kermadec Trench is capable of producing a series of waves with a maximum wave height of 8.5 metres about once every 400 years. Scientific modelling shows that this type of event would produce a run-up of up to 6.5 metres in Whitianga, and inundate significant areas of the town including the:
Central business district as far inland as Dundas Street and Tudor Grove Area to the East (seaward side) of Joan Gaskill Drive
Low lying areas around the Taputapuatea Stream, up to 1km inland. This level of inundation for a large earthquake from the Tonga-Kermadec Trench is greater than the 1960 Chilean event. It should be noted that this is a worst-case scenario based on modelling with considerable uncertainty. Three variables include uniform or variable bed roughness (a modelling parameter), whether the tide is high or low, and the degree of sea level rise. These parameters can reduce the inundation in a worst-case tsunami episode to a quarter of this area, and much lower depths of water.
6.5.6 River flood modelling (2006). Coromandel River Flood Modelling and River Flood Hazard Assessment Reports. Environment Waikato. Hamilton. The Waikato Regional Council, using Mike 21 flood modelling software, modelled 16 priority catchments within Thames, Thames Coast, Coromandel Town and Grahams Creek. After extensive
79 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix informal consultation the plan change and the associated modelling was formally notified for submission in early 2009. More recently the Cooks Beach Stream and Wentworth River were also modelled by the Waikato Regional Council. Modelling is expected to continue for all the rivers around the District that have a high risk of flood damage. This flood information informs the natural hazards – flood overlays, which will replace the Open Space Zone as it becomes available. The flood hazard modelling is based on a 1% AEP (annual event probability), plus 20% extra water volume added to account for future climate change.
6.5.7 Peer Reviews of Future Coastal Protection Line Staff commissioned two reviews of the Future Coastal Protection Line during the Draft Plan to Proposed Plan process. The peer reviews were undertaken by Tonkin and Taylor and Dr. Mike Hilton of the University of Otago. The conclusions of the reviews (in brief) are: Tonkin and Taylor 1. The Bruun Rule is a methodology that is in keeping with current good-practice to measure the effects of sea level rise for east coast beaches. 2. Clarify that the CCEL is valid over a 100 year timeframe. 3. Another method should be used to validate "closure depth" offshore to enter into the Bruun Rule calculation. 4. FCPLs should be derived for the western Coromandel beaches based on the landward migration of the shoreline position due to static inundation and shoreline transition. 5. As a minimum, 2115 should be adopted as the planning timeframe to satisfy NZCPS 2010 (policy 24) and the adopted sea level rise value increased to 1.0 m in accordance with Ministry for the Environment (2008) recommendations. 6. Inclusion of the 1995-96 baseline, shaded areas requiring site-specific assessment around streams and values for undeveloped land on maps would improve clarity and minimise future misunderstandings. 7. Hazard zones should be shown where manmade structures currently protect the backshore as these cannot be guaranteed to be functional or consented in 100 years.
Dr. Mike Hilton (University of Otago) 1. The Bruun Rule is simplistic and not appropriate, and has been discredited by most of the world's leading geomorphologists. 2. The Bruun Rule should not be used to either fix or indicate any form of coastal hazard or set-back line. 3. Future coastal erosion needs to be assessed beach by beach, looking at local circumstances including: a) Other climate change effects as well as sea level rise e.g. drought on dune plants, more northeast swells, the frequency and intensity of storm events b) Beach aspect, exposure, sand budget c) The capacity of foredune vegetation to trap sand and build dunes d) Stream and estuary hydrology, and groundwater rise e) Sea walls, rip-rap and other man-made barriers. 4. Reconsider the purpose of the Future Coastal Protection Line. Why delineate it if the Council is protecting/will protect property in perpetuity - a different classification may
80 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
be appropriate for this compared to coast that is not defended with less development.
The findings of the two peer reviews have been submitted to the writer of the original report.
6.5.8 Response to Peer Reviews The report received by Jim Dahm and Bronwen Gibberd (Focus Resource Management Group)40 is copied into this section in full as follows: Introduction Coastal hazard setback recommendations for eastern Coromandel beaches currently incorporate two coastal erosion setbacks, which are taken from Dahm & Munro (2002), Dahm & Gibberd (2009) and Dahm & Gibberd (2012):
The Current Coastal Erosion Line (CCEL) (formerly known as the Primary Development Setback or PDS), which provides for the maximum likely erosion associated with existing coastal processes, The Future Coastal Protection Line (FCPL) (formerly known as the Secondary Development Setback or SDS), which identifies the further erosion that could occur over the next 100 years due to projected sea level rise.
