In the matter of: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan To: The Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Under the Resource Management Act 1991 Submitters: Zakara Investments SUB 6534 TOPIC 081 PRECINCTS – KAWAU ISLAND Statement of Evidence by Dr Mark Bellingham, February 2016 SUMMARY STATEMENT 1. Zakara Investments Ltd own 927ha of land in two titles on the south-east of Kawau Island (Figure 1 below). The two properties are zoned Rural Conservation zone and Kawau Island Precinct (sub-precinct B) under the PAUP, and the Company also has properties in Harris Bay in the Sub-precinct A (Rural and Coastal Settlements Zone). 2. Zakara seeks a new “Hauraki Gulf Islands Zone” for Kawau and adjacent islands, as the planning context for all of Kawau varies so significantly from the underlying zones that the precinct fails the fundamental test in the Panel’s precinct guidelines “When the proposal changes most of the underlying zone, a new zone should be created instead of a precinct.”1 3. Zakara supports the carry-over of the Auckland District Plan Rodney Section (ADPRS) rural subdivision rules into the Unitary Plan for the Kawau Island, in the PAUP Subdivision section of the Activities Table. I note there are no rules accompanying these subdivision activities and Zakara have submitted appropriate rules. 1 Interim Guideline: Best Practice approaches to re-zoning, precincts and changes to the RUB ; Independent Hearing Panel; Dated 31 July 2015 TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 1 Figure 1: Zakara Investments properties on south-east Kawau Island 4. Zakara supports the identification of Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) on Kawau Island, and the provision for Transferable Rural Sites from the Rural Conservation zone and the Kawau Island Precinct. 5. Zakara proposes the following changes to the precinct rules and other linked sections of the PAUP: 5.1. Adaption of the ADPRS subdivision provisions for the Protection of Natural Areas, including the SEA and wetland tables (Tables 8 & 8b) from Council’s Closing Statement to the PAUP 056-057 Rural hearings, TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 2 in place of ADPRS Rule 7.14.3.2.1 (b) and Rule 7.14.3.3.2 (b), the bush and wetland area/site tables respectively. 5.2. Confirmation that the Assessment of Native Bush and Significant Natural Areas 7.14.3.2.2(b) and Wetlands 7.14.3.3.3 rules in the RDPRS shall continue to apply to SEAs proposed for protection in the Kawau Precinct. This is necessary as no SEAs on Kawau are mapped in the PAUP maps. This provision is the same as that under the ADPRS rules and SNA identification process in Chapter 7 of the operative plan and the Appendices 7B and 7C. 5.3. A definition of SEAs (Significant Ecological Areas) in the PAUP is proposed in evidence to provide for the ecological assessment of areas not on the PAUP SEA maps and proposed for TRSS subdivision, without requiring a plan change to initiate their protection. 5.4. Mechanisms to provide for the transfer of bush and wetland protection transferable titles from the ADPRS to “Receiver” areas under the Unitary Plan. 5.5. A less restrictive activity status controlling the predominant living and visitor activities on Kawau, as recognised in the Auckland Plan (9.2.5 Desired Outcomes) “holiday and visitor-oriented activities, increasing tourism, and recreational opportunities consistent with a strong conservation ethic “. 6. The Sub-precinct B subdivision rules proposed by Zakara in submissions are the only mechanisms available (apart from public purchase) that will achieve the protection of the Kawau Island landscape and the enhancement of ecological values, with wallaby and possum control and eradication, as proposed in the precinct policies. 7. The underlying Rural Conservation subdivision rules may be appropriate for the Waitakere Ranges, but they provide no encouragement or incentives to TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 3 Kawau landowners to protect and enhance the landscape and ecological values of their island. 8. A schedule of proposed rule changes in regard to the above is in Attachments 1-4. INTRODUCTION 9. My name is Robert Mark Bellingham. I am a Senior Planner and Senior Ecologist with Terra Nova Planning Ltd. 10. I hold a PhD in Planning from Auckland University and I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute. I have been a practicing planning and ecological consultant for over 25 years. I have also lectured in Environmental Planning at Auckland and Massey Universities. I have served on the Ministerial Advisory Committees for the Review of Protected Area Legislation (1989-90) Oceans Policy (2002-4), and as an Auckland Regional Councilor. My full qualifications and experience is in my EIC for the 011 hearing. 