22nd July 2020
District Services – Resource Consents Far North District Council Private Bag 752 Kaikohe 0440
Attention Louise Wilson
Dear Louise
APPLICATIONS FOR A CHANGE TO EXISTING REGISTERED SECTION 221 CONSENT NOTICE CONDITIONS ON LOT 2 DP 502376.
Zenith Planning Consultants Limited has been engaged by Peter van den Elzin and Theodora van Doveren to assist in the preparation of an application to change conditions for two existing Section 221 Consent Notice documents registered on the title of Lot 2 DP 502376. The application seeks to enable an area of protected vegetation to be cleared for the construction of two houses. The reasons for the request are detailed within the accompanying report with suggested new wording also included. The two dwellings do not breach any district plan rule.
The application site is located at Glendale Heights off Pungaere Road, Kerikeri (there is no street address) and is zoned Rural Production.
With respect to application fees, the applicant has already paid online with confirmation attached.
Please find attached the following information in support of the application: • Completed Application Form • Planning Report and Assessment of Effects including suggested new Consent Notice wording. • Site Plan detailing the area for the proposed dwelling and extent of vegetation clearance required. • Certificate of Title and relevant Section 221 Consent Notices • Ecological Report • Email communications and applicant statement
Please advise who the reporting planner will be as soon as possible and should you have any queries in respect to this application please contact me.
Yours faithfully
Wayne Smith Zenith Planning Consultants Ltd Principal | Director BPlan | BSocSci | MNZPI [email protected] mob: +64 (0) 21 202 3898
Planning Report and Assessment of Effects
Application to Change Section 221 Consent Notice Conditions
For Peter van den Elzen and Theodora van Doveren
Glendale Heights Pungaere Road, Kerikeri
APPLICATION TO CHANGE CONSENT NOTICE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 221(3)(C) OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
Application introduction
1.1 The applicant seeks consent under Section 221(3)(c) to change an existing consent conditions registered on the title of the application site. The proposed changes sought will enable the development of the application site in a way that is considered to be a more effective and efficient manner whilst not detracting from the environmental outcomes sought from the protection measures of the consent notice conditions registered on the Certificate of Title.
1.2 The affected consent notice conditions are Consent Notice 10503226.6 and Consent Notice 10769203.2 which are registered on the title of Lot 2 DP 502376 and which was imposed on recent subdivision applications. Condition (viii) of Consent Notice 10503226.6 and condition (v) of Consent Notice 10769203.2 are the two consent notice conditions that are requested to be changed and which contains the following wording. The essence of the change sought is to enable areas of vegetation protected by the following clauses to be cleared and developed with two proposed dwellings.
1.3 The extent of vegetation proposed to be cleared has been minimised as much as possible to reflect the amount required to accommodate the respective dwellings and which includes a suitable firebreak between the dwellings and the existing bush. The dwelling locations are separate from each other as denoted on the attached site plan with existing access roads already cleared to each of the respective house sites. The access to each house site location is variable in terms of the current formation standard but has been cleared for some time. The wastewater servicing of the two dwelling is to be centralised with a likely low-pressure wastewater line from each dwelling travelling to a centralised wastewater treatment plant which will occupy and utilise an existing cleared and open space area. The remaining cleared space is to be used for several implement sheds. The majority of the application site will remain in bush and with further enhancement measures proposed. The current consent notice conditions read:
Condition (viii) – document 10503226.6 “The lot owner shall preserve the living indigenous vegetation within the area identified on the plan attached to RC 2160119 as Upper Pungaere Shrubland, P05/114; and shall not without the prior written consent of the Council, and this in strict compliance with any conditions imposed by the Council, cut down, damage or destroy that vegetation. Such consent may be given in the form of a resource consent. Where applicable, the lot owner should exclude stock from entering the area identified on the attached plan. The owner shall be deemed to be not in breach of this prohibition if any such vegetation dies from natural causes which are not attributed to any act or default by or on behalf of the owner or for which the owner is responsible.”
Condition (v) – document 10769203.2 “The lot owner shall preserve the indigenous trees and bush within protected natural area P05/114 indicated on the plan referred to in Condition 3(a) of Resource Consent RC2170005, as indicated on the attached plan as Upper Pungaere Shrubland dated 27 September 2016; and shall not without resource consent from the Council and then only in strict compliance with any conditions imposed by the Council, cut down, damage or
destroy that vegetation. The owner shall be deemed to be not in breach of this prohibition if any such trees or bush shall die from natural causes which are not attributable to any act or default by or on behalf of the owner or for which the owner is responsible. Where practical, the lot owner should exclude stock from entering the areas indicated on the survey plan.”
1.4 It is contended that the most appropriate means to achieve the changes sought to the protected areas in this application is to add some additional wording to reference and include the accompanying development plan. The plan clearly demarcates the areas to remain protected and those areas required for the vegetation clearance. The remaining aspects of the condition continue to hold true for the landowner.
The revised wording could be as follows:
Condition (viii) “The lot owner shall preserve the living indigenous vegetation within the area identified on the plan attached to RC 2160119 RC (new number) and noted as being within the Upper Pungaere Shrubland, P05/114 and referenced as site plan Rev A (and attached to this consent notice). The lot owner shall not without the prior written consent of the Council, and this in strict compliance with any conditions imposed by the Council, cut down, damage or destroy that vegetation. Such consent may be given in the form of a resource consent. Where applicable, the lot owner should exclude stock from entering the area identified on the attached plan. The owner shall be deemed to be not in breach of this prohibition if any such vegetation dies from natural causes which are not attributed to any act or default by or on behalf of the owner or for which the owner is responsible.”
Condition (v) “The lot owner shall preserve the indigenous trees and bush within protected natural area P05/114 indicated on the plan referred to RC (new number) in Condition 3(a) of Resource Consent RC2170005, as indicated on the attached plan as Upper Pungaere Shrubland dated 27 September 2016; and shall not without resource the consent from the Council and then only in strict compliance with any conditions imposed by the Council, cut down, damage or destroy that vegetation. The owner shall be deemed to be not in breach of this prohibition if any such trees or bush shall die from natural causes which are not attributable to any act or default by or on behalf of the owner or for which the owner is responsible. Where practical, the lot owner should exclude stock from entering the areas indicated on the survey plan.”
1.5 The attached ecological report prepared for this application highlights some additional measures which could (if required) be added as a further means and method of enhancing the ecological values of the site. This includes measures for pest and weed eradication and which while not specified within the existing conditions but would contribute and provide a more diverse habitat and potentially result in a superior environmental outcome.
1.6 The applicant proposes to construct two dwellings and an implement shed which have been assessed against the rules of the district plan for the Rural Production zone. It is considered that all components of this development would be compliant with the relevant development standards as detailed within the district plan. The property being 49.50ha in size can readily meet the residential intensity rule, the required setback from boundary
requirements, and impermeable surface limitations. All of these development standards are easily complied with. The district wide provisions for excavation and filling, and for vegetation clearance, are also complied with by the proposal. Therefore, the extent of proposed vegetation clearance and the related site works are all fully compliant with the district plan requirements. The only consideration not complied with is in relation to the consent notice condition which protects the existing vegetation and habitats, but which also allows for clearance to occur on an application made to Council.
1.7 In order to fully understand and assess the proposed change it is important to consider the reasons for the original imposition of the conditions and to consider (using the assessment criteria within the plan) the appropriateness of this application to change the condition to enable an some additional vegetation clearance. In support of the application an ecological report and assessment has been prepared by a qualified ecologist and which considers the change sought, the proposed vegetation clearance, and which concludes that the requested vegetation clearance and changes to the s221 consent notice conditions are appropriate.
2.0 Assessment of the Proposal
2.1 To fully understand the request to change condition (viii) and (v), it is appropriate to consider the assessment criteria for vegetation clearance as detailed in Section 12.2 of the district plan. Where required, a commentary has been provided noting that not all criteria is considered relevant to the application being assessed. The fully ecological considerations are detailed within the attached supporting report prepared by Lisette Collins of Northland Ecological dated June 2020. This report comprehensively reviews the ecological values and the means to mitigate the proposed works.
12.2.7 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA The matters set out in s104 and s105, and in Part II of the Act, apply to the consideration of all resource consents for land use activities. In addition to these matters, the Council shall also apply the relevant assessment matters set out below:
(a) the significance of the area assessed using the criteria listed in Method 12.2.5.6; Contained within Section 12.2.5.6 of the Far North District Plan there is criteria provided for assessing the significance of indigenous vegetation and habitats. The criteria is as follows: (a) whether the area contains critical, endangered, vulnerable or rare taxa, or taxa of indeterminate threatened status (in the context of this clause, taxa means species and subspecies); (b) whether the area contains indigenous or endemic taxa that are threatened or rare in Northland; (c) whether the area contains representative examples in an ecological district of a particular habitat type; (d) whether the area has a high diversity of taxa or habitat types for the ecological district; (e) whether the area forms an ecological buffer, linkage or corridor to other areas of significant vegetation or significant habitats of indigenous fauna; (f) whether the area contains types that are rare in the ecological district; (g) whether the area supports good populations of taxa which are endemic to the Northland or Northland-Auckland regions; (h) whether the area is important for indigenous or endemic migratory taxa; (i) whether the area supports viable populations of species, which are typical of that type of habitat within an ecological district and retain a high degree of naturalness.