The FCPL was initially presented in Dahm & Munro (2002), and reviewed and updated by Dahm & Gibberd (2012), based on more recent sea level rise predictions. The update did not include any further detailed investigations or new methodology, but simply recalculated the likely impact of sea level rise on erosion based on more recent sea level rise projections. The Thames Coromandel District Council (“Council”) has since commissioned two peer reviews of the methodology used to calculate the FCPL. One peer review was undertaken by Dr Tom Shand from Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, experienced practitioners in coastal hazard assessment, having developed coastal setbacks for a number of district and regional councils, and successfully defended these in the Environment Court. The second review was completed by Dr Mike Hilton, a senior lecturer from the University of Otago. This report is a response to these peer reviews, including clarification of some of the issues raised in the reviews. Assessment Methodology and Sea Level Rise Values Dr Shand notes that the assessment uses a methodology that is consistent with good practice and uses recommended and accepted sea level rise values. He does, however note that the value of 0.8 m is deemed appropriate to the 2090s (i.e. midpoint 2095), meaning that a further 20 years (i.e. to 2015) is required to achieve a 100 year planning period, which is required by the NZCPS (2010). He therefore recommends it would be prudent to increase the 100 year sea level rise value from the 0.9 m used in our assessment to 1.0 m. We believe that the 0.9 m figure we have used is reasonably precautionary, but accept that 1.0 m is justifiable. We are happy to make this change if Council decide that this precautionary approach is warranted, though we note that it would increase our draft FCPL setback by just over 10%. For instance, at Matarangi, the calculated setback would increase by about 3.5 m.
40 The report will also be available on the Council website for your reference
81 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Bruun Rule Dr Hilton criticises the use of the Bruun Rule as a method to calculate shoreline erosion in response to sea level rise. He refers to the Bruun Rule as having been “discredited” and an “overly simple method derived long before and understanding of how beaches and dunes work”. We do not agree that the Bruun Rule has been “discredited”, and note that there are a wide range of views by leading coastal scientists and engineers that differ from the views of the authors quoted by Dr Hilton. Moreover, Dr Hilton quotes Cooper and Pilkey (2004) as noting that “because the Bruun Rule ignores various important geological and oceanographic principles, it does not and cannot predict shoreline retreat due to sea-level rise accurately”. We note that the assumptions guiding the application of the Bruun Rule clearly identify the geological and oceanographic conditions where the method is applicable. In our view, the assumptions of the Bruun rule (as outlined in our report and by Dr Hilton) do broadly apply to the beaches of the eastern Coromandel, as:
The beaches are largely discrete systems, without significant sand exchange between them (i.e. no significant longshore inputs or losses). The beaches are finite coastal systems, with little to no ongoing sediment supply, and this situation is not likely to change with sea level rise. The majority of the beach systems are in equilibrium with existing coastal processes, out to at least the closure depth, and do not have the nearshore geological controls discussed by Cooper and Pilkey (2004). The sediment landward of the beach typically comprises erodible sand with characteristics similar to those of the nearshore (and our calculations provide for modification of the FCPL where this is not the case). Accordingly, the beaches are likely to adjust to sea level rise by sediment transfers within the beach system, and the Bruun rule is the most appropriate of the available shoreline response methodologies to provide an indication of the erosion that could accompany this adjustment. We accept that the method (like all available methods) does not pretend to provide accurate predictions, and the figures are best regarded as indicative. However, Council is required by the NZCPS (2010) to consider the effects of climate change over at least 100 years, and it is not appropriate to simply ignore this requirement because of the limitations of existing methodologies. We believe that the Bruun Rule is the best of the available methods for eastern Coromandel beaches and note that Dr Hilton does not suggest any viable alternatives. Our position is supported by the Tonkin and Taylor Ltd (Dr Shand) review. As noted earlier, Tonkin and Taylor are very experienced in coastal hazard assessment and have developed setbacks for a number of Councils including use of the Bruun Rule – with successful defence at the Environment Court. Dr Shand notes that “eastern Coromandel beaches generally fulfil the requirements for application of the Bruun rule and it is a suitable method provided any long-term erosion or accretion (if any) is evaluated and included in predicted recession distance”. We cover the issue of long term erosion and accretion in a later section of this response. Dr Hilton also argues that many Coromandel Beaches are not in dynamic equilibrium with existing coastal processes due to the effects of coastal structure and dune construction and management. We firmly disagree with this.
82 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
In regard to coastal structures, there are certainly some limited areas (parts of Buffalo Beach, eastern end of Cooks Beach, southern end of Hahei) where shoreline adjustment is constrained by rock sea walls. However, our Bruun Rule calculations used beach profiles that are not modified by coastal structures and where the cross-sectional form reflects present day natural coastal processes. Accordingly, these concerns raised by Dr Hilton are not relevant to our calculations. Dune restoration and management at locations such as Whangapoua have not disrupted the ability of any of the eastern Coromandel beach systems to naturally adjust in response to natural coastal processes. The primary role of dune management on the eastern Coromandel Peninsula is in fact to restore natural dune function and vegetation on dunes that have previously been extensively modified and/or degraded by human activities. The work at Whangapoua involved simple repair of a severely eroded dune by pushing sand up from the adjacent beach, mimicking the natural transfer of wind-blown sand. In most cases, dune repair is left to natural processes, and this approach (at Whangapoua) was only adopted so that permanently damaging works (e.g. seawalls) were not required to protect threatened houses. The works did not fundamentally alter the natural sediment dynamics of the beach, and monitoring indicated that natural beach conditions were restored very soon after the works (Eco Nomos, 2011). Closure Depth While Dr Shand agrees that the Bruun rule is appropriate for the eastern Coromandel beaches, he suggests that further work could be done to validate the closure depth used in our calculations. He notes that our calculated setbacks are relatively low compared with values typical of open coast sandy beaches. For instance, he notes values of between 50 m and 100 m are typically adopted in New South Wales, compared with our values of 20 m and 30 m. As outlined in our report, our calculations were largely based on the offshore surveys available at the time. We believe the approach that we have used is appropriate but agree there is further work that could be done to better confirm closure depth. We believe the use of field data is most appropriate in this respect as opposed to some of the more empirical techniques (e.g. Hallermeier, 1981 & 1983). In our experience, the empirical techniques often tend to over-estimate closure depth (certainly as relevant to the Bruun Rule) and this can result in very large setbacks being estimated. We believe it would be difficult to justify these larger values given the existing survey data used in our report. If Council wish to undertake further work, we believe that additional offshore profile surveys and associated offshore sediment investigations would provide the most reliable assessment of closure depth. We agree with Dr Shand that any increase in closure depth would likely increase the width of the calculated FCPL, as profile slopes tend to decrease with distance from shore. Probabilistic vs. Deterministic Approaches Dr Hilton notes that probabilistic, rather than deterministic (single value) estimates of coastal recession are now required as we develop new risk management approaches to coastal management. We concur and note that we are joint authors of recent national guidelines referred to by Dr Hilton (Ramsay, Gibberd, Dahm and Bell, 2012), which highlight the potential of probabilistic approaches in the management of coastal hazard risk.
