In the matter of: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan To: The Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Under the Resource Management Act 1991 Submitters: Terra Nova Planning Ltd 6620 & FS689, Grant Oliff FS 146 TOPIC 011 RPS RURAL ISSUES Statement of Primary Evidence of by Dr Mark Bellingham 8 December 2014 INTRODUCTION 1. My name is Robert Mark Bellingham. I am a Senior Planner and Senior Ecologist with Terra Nova Planning Ltd. 2. I hold a PhD in Planning from Auckland University and I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute. I have been a practicing planning and ecological consultant for over 25 years. I have also lectured in Environmental Planning at Auckland and Massey Universities. I have served on the Ministerial Advisory Committees for the Review of Protected Area Legislation (1989-90) Oceans Policy (2002-4), and as an Auckland Regional Councillor. 3. I have read and agree to comply with the Environment Court’s Expert Witness Code of Conduct (Consolidated Practice Note 2006). This evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on some other evidence. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed. TOPIC 011 RPS RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham DECEMBER 2014 SUMMARY STATEMENT 4. The Terra Nova Planning & Grant Oliff support the Federated Farmers Of NZ Inc. submission point (p.4, 2.2.1, bullet point 1) and submission point 3.29, in relation to rural subdivision in section 8 RPS Rural of the PAUP. 5. Mr Oliff owns land at 486 Waitoki Road, Wainui, which is identified in the Rural Hamlet Policy Area of the Auckland District Plan: Rodney Section. 6. Rural land makes up about 90% of the terrestrial area of the region, but most of the high productivity soils are in the south of Auckland. 7. Urban expansion has been the main driver for the loss of elite and prime soils from production in Auckland and this is continuing in the PAUP with the zoning of these areas in urban zones. 8. The Auckland Plan only proposed restrictions on rural subdivision in the Islands, Rural Coastal and Rural Production Zones. 9. The PAUP RPS Objective 8.1.3 seeks to protect rural areas from “inappropriate subdivision, urban use and development” and that is supported. 10. RPS Objective 8.3.2 seeks to prevent rural lifestyle subdivision over all zones, and in doing so precluding rural hamlets and appropriate subdivision in rural areas, including rural villages and this is in conflict with Chapter 8 of the Auckland Plan and with the PAUP Rural Objectives: 8.1.3, 8.2.1 and 8.3.1, all of which contemplate appropriate rural subdivision rather than a prohibition. 11. The PAUP, Section 32 report, and appendices provide no basis for countryside living threatening biodiversity and a weak case for a threat to productive soils. 12. Countryside living subdivision has been a significant tool in conserving biodiversity in the Auckland region in the past 30 years and primary production has been the main cause of biodiversity decline. TOPIC 011 RPS RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham DECEMBER 2014 DOES RURAL SUBDIVISION THREATEN RURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND BIODIVERSITY? 13. Rural land makes up about 90% of the terrestrial area of the region, but very little has high productivity and this is mainly in the south of the region (Manukau-Papakura– Franklin) (S.32 Report, 2.35 – Rural Subdivision 1.6.1 “Most of the most productive land (elite and prime land, LUC classes 1-3 incl.) in greater Auckland is located in one consolidated area in the south, and almost all the LUC class 1 land in greater Auckland (and most of the LUC class 1 land in New Zealand) is located there.” 14. Council’s s.32 report, Appendix 3.35.4 (Rural Production Comparative Analysis Greenfield Study Areas – by Primary Focus) also shows that the more productive soils in south Auckland have 6 times the economic turnover and employment capacity of less productive soils in the north of the region. 15. Urban sprawl is the main threat to Auckland’s primary production capacity and this is well documented in Dr Curren-Cournane’s evidence and her technical report (Auckland Council Technical Report 2013/0501). 