It is noted from the ecological assessment attached that the two identified house site areas are considered as having ecological significance while the location for the shed and related onsite services (wastewater) is not significant. The report confirms the following:
Indigenous vegetation on the subject property (including the sites of the proposed dwellings) meets criteria a, b, c, e, f, g and j above because they are: • habitats of “Threatened” and “At Risk” flora and fauna (criteria a and b), • good quality, representative examples of a habitat/vegetation type that is rare within Kerikeri Ecological District (criteria c, f and g), and • form an ecological link to Puketi Forest (criterion e).
The proposed location of the shed and wastewater disposal field does not meet the criteria for ecological significance provided in the Far North District Plan.
Having confirmed the significance of the site as it relates to the proposed house site it is appropriate to provide further assessment and consideration of the remaining components of the criteria. The important consideration is that notwithstanding the identification of the vegetation significance this does not immediately negate the proposal but rather requires careful consideration of the proposed mitigation measures and the circumstances for the proposed request. The full extent of vegetation sought to be cleared is 2800m2 out of a 49.5ha site or approximately 0.56% of the site area. . (b) the location and scale of any activity and its potential to adversely affect the natural functioning of the ecosystem; The location of the house sites has been selected on the basis of providing extensive views of the property and surrounding farm land but also with a objective which limits the extent of vegetation clearance required to accommodate the proposed development. The areas proposed to be cleared equates to 2800m2 for the two proposed house sites (1700m2 for the main house and 1100m2 for the farm cottage) with the area required for the implement shed, site servicing, and access to the respective house sites already cleared. The district plan infers that for any dwelling within the Rural Production Zone that up to 3000m2 of land should be available for the exclusive use of the dwelling. By only clearing 2800m2 for the two dwellings this is well below those suggested thresholds with the amount to be cleared reduced as much as possible to minimise the potential effects on the immediate area.
The removal of the vegetation could be viewed as the incremental removal of important habitat. However, the applicant seeks to occupy the site and to protect, preserve, and to enhance the site and the surrounding area. The total area proposed to be cleared has been reduced following the receipt of the ecological report and the attached recommendations. In addition, the decision to utilise the existing cleared area for site servicing and the farm implement sheds reduces the area required for each dwelling.
The access to each house site is already cleared (has been cleared for some time) and therefore part of this existing cleared area would be used for the proposed dwellings. It is evident from the site visit that some weed species are starting to occupy the fringes of the cleared access and will need to be managed accordingly.
The remaining vegetation and area beyond the area required to be cleared for the proposed dwellings remains extensive and contiguous. With measures proposed to be
put in place relating to weed and pest eradication, this property will become a more significant habitat under the ownership of the applicant/ landowner. The location and scale of the proposed dwellings result in effects that are less than minor and is not considered to result in an adverse effect on the functionality of the existing ecosystem.
(c) the potential effects on the biodiversity and life supporting capacity of the area; With the proposed vegetation clearance of only 2800m2, it is not considered that there will be adverse effects on the biodiversity of the adjoining vegetation and habitat. The importance of weed and pest control will assist the retention of habitat and enable it to not compete with invasive species or fauna which has an adverse effect on this environment such as wild pigs. The potential effects of this request are considered to be less than minor.
(d) the extent to which the activity may adversely affect cultural and spiritual values; The application site is not known or noted to be a site of cultural or spiritual significance. It is considered that if these values were present on the site that these would have been addressed under the original subdivision applications which created these lots.
(e) the extent to which the activity may impact adversely on visual and amenity values; The proposed dwellings are fully compliant with the rules of the district plan and there are no visual or amenity considerations which need to be considered in respect of this application or the application site. There is one dwelling on the neighbouring property which is visible from the access track to the main dwelling. The incidence of built form is relatively limited in this location. The proposed development will not result in adverse visual or amenity effects.
(f) the extent to which adverse effects on areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna are avoided, remedied or mitigated; As noted previously, the application site contains significant vegetation and is reaffirmed within the ecological report. The proposed vegetation clearance will result in the removal of vegetation with the area required to provide two dwellings within the property. The conclusion reached within the ecological report does not identify the proposal as resulting in more than minor effects on the existing habitat and offers a number of additional measures which could (if required) be incorporated into the modified s221 Consent Notice conditions. It is contended that the suggested amended conditions as detailed under Section 1.4 above is sufficient however if Council is minded to include or require additional measures as suggested above, that these be confirmed with the applicant prior to the issuance of the decision. This is important as the conditions would be ongoing obligations that the applicant would commit to on an ongoing basis.
(g) the extent to which any proposed measures will result in the permanent protection of the area, and the long term sustainability of revegetation and enhancement proposals; The site already enjoys protection via the Section 221 Consent Notice which details the areas allowed to be kept clear of vegetation and ensures the remaining areas are protected from inappropriate development of the site. The applicant is committed to ensure that the underlying habitat and ecology of the site is preserved with pest and weed eradication measures proposed and the minimisation of vegetation clearance for the proposed dwellings which would usually comply with the district plan requirements.
Other means of permanent protection such as QEII trust have been considered but is not deemed to be advantageous and is unnecessary given the existing protection measures in place.
(h) whether a voluntary agreement by a landowner to protect indigenous vegetation and/or habitats is registered with the Council; The applicant acknowledges the protection measures secured by the Section 221 Consent Notice conditions and considers that this is sufficient to achieve the environmental outcomes sought. The additional measures of weed and pest eradication measures are considered sufficient to further improve the habitat and to retain the ecological diversity of the site. These measures could be added to the respective Section 221 Consent Notices if necessary.
(i) whether dogs, cats or mustelids will be excluded; Given the remoteness of the site and that the applicant has a preference to have dogs. It is suggested that the applicant could have a dog proof enclosure within the house curtilage areas which prevents the potential for dogs to wander and potentially have an adverse effect on fauna. It is noted that wild pigs are potentially more problematic for both flora and fauna in this existing environment and measures to reduce their impacts will be made as part of the on-gong measures for the land. There is no intension for the landowner to have cats or mustelids.
(j) proposals for the re-establishment of populations of threatened species, either in areas where the species previously inhabited or other suitable habitat, and/or replanting or restoration of habitats and indigenous vegetation; For the areas within the site which are not required for the proposed dwellings, the applicant is committed to replant these areas and to complete an effective and efficient weed and pest eradication. The majority of the site is already well established (naturally) and apart from replacing weed species with native species, there is little re-establishment needed or required within the site. The potential effects are considered to be less than minor with no further measures required to be completed.
(k) the environmental effect of the increase in residential intensity and/or extra lots in relation to the benefits of achieving permanent legal protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and/or significant habitats of indigenous fauna; The proposed density of residential development is compliant and the extent of proposed development is well within the suggested parameters. No additional development rights are sought or requested under this application. There sufficient measures already which already exist which protect the existing vegetation.
(l) the value of vegetation in protecting the life supporting capacity of soil, maintaining or improving water quality and reducing the potential for downstream siltation and flooding; The soil of the site is noted as being poor and infertile. It is important that controls be put in place to ensure that nutrient loading of the adjacent vegetation (to the house sites or the service area) does not occur or change the characteristics of the site. Controls are required to be in place during the construction phase (which would be in place) and to ensure that the wastewater system is effective and efficient within its proposed location.
Roof water will likely be harvested as a potable water supply with other impermeable surface areas directed to existing overland flow paths.
(m) the extent to which the activity may adversely affect areas of known high density kiwi habitat; The application is not considered to result in adverse effects on Kiwi or to their habitat. The offer to provide a dog proof enclosure remains a possibility while there remains no overall restrictions on dogs.
(n) the environmental effects of a proposed development in relation to the benefits of achieving permanent protection and/or management of areas of significant indigenous vegetation or significant habitats of indigenous fauna; Permanent protection already exists as conditioned within the registered Section 221 Consent Notices. This application seeks to allow for the clearance of 2800m2 of vegetation to accommodate the proposed dwellings. Equating to less than 0.5% of the site area, the effects of the proposed clearance are considered to be less than minor.
(o) the extent to which there are reasonable alternatives to provide for sustainable management; In the context of the site and the development thereof, this proposal represents an opportunity to enable development to occur but to also to enhance the habitat by effective weed and pest eradication measures.
(p) the extent to which the habitat policies of any national policy statement, the Regional Policy Statement for Northland and the District Plan are implemented; It is contended that the proposal is consistent with the above higher order planning documents and offers a number of benefits from allowing the development of the areas proposed to occur.
(q) the extent to which other animals or plants that will be introduced as a result of the application and may have a significant adverse effect on indigenous ecosystems are excluded or controlled; The applicant intends to introduce no additional animals or plants which could result in adverse effects on the receiving environment.
(r) the effectiveness of any proposed pest control programme. The application site has no current pest or weed eradication program and it is evident that certain pest species are creating some issues. The introduction of an effective program will negate these existing concerns and provide an improved environment.
2.2 Assessment Conclusion It can be noted that the proposed removal of 2800m2 of vegetation represents 0.5% of the entire site with most of the site remaining in indigenous vegetation. The importance of the site and its ecological values are appreciated and intended to be enhanced by the applicant. The introduction of a potential pest and weed eradication program will greatly assist in improving the quality of the habitat. The extent of vegetation clearance sought is the minimum amount to enable an otherwise compliant development to occur. The effects are concluded as being less than minor.
3.0 District Plan Objectives and Policies Consideration
3.1 Within the district plan there are several objectives and policies related to the flora and fauna provisions and which are considered within any application to remove flora and
fauna. While no district plan rule is breached the existing Section 221 Consent Notice conditions do apply and it is appropriate to review the proposal in light of these provisions.