83 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
It is important however to appreciate that the CCEL and FCPL setbacks are used for specific purposes which require definition of the maximum likely area that may be impacted by coastal erosion for defined circumstances, namely: CCEL: Storm cut erosion up to at least 100 year return period for existing sea level – including potential slope adjustment of the eroded dune face plus a safety factor. This setback is used by Council to assess safe locations (for existing sea level) for new dwellings. FCPL: An estimate of the additional erosion that could arise with sea level rise of 0.9 m - added to the CCEL. This setback is used to provide a reasonable worst likely estimate of the additional area that might potentially be affected by erosion given projected sea level rise. It is used by Council for purposes such as managing subdivision. These conditions represent what we have assessed to be reasonable but precautionary erosion scenarios for the next 100 years based on existing best information for eastern Coromandel beaches and future sea level rise. We accept that future sea level rise over the next century may be higher, as noted by Dr Hilton, but would note that it may also be lower. As outlined in our earlier report, we have followed the available national guidelines in identifying the most appropriate sea level rise scenario for the next century - as required by the NZCPS (2010). Probabilistic techniques estimate the range of possible shoreline changes that could occur based on probability distributions for the various erosion parameters. These techniques can for example be used to assess the likelihood of various levels of erosion (e.g. as a percentage likelihood of occurring) for given planning periods and sea level rise scenarios as outlined by Ramsay et al., (2012). Dr Hilton suggests that Council might adopt multiple FCPL setbacks associated with a range of sea level rise scenarios. However we note that it would be very difficult to apply multiple lines for the specific management purposes relevant to the CCEL and FCPL. We nonetheless believe that probabilistic techniques do have a range of other applications. For instance, the techniques are potentially very useful in providing greater transparency in terms of the uncertainty associated with predicting future shoreline change. We also believe these approaches have potential application in the development of detailed hazard management recommendations and strategies for individual sites. Climate Change Effects Dr Hilton notes that our report only addressed the sea level rise component of climate change, and that “the impacts of other climate change processes, including an increase in the frequency and intensity of coastal storms and reorientation of shorelines in responses to changes in wave climate are not examined”. Dr Hilton feels that there would be benefit in addressing these and other potential effects such as changes in groundwater elevation and salinity, precipitation and extreme weather events. We agree with Dr Hilton that there are many other effects of climate change that may also impact on coastal erosion processes in the future, including changes in storm frequency, intensity and duration and wave climate. However, there is no reliable information on the likely nature of these changes along the eastern Coromandel. Moreover, even if these effects were able to be reasonably quantified, there are no methods presently available to reliably predict the resulting shoreline change. The methods that are available (e.g. numerical modelling) are subject to numerous
84 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix assumptions of their own, which assumptions have significant bearing on the results obtained. They are also very expensive and have considerable data requirements. We agree that it is desirable to conduct further research into the nature of changes that may be experienced along the New Zealand coast in response to projected global warming, and the development of methods that could be applied to reliably estimate consequent coastal change. However it is presently not practical to reliably quantify shoreline response to climate change factors other than sea level rise. Dr Hilton notes that the impact of climate change will in some large measure depend on the incidence of storm events, and the coincidence of circumstances (e.g. tidal conditions). It is important to note that previous work (Dahm & Munro, 2002; Dahm & Gibberd, 2009) has separately estimated the worst case erosion likely to arise from severe coastal storms, based on shoreline change and other morphologic data. This hazard area is defined by the CCEL, which also includes various safety factors to ensure it is reasonable and precautionary. As noted above, the FCPL simply defines the additional erosion that could occur in response to projected sea level rise of 0.9 m. Undeveloped Sites Dr Shand notes that a previous report (Dahm & Munro, 2002) adopted a 100 m hazard setback for Greenfield sites, and that our recent report provided no setback recommendations away from residential areas. We agree and note that in our view the earlier 100 m setback recommendation for undeveloped areas should continue to apply except near estuary and stream entrances, where the setback may need to be larger. Ideally, any application for new development in Greenfield areas will be accompanied by site specific assessment of setback requirements. We note that the protection of natural character is a significant issue for undeveloped sites and that a development setback for this purpose may need to be wider than a setback based on hazards alone. Coastal Management Dr Hilton expresses the view that the FCPL lines should only be applied where there is no intention of protecting existing infrastructure or private property. He notes that there seems little point in these setbacks where “the decision to protect property has already been made or is inevitable”. We would agree that is a valid approach where structures have been designed and consented as a long term solution to coastal erosion that might arise as a consequence of sea level rise. There are however no such sites on the eastern Coromandel. Our calculations have therefore not taken into account any existing structures and have not assumed long term erosion protection is inevitable. Dr Shand concurs with this approach. We note that any assumption that the beaches will be protected with structures would have serious implications for the natural and amenity values of Coromandel beaches and would require a long term commitment to major and ongoing expenditure by the ratepayers of the District. Any decision to hold the shoreline in the face of projected sea level rise would therefore need detailed consultation with affected stakeholders and the wider community. To simply assume that such protection is inevitable and therefore fail to identify and plan for future erosion is not responsible and is inconsistent with the very clear statutory duties of Council. It could also expose Council and its ratepayers to serious liability issues in the future.