16. Consistent with this, rural subdivision and consents for dwellings are concentrated around Pukekohe, Waiuku, Beachlands-Maraetai in the south, and Warkworth-Snells Beach, Omaha, Waimauku, Huapai-Kumeu, Riverhead, Dairy Flat and Paremoremo in the north (Attachment 1 - Figure 9.2 Auckland Plan 2012). Many of these areas are now in the new Future Urban Zones or urban zones (at the edge of the MUL) in the PAUP. 17. I consider that the change in planning approach of identifying a 30 year window of future urban development will address most of this peri-urban development for quite 1 1 Curran-Cournane, F Vaughan, M Memon A and Fredrickson C (2013) Auckland’s elite and prime land: similar messages and continued trade-offs 54 years later. RIMU, Auckland Council. Technical report TR2013/050 TOPIC 011 RPS RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham DECEMBER 2014 some time. Much of the “urban creep” into rural areas in the Auckland region over the past decade may have been driven by the MUL. 18. On the issue of rural subdivision for countryside living threatening biodiversity; the only long-term research into biodiversity loss in rural areas in the Auckland Region has been my PhD research. I measured the change in indigenous vegetation at 780 forest areas in Rodney and I found that agriculture was consistently the major contributor to biodiversity loss over a 15 year period. Agriculture accounted for clearance of all or part of 239 (15%) of these forest areas, or 78% of the indigenous forest clearance recorded. From my observations this has continued but at a slower rate since the early 2000s. 16% 15.03% 12% 98 - 8% cleared 1983 cleared 4% 3.28% Indigenous vegetation Indigenous 0.83% 0.13% 0.07% 0.01% 0% pastoral plantation urban firewood lot sewage golf course farming forestry plant Land use after forest clearance (n=780) 19. In contrast, countryside living in the former Rodney District and rural Waitakere City has been a significant contributor to biodiversity conservation and restoration of a significant area of indigenous forests and wetlands. This active conservation contribution by private landowners and incentivised by council, has balanced some of TOPIC 011 RPS RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham DECEMBER 2014 the biodiversity losses from primary production and urban expansion in these districts. In Waitakere this has been through Reserve Act covenants and consent conditions. 20. The matters raised by Dr Seabrook-Davison in his evidence are almost entirely matters of a failure by councils to properly monitor the outcomes of their district plans, and I documented these council failures in Rodney and Waitakere in my PhD thesis. I did not find a failure with the plan mechanisms. 21. Dr Seabrook-Davison’s evidence refers to a report he prepared looking at 31 covenants in Puhoi and the level of covenant compliance2. I consider that his study is flawed on a number of grounds; firstly he sampled only 31 covenants of a total of 4,161 in Rodney (and another 1,444 similar covenants in Franklin) in one locality, rather than a random selection across the district or region. Secondly the higher non-compliance in the later Rodney covenants appears to relate to the council possibly granting consent for non- qualifying areas and a significant reduction in covenant monitoring in the past decade. In the 1990’s and early 2000’s a part-time officer inspected every covenant every three years along with any compliance complaints. I consider that this level of landowner engagement by the council led to the high level of covenant compliance that I am familiar with over most of the district. 22. The recommendations in Dr Seabrook-Davison’s report were to improve council processes and have a more collaborative process between council and landowners, and I agree with those. The issues identified in evidence (5.11-24) are all matters relating to the ability or inability of council to administer and resource the district plan. Dr Seabrook-Davison’s para. 5.17 about staff being over-whelmed by the uptake of covenants demonstrates that rural subdivision incentives for protecting biodiversity have been successful and have been an important tool for slowing biodiversity decline in Rodney. 2 M Seabrook-Davison 2011 Review of regulatory incentives for waivers on restrictions of rural land subdivision. Draft 4, Auckland Council. TOPIC 011 RPS RURAL EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham DECEMBER 2014 23. The wide-scale application of these covenants (Attachment 2 - Figure I Seabrook- Davison 2011) shows their importance as a biodiversity conservation tool as there is very little biodiversity protected on Crown reserves or regional parks across Rodney. The contrast can be seen in Kaipara District which has had until recently rather weak regulatory controls and no incentive programmes for biodiversity conservation; there all of the previous district plan SNAs has been cleared to some extent from 1997-2011 and many had completely disappeared. 24. I consider the objectives and policies in B.8.3 will have no effect on the administrative and resourcing matters raised by Dr Seabrook-Davison in his evidence and his 2011 review of biodiversity incentives programmes in Auckland region. I consider that his conclusion 7.2 is wrong, as RPS objectives and policies are far removed from the implementation and administration of district rules. 25.