12.2.3 OBJECTIVES 12.2.3.1 To maintain and enhance the life supporting capacity of ecosystems and the extent and representativeness of the District’s indigenous biological diversity. 12.2.3.2 To provide for the protection of, and to promote the active management of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna. 12.2.3.3 To recognise issues of wellbeing including equity for landowners in selecting methods of implementation. 12.2.3.4 To promote an ethic of stewardship.
3.2 The application to change the Section 221 Consent Notice Conditions seeks to allow 2800m2 of vegetation clearance to occur as described. This must be weighed up in terms of the overall effects (both positive and neutral) that result from this proposal.
3.3 The extent of the proposed vegetation clearance works equates to 0.5% of the site area with the majority of the site remaining in indigenous vegetation and noted as a significant in terms of vegetation type and habitat. The extent of works will not affect the ecological values or outcomes which are sought to be retained. The proposal enables the establishment of two dwellings and a commitment to undertake pest and weed eradication from the landowner. The overall benefits of this request are considered to be greater than which presently exists. The applicant in undertaking the works proposed, intends to leave the property in a better ecological standing and condition than present and to enhance the biodiversity of the area. To this end the applicant is adopting the ethic of stewardship and this is important consideration for any person living within this important ecological habitat.
3.4 The proposal is considered to be consistent with key objectives relating to vegetation and habitat protection, potential clearance and appropriate formal protection measures.
12.2.4 POLICIES 12.2.4.1 That areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna be protected for the purpose of promoting sustainable management with attention being given to: (a) maintaining ecological values; (b) maintaining quality and resilience; (c) maintaining the variety and range of indigenous species contributing to biodiversity; (d) maintaining ecological integrity; and (e) maintaining tikanga Maori in the context of the above. Note: In determining whether a subdivision, use or development is appropriate in areas containing significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, Council shall consider each application on a case by case basis, giving due weight to Part II of the Act as well as those matters listed above. 12.2.4.2 That the significance of areas of indigenous vegetation be evaluated by reference to the criteria listed in Appendix III of the Northland Regional Policy Statement (refer also to definition of “significant” in 12.2.5.6). 12.2.4.3 That adverse effects on areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna are avoided, remedied or mitigated by: (a) seeking alternatives to the disturbance of habitats where practicable;
(b) managing the scale, intensity, type and location of subdivision, use and development in a way that avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse ecological effects; (c) ensuring that where any disturbance occurs it is undertaken in a way that, as far as practicable: (i) minimises any edge effects; (ii) avoids the removal of specimen trees; (iii) does not result in linkages with other areas being lost; (iv) avoids adverse effects on threatened species; (v) minimises disturbance of root systems of remaining vegetation; (vi) does not result in the introduction of exotic weed species or pest animals; (d) encouraging, and where appropriate, requiring active pest control and avoiding the grazing of such areas. 12.2.4.4 That clearance of limited areas of indigenous vegetation is provided for. 12.2.4.5 That the contribution of areas of indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna to the overall biodiversity and amenity of the District be taken into account in evaluating applications for resource consents. 12.2.4.6 That support is given to programmes for weed and pest control, including support for community pest control areas established by the Northland Regional Council under the Regional Pest Management Strategies, in areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna and surrounding lands. 12.2.4.7 That community awareness of the need and reasons for protecting areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna be promoted. 12.2.4.8 That restoration and enhancement of indigenous ecosystems is based on plants that would have occurred naturally in the locality and is sourced from local genetic stock where practicable. 12.2.4.9 That the Council will work with landowners and communities to ensure outcomes are achieved in an effective and equitable manner. 12.2.4.10 In order to protect areas of significant indigenous fauna: (a) that dogs (excluding working dogs), cats, possums, rats, mustelids and other pest species are not introduced into areas with populations of kiwi, dotterel and brown teal; (b) in areas where dogs, cats, possums, rats, mustelids and other pest species are having adverse effects on indigenous fauna their removal is promoted. 12.2.4.11 That when considering resource consent applications in areas identified as known high density kiwi habitat, the Council may impose conditions, in order to protect kiwi and their habitat. 12.2.4.12 That habitat restoration be promoted. 12.2.4.13 That the maintenance of riparian vegetation and habitats be recognised and provided for, and their restoration encouraged, for the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, preservation of natural character and the maintenance of general ecosystem health and indigenous biodiversity. 12.2.4.14 That when considering an application to clear areas of significant indigenous vegetation or significant habitats of indigenous fauna, enabling Maori to provide for the sustainable management of their ancestral land will be recognised and provided for by Council.
3.5 In considering the application to change the Section 221 Consent Notice conditions and to enable the clearance of 2800m2 for the proposed dwelling sites, the intent of the
consent notice conditions is not diminished and in this instance the additional measures proposed will assist in achieving a superior outcome to that which present exists.
3.6 The district plan (and the s221 consent notice) allows for vegetation clearance in certain circumstances and this proposal is considered to be one such circumstance. The habitat is noted as significant and the ecological report concludes that this is an important area and habitat. The area is worthy of formal protection but is also able to absorb the proposed development particularly with the potential additional measures which could be included such as weed and pest eradication and the proposed dog proof enclosure. These two measures are not currently applicable to the site but if required can be offered to further enhance the site. It could be argued that while protecting an area is important, that the ongoing commitments to the site including pest and weed eradication is more important.
3.7 Weed species are presently located on the peripheral to the application site with some infiltration evident within the protected vegetation notwithstanding the infertile characteristics of the soil and land. In addition to weed species the presence of wild pigs is also an issue in this locality and environment. The introduction of a weed and pest eradication program to remove these aspects will improve the existing habitat and improve the overall biodiversity of the area.
3.8 The proposed dwellings within the site will not adversely affect this habitat and offers a suitable and appropriate scale of development for this 49.5ha site. The plan encourages appropriate proposals where a greater outcome can be readily achieved. This proposal represents this type of proposal whereby the environmental bottom line is far superior to the current arrangements.
Consultation
4.1 The request was briefly discussed with Council’s Principal Planner (Pat Killalea) who suggested that an Ecological report be provided as part of the application and also to undertake consultation with the Department of Conservation.
4.2 The request to change conditions was discussed with the Department of Conservation who raised no specific concerns to the proposal. The details of this email communication is attached for consideration by Council. The application details that the applicant is prepared to undertake works which offer further benefits that what is presently required of them as a future landowner.
4.3 There were no persons deemed to be adversely affected by the request as the proposal is fully compliant with the rules of the district plan.
Conclusion
5.1 It is therefore recommended that the changes to the Section 221 Consent Notice conditions be approved as suggested within the alternative wording provided under Section 1.4 of this report.
5.2 Furthermore, if there is a need to formalise the weed and pest eradication plan as detailed and the dog proof enclosure with additional conditions that these be discussed prior to approval. The changes would only apply to Lot 2 DP 502376 and no other lot affected by the relevant Section 221 Consent Notice documents and conditions.
Should you have any queries in respect to this application please contact me.
Yours faithfully
Wayne Smith Zenith Planning Consultants Ltd Principal | Director BPlan | BSocSci | MNZPI [email protected] mob: +64 (0) 21 202 3898
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020 Prepared for:
Andrew Abercrombie Site Scope 185 Waipapa Road Kerikeri 0295
June 2020
Assessment of Ecological Effects:August 2019 Lot 2 DP502376 (Glendale Heights, Pungaere)
Prepared by:
Lisette Collins Principal Ecologist Northland Ecology
[email protected] www.northlandecology.com Ph 021-134 9760
E: [email protected] Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Description of the Proposal ...... 3 3. Methods ...... 4 4. Ecological Context ...... 5 4.1 Kerikeri Ecological District ...... 5 4.2 Gumlands ...... 6 4.3 Kiwi ...... 8 4.5 Catchment and Waterways ...... 9 4.6 Threatened Environments...... 9 5. Site Description ...... 11 5.1 Vegetation and Habitats...... 11 5.2 Flora ...... 14 5.3 Fauna ...... 14 6. Ecological Significance ...... 15 7. Managing Potentially Adverse Ecological Effects ...... 17 8. Opportunities for Ecological Enhancement ...... 21 9. Conclusions ...... 22 References ...... 24 Appendix One: Photographs ...... 25 Appendix Two: Native Vascular Flora ...... 30 Appendix Three: Introduced Vascular Flora ...... 32 Appendix Four: Significance Criteria: Regional Policy Statement ...... 33
COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of ‘Northland Ecology’. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of ‘Northland Ecology’ constitutes an infringement of copyright.
LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of the client of ‘Northland Ecology’ and is subject to and is issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement ‘Northland Ecology’ and its Client. ‘Northland Ecology’ accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
1. Introduction
Lot 2 DP502376 comprises c.49.5 hectares at Glendale Heights, Pungaere, in the Far North District (refer to Figures 1 and 2). Almost the entire property supports indigenous vegetation that has been identified as ecologically significant (Conning and Miller 1999). There is a proposal to construct two dwellings within the indigenous vegetation and a shed within exotic grassland. The proponents are also interested in undertaking weed control, pest control and planting.
After providing ecological context, this report describes the vegetation, flora and habitats on the subject property and assesses their ecological significance. The potential ecological effects of the proposal are assessed and options to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects are provided. Opportunities for enhancing the ecological values of the property are discussed. Photographs are presented in Appendix 1.