85 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Erosion Resistant Materials Dr Shand notes that the 10 m setback applied for erosion resistant material may or may not be sufficient, depending on the competence of the materials. For instance, he notes that this figure may be insufficient if the material is weakly consolidated or highly weathered. We agree. However, we are reasonably familiar with the eastern Coromandel Coast and are not aware of any locations where rapid cliff retreat has occurred and therefore believe our figure is likely to be sufficient. Nonetheless, we concur with Dr Shand and believe that it would be useful to conduct further work to confirm that the value we have adopted is adequately precautionary for all relevant sites. This could be achieved relatively easily, and would be preferable to simply adopting a larger value that may unnecessarily increase the setbacks. Stream Mouth Erosion Dr Shand notes that setbacks have not always been mapped around stream entrances. We have mapped the influence of streams at most sites, but agree that there are a few sites where this work is still required. Further field work would be required to address these sites and we agree that this work is appropriate. Accretion Dr Shand notes that predictions of future shoreline change should incorporate any long term trend for accretion. We are not aware of any reliable evidence for ongoing long term accretion at any of the Coromandel beach sites. Investigations of the age structure of Coromandel beach systems and available information on shoreline change over the last century indicates that the seaward advance that occurred earlier in the Holocene has now largely ceased (Dahm and Munro, 2002). Nonetheless, if reliable information were to arise in the future indicating that some beaches are experiencing long term net accretion, then this accretion could be incorporated into the calculations.
7 PC 3 – Variation 24 The decision version of PC 3 –Variation 24 has been drawn into the District Plan review and the section 32 assessment which was originally undertaken for the plan change is relevant to the provisions. The full section 32 report on PC 3 can be found on the Council website. For the purposes of this report the key elements of the PC 3 section 32 report have been summarised in the following sections for the sake of completeness.
7.1 Statutory Directive
7.1.1 Resource Management Act The same sections apply as noted in the previous chapter 6 – Natural Hazards.
7.1.2 Waikato Regional Policy Statement The objectives and policies from the Regional Policy Statement considered relevant to the flooding provisions are set out below. Natural Hazards s 3.8 Policy One: Consistent Management of Natural Hazards
86 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Ensure that natural hazards are managed in a consistent manner throughout the Waikato region and roles and responsibilities of agencies are defined. Under implementation methods it then goes on to say: Territorial authorities will- (i) Develop specific objectives, policies, rules and/or other methods in district plans that control the use of land for the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards Objective: The adverse effects associated with natural hazards minimised, the resilience of the community and public awareness of the causes and potential effects of natural hazard events increased. Policy One: Adverse effects of natural hazard events avoided or mitigated. Ensure the occurrence of natural hazard events is prevented or the associated adverse effects are avoided or mitigated. Policy two: New settlements and structures. Ensure new subdivisions and developments are built in a manner designed to avoid or mitigate the adverse effects of natural hazards. The technical flood river flood modelling information which forms the basis of this plan change/variation has been provided by Environment Waikato. In addition, Environment Waikato staff have worked closely with TCDC staff in the development of the proposed plan change/variation. The proposed plan change/variation focuses on avoiding development in areas subject to a high flood hazard classification and provides for assessment and potential mitigation in the other flood hazard areas. It is therefore considered that the proposed plan change/variation gives effect to the Regional Policy Statement and has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the RMA.
7.2 Background Flooding Issues Areas of the Thames-Coromandel District are prone to flooding. In recent memory residents have experienced a number of devastating storms, the most notable being the 2002 “weather bomb”. Local and central government agencies now wish to ensure future (and potentially more intense) events cause the least possible damage to people, land and property. The focus is on ensuring patterns of land use are sustainable in the long term and that with time communities respond wisely to the predicted increase in frequency and intensity of storm events associated with climate change. The measures recommended in this proposed change build on detailed investigations into flood risk for (15) selected areas. These studies show that communities around the Coromandel Peninsula can expect more intense and frequent storm events to cause progressively more damage – a situation most people agree is not desirable. Better management of the risk associated with flooding is proposed via a number of changes to the way things have been done in the past. The practical face of these changes is a significant commitment to vegetation and pest control, improvements to Civil Defence procedures and physical works such as stop banks and road improvements being undertaken. A number of these changes – including, indirectly, this reviewed flooding provisions – have been approved as part of a package of work called the Peninsula Project. Further commitments to a package of non-statutory works could
87 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix also be formalised via a natural hazards strategy or its equivalent although this has yet to be decided.