11. I have read and agree to comply with the Environment Court’s Expert Witness Code of Conduct (Consolidated Practice Note 2006). This evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on some other evidence. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed. ASSESSMENT HAURAKI ISLANDS ZONE 12. The Kawau Island Precinct fails one significant matter in the Panel’s precinct guidelines; “When the proposal changes most of the underlying zone, a new zone should be created instead of a precinct”. 13. This is a significant factor that has not been addressed in Council’s TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 4 evidence, as I consider that the precinct (and sub-precincts) as currently proposed in the PAUP has a completely different suite of objectives and policies to the underlying zones (Rural and Coastal Settlements and Rural Conservation). 14. Also, many of the precinct rules and activity status’ for the predominant activities on Kawau vary significantly from the two underlying zones, or are non-complying in the underlying zones (i.e. jetties, boat ramps and boat sheds). This has been compounded by the incremental changes to the underlying zones’ objectives, policies and rules, which has accentuated the differnces between the mainland Auckland parts of these zones and Kawau Island. 15. The Rural and Coastal Settlements zone rules reflect that this zone applies to mainland locations that are essentially retirement settlements area outside of the metropolitan area. The Rural Conservation Zone has been crafted primarily around environmental threats and activities in locations such as the Waitakere Ranges and Weiti Station. Neither planning context applies to Kawau, and this disparity is compounded by the Island’s unroaded state and access limited to water transport. 16. The crux is that most of the underlying zone objectives, policies and rules are not appropriate for Kawau Island. I consider a “Hauraki Gulf Islands Zone” is needed for Kawau and adjacent islands as the planning context for the eastern side of Kawau in particular, and the surrounding private islands in Kawau Bay, is fundamentally different from the Waitakere Ranges and Weiti Station (Rural Conservation). Similarly the nearby typical small coastal settlements like Buckletons and Baddeleys Beaches, or inland settlements such as Kaukapakapa or Hunua have no TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 5 planning relationship with the dispersed coastal settlements on western Kawau. 17. The western and eastern parts of Kawau Island are more similar in planning terms to each other and the islands in Kawau Bay than mainland Auckland. RURAL SUBDIVISION 18. The PAUP carries over the ADPRS subdivision rules into the Kawau Precinct. The precinct is referred to in the Kawau Activity Table in the Subdivision section, but the rules relating to it are absent, and these were drafted in the Zakara submission (6534-9, 10, 23, 24, 25) to fill this omission. Mr Traub’s evidence and strike-through has not engaged this issue, and proposes no changes to insert an appropriate set of rural subdivision rules and the Kawau Island Precinct Activity Table. 19. I have evaluated the subdivision rules proposed in the Zakara submission, relevant Council and other parties’ evidence for the 056-057 and 062 hearings, and particularly Council’s strike-through from the 056-057 Closing Statement. Additionally, I have also considered the Treaty Settlement subdivision provisions in associated precincts (Te Arai North & South, and Riverhead 2 & 4) with the Mana Whenua of those lands and their consultants. I have updated the rules as put forward in Zakara’s submission to reflect the significant advances and agreement that arose in the rural topic hearings. These are directly applicable to Sub-precinct B, which is about 75% of the island, and to Sub-precinct A. 20. I consider that a change to the transferable rural site subdivision process in the Auckland-wide subdivision rules H:5.2.3.3 (Attachment 1 - H:5.2.3.3.new 5 (new iii)). Also an explanation note is needed to clearly state that the TRSS provisions of the Unitary Plan apply to sites generated in the precinct from the protection of natural areas under the ADPRS. TOPIC 081b Rezoning EVIDENCE OF Dr Mark Bellingham February 2016 6 21. A rule reducing the Assessment Criteria applying to donor sites in TRSS is important. Council’s current practice is to have applicants demonstrate for donor sites that residential engineering and landscaping requirements can be met, when no development is occurring there, and the rural-residential subdivision is occurring on the receiving site. The changes proposed in Attachment 3 to the rural subdivision matters of discretion and assessment matters (H:5.2.3.3.4.1 & 2) should resolve this problem in the interpretation of the Unitary Plan.