Figure 1: The location of Lot 2 DP502376 (Glendale Heights, Pungaere), marked with a red circle.
www.northlandecology.com 1
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
Figure 2: An aerial image of Lot 2 DP502376 (Glendale Heights, Pungaere) (Far North Maps). Some of the indigenous vegetation in the image has been cleared, including in the southwestern corner of the property where it is proposed to locate a shed.
www.northlandecology.com 2
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
2. Description of the Proposal
This report assesses a proposal to construct two dwellings and a shed on Lot 2 DP502376 (Glendale Heights, Pungaere). The proposed locations of both dwellings are within indigenous gumland vegetation while the shed and wastewater disposal field are located on exotic grassland near the southern boundary of the property (Figure 3). The proposed extent of vegetation clearance for the construction of the dwellings is c.2,800 m2 (1,100 m2 for the caretaker’s cottage and 1,700 m2 for the main dwelling). The extent of vegetation clearance (if any) required for vehicle access, the provision of services, and disposal of stormwater and wastewater is not specified.
Figure 3: Locations of the proposed dwellings (“caretaker’s cottage” at left, “main dwelling” at right), shed and wastewater disposal field (centre) on Lot 2 DP502376 (Glendale Heights, Pungaere).
www.northlandecology.com 3
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
3. Methods
Existing ecological information about the site was compiled from online databases and publications. On 19 March 2020 an initial on-site meeting was attended with the project manager to discuss the proposal and view the proposed locations of the dwellings. An ecological survey of the property was completed on 13 May during overcast weather with occasional showers. The purpose of the survey was to describe the vegetation and habitatson the property and compile lists of flora and fauna. This enabled the ecological significance of the site and the potential effects of the proposal to be assessed. A nocturnal kiwi survey and a reptile survey were beyond the scope of the study.
www.northlandecology.com 4
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
4. Ecological Context
4.1 Kerikeri Ecological District
New Zealand is divided into Ecological Districts, with each District possessing topographical, geological, climatic, soil and biological features that result in a characteristic landscape and range of vegetation and habitat types. The subject property is situated in Kerikeri Ecological District,
A survey of Kerikeri Ecological District was undertaken to identify natural areas and place them in two levels of significance (Conning and Miller 1999). The vegetation on the subject property was identified as a Level 1 site within “Upper Pungaere Shrublands” (Site number PO5/114, Figure 4). The report described the vegetation as an “uncommon type” comprising “low manuka shrubland on infertile podzol soils” with tangle fern, sedges, and some gorse. It recommended further survey for orchids during the flowering season and noted the value of the site as a link to Puketi Forest.
Recent aerial photographs show indigenous vegetation has been cleared from within the original extent of “Upper Pungaere Shrublands”. Clarkson et al. 2011 also noted vegetation clearance and residential encroachment at Pungaere.
“Pungaere Shrublands” was included in a comprehensive study of gumlands undertaken by a group of scientists from Landcare Research (Clarkson et al. 2011). An aim of the study was to characterise gumland vegetation (refer to Section 4.2, below)
Figure 4: Lot 2 DP502376 (Glendale Heights, Pungaere) is located within “Upper Pungaere Shrublands” a significant ecological site in the Kerikeri Ecological District (Conning and Miller 1999).
www.northlandecology.com 5
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
4.2 Gumlands
The subject property supports gumland vegetation (Conning and Miller 1999). Gumlands are restricted to the northern North Island, between Auckland and Aupuori Peninsula. Most gumlands occur in the areas around Kaikohe and Kaitaia on flat to rolling land that contains deposits of kauri gum. The gum is the subfossil resin of the kauri forests that once grew there hundreds, or even thousands, of years ago (Clarkson et al. 2011).
The soils of gumlands are generally podzolised. Podzol soils occur in areas of high rainfall and are usually associated with trees that produce an acid litter, such as kauri (Agathis australis)1. Over thousands of years, dropped kauri leaves create an acidic litter that causes nutrients and organic material to leach out of the soil. This leaves a hard, silica ‘pan’ that prevents water from draining away. Fires are also a feature of gumlands that cause further loss of nutrients (Northland Regional Council 2013). Consequently, gumland soils are strongly leached, acidic, deficient in nutrients and most have a very thin topsoil (Landcare Research 2020). They are prone to waterlogging and are included in the ‘pakihi and gumland’ class of the New Zealand wetland classification system (Johnson and Gerbeaux 2004).
The harsh, infertile environment of gumlands supports distinctive communities of plants and animals that have adapted to survive in those conditions. Gumland vegetation is typically heathland comprising shrubs such as manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) and gumland grass tree (Dracophyllum lessonianum), sedges, (especially Schoenus brevifolius) and ferns, particularly tanglefern (Gleichenia dicarpa). Drier gumlands on better-drained sites are dominated by manuka while tanglefern dominates wetter sites and mixed communities occur on intermediate sites (Clarkson et al. 2011). Sedges dominate recently burnt sites, with shrubs increasing in abundance over time.
Gumlands are a habitat for a suite of “Threatened” and “At Risk” plants (Landcare Research 2020, de Lange et al. 2018). They are well-recognised as important habitats for ‘‘Threatened” and “At Risk” orchids such as Phylloglossum drummondii, copper beard orchid (Calochilus herbaceous), spiral sun orchid (Thelymitra matthewsii), sun orchid (Thelymitra sanscilia), plumed greenhood (Plumatichilos tasmanicum), helmet orchid (Anzybas rotundifolius) and bearded orchid (Calochilus paludosus). Other native plants in the threat classification lists that can be found in gumland ecosystems include king fern (Todea barbara), fan fern (Schizaea dichotoma), tauhinu (Pomaderris phylicifolia), swamp hibiscus (Hibiscus diversifolius subsp. diversifolius), bog clubmoss (Lycopodiella serpentina), pygmy sundew
1 Common and scientific names are used the first time a species is mentioned in the text. Thereafter, common names are used.
www.northlandecology.com 6
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
(Drosera pygmaea), rawiri manuka (kanuka, Kunzea ericoides var. linearis) and dwarf mistletoe (Korthalsella salicornioides).
Black mudfish (Neochanna diversus) and Northland mudfish (Neochanna heleios) can sometimes be found in damp hollows or gum holes (Northland Regional Council 2020). Gumlands are also habitat for North Island brown kiwi (Apteryx mantelli), Northland green gecko (Naultinus grayii), and North Island fernbird (Bowdleria punctata vealeae). Worldwide, gumlands are known to be important habitats for Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), and New Zealand gumlands are no exception; they are habitat for more than 160 species (Landcare Research 2020)
Gumland is a “Naturally Uncommon Ecosystem” that is classified as being “Critically Endangered” (Holdaway et al. 2012). Once very common in Northland, most gumlands have been cleared and developed (Northland Regional Council 2013).
Recognised threats to gumlands include weed invasion, habitat destruction (vegetation clearance) and nutrient enrichment (Clarkson et al. 2011). Common pest plants in gumland include gorse (Ulex europaeus), hakea (Hakea spp.), broom (Cytisus scoparius), tobacco weed (Solanum mauritianum) and acacia (Acacia spp.) (Northland Regional Council 2013). Clarkson et al. (2011) found weeds were common only on the margins of most gumlands, although hakea (Hakea sericea and H. gibbosa) penetrated further into the vegetation and prickly hakea (Hakea sericea) was the most abundant non-native species. Fires and vegetation disturbance, such as that caused by stock or machinery, provide opportunities for pest plants to invade (Northland Regional Council 2013).
Gumlands are low fertility, acidic wetlands and are extremely vulnerable to increases in fertility which alters the composition of the vegetation and enables pest plants (weeds) to grow. Changes to drainage can also alter the composition of gumland vegetation. Gumlands are a type of wetland (Johnson and Gerbeaux 2004) that relies entirely on rainfall so they are usually dry in summer and saturated in winter. A layer of peat will usually form, particularly in permanently wet hollows. Earthworks or machinery that destroys or rips the ‘pan’ that underlies the gumland can increase drainage causing the gumland to become drier in winter, enabling weeds to invade (Northland Regional Council 2013).
Pest mammals that eat native plants and animals include rabbits, possums, stoats, weasels, ferrets, hedgehogs, rats and cats. Wandering dogs harass or kill native birds, particularly kiwi.
www.northlandecology.com 7
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
4.3 Kiwi
In 2016, the Department of Conservation produced a map of Northland that shows kiwi as either ‘present’ or ‘high density’ or, by omission, ‘presumed absent’. The subject property is located within a landscape where kiwi are recorded as ‘present’ (Figure 5).
The North Island brown kiwi (Apteryx mantelli) is classified “At Risk – Declining” (Robertson et al. 2017). Due to predation by stoats and to a lesser extent feral cats, very few kiwi chicks survive to become reproductive adults. Dogs are a major cause of mortality of adult kiwi in Northland. Predation by dogs has been shown to reduce the average lifespan of kiwi to 13- 14 years in Northland, while in other populations it is 30-40 years. If dog predation is reduced, it can result in substantial increases in kiwi populations (Germano et al. 2018).