7.2.1 River Flood Modelling and Flood Hazard Categories Although a discussion of the specifics of modelling done to demonstrate the extent of the flood hazard is beyond the scope of this section 32 report, the principles are important. A ‘River Flood Hazard Assessment Report’ has been produced by the Waikato Regional Council for each modelled catchment or river which explains the modelling; the information contained within the flood hazard maps and the justification for the flood hazard categories. River flooding has been modelled by the Waikato Regional Council using Mike11 and Mike 21 software and a detailed terrain model for the target communities. The software has been used to “flow” predicted rainfall into rivers and predict its likely path, depth and velocity. The resultant flood model has been used to propose three flood hazard categories – one of high hazard (water depth and velocity combine here to pose a threat to life and damage to buildings) and one of medium hazard (stiller, less deep water) and a third low hazard area where water depth and flow are sufficiently “modest” to permit control largely via the Building Act without undue cause for cumulative or long-term adverse effects. The proposed District zone is called the “Open Space and Hazard Zone” (The Open Space Zone currently exists within the Plan and affects area subject to natural hazards and will include the high flood hazard area). The medium flood hazard area covers land where additional land use and subdivision controls will be in place, generally making most housing related activities a restricted discretionary activity to allow for an assessment of the flood hazard and the low flood hazard area. In this category, activities which are a permitted activity in the operative Plan remain permitted. Additional controls in this area only apply to subdivision or intensification of development (e.g. a second house on a lot). While the high flood hazard area becomes part of the Open Space and Hazard Zone, the medium and low flood hazard categories, in addition to the ‘defences down residual risk’ (which is explained in more detail later in this report) category are combined with the existing flood information currently shown on the Flood Management Plans for Thames and Te Puru and shown on new ‘flood maps’ which will sit with the planning maps. Where new information is available this will replace any ‘old’ information currently shown on the Flood Management Plans. However, where there is no new information resulting from the flood modelling available to replace the flood management plan information, the ‘old’ information will remain. No changes are proposed to the standards that apply to development in these overland flow and ponding areas. Simplification of the flood hazard categories from five (as was previously notified in a draft proposed plan change/variation) to three, including a low hazard category with development primarily controlled by the Building Act arose as a direct result of the comments received from the public during the informal consultation carried out in early 2007. There is no easy solution for the problem of flooding affecting communities and certainly no level of investment in terms of protection works at which problems will “go away”. It is important to recognise that individuals have begun voluntarily lifting their dwellings and the insurance industry has taken an acute interest in flood hazards. Similarly, communities like Te Puru have and will continue to achieve a measure of protection through community funded protection works. However, even communities that appear safely protected behind protection works – such as Te Puru – have important issues to deal with. In these communities what has been termed “defences down
88 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix residual” risk (i.e. risk of structures failing or blocking and overtopping) may require further assessment before development is allowed in these areas. These considerations and options of how the District develops (if not in existing hazard-prone areas) are important matters and long-term have a significant bearing on how affordable and safe some of the District’s existing communities are. There is a clear statutory expectation that hazards will be managed so that future generations enjoy an environment as good as that we enjoy today. Achieving enhanced wellbeing means delicately balancing the costs of regulatory intervention against the perceived benefits to achieve “optimal” outcomes, whilst achieving other statutory imperatives. Such “balancing” is a delicate matter and for this reason the consultation and feedback received on the draft proposed plan change/variation provisions form a large part of the analysis that follows, bolstered where appropriate by more technical assessments.
7.2.2 Proposed Provisions The proposed provisions amend the existing objectives, policies and rules in the District Plan relating to natural hazards and subdivision, use and development in areas subject to flooding. Fifteen catchments (including Thames, Thames Coast, Coromandel Town and Graham’s Creek in Tairua) have so far been modelled by the Waikato Regional Council using Mike 11 and Mike 21 software, based on the 1% or 100yr flood event, and it is proposed to include these modelled areas in the Plan by way of updated flood maps and associated policies, objectives and rules. It is however important to note that flooding also occurs within the District in areas that have not yet been modelled. The proposed provisions reference the Waikato Regional Council Flood Hazard Maps which may be referred to, to help identify areas which are outside of a modelled catchment but appear to be subject to a flood hazard.
7.2.3 Protection Works Proposed/Underway In areas where flood protection work has been carried out (e.g. in Te Puru) the areas that are protected by the defence structures are shown as ‘defended areas’ on the Planning Maps. The rules for subdivision use and development in these areas are less onerous than in unprotected areas.
7.2.4 Flooding – the Wider Context There are a number of reports available on climate change and its impacts on people and the environment. There is a general consensus that “climate change” is real and will affect almost all of us in some way. In addition s7 of the RMA requires councils ‘to have particular regard to the effects of climate change’. As a result there is an emerging realisation that natural hazard events such as the 2002 “Weather Bomb” will become more frequent with time. It is also predicted that the intensity of such storm events will also increase and what is currently considered the 1% or 100yr flood event may in future be a 5% or 20yr flood event. Consequently the resilience of our communities and the way we develop – particularly over a longer time frame – has been drawn into sharp focus. Currently, the Council relies heavily on provisions of the Building Act to ensure structures are built in a way that ensures they are safe from flooding. Such reliance on the Building Act 2004 puts the Council and the community on the “back foot” – effectively relying on coarse Building Act “accept” or “decline” decisions to ensure long-term safety. This approach has its limitations. Firstly, within the Building Act there is no provision for an Assessment of Environmental Effects meaning
89 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix assessments under that legislation must rely on accurate PIM information and the experience of Council officers to uncover less obvious secondary effects of building developments. Secondly, the process is blunt - it does not allow the Council to tailor a building consent to the receiving environment. Lastly, the Building Act does not allow the Council to control subdivision (though the RMA itself does via s106) and is the last step in a series of processes that can lead people to genuinely believe land they have purchased is able to be built on when planning restrictions could have foreshadowed limitation much earlier. Regardless, the Council has enjoyed moderate success using the Building Act to control development in areas subject to flooding and currently ensures all buildings have 500mm freeboard above predicted flood levels. Arguably, given sufficient time, reliance on the Building Act coupled with extremely good information will dramatically reduce property risk. Use of the Building Act as an effective flood management tool for low flood hazard areas remains an important part of the reviewed flood management provisions. The District has several specific issues that require addressing. These are: o A number of communities are either within areas known to be flood prone now or in the future. It is inevitable that these communities will be hit by flood events within the planning horizon. o Of their own volition some communities have developed protection works and are, in theory, at less risk of flooding than if the works were not constructed. People within these communities expect to be able to develop land having regard of the residual (much lower) risk. Infrastructure and private investment within these areas is a significant resource and abandonment may not be a sustainable option. Existing communities represent a considerable physical resource and area for future population growth. Notwithstanding the risk inherent in living in some of these areas, considerable benefits may accrue to current and future generations should development proceed in these areas subject to appropriate mitigation measures.
8 Section 11 Significant Trees
8.1 Statutory Background
8.1.1 Resource Management Act 1991 The purpose of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. In achieving the purpose of the Act, Section 6 lists the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development as a matter of national importance. Trees have long been intertwined with heritage, being commemorative of special events, places or people; sites of historic importance; attached to matters of cultural importance, etc. Therefore the elevation of historic heritage in the RMA to a matter of national importance in 2003 has arguably increased the weight district plans are to accord to tree protection, although the definition of historic heritage below (also introduced to the RMA in 2003) does not explicitly refer to trees. “historic heritage” –
90 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
a) means those natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures, deriving from any of the following qualities: i. archaeological: ii. architectural: iii. cultural: iv. historic: v. scientific: vi. technological; and b) includes – i. historic sites, structures, places, and areas; and ii. archaeological sites; and iii. sites of significance to Maori, including wahi tapu; and iv. surroundings associated with the natural and physical resources:
However, the definition does acknowledge that natural resources can be deemed historic heritage where they contribute to an understanding of this country's history and cultures due to their cultural or historic qualities. The surroundings associated with historic heritage, such as the gardens of residential properties or the streetscapes of a heritage area, may also include trees that contribute to the overall heritage values of the property/area. Research is required to identify trees (including groups of trees) possessing such heritage values and an assessment as to whether they are significant enough to warrant protection in the District Plan. Aside from heritage values, Section 7 of the RMA also requires particular regard to be given to the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values, the intrinsic values of ecosystems and the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment. Trees can make important contributions to these matters, for instance due to their botanical or aesthetic values. Again research is needed to identify trees (including groups of trees) possessing such values and to justify their inclusion in the District Plan for protection. The need to explicitly identify trees for protection in the urban environment is now obligatory following changes to the RMA (specifically section 76(4A) of the Resource Management [Simplifying and Streamlining] Amendment Act 2009). This Act states that as of January 1st 2012 district rules must not: '...prohibit or restrict the felling, trimming, damaging, or removal of any tree or group of trees in an urban environment41 unless [emphasis added] the tree or group of trees is- a) specifically identified in the plan; or b) located within an area in the district that- i. is a reserve (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Reserves Act 1977); or
2 41 s.76 4B, urban environment means an allotment no greater than 4000m — (a) that is connected to a reticulated water supply system and a reticulated sewerage system; and (b) on which is a building used for industrial or commercial purposes, or a dwellinghouse.
91 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
ii. is subject to a conservation management plan or conservation management strategy prepared in accordance with the Conservation Act 1987 or Reserves Act 1977
The changes to section 76(4A) above, serve to highlight the importance of establishing and maintaining robust and accurate Notable Tree Registers. In effect, these registers will become the principal method for the protection of notable trees on land that is located in the 'urban environment' as defined in section 76(4B) of the Act. The transitional provisions for these amendments are set out in Clause 151: Existing rules providing for protection of trees, which states that: (1) On the commencement of this section, an existing rule or part of a rule in a district plan or proposed district plan that provides for the protection of any tree, or group of trees, is revoked without further authority than this section. The effect of this rule is that the Plan’s general rules relating to indigenous tree protection will no longer apply in the urban environment – being the Residential, Commercial and Industrial Area. Further, given that section 76(4A) (above) clearly identifies trees for protection as those specifically identified in the plan the provisions in section 420 of the operative District Plan that restrict the removal of indigenous trees are no longer consistent with RMA requirements.