Figure 5. Portion of the map of kiwi distribution in Northland (Department of Conservation 2016) showing areas with a high density of kiwi (dark purple) and pale, shaded areas where kiwi are present. The location of the subject property is marked with a red circle.
www.northlandecology.com 8
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
4.4 Surrounding Landuses and Vegetation
Gumland vegetation extends beyond the boundaries of the subject property though recent aerial photographs show indigenous vegetation (which was probably gumland) has been cleared from within the original extent of “Upper Pungaere Shrublands”. Some areas of gumland vegetation appear to have been converted to pasture within the past c.4 years and further clearance appears to currently be underway along the northeastern boundary (Plate 10, Appendix 1).
The landscape to the east of the subject property comprises predominantly agricultural landuses (i.e. pasture) with pockets of exotic forestry and horticulture. Indigenous vegetation is mainly confined to gullies and waterways. Lake Manuwai lies approximately 3km west of the property.
Puketi Forest lies c.3.5km to the west of the subject property and is linked to it with a corridor of indigenous vegetation. Puketi Forest is part of a forest tract that extends over more than 21,000 hectares. It is predominantly public land administered by the Department of Conservation but also includes covenanted land. It is one of the most diverse forests in New Zealand and supports threatened fauna and flora. The mature kauri forest is especially important because less than 1% of the original cover of this forest type remains (www.doc.govt.nz).
4.5 Catchment and Waterways
The closest waterway to the proposed “main dwelling” is Mangakahou Stream, which is within the catchment of Lake Manuwai. The proposed “caretaker’s cottage” is within the catchment of Upokorau Stream, a tributary of Kaeo River which discharges into the Whangaroa Harbour. The proposed house sites are both at least 100m from these waterways.
4.6 Threatened Environments
Threatened Environment Classification is based on a combination of three national databases: Land Environments New Zealand (LENZ), Land Cover Database (LCDB) and the protected areas network (i.e. legally protected natural areas). Threatened Environment Classification combines these databases to divide environments into five categories.
The indigenous vegetation on the subject property is mapped as occurring in a land environment where more than 30% of indigenous vegetation remains but less than 10% is legally protected (Figure 6). However, the Land Cover Database, upon which land environment classification relies, maps the site as “manuka and/or kanuka” and does not recognise “gumland” as a specific vegetation type.
www.northlandecology.com 9
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
Figure 6: Threatened Environment Mapping shows the property within a land environment where more than 30% of indigenous vegetation remains but less than 10% is legally protected (Landcare Research 2012).
www.northlandecology.com 10
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
5. Site Description
5.1 Vegetation and Habitats
The most widespread vegetation type on the subject property is gumland heath vegetation (Plate 1, Appendix 1). To the western side of the property, near Glendale Road, and in the Upokorau Stream valley, the heathland transitions to indigenous forest (Plate 2, App. 1).
Gumland Heath
The gumland heath vegetation is dominated by manuka with gumland grass tree, tanglefern and sedges such as Schoenus brevifolius, Machaerina teretifolia, square sedge (Lepidosperma austral), fountain sedge (Lepidosperma neozelandicum) and Tetraria capillaris. The proportions of each species and the height and density of the vegetation varies, often over quite short distances. This is a reflection of differences in micro-topography (humps and hollows), soils, drainage and disturbance history. For example, in steep, damp gullies tanglefern predominates and woody species (such as manuka and gumland grass tree) are less abundant.
On very exposed sites with skeletal soils the vegetation cover is discontinuous and less than c.0.5m tall. Tangle fern does not form continuous cover on these sites so mosses and coral lichen (Cladia spp.) grow on the ground, in the gaps between the plants. In contrast, there are sites where manuka reaches a height of c.2m and almost forms a closed canopy above dense tanglefern and sedges.
The heath vegetation is dominated by indigenous species but weeds are present, particularly along tracks or in association with vegetation disturbance. Weeds include prickly hakea, gorse and very occasional radiata pine (Pinus radiata). Prickly hakea is more common in the heathland than willow-leaved hakea (Hakea salicifolia), which is common in the forested areas. Tobacco weed (Solanum mauritianum) is confined to the edges of the heathland vegetation along tracks where soil has been disturbed.
Indigenous forest
Indigenous forest is present on upper slopes on the western side of the property and in the gorge of the Upokorau Stream. The canopy is dominated by towai, willow-leaved hakea and rawiri manuka (Kunzea linearis), which is more common on upper slopes and ridges than in gullies. Other species scattered in the canopy or emergent above it include tanekaha (Phyllocladus trichomanoides), rimu (Dacrydium cupressinum), rewarewa (Knightia excelsa) and totara (Podocarpus totara). Tangle fern and sedges are present in the in addition to a range of ferns and woody species understorey (Plate 3, Appendix 1).
www.northlandecology.com 11
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
In addition to the dominant species, other native plants within the forested areas include mahoe (Mlecytus ramiflorus), large-leaved mahoe (Melicytus macrophyllus), hangehange (Geniostoma ligustrifolium var. ligustrifolium), mapou (Myrsine australis), mingimingi (Leucopogon fasciculata), heketara (Olearia rani), shining karamu (Coprosma lucida), wheki (rough treefern, Dicksonia squarrosa), mamaku (black treefern, Cyathea medullaris), manuka, makamaka (Ackama rosifolia) and ti kouka (cabbage tree, Cordyline banksii). There are occasional kauri, c.5-8m tall, in the vicinity of the access track to the proposed site of the “caretaker’s cottage”.
Weeds are more dominant in the forested areas than in the heath vegetation. Willow-leaved hakea is common throughout. Tobacco weed and, less frequently, pampas (Cortaderia selloana) are present along the forest margins adjacent to the road and tracks. Saplings of radiata pine (Pinus radiata) are also present and a few large pines have been felled.
Proposed site of the “main dwelling”
The site of the proposed “main dwelling” is on a ridge within gumland heath vegetation (Plates 4 and 5, Appendix 1). There is a vehicle track along the crest of the ridge, from which vegetation has been cleared.
The vegetation comprises a shrubland of manuka (including pink-flowered manuka, Lepstospermum scoparium var. incanum) and gumland grass tree emergent above tanglefern. The density and stature of the manuka and gumland grass tree are variable. They vary from very low shrubs less than 0.5m tall to small trees of c.1.4m tall. On the sites where they are of low stature they are also of low density and the vegetation is generally more “open” with patches of bare ground, coral lichen and clubmoss (Lycopodiealla cernua)
Sedges are a conspicuous component of the vegetation. Schoenus brevifolius is the most abundant sedge while square sedge (Lepidosperma australe) is widespread but is nowhere dominant. Fountain sedge (Lepidosperma neozeandicum) occurs in groups, mainly on hummocks.
Other plants at the proposed site of the main dwelling include at least one small tree of rawiri manuka, occasional tamingi (Epacris pauciflora), Morelotia affinis, turutu (Dianella haemetica), Machaerina teretifolia, Tetraria capillaris, and kumarahou (Pomaderris kumeraho).
The vegetation is almost entirely dominated by native species of plants but there are scattered prickly hakea (Hakea sericea). Aristea (Aristea ecklonii) is establishing on the track that passes through the centre of the site and gorse shrubs are present on its edges.
www.northlandecology.com 12
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
There is a distinctive sinkhole near the ridge but probably beyond the proposed extent of the dwelling. Plants growing within the shelter of sink hole include tanekaha, hangehange, wheki, mapou and mahoe.
Proposed site of the “caretaker’s cottage”
The proposed site of the “caretaker’s cottage” is on a ridge with a vehicle track that runs along the ridge bisecting the proposed house site (Plate 6, Appendix 1). Adjacent to both sides of the track is gumland heath that grades into shrubland and transitions to forest on the slopes (Plate 7, Appendix 1). Within the heath vegetation, woody plants are more abundant and taller than at the proposed site of the “main dwelling” (e.g. manuka and gumland grasstree are up to c.2.2m tall) and rawiri manuka is more common. Tanglefern is dominant in the subcanopy with sedges such as Schoenus brevifolius, square sedge, Machaerina teretifolia, sword sedge (Lepidosperma laterale) and cutty grass (Gahnia sp.).
As the heathland grades into forest, manuka, gumland grass tree and rawiri manuka increase in stature and abundance. The forest canopy is c.4m tall and includes towai, tanekaha, rawiri manuka and willow-leaved hakea. Other woody species include karamu (Coprosma robusta), shining karamu, makamaka, hangehange, mapou and kumerahou. Tanglefern is common in the understorey with bracken, kiokio (Parablechnum novae-zelandiae), turutu, cutty grass and other sedges.
A large pine has been felled on the edge of the vehicle track and dropped into the heath vegetation. A couple of radiata pine saplings remain (or may have established after the large tree was felled). Gorse is also present, mainly along the edge of the track, and aristea is growing on the track. The most abundant weed is willow-leaved hakea.
Proposed shed site
The proposed site of the shed and wastewater disposal field is exotic grassland in the south- western corner of the property near Glendale Road (Plate 8, Appendix 1). Native species scattered within the grassland include wheki, kahikatea (Dacrycarpus dacrydioides), nikau (Rhopalostylis sapida), totara and rimu. Species growing on the edge of the grassland include those that are found within forest on the property (e.g. manuka, mapou, towai, kumarahou, rawiri manuka, hangehange and tanekaha).
Weeds growing on the forest margins of the proposed shed site include gorse, tobacco weed, willow-leaved hakea, Himalayan honeysuckle (Leycesteria formosa) and pampas. Aristea is present within the grassland.
www.northlandecology.com 13
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
5.2 Flora
Fifty-one (51) indigenous species of vascular plants were recorded within the assessment area and are typical of gumland vegetation, as described by Clarkson et al. (2011) and Landcare Research (2020).
Four of the recorded species are included in the New Zealand Threat Classification lists (de Lange et al. 2018). Kauri, the pink-flowed variety of manuka (Leptospermum scoparium var. incanum) and rawiri manuka are classified “Threatened – Nationally Vulnerable”. This is because, although there are currently large populations of these species, there is a “high ongoing or predicted decline”. All of these species are confined to the northern half of the North Island. Fountain sedge (Lepidosperma neozelandicum) is classified “At Risk – Declining”.
The site may also provide habitat for native orchids, potentially including threatened species (refer to Section 4.2). Orchid surveys are best carried out in Spring, when the greatest number of taxa are flowering.
The level of weed infestation in the heathland is relatively low but willow-leaved hakea is common within and on the margins of the forested areas. Prickly hakea is present in the heathland vegetation. Other weeds such as gorse, tobacco weed, pampas and Mexican devil are mainly confined to the edges of the indigenous vegetation, beside tracks and the road. These observations are consistent with Clarkson et al. (2011) who recorded Pungaere having among the lowest percentages and numbers of non-native species in a study of fifteen gumland ecosystems.
5.3 Fauna
Six species of native birds were recorded during the site inspection: piwakawaka (fantail; Rhipidura fulginosa), riroriro (grey warbler; Gerygone igata), kahu (Australasian harrier, Circus approximans), paradise duck (Tadorna variegata), silvereye (Zosterops lateralis) and fernbird (matata, Bowdleria punctata).
Fernbird is classified “At Risk – Declining” (Robertson et al. 2017). Fernbirds are widely but patchily distributed in dense wetland vegetation but are now absent from the southern North Island and Canterbury. The species is threatened by the drainage of wetlands, conversion to pasture and by predation by introduced mammals (www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz).
A nocturnal kiwi survey was beyond the scope of this study but the subject property is an actual or potential habitat of kiwi (refer to Section 4.3, above).
www.northlandecology.com 14
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
6. Ecological Significance
The vegetation on the subject property is consistent with gumland vegetation described by authors such as Clarkson et al. (2011) and Landcare Research (2020) (refer to Section 4.2). As such, it is a “critically endangered ecosystem” (Holdaway et al. 2012) and a type of wetland (Johnson and Gerbeaux 2004). The property and the proposed dwelling sites are habitats of “Threatened” and “At Risk” species of flora and fauna (refer to Sections 5.2 and 5.3).
Section 12.2.5.6 of the Far North District Plan provides criteria for assessing the significance of indigenous vegetation and habitats, as follows: (a) whether the area contains critical, endangered, vulnerable or rare taxa, or taxa of indeterminate threatened status (in the context of this clause, taxa means species and subspecies); (b) whether the area contains indigenous or endemic taxa that are threatened or rare in Northland; (c) whether the area contains representative examples in an ecological district of a particular habitat type; (d) whether the area has a high diversity of taxa or habitat types for the ecological district; (e) whether the area forms an ecological buffer, linkage or corridor to other areas of significant vegetation or significant habitats of indigenous fauna; (f) whether the area contains types that are rare in the ecological district; (g) whether the area supports good populations of taxa which are endemic to the Northland or Northland-Auckland regions; (h) whether the area is important for indigenous or endemic migratory taxa; (i) whether the area supports viable populations of species, which are typical of that type of habitat within an ecological district and retain a high degree of naturalness.
Indigenous vegetation on the subject property (including the sites of the proposed dwellings) meets criteria a, b, c, e, f, g and j because they are: • habitats of “Threatened” and “At Risk” flora and fauna (criteria a and b), • good quality, representative examples of a habitat/vegetation type that is rare within Kerikeri Ecological District (criteria c, f and g), and • form an ecological link to Puketi Forest (criterion e).
The proposed location of the shed and wastewater disposal field does not meet the criteria for ecological significance provided in the Far North District Plan.
www.northlandecology.com 15
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
The Regional Policy Statement for Northland also includes criteria for identifying areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna in terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments (Appendix 4). The indigenous vegetation on the subject property meets these criteria because it:
• is a good quality, representative example of its type (Criterion 1), • includes greater than 0.2 hectares of wet heathland (Criterion 2a), • is a habitat of “Threatened” and “At Risk” species (Criterion 2b), • contains indigenous vegetation that is endemic to Northland-Auckland and is of limited occurrence (Criteria 2c and 2d), and • contributes to an ecological link (Criterion 4).
The proposed shed site does not meet the criteria for ecological significance provided in the Regional Policy Statement for Northland.
www.northlandecology.com 16
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
7. Managing Potentially Adverse Ecological Effects
Vegetation clearance
The proposal to construct two dwellings on the property will result in the permanent removal of c.2,800 m2 of gumland vegetation. Gumland vegetation is a “Naturally Uncommon Ecosystem” that is classified as “Critically Endangered” (Holdaway et al. 2012). The proposed areas of vegetation clearance are habitat for “Threatened” and “At Risk” species of flora and fauna and meets the criteria for ecological significance set out in the Far North District Plan and the Regional Policy Statement (refer to Section 6). The proposed extent of vegetation clearance is not large but it is part of an on-going, incremental loss of significant vegetation and an “incursion” into intact indigenous habitat.
Vegetation clearance and habitat loss could be avoided or reduced by locating one or both dwellings on sites that have low ecological value because they’re dominated by exotic species. e.g. the proposed site of the shed. Were this not to occur, minimising the amount of lawn around each dwelling would reduce the extent of vegetation clearance.
Future incremental loss of habitat could be prevented by placing a covenant on the remaining indigenous vegetation to prohibit future subdivision, prevent further vegetation clearance and protect the ecological values of the site. A QEII National Trust covenant would protect the habitat in perpetuity while enabling it to be retained in private ownership without any right of public access. The habitat value of the remaining vegetation could be enhanced by undertaking pest control (refer to Section 8).
The proposed shed and wastewater disposal field are located within exotic grassland (pasture) that is of low ecological significance and their construction would not result in clearance of indigenous vegetation. It is not specified on the concept plan if vegetation clearance will or will not be required along the route of the pipes that will transport wastewater to the disposal field.
Earthworks
Earthworks will be required to enable the construction of dwellings and improvement of vehicle access. It may also be required to enable provision of services such as telecommunications and electricity and/or to pipe wastewater to the disposal field. Earthworks that result in changes to drainage can alter the composition of gumland vegetation and if altered drainage causes the gumland to become drier in winter it enables weed to invade (Northland Regional Council 2013). The vegetation disturbance resulting from earthworks also creates opportunities for weed invasion (refer below).
www.northlandecology.com 17
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
The concept plan includes areas of lawn around each of the dwellings. The existing topography, soil type and hydrology would make it difficult to establish lawn because of the steep contour in places, poor drainage and acidic, nutrient-poor soils. If the plan is to bring topsoil to the site it has the potential to introduce weed seeds and to cause nutrification of the surrounding gumland (from runoff and/or sedimentation).
Earthworking machinery has the potential to introduce weeds to the site. For example, aristea is becoming established along the tracks and was probably spread to the site by a mower.
The potentially adverse effects of earthworks could be managed by designing the buildings and landscaping to minimise the volume and extent of earthworks. A sediment management plan should be implemented to prevent runoff from worked areas.
Nutrient enrichment
Nutrient enrichment is a recognised threat to gumlands (Clarkson et al. 2011). Gumlands are nutrient-poor and acidic so increases in fertility can alter the composition of the vegetation and/or enable weeds to grow. Nutrification could occur if nutrient-rich stormwater or wastewater is discharged or if fertilisers were used on the site (e.g. to establish lawns).
The concept plan allows for the discharge of wastewater via a dripper field located within exotic grassland, not within gumland vegetation. This approach should avoid wastewater causing nutrient of the gumland. Stormwater management should also aim to avoid or minimise the discharge of nutrient-rich water and to avoid altering hydrology (refer below).
Other sources of nutrient enrichment are soils and fertiliser. This could be addressed by developing a landscape plan that does not require the introduction of top soil or fertiliser and implementing a sediment management plan to prevent worked soil being washed off the sites by rainfall (refer to previous section).
Weeds
Weeds establish most readily on sites where native vegetation has been disturbed, particularly if soil disturbance has also occurred, such as along the edges of tracks. For example, Clarkson et al. (2011) reported that weeds, with the exception of hakea, were common only on the margins of most gumlands.
The options described in previous paragraphs to manage the potentially adverse effects of earthworks and nutrification will help reduce the spread of weeds. It will also be important to ensure machinery brought to site is clean of weed propagules. (Aristea is establishing along the tracks and was probably introduced to the site by a mower or mulcher).
www.northlandecology.com 18
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
To protect and enhance the ecological values of indigenous vegetation weed surveillance, control and monitoring is recommended. Regular surveillance will enable new or expanding infestations to be identified so they can be controlled. Following control, monitoring enables the success (or otherwise) of the control work to be assessed and any need for follow-up control to be identified.
Priority weeds for control are willow-leaved hakea, wilding pines, pampas, tobacco weed and aristea. Prickly hakea and gorse along tracks should also be controlled. Mexican devil is present in at least one site, on the access track along the southern boundary, opposite the neighbour’s dwelling. For all species, successful control will require a combination of physical methods (such as drilling, felling or pulling) and chemical methods (such as painting herbicide on cut stumps).