8.1.2 Reserves Act 1977 The Reserves Act provides for the: Preservation and management for the benefit and enjoyment of the public, areas of New Zealand possessing— (i) Recreational use or potential, whether active or passive; or (ii) Wildlife; or (iii) Indigenous flora or fauna; or (iv) Environmental and landscape amenity or interest; or (v) Natural, scenic, historic, cultural, archaeological, biological, geological, scientific, educational, community, or other special features or value (s3 (1)). The Act allows for the classification of reserves for varying purposes, including historic reserves “for the purpose of protecting and preserving in perpetuity such places, objects, and natural features, and such things thereon or therein contained as are of historic, archaeological, cultural, educational, and other special interest” (s18(1)). Nature Reserves are also provided for, their purpose being to protect and preserve in perpetuity indigenous flora or fauna or natural features that are of such rarity, scientific interest or importance, or so unique that their protection and preservation are in the public interest (s20(1)). All reserves regardless of their classification must “manage and protect to the extent compatible with the principal or primary purpose of the reserve” any scenic, historic, archaeological, biological, or natural features present on the reserve. The Reserves Act also states that no activity on a reserve should “contravene any provision of the Wildlife Act 1953 or any regulations or Proclamation or
92 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix notification under that Act, or the doing of anything with respect to archaeological features in any reserve that would contravene any provision of the Historic Places Act 1993. Reserve management plans are required for all reserves. They are intended to “provide for and ensure the use, enjoyment, maintenance, protection, and preservation, as the case may require, and, to the extent that the administering body's resources permit, the development, as appropriate, of the reserve for the purposes for which it is classified” (s41(3)). For historic reserves, the focus of a reserve management plan will be the means for ensuring the protection and enhancement of heritage values. There is also an expectation that public access will be provided.
8.1.3 The Proposed Regional Policy Statement 2010 (RPS) A district plan is required to have regard to a notified RPS and 'give effect to' an operative RPS. The operative RPS was notified in 1993 and so was taken into account when the operative Plan’s heritage provisions were drafted. This section considers the detail of the revised notified RPS. The heritage section of the proposed RPS does not refer explicitly to trees (the section mentions sites, structures, landscapes, areas or places). As a result, the relevance of this section to notable tree protection is assumed only. Specific reference in the notified RPS to trees being a component of historic heritage values would have been advantageous. One objective concerns historic and cultural heritage, namely: “Sites, structures, landscapes, areas or places of historic and cultural heritage are maintained or enhanced in order to retain the identity and integrity of New Zealand’s history and culture” (Objective 3.17). This objective is supported by two relevant policies.42 The first, 'managing historic and cultural heritage' requires councils to “provide for the collaborative, consistent and integrated management of historic and cultural heritage resources” (Policy 10.1). Under this policy, councils are required to identify historic heritage using historic and cultural assessment criteria specified in the RPS. It also states that WRC will collaborate with the region’s district and city councils to establish a regional heritage inventory and a regional heritage forum. It also sets out a range of education and advocacy tasks for WRC to pursue. The second policy addresses 'effects of development on historic and cultural heritage' and seeks to “manage subdivision, use and development to give recognition to historic and cultural heritage and to integrate it with development where appropriate” (Policy 10.3). Mechanisms to implement this policy are suggested, including heritage alert layers, heritage orders and financial and other incentives. Also under this policy, the RPS sets out a range of matters that councils can use to determine whether an activity is inappropriate. They include: the character and degree of modification, damage, loss or destruction of heritage qualities; the duration and frequency of effect; the magnitude or scale of any effect on heritage qualities; and the irreversibility of adverse effects on heritage values. Another potentially relevant objective in the proposed RPS relates to amenity values, namely “Those qualities and characteristics of areas and features valued for their contribution to amenity are maintained or enhanced” (Part A, Section 3.20). The related policy is (Part B, Section 12.4):
42 There is a third policy dealing with the relationship of Maori to taonga. The identification and protection of Maori historic heritage will be addressed by TCDC at a later stage.
93 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Areas of high amenity value are identified, and those values are maintained or enhanced. These may include: a) areas within the coastal environment and along inland water bodies; b) scenic, recreational or historic areas; c) areas of spiritual or cultural significance; and d) scientific and landscape features.
This policy is to be implemented through regional and district plans, which “shall ensure areas of particular amenity value to regional or local communities are appropriately identified and/or protected so that those qualities and characteristics for which they are valued are maintained or enhanced”. Other objectives and policies of the proposed RPS deal with the protection of indigenous biodiversity (such as Part B Section 11) and natural character (Part B, Section 12). However, these are different resource management issues to the protection of trees due to their historic, cultural or amenity values, and different identification and assessment procedures would be required.43
8.2 Council direction
8.2.1 4 – 6 April 2011 – District Plan Review Committee meeting Significant trees provide 'borrowed amenity'. The methodology for including the trees into the register needs to be robust to withstand criticism and scrutiny. Support for significant trees based on historical reasons (for example the Victoria Park trees).
Identify and schedule 'significant trees' for general protection through provisions in the draft Plan, subject to consideration of possible private amenity conflicts.
8.3 Monitoring and Technical Reports
8.3.1 Heritage Strategy Thames-Coromandel District Council. (2008). Thames-Coromandel Heritage Strategy. Unpublished report. The Thames-Coromandel Heritage Strategy's goal is "to identify, collect and preserve the District’s oral, written and physical heritage and have a coordinated and supportive approach to heritage management” (pp.4-5). One of the intentions of the Strategy is “to strengthen the existing policies within the District Plan and prioritise new actions to ensure that positive heritage outcomes are achieved” (p.5). The heritage strategy identifies a number of challenges associated with heritage management in the District, including:
Updating of existing documentation in the District Plan Heritage Registers The proactive leadership of Council in respect of heritage protection
43 Note: the provisions set out in this Section 32 report relate solely to Notable Trees. TCDC has engaged in other work to review sections of the District Plan relating to protection of indigenous flora and fauna, SNAs, landscape protection etc.
94 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Planning for additional heritage protection
The loss of notable trees in the District. Key actions include updating the District Plan schedule of significant trees and other heritage items, establishing a Heritage Committee to advocate for heritage protection, establishing a range of non- regulatory methods, including grants, rates relief, waiving resource consent fees, and developing heritage plaques/trails.
8.3.2 Tree Strategy Thames-Coromandel District Council. (2003). Thames-Coromandel District Tree Strategy. Unpublished report. The purpose of the Tree Strategy is to provide a consistent framework for managing trees on Council land throughout the District. This covers mainly street trees and trees on reserve land, and includes the following main topics: Design master-planning, species selection, programming and planting
Ongoing management and protection Removal and replacements The Strategy sets out seven objectives: 1. A coherent tree master plan for each Ward that covers all Council trees in that Ward, and reinforces the amenities and natural values of the area. 2. A programme covering new tree planting and replacement. 3. Improved planting using the right species in the right places and best practice planting techniques. 4. Consistent approach to ongoing maintenance and protection of trees. 5. Consistent criteria for decisions on pruning, removing and replacing trees. 6. Formalised procedures to deal with requests from people to prune, or remove trees on public land. 7. Formalised procedures to deal with requests from people to plant trees on public land. The Strategy does not deal specifically with the issue of Notable Tree protection, but it does assist the Council in taking a leadership role in tree management, including the use of best practice, particularly with respect to tree maintenance and the avoidance of activities that may endanger tree health.
8.3.3 Notable Trees Review Project Day, M. (2010). Notable Trees Review Project: A Review of the Effectiveness of the Thames- Coromandel Operative District Plan. Unpublished report commissioned by the Thames- Coromandel District Council. This report provides an assessment of the current Plan's effectiveness on notable trees. Broadly, the report: Discusses the background to the existing notable tree provisions.
95 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Gives an update on legislative requirements.
Analyses the internal consistency of the notable tree protection provisions. Assesses a limited number of resource consents to determine if and how the current Plan regulations have been implemented, as a desk-top study. Compares the current Plan provisions with a number of other councils' approaches to notable tree management.
Gives conclusions and recommendations. The assessment found a low level of internal consistency for notable tree provisions in the current Plan. There were a relatively small number of annual consent applications for tree works, with the majority of these consents being for removal or maintenance of trees in the Thames area. It recommended that the Plan be aligned with the new RMA requirement in section 76 regarding District Plan rules: (4A) However, a rule must not prohibit or restrict the felling, trimming, damaging, or removal of any tree or group of trees in an urban environment unless the tree or group of trees is— (a) specifically identified in the plan; or (b) located within an area in the district that— (i) is a reserve (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Reserves Act 1977); or (ii) is subject to a conservation management plan or conservation management strategy prepared in accordance with the Conservation Act 1987 or the Reserves Act 1977. (4B) In subsection (4A), urban environment means an allotment no greater than 4 000 m2— (a) that is connected to a reticulated water supply system and a reticulated sewerage system; and (b) on which is a building used for industrial or commercial purposes, or a dwellinghouse. The report makes the following recommendations:
Revise the objectives, policies, methods and outcomes in Section 220 Heritage & Section 212 Landscape and Natural Character, so as to provide greater internal consistency for tree protection between objectives, policies, methods and environmental results anticipated.
Provide clear guidance on the outcomes being sought, particularly in relation to pruning, trimming and maintenance. Consider listing trees for reasons other than Heritage (i.e. landscape, amenity, botanical values).
Revisit the definition of ‘tree’ in section 9 of the current Plan. Consider widening the permitted standard to allow activities relating to pruning and trimming to allow alternative types of tools (not just short handled secateurs). Explicitly require consent for works in vicinity or dripline of trees. Allow for removal of dead or dying notable trees as a ‘permitted activity’, subject to advisement/report to the Council.
96 | P a g e
Section 32 Part IV A Appendix
Update the Tree Registers and include information regarding the reasons trees have been listed. Provide a wider range of assessment criteria for determining consent applications.
Update the provisions relating to general tree protection (Section 420, Rule 422.1), as per the RMA Amendment Act 2009, whereby ‘blanket’ tree protection in urban environments no longer applies.
Provide stronger direction or guidance on the non-regulatory methods (such as financial assistance with arborists, rates relief, consent fee waiver etc) that may be available to land owners with notable trees for tree maintenance.
8.3.4 Arborist STEM Assessments Woolford, J. (2011). Assessment of trees for the Thames-Coromandel District Plan Significant Tree Register. Thames. The Council contracted the services of an arborist to assess trees nominated for possible inclusion on the Plan Significant Tree Register. He did this using STEM assessments to help determine the worthiness of nominated trees for possible inclusion on the Plan Significant Tree Register, and the current status and condition of notable trees already on the current Plan Notable Tree Register.
97 | P a g e