It is important that weed control methods are effective and minimise impacts on native vegetation. For this reason, the use of herbicide sprays is not recommended other than judicious use of spot-spraying of aristea and pampas. However, if herbicides are not used at all, control is unlikely to be effective and may result in infestations becoming more difficult to control e.g. if cut plants re-sprout and grow with multiple stems or if plants are dug out, disturbing the soil and providing a place for weed seeds to germinate.
Larger trees (such as the few pines that are present) can be controlled by drilling holes in their trunks and injecting herbicide. The tree will then die and slowly disintegrate, causing less damage to surrounding native vegetation than felling. Tobacco weed and willow-leaved hakea can be controlled by cutting the trunks close to the ground and immediately painting herbicide on the cut stump. If the cut plants are transported away extreme care needs to be taken with transport and disposal to ensure fruit and seeds are not released to establish new infestations.
Altered hydrology
Gumlands are a type of wetland (Johnson and Gerbeaux 2004) that relies entirely on rainfall. They are usually dry in summer and saturated in winter. Earthworks or machinery that destroys or rips the ‘pan’ that underlies the gumland can increase drainage causing the gumland to become drier in winter and enabling weeds to invade (Northland Regional Council 2013). Changes to drainage can also alter the composition of gumland vegetation.
The dwellings, landscaping, vehicle access routes and stormwater management should be designed to avoid off-site alteration to hydrology that may be cause by damaging the ‘pan’ or re-routing overland flow paths.
www.northlandecology.com 19
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
Predation by domestic animals
If residents of the proposed dwellings bring domestic animals to the property they have the potential to predate native birds, particularly kiwi. Cats may prey upon kiwi chicks while dogs are a major cause of mortality of adult kiwi in Northland (Germano et al. 2018). Cats also prey upon fernbirds and reptiles (www.doc.govt.nz). This could be avoided by placing a covenant on the property to prevent the keeping or introduction of cats and dogs.
www.northlandecology.com 20
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
8. Opportunities for Ecological Enhancement
Native ecosystems, including the vegetation and habitats present on the subject property, benefit from the control of introduced mammals. Domestic stock should continue to be excluded because they trample plants and the soil and browse upon palatable plants. Rabbits also eat native plants, particularly orchids (Northland Regional Council 2013).
Introduced mammals that predate native species include mustelids (ferrets, stoats and weasels), rats, hedgehogs and cats. Both feral and domestic cats are a threat to native wildlife. Pigs disturb the soil, damaging plants and the nests of ground-dwelling species such as kiwi. They may also attract pig hunters and their dogs. Dogs are a major killer of adult kiwi
The ecological values of the property could be protected and enhanced by implementing predator control, particularly of mustelids and cats. It is recommended that dogs are excluded from the property (refer to Section 7, above).
Vegetation clearance has recently occurred (or is underway) along the north-western boundary of the subject property (Plate 10, Appendix 1). It is not clear if the cleared area is within the subject property or within the property to the north. If it is within the subject property, gumland heath vegetation should be allowed to re-establish on the site. Revegetation planting is unlikely to be necessary or successful but native plants will establish naturally if weed control is undertaken. Weed control is discussed more fully in Section 7, above.
www.northlandecology.com 21
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
9. Conclusions
The subject property was identified in a survey of Kerikeri Ecological District as a site of ecological significance (“Upper Pungaere Shrublands PO5/114”, Conning and Miller 1999). The most widespread vegetation type on the property is gumland heath with indigenous forest occurring towards the western side of the property.
Gumland is a “Naturally Uncommon Ecosystem” that is classified as being “Critically Endangered” (Holdaway et al. 2012). They are restricted to the northern North Island, between Auckland and Aupuori Peninsula but most gumlands in Northland have been cleared and developed (Northland Regional Council 2013). Gumland soils are strongly leached, acidic, deficient in nutrients and prone to waterlogging. They are included in the ‘pakihi and gumland’ class of the New Zealand wetland classification system (Johnson and Gerbeaux 2004). The harsh, infertile environments of gumlands support distinctive communities of plants and animals that have adapted to survive in those conditions, including “Threatened” and “At Risk” species of flora and fauna.
Recognised threats to gumlands include weed invasion, habitat destruction (vegetation clearance) and nutrient enrichment (Clarkson et al. 2011). They are extremely vulnerable to increases in fertility, disturbance caused by stock or machinery, and changes to drainage.
The vegetation is dominated by indigenous species and is a habitat of four “Threatened” or “At Risk” flora species (kauri, pink-flowed manuka, rawiri manuka and fountain sedge). It may also be a habitat of orchids (Conning and Miller 1999). The level of weed infestation in the heathland is relatively low but willow-leaved hakea is common within and on the margins of the forested areas. Fernbirds (“At Risk – Declining”) were observed on both of the proposed dwelling sites and the property is likely to be a habitat of North Island brown kiwi (“At Risk – Declining”).
The indigenous vegetation on the subject property meets the criteria for ecological significance provided in Section 12.2.5.6 of the Far North District Plan and Appendix 5 of The Regional Policy Statement for Northland.
This report assessed the potential ecological effects of a proposal to construct two dwellings within gumland heath vegetation and a shed within an area of exotic grassland. The proponents also wish to enhance the property by controlling weeds and pests. Options to avoid, remedy or mitigate the potentially adverse ecological effects of the proposal include:
• locating one or both dwellings on sites that have low ecological value (e.g. within exotic grassland where the shed is proposed to be located), • minimising the amount of lawn around each dwelling to reduce the extent of vegetation clearance,
www.northlandecology.com 22
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
• preventing further vegetation clearance and habitat loss by placing a covenant on the remaining indigenous vegetation, • enhancing remaining vegetation and habitat by controlling pest animals (e.g. mustelids, pigs, cats), • designing the buildings and landscaping to minimise the volume and extent of earthworks, • developing a landscape plan that does not require the introduction of top-soil or fertiliser, • implementing a Sediment Management Plan, • designing stormwater management to avoid altering drainage beyond the immediate extent of dwellings and tracks, • ensuring machinery brought to site is clean of weed propagules, • undertaking weed surveillance, control and monitoring, and • placing covenants on the property to prevent the keeping or introduction of cats and dogs.
www.northlandecology.com 23
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
References
Clarkson B.R., Smale M.C., Williams P.A., Wiser S.K. and Buxton R.P. 2011. Drainage, soil fertility and fire frequency determine composition and structure of gumland heaths in northern New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 35: 96-113.
Conning L. and Miller N. 1999: Natural areas of Kerikeri Ecological District: Reconnaissance Survey Report for the Protected Natural Areas Programme. New Zealand Protected Natural Areas Programme 42. Department of Conservation, Whangarei. de Lange P.J., Rolfe J.R., Barkla J.W., Courtney S.P., Champion P.D., Perrie L.R., Beadel S.M., Ford K.A., Breitwieser I., Schönberger I., Hindmarsh-Walls R., Heenan P.B, Ladley K. 2017. Conservation status of New Zealand indigenous vascular plants, 2017. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 22. Department of Conservation.
Department of Conservation 2016: North Island Brown Kiwi Estimated distribution 2016. Map prepared by the Department of Conservation www.kiwisforkiwi.org
Holdaway RJ, Wiser SK, Williams PA 2012. Status assessment of New Zealand’s naturally uncommon ecosystems. Conservation Biology 4: 619–629.
Johnson P. and Gerbaux P. 2004: Wetland Types in New Zealand. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
Landcare Research 2012: Threatened Environment Classification 2012. Landcare Research online interactive GIS portal https://ourenvironment.scinfo.org.nz/app. Accessed May 2020.
Landcare Research 2020: Gumlands Fact Sheet. Available online www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publications/factsheets/rare-ecosystems/wetlands/gumlands
Northland Regional Council 2013: Gumlands Fact Sheet. Available online https://www.nrc.govt.nz/resource-library-summary/publications/wetlands/gumlands- factsheet/gumlands/
Robertson H.A., Baird, K., Dowding J.E., Elliott G.P., Hitchmough R.A., Miskelly C.M., McArthur N., O’Donnell C.F.J., Sagar P.M., Scofield R.P., Taylor G.A. 2017. Conservation status of New Zealand birds, 2016. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 19. Wellington, Department of Conservation. 27p.
www.northlandecology.com 24
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
Appendix One: Photographs
Plate 1: A view of gumland heath vegetation on the subject property.
Plate 2: a view over the forest canopy towards heathland vegetation on the ridge. The proposed site of the “main dwelling” is on the skyline ridge.
www.northlandecology.com 25
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
Plate 3: A view beneath the forest canopy showing tanglefern and sedges in the understorey.
Plate 4: tanglefern-dominated heathland with sedges and manuka on the proposed site of the “main dwelling”.
www.northlandecology.com 26
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
Plate 5: Gumland heath on the site of the proposed “main dwelling”.
Plate 6: The site of the proposed “caretaker’s cottage” looking towards the proposed shed site on the horizon.
www.northlandecology.com 27
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
Plate 7: The site of the proposed “caretaker’s cottage” showing heathland on the crest of the ridge transitioning to forest on the slopes. There is a wilding pine at left of frame.
Plate 8: The proposed shed and wastewater disposal field will be located in exotic grassland.
www.northlandecology.com 28
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
Plate 9: Cliffs above a tributary of Upokorau Stream.
Plate 10: Vegetation clearance on or close to the northern boundary of the subject property. The cliffs above a tributary of the Upokorau Stream are visible in the rear-ground.
www.northlandecology.com 29
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
Appendix Two: Native Vascular Flora
Scientific Name Common Name Threat Status Ferns and fern allies
Cyathea dealbata ponga, silver fern Cyathea medullaris mamaku, black treefern Dicksonia squarrosa wheki Gleichenia dicarpa tangle fern Lycopodiella cernua clubmoss Lycopodium deuterodensum clubmoss Paesia scaberula pig fern, ring fern Parablechnum novae-zelandiae kiokio Pteridium esculentum bracken
Dicotyledons (including trees, shrubs, herbs and climbers)
Ackama rosifolia makamaka Agathis australis kauri Threatened, Nationally Vulnerable Centella uniflora Clematis sp. Coprosma lucida shining karamu Coprosma rhamnoides Coprosma robusta karamu Dacrycarpus dacrydioides kahikatea Dacrydium cupressinum rimu Dracophyllum lessonianum gumland grass tree Epacris pauciflora tamingi Geniostoma ligustrifolium var. hangehange ligustrifolium Griselinia littoralis kapuka Gonocarpus aggregatus Haloragis erecta toatoa Knightia excelsa rewarewa Kunzea linearis rawiri manuka, kanuka Threatened, Nationally Vulnerable Leptospermum scoparium var. scoparium manuka Leptospermum scoparium var. incanum manuka, pink manuka Threatened, Nationally Vulnerable Leucopogon fasciculata mingimingi Melicytus macrophyllus large-leaved mahoe Melicytus ramiflorus mahoe Myrsine australis mapou, red matipo Olearia rani heketara Phyllocladus trichomanoides tanekaha Podocarpus totara totara Pomaderris kumeraho kumarahou
www.northlandecology.com 30
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
Weinmannia silvicola towai
Monocotyledons (including sedges, rushes and grasses)
Cordyline banksii cabbage tree, ti ngahere Dianella haematica turutu, swamp blueberry Gahnia sp. cutty grass Lepidosperma australe square sedge Lepidosperma laterale sword sedge Lepidosperma neozelandicum fountain sedge At Risk, Declining Machaerina rubiginosa Machaerina teretifolia Morelotia affinis Rhopalostylis sapida nikau Rubus australis bush lawyer Rubus cissoides bush lawyer Schoenus brevifolius Tetraria capillaris
www.northlandecology.com 31
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
Appendix Three: Introduced Vascular Flora
Note: Not all species of pasture grasses and herbs were not recorded. Dicotyledons (including trees, shrubs, herbs and climbers)
Ageratina adenophora Mexican devil Conyza albida Canadian fleabane Cirsium arvense California thistle Cirsium vulgare Scotch thistle Hakea salicifolia willow-leaved hakea Hakea sericea prickly hakea Hypochaeris radicata catsear Leycesteria formosa Himalayan honeysuckle Lotus pedunculatus lotus Pinus radiata radiata pine Rumex spp. dock Solanum mauritianum tobacco weed, woolly nightshade Trifolium sp. clover Ulex europaeus gorse Verbena bonariensis purpletop
Monocotyledons (including sedges, rushes and grasses)
Aristea ecklonii aristea Cenchrus clandestinus Kikuyu grass Cortaderiaa selloana pampas Holcus lanatus Yorkshire fog Paspalum dilatatum paspalum
www.northlandecology.com 32
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
Appendix Four: Significance Criteria: Regional Policy Statement
Criteria for identifying areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna in terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments (Appendix 5 of the Regional Policy Statement for Northland).
An area of indigenous vegetation or habitat(s) of indigenous fauna is significant if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. Representativeness
(a) Regardless of its size, the ecological site is largely indigenous vegetation or habitat of indigenous fauna that is representative, typical or characteristic of the natural diversity at the relevant and recognised ecological classification and scale to which the ecological site belongs: i. If the ecological site comprises largely indigenous vegetation types; and ii. Is typical of what would have existed circa 1840; or iii. Is represented by faunal assemblages in most of the guilds expected for the habitat type; or
(b) The ecological site i. Is a large example of indigenous vegetation or habitat of indigenous fauna, or ii. Contains a combination of landform and indigenous vegetation and habitat of indigenous fauna, that is considered to be a good example of its type at the relevant and recognised ecological classification and scale.
2. Rarity / distinctiveness
(a) The ecological site comprises indigenous ecosystems or indigenous vegetation types that: i. Are either Acutely or Chronically Threatened land environments associated with LENZ Level 4); or ii. Excluding wetlands, are now less than 20% of their original extent; or iii. Excluding man-made wetlands, are examples of the wetland classes that either otherwise trigger Appendix 5 criteria or exceed any of the following area a) Saltmarsh greater than 0.5 hectare in area; or b) Shallow water (lake margins and rivers) greater than 0.5 hectare in area; or c) Swamp greater than 0.4 hectare in area; or d) Bog greater than 0.2 hectare in area; or e) Wet Heathlands greater than 0.2 hectare in area; or f) Marsh; Fen; Ephemeral wetlands or Seepage / flush greater than 0.05 hectares in area.
www.northlandecology.com 33
Lot 2 DP502376 June 2020
(b) Indigenous vegetation or habitat of indigenous fauna that supports one or more indigenous taxa that are threatened, at risk, data deficient or uncommon, either nationally or at the relevant ecological scale.
(c) The ecological site contains indigenous vegetation or an indigenous taxon that is: i. Endemic to the Northland-Auckland region; or ii. At its distributional limit within the Northland region;
(d) The ecological site contains indigenous vegetation or an association of indigenous taxa that: i. Is distinctive of a restricted occurrence; or ii. Is part of an ecological unit that occurs on an originally rare ecosystem; or iii. Is an indigenous ecosystem and vegetation type that is naturally rare or has developed as a result of an unusual environmental factor(s) that occur or are likely to occur in Northland; or iv. Is an example of nationally or regionally rare habitat as recognised in the New Zealand Marine Protected Areas Policy. 3. Diversity and pattern
(a) Indigenous vegetation or habitat of indigenous fauna that contains a high diversity of: i. Indigenous ecosystem or habitat types; or ii. Indigenous taxa;
(b) Changes in taxon composition reflecting the existence of diverse natural features or ecological gradients; or (c) Intact ecological sequences.
4. Ecological context
(a) Indigenous vegetation or habitat of indigenous fauna is present that provides or contributes to an important ecological linkage or network, or provides an important buffering function; or
(b) The ecological site plays an important hydrological, biological or ecological role in the natural functioning of riverine, lacustrine, palustrine, estuarine, plutonic (including karst), geothermal or marine system; or
(c) The ecological site is an important habitat for critical life history stages of indigenous fauna including breeding / spawning, roosting, nesting, resting, feeding, moulting, refugia or migration staging point (as used seasonally, temporarily or permanently).
www.northlandecology.com 34
d
a
o
R
5
a
9
p
2
e
a
R
0
p
p
i
E
,
i
o
a
r
N
c
e
G
S
W
k
I
i
r
S
e
5
t
e
i
E
8
K
1
S D n
e z l LOT 2 6 7 E
3 n 2
DP 502376 e 0 d 5
n P a D
v T
2 N
T
E T I &
L O
C P L
d
Y
R
B
T
e
r
C
N
)
e
E
W
J
g
A
A
n
O
F
u
R
R
A
(
D
P P
3
A
N
O
@
I
A
E
S
-
I
L
V
S
V
A
T
E
E
C
S N
R R
GLENDALE HEIGHTS ROAD
SECONDARY TREATED CARE TAKERS COTTAGE EFFLUENT DISPOSAL AREA 1100m2 CLEARED AREA (GRASSED) PROPOSED 300m2 DWELLING 1700M2 CLEARED AREA (GRASSED) Project Notes
n
Lot 2 DP 502376 = 49.5032ha a
IMPLEMENT SHED l It is proposed to site the effluent field away
from the main house, to an existing grass P area, to avoid any effect on the shrubland
zone. e
t
i
S
A01
© SITESCOPE LTD Andrew Abercrombie
From: Andrew Mentor
Hi Andrew, Thanks for getting in touch. As I understand, the Lot in question (Lot 2 DP 502376) is 274 HA currently owned by Carl Simpkin. Is that right? I am familiar with the area. Does this Lot have a pest & weed management requirement from FNDC? If this is the case, in the first instance I can help with a pest plan to satisfy that. There will be a small cost involved.
Similar projects generally involve some capital input from the owners towards trap purchase. We use NRC guidelines to set up a basic trapping programme. Where toxins are not a preferred option, a more intensive trap network is needed.
Trap servicing is an ongoing need, either professional or by the owner if this is practical. I can advise options.
Where we can help is also with training, mapping and monitoring, including kiwi call counts. Kiwi are present in this area but are under pressure from the host of predators in the bush. It sounds like a challenging but very worthwhile project.
Let me know if I can help further and perhaps meet up?
Regards Andrew Mentor 0224 675 173
On 11 February 2020 at 11:31 Andrew Abercrombie
Good morning Andrew Your name has been given to me by Adam Phillips (NRC) I have a Client wising to purchase the above Lot at Pungaere Rd in Kerikeri, and are reaching out to any that may have an interest in the proposed development as set out in the attached Client Statement . Basically the Client wishes to build two dwellings on the property and enhance all ecological areas, including pests, weeds etc. Can you please advise how your team could work with the new Owner, and the services you can offer.
Kind Regards
Andrew Abercrombie Director P: 0212216500 E: [email protected] W: www.sitescope.co.